Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USAF Reveals 30-Year Plan: Replacement for F-22 to start development in 2020
Phaid    2/15/2010 4:53:17 PM
The US Air Force (USAF) has revealed a raft of fighter, strike, transport, special mission and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) development programmes in a 30-year plan released in February. The proposals were included within the US Department of Defense's (DoD's) Aircraft Investment Plan covering the period between FY11-FY40 that it submitted for the first time in February as part of the FY11 budget request. Under the plan, USAF expects to allocate funding to initiate the development of replacements for both the Lockheed Martin F-22 multirole fighter and C-5 Galaxy strategic transport aircraft by Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw100215_1_n.shtml
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT
DarthAmerica       3/8/2010 3:41:33 PM

"But, yeah, we don't need fighters."

 

I think we can agree that the US needs many many new fighters.   (and many many new UAVs)


 

The place where we seem to disagree is on whether or not there is a need for more F-22s.  




It is easy to say that the US should have continued buying fighters in the 90s so that it wouldn't be facing its current aging airframes crisis.  What is harder is deciding what to do today.

 

 

Personally I would like to see the Navy and Marine Corps go in for a relatively significant multi-year purchase of Super Hornets.  The Navy would use theirs to replace some original model hornets and help plug its "fighter gap," reducing the urgency of an F-35 buy.


 

The Marines could use Super Hornets to replace their two-seater F-18Ds which are mostly used as "fast forward air controllers."  This is a mission that really requires a backseater and would not be a logical fit for the F-35.  The Marines could also replace their Prowlers with Growlers rather than trying to keep the Prowlers flying until an EW variant of the F-35 can be developed. 


 

 

On the Air Force side of things it is a little more complicated.  It wouldn't make sense to buy Super Hornets for the Air Force considering it isn't a type they currently operate.  The question then is whether it is worthwhile to buy more F-22s, F-15s or F-16s. 


 

In the F-15's favor, something like a Silent Eagle, which is based on the F-15E, would be able to perform competently as an interceptor while also offering an excellent strike platform.  The downside is that such an aircraft is not honestly all that much cheaper than an F-22.  It raises the question of where your priorities are.  If you want a multi-role aircraft then the Silent Eagle is the way to go.  It can carry darn near everything the US has in service.  The F-22 on the other hand is limited to exactly two air-to-ground weapons, the 1,000 JDAM and the 250lb SDB, but is of course the superior performer in an air-to-air mission. 


 

The F-16 is the F-16,  the gold standard of multi-role fighters.  It is cheap, ubiquitous, and capable of doing just about anything you would ask a modern fighter to do, so long as you don't need stealth.  


 

In the long-run the F-35 is going to be the workhorse of the US Air Force, but in the short term additional airframes are needed.

 


Personally I would go with a purchase of a hundred or so F-15SEs(The minimum number that would be worth buying) and a couple hundred F-16 block 60s.  These aircraft would serve in the interim until the F-35 is available in sufficient numbers for front-line use before moving down the the National Guard. (You don't need stealth to chase around Cessnas or bomb third-world hellholes, and neither of those missions are going away any time soon.)


 

The obvious problem with any proposal to buy new aircraft is money... neither of these purchases make sense if you have to pull money away from higher priority needs.  Ideally one last war supplemental bill could be passed to fund a multi-year buy of each of these aircraft types. 

 

That won't work for this crowd. If so then they would be talking about the requirements and actual operational missions and threats. Instead, they are talking about more F-22's. For them, it's more F-22's or America is doomed. It's not much different from what FS does when he fails to realize that the requirements that drove the design of fighters like Rafale have changed and LO is a big deal. Rather than recieve that and understand, he insist that internal bays in some sort of handicap and talks glowingly about Rafale F4 and so forth as the true answer. That's because he's obsessed with the platform. Doesn't matter that its based on out dated requirements. The only thing that would satisfy him about the truth is if a Rafale F5 came out and
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Do you know actually read anything   3/8/2010 4:12:57 PM
It's not apparent that you actually read what others write.  Not only did I not "blindly assert" squat but I suggested the USAF requires more aircraft and suggested they buy some of whatever type including new F-15's if they would do.
 
Either Sec Gates singed off on the QDR or he did not.  Either DOD and the USAF has a force structure requirement for 6 air superiority wings or they do not.  Either we currently fly air sovereignty from 18 current locations (16 ANG) or we do not.  Either the USAF is sticking with the 10 rotating AEF concept of they are not.
 
The USAF has not purchased any fighters, other than 187 F-22's, in over a decade.  Retirements of F-16 and F-15 will continue to accelerate over the next decade.  We mostly have ANG F-16's doing air sovereignty right now.  I don't care what aircraft replaces these I just want to see us have enough aircraft to do the job.   
 
In any case we do not know when we'll get the F-35.  Dr Carter just moved full rate production out to over six years from now (April 2016).  The test flight program is not even 3% complete and we do not know what we do not know and thus what might further delay the program.  We do not know how much an F-35A is going to cost and how many we can thus afford- the USAF is now saying around $130 million.  That's today.  It's is simply no longer credible to assume we'll get enough F-35's in a timely manner to recap USAF tactical aviation. 
 
Your continued faith based support for a program Sec Gates calls "troubled" in the face of the continued evidence this program is not going to the answer to all our tactical aviation needs while insulting others who present facts is beyond tiresome.  One need cite nothing but statements, memo's, and reports by DOD to indicate the myriad problems with the F-35.  In any case I don't state what I think the USAF requires but merely what they state they require and the only person rewriting reality based requirements is yourself. 
 
Your continued overly simplistic the "Taliban don't have an airforce" argument is rather ridiculous.  We don't need 10 carriers and dozens of SSN's for the Taliban either.  DOD has a range of possible threats over decades of time to deal with.  The USAF seems to have this old fashioned notion they need air superiority fighters.  The QDR shows 6 wings and there is already a notional future fighter in F-X.  You need to take up your "argument" with the USAF and DOD not with me- sell crazy somewhere else.
 

Phaid/LB,

 

It's hilarious to read you and some others like LB blindly assert that the USAF needs more F-22s or that you don't think F-15C's can last yet you can't cite any threat or example, NOT ONE, that justifies WHAT YOU think the USAF should have. For god sake articulate some type of support. Also, thanks very much Phaid for repeating over and over that fighter numbers are shrinking and will continue to shrink. In case no one told you that Taliban don't have an airforce and Rufus mentioned that North Korea and Iran fly barely operational HEAT SHOOTERS that are basically flying blind in any conflict with us. Russia, no longer has the VSS and China is also task organized for homeland defense and not in anyway what the USSR circa 1980 was. I mean come on guys. THINK. $hit changes. Your problem is you have fixed in your mind that there is some constant number of fighters the USAF has to have at all times of all hell breaks loose. That isn't how this works.

 

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/8/2010 4:34:11 PM

 

Your continued overly simplistic the "Taliban don't have an airforce" argument is rather ridiculous.  We don't need 10 carriers and dozens of SSN's for the Taliban either.  DOD has a range of possible threats over decades of time to deal with.  The USAF seems to have this old fashioned notion they need air superiority fighters.  The QDR shows 6 wings and there is already a notional future fighter in F-X.  You need to take up your "argument" with the USAF and DOD not with me- sell crazy somewhere else.


 
That wasn't my argument. It was part of a bigger picture where I also covered other threats mentioning some by name as well. That you failed to mention it continues to show how you manipulate or ignore the truth you don't want to hear in support of the fanboy favorite F-22. I don't need to argue anything with the DoD because the SecDef is doing a good job of reining in the spending gone wild focus on wasteful air superiority fighters we don't need in greater numbers.
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Troll   3/9/2010 12:31:24 AM
You've become a troll.  Either you do not read what you respond to or you are simply trying to annoy people.  Your throwing around labels is insulting and childish. 
 
Stating the USAF has a growing lack of tactical aviation fighters does not a fan boy make.  It's simply reality.
 
If you believe the F-35 will appear in a timely and affordable manner to recap USAF tactical aviation fine.
 
The F-35 stopped being the affordable alternative.  It's now at $130 million and climbing and this number, like all the other cost projections you've touted in the past, is not based on enough data to be factual.  Your blind belief in this program is irrational.
 
You'll note no mention of your favorite plane to decry.  The issue is what flies the mission.  Someone cited the GAO report on USAF tactical aviation showing we will soon not have the airframes for air sovereignty missions.  They are mostly flown by F-16's now.  I have not advocated any particular aircraft for this mission.  I merely point out the requirement as it exists in reality today.  If the F-35 comes online in time wonderful.
 
However, given the existing delays and lack of flight testing the program will be further delayed.  This is a fact or do you wish to assert that the flight test program will find no problems that delay the program- which will be a first for a modern jet fighter.  The USAF needs aircraft,  period.  This is a fact.  It's the reason JSF was created.  The program is late, will be further delayed, and is no longer inexpensive.  In fact as the USN document from Jan 4 clearly shows it's not cheap to operate either.
 
When you continually demonstrate a need to belittle and insult others it only demonstrates a lack of manners and basic character. 
 



 



Your continued overly simplistic the "Taliban don't have an airforce" argument is rather ridiculous.  We don't need 10 carriers and dozens of SSN's for the Taliban either.  DOD has a range of possible threats over decades of time to deal with.  The USAF seems to have this old fashioned notion they need air superiority fighters.  The QDR shows 6 wings and there is already a notional future fighter in F-X.  You need to take up your "argument" with the USAF and DOD not with me- sell crazy somewhere else.






 



That wasn't my argument. It was part of a bigger picture where I also covered other threats mentioning some by name as well. That you failed to mention it continues to show how you manipulate or ignore the truth you don't want to hear in support of the fanboy favorite F-22. I don't need to argue anything with the DoD because the SecDef is doing a good job of reining in the spending gone wild focus on wasteful air superiority fighters we don't need in greater numbers.


-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @LB   3/9/2010 10:12:31 AM
LB,

No one is trolling for you. You are just not accepting the reality of what I'm trying to explain to you. SO WHAT if some GAO or USAF document says they need x number of fighters. I know the USAF fighter numbers are in decline. Frankly I don't think it's a big deal in terms of making the US less secure. Throughout the DoD many parts of the various armed forces are under strength. Heck when we deployed to Iraq, we were very badly understrength. This is not unusual. TO the casual observer. You guys read something from an organization like the GAO and badly misinterpret it, then walk around waiving papers screaming, "look, see, see what it says?" Well the reality is that while the USAF numbers might be in decline, the situation is far from dire or even from being where the USAF cannot make adjustments to compensate. In fact, the USAF is many times more powerful then it really needs to be. So there is enough strength to absorb this temporary condition called the fighter gap without the world falling apart.

My focus on people's obsession with the F-22 is only to show how misguided and irrational it is to think that the USAF ability to do it's job is hinged on any one type of fighter and especially it's most specialized fighter with the mission thats least of all in demand. The United States Air Force is in the situation it's in now because of very bad threat assessments and prioritizing of recourses during the 1990's. The entire DoD in fact needed a makeover after about 1991(actually about the mid-1980's) to realign itself with the direction of the worlds threats. Rather than trying to force feed Taiwan vs China scenarios into it's defense planning people should have focused more on the DoD personnel who were being killed for 20 years by the real enemy. This is not to say China should not be monitored or that we should ignore conventional threats. Just that we should not create threats out of thin air to further institutional bias at the expense of real world mission requirements and threats. SecDef Gates is fighting hard to rectify and fix this. The F-22 and air superiority missions in general are things that should not be the focus of the limited USAF resources right now. I know that sounds strange to some of you who have grown u in the later half of the 1990's and heard how air power and specifically air superiority is the end all be all of warfare. It is not. It's part of the overall bigger picture and right now it's one of the least areas we need to be concerned with.

That's not trolling, thats telling the truth.

-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       3/9/2010 1:36:39 PM
-DA,
 
I truly cannot fathom your incredible inability to recognize the USAF's shortfall of tactical aviation. You cleary do not have a learning disability, so I have no other choice but to believe you are being intentionally ignorant. It's one thing to believe the F-35 can supplement the F-22 but to claim there is no stated need/requirement for new air superiority is childish and becoming silly. By the time the first squadron of F-35' s reach IOC the the average age of the so called "Golden Eagles" will be 35 years old, so the burden of proof is on you to prove how along with the measley 75 Raptors that may be available at any one time, there is no need/requirement for more planes.
 
Of course if you don't see a problem with it, then certaintly equipping a platoon of soldiers under your command at the start of  OIF with Vietnam era equipment would not be cause for alarm at all, see the coorelation? You want the best equipement for the boots on the ground because of the wars we are fighting today, but your lackluster attempt at convincing me that the AF can meet all future threats because the only thing we are going to fight are AK-47's and IED's is astonishingly narrow minded.
 
Even if you had the gumption to admit ending production of the F-22 was purely political in nature, I would not be so confrontational with you. But your repetitive jargon stating the lack of need/money/threat is not only inaccurate, its getting old. Whether or not its new F-15's (why we would go backwards to save very little just isn't rational) or F-22's, another 100 or so would alleviate a lot of strain on a growing problem.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/9/2010 3:48:58 PM

-DA,

 

I truly cannot fathom your incredible inability to recognize the USAF's shortfall of tactical aviation. You cleary do not have a learning disability, so I have no other choice but to believe you are being intentionally ignorant. It's one thing to believe the F-35 can supplement the F-22 but to claim there is no stated need/requirement for new air superiority is childish and becoming silly. By the time the first squadron of F-35' s reach IOC the the average age of the so called "Golden Eagles" will be 35 years old, so the burden of proof is on you to prove how along with the measley 75 Raptors that may be available at any one time, there is no need/requirement for more planes.

That's because you are looking from an armchair. I "recognize" that the USAF and DoD have a tactical aviation shortfall. I even told you that in my last post. What I'm saying to you is that even as we endure the hardships impossed on us by the poor planning and decision making back in the 1980's-1990's, no threat even comes remotely close to being capable of a direct challenge in an air superiority fight. Moreover, our ability to secure airspaced is not hinged on a single platform. If this was as platform centric as some of you seem to think, then we would be in DEEP TROUBLE. We arent. In fact, with the systems we have in place not, the USAF of 40 years ago would overwhelm and destroy almost all except the most advanced threats with all the appropriate caveats of that condition.
 
I have no burden of proof...lol. The USAF is doing what I believe to be the right thing. Heck , if you want to prove something then prove that ANYBODY except Russia or China could even mass more than 48 fighters against the USAF anywhere in the world at the same time. An EOD tech could count them on one hand!
 
 

Of course if you don't see a problem with it, then certaintly equipping a platoon of soldiers under your command at the start of  OIF with Vietnam era equipment would not be cause for alarm at all, see the coorelation? You want the best equipement for the boots on the ground because of the wars we are fighting today, but your lackluster attempt at convincing me that the AF can meet all future threats because the only thing we are going to fight are AK-47's and IED's is astonishingly narrow minded.

 
Im not trying to convince you of anything. I don't care if you believe it. Or anybody else on the internet. Some of the equipment we took to Iraq was even older than Vietnam era in fact! Is the fact that the enemy fights us with weapons as ancient as AK-47s/RPG/SVD/SKS and even home made improvised weapons lost on you? Well it seems so because in addition to beating Soviets, they have managed to tie the DoD up for the last decade. IT ISN'T ABOUT PLATFORMS.
 

Even if you had the gumption to admit ending production of the F-22 was purely political in nature, I would not be so confrontational with you. But your repetitive jargon stating the lack of need/money/threat is not only inaccurate, its getting old. Whether or not its new F-15's (why we would go backwards to save very little just isn't rational) or F-22's, another 100 or so would alleviate a lot of strain on a growing problem.
 
LOL if I had the gumption? Hahahahah. Okay. Be as confrontational as you like. You will be equally incorrect as well. The F-22 was not ended for just political reasons. It's a matter of priorities. It's waaaay back at the end of a long list of neglected priorities and beyond the numbers we have one of the last things that the USAF needs to be worried about. But I'm sure the F-22 will have a very long fruitful life in the blogs and forums where people will sing the blues for the next 15 years about how the USAF doesn't have enough of them. Heck, the French have been crying about the Rafale at least since 2000! There are certain planes that just seem to evoke somethign in the hearts of emtional casual aviation enthusiast. The F-22 is one of those planes. Enjoy.
 
-DA
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Mustang   3/9/2010 4:09:15 PM
Mustang,
 
How old are these designs?
 
http://www.colt.com/mil/downloads/m4_01.jpg" width="400" border="0" />
 
http://www.paladinarmory.com/Photos%20for%20PA%20website/M2HB.jpg" width="400" border="0" />
 
 
 
 
http://www.cj-jeep.com/Models/vehicles/images/itas6390.jpg" width="400" border="0" />
 
 
 
 
 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3272/2871406641_8c85bc242d.jpg" width="400" border="0" />
 
 
-DA
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       3/9/2010 5:34:03 PM
IT ISN'T ABOUT PLATFORMS.
 
Then we should just cancel the F-35 and save 300 billion. Surely our existing platforms across the board are adequate. The argument that "it isn't about platforms" always seems to surface to validate someone's opinion on killing a platform they aren't in favor of, but it doesn't come up much when the shoe is on the other foot.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/9/2010 6:04:59 PM

IT ISN'T ABOUT PLATFORMS.
 

Then we should just cancel the F-35 and save 300 billion. Surely our existing platforms across the board are adequate. The argument that "it isn't about platforms" always seems to surface to validate someone's opinion on killing a platform they aren't in favor of, but it doesn't come up much when the shoe is on the other foot.




Thats what you aren't getting it. The F-35 isn't about a platform. It's a systems level event with effects that reach far beyond the USAF or even the USA. I'm not in favor of ANY platform. I'm in favor of the best use of limited resources. There is no need that would justify more F-22's. NONE. When you guys get that into your heads it will make more sense. The F-35 will recapitalize the entire DoD Tactical fighter force, introduct revolutionary low cost, logistically friendly stealth technologu and communications capabilites that we will need throughout the next decade. Moreover, we are in this as a partner with many other nations. We fight coalition warfare and introducing a common design that includes the most versitle and flexible capability is the best way to go. If we had a bottomless pit then sure, buy as many F-22's as you want. We don't so we are not. Some of you are really starting to wear the bone on this issue. If this continues then I'm not going to repost for the 100th time why these decisions are being made. I'll just let you guys make thread after thread full of errors about whats important and the subject matter experts and people who actually do this stuff or grasp the concepts, we can let you guys have at it while you wait with baited breath for hoards of migs and flankers that don't exist to rise up and challenge our pathetically small F-22 force. Meanwhile in the real world, the rest of us will talk about things like MALI, DEW, the F-35, future Super Hornets, KC-X, UCAVs and all the other RELEVANT things going on in military aviation.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics