USAF Reveals 30-Year Plan: Replacement for F-22 to start development in 2020

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

LB DA 3/10/2010 3:51:11 AM

I must apologize. In my mind the long term national security requirements of the USA are set by DOD and periodically expressed in documents like the QDR. It is thus the DOD and USAF that I use as reference points for the needs of the nation regarding fighter planes not someone named Darth online.

Aircraft programs take decades. If you decide one day you need more bombers, as an example, then you needed to see that one coming 15 to 20 years prior.

I have no clue why you view the F-22 as some huge wasteful boondoggle and the F-35 as the paragon of virtue. Nor do I have any notion why you desperately need to label people.

Here is my own personal view on the F-22: If they were not going to buy enough for at least 10 sqdn's to support the 10 AEF's then they should have bought none. The problem however, is that you have to buy something and the USAF has not bought F-16's and F-15's in over a decade. It actually would have made more sense to buy 360 new F-15X for a fraction of the cost of F-22. Moreover, an F/A-22 (two seat stretched) would have been an extremely useful platform for EA/EW and other missions. Again I'd have voted for zero F-22's if the choice was 187 or zero.

That said at least the F-22 was a known quantity in production. Nobody can say how much an F-35 will cost or when it will hit full rate production- the current best estimate is in over 6 years from now. When there are not enough aircraft in that quaint little GAO report you dismiss as somehow less than factual do you propose to point out that the air sovereignty missions flown today from 18 bases are really not required and it's perfectly fine we just stop bothering with it.

What other stated requirements does Darth disagree with? Is the current and continued USN ship deficit ok? Is the projected SSN shortfall alright? How about the USN doing away with mine warfare ships in favor of modules on regular warships and the impact this will have on the mine warfare community? None of this really matters right because the Taliban doesn't have a navy either- besides not having an air force.

You're wasting your opinions on this website Darth. You need to get a job as a consultant for the USN and get them to stop wasting money on Aegis ships, they just restarted the DDG-51 line, since we certainly don't need air defenses when we don't need to worry about enemy aircraft and do not need air superiority fighters.

Frankly, your views would at least be internally consistent if you were not a strong advocate of the F-35 as it's extremely wasteful for every single aircraft in all of USAF tactical aviation to be a very expensive stealthy aircraft. In any case you really do need to actually start paying attention to the F-35 as it's in serious trouble- that's not my opinion that's what Sec Gates has stated.

If you want to argue for more rational USAF spending, as you seem to purport below, then please do so. How about suggesting that instead of buying a $130+ million aircraft to replace the A-10 they buy something costing less than $30 million with greater survivability and endurance? Perhaps suggest the ANG gets new F-16's instead of the F-35 for CONUS air defense or that we buy new F-15's for air superiority since F-22 was so expensive- oh sorry that's right we don't have such a mission requirement. You'll need to explain to me the planned block upgrade for the F-35 to carry 6 AMRAAM's. When the F-35 is flying an air superiority mission then maybe one day we'll compare and contrast to what a purpose built design can do.

Just because you personally don't see air superiority as important didn't exactly make the QDR. I'd have thought you'd have at least gotten a foot note.

Finally it's simply hysterical to argue that 100 or so combat coded F-22's was a good investment. It's was a huge waste of money. If the nation did not require the F-22 then buying 187 anyway as some sort of golden bullet force was idiotic given what could have been done with the money instead. That's again where your arguments fall down. You want to argue that 187 is enough insurance for- for what exactly?

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 US

Quote Reply

LB Sorry Triple Post 3/10/2010 3:51:26 AM

Sorry it posted thrice. It might be worth adding that given an F-35C will cost north of $150 million that it's going to extremely difficult to justify buying them when you can get a brand new F/A-18E/F for $50 million. This is another small consideration in the long term cost escalation for JSF in that the F-35C has a good chance to be killed or at least delayed much farther out. As of today there has not been a single test of the F-35C (CF-1 has yet to fly).

Quote Reply

Alexis 3/10/2010 4:50:36 AM

From the USAF document, the bottom line on page 14:

"The aviation plan is fiscally prudent, reflecting 3 percent average annual real growth over the FY

2011-2020 period. Total aviation investments will amount to $268 billion across the period. In

terms of annual funding levels, expenditures will rise from about $22 billion in FY 2011 to about

$29 billion in FY 2020 (see Chart 7). (All costs are expressed in FY 2010 constant dollars.)"

That 30-Year plan is based on two hypothesis:

- Share of US GDP devoted to defence spending staying at the same level, that is close to 6% of GDP including cost of wars which are under way

- US economy growing at 3% during the next decade

Such a set of assumptions is irrealistic to the extreme.

Let's consider the following facts:
- US public debt is closing in to 110% of GDP (90% Federal + 20% State and local)
- US Federal deficit is projected at 11% of GDP for this year (not including State deficits) and north of 6% of GDP for the rest of the decade

- Even with stimulus money and bank relief programs, even with the Fed's balance sheet growing 2.5 fold during the last year and a half, no convincing rebound of the economy was generated (as per unemployment statistics)

- Large emission of US bonds necessary to cover present and anticipated public deficits cannot be bought by foreign demand, China e.g. having almost stopped net buys of US public debt, resulting in the need to prop up "quantitative easing" and quasi-quantitative easing (using banks as proxies) since the American government has decided to avoid any austerity program

- Job losses and the need to lower personal debt and (re)build savings will tend to depress private consumption for a number of years

Calling that aviation plan "fiscally prudent" is a sad joke.

1) It would be more realistic to hope (the most important word is: HOPE) for a reduction in defence spending combined with increase of relative share of USAF investment so that expenditures would stay the same at 22 B$ annually over the next decade (not: rise to 29 B$!)

2) And it would be much more prudent to also look into contingency plans for what to do if a bond crisis and the need to rein in quantitative easing so as to avoid starting hyperinflation resulted in forced reduction of public spending similar or worse in scope to what Greece needs to implement now.

The risk of Washington needing in the not-distant future an even stronger reduction of public spending than Athens is real because while public debt levels are similar in both countries, Greece at least can count on comparatively low levels of private indebtment compared to the US and also can count on some form of help from larger European states such as Germany and France (if in a limited way) while no nation nor group of nations would be large enough to help the US in a meaningful way in case of bond crisis, even supposing that such nation would want to.

Given that the US covers Federal expenditures with Federal revenues to the tune of 60% (the rest being the deficit), an "experience in thought" would be to look at how to face a homothetical reduction of spending in the context of a stagnant economy, that would bring aviation investments down to the vicinity of 13 B$ (not 22 B$ like FY'11, not to speak of 29 B$ in FY'20!)

3) I don't propose to even look at what aviation investments would become if the US leadership was deluded enough to react to a bond crisis with increased quantitative easing. That would carry a strong risk of hyperinflation with the attendant social disruption. Neither Weimar Germany in 1923 nor post-Soviet Russia in 1992 invested a lot in new military hardware! Let's hope the US leadership will come to their senses in time.

Scenario 1, which is the most optimistic among realistic scenarios, would seem to result in a need to delay / reduce very significantly both tanker and fighter investments. However, it looks (at least, without looking into the details) to be manageable: very sharp reductions in buys of F35 and new tankers could do the trick. A "fiscal hawk" could by the

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 3/10/2010 5:32:35 AM

LB, you may be hitting your refresh key- This is what typically causes post concatenation

Quote Reply

mustang22 3/10/2010 9:13:48 AM

Nope, not at all. The F-15's being built today are incredible warplanes packing state of the art avionics and engines. The basic design is 30 years old but the new builds and mods to existing airplanes makes them a night and day difference from the original.

That's the point, we aren't getting the new builds and the mods are being fitted to airframes from 1983. This isn't just about the F-22, it's about replacing planes that may exceed their life expectancy. It makes more sense to buy the F-22 for several reasons. One being the considerable investment we have in the program, like LB points out, the return in numbers does not justify the program. If new planes can be purchased for similar money and both are called upon for a specific purpose, than why not purchase the most capable platform? By the time the F-35 is available in significant numbers those Eagles will be 36 years old. I can't tell you enough how confident that makes me feel about the the way we allocate funds to the military.

By the way, is it safe to say that by you stating "case closed", are you agreeing that there is a requirement for "x" number of planes and its ok to fill that requirement with Eagles, or would you still rather deny the air superiority mission altogether in the wake of the Taliban? Careful not to contradict yourself.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @LB 3/10/2010 9:49:15 AM

We are about to find out if you are a hypocrite LB. See below:

Representing the DoD:

"The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater," Gates said. That's the kind of statement that sends generals up the wall — not only because it's true, but because it's the Secretary of Defense who's saying it. And the generals know that the next time some eager-beaver congressional budget-cutters want to trim Pentagon spending, they're going to roll out that quote.

Gates made clear he believes there is a need for the F-22. "It is principally for use against a near-peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who that is," he said coyly. He's referring to China, which today represents the only hope for both the U.S. Air Force and the Navy to justify spending billions of dollars on weapons initially designed to battle the Soviet Union. Since the end of the Cold War, the phrase "near-peer" has increasingly crept into Pentagon documents meaning a potential foe that could almost match the U.S. on the battlefield.

Well, do we need more F-22 to battle Beijing? Once again, Gates depressed the generals with his unassuming tone and logic. "Looking at what I regard as the level of risk of conflict with one of those near-peers over the next four or five years until the Joint Strike Fighter comes along," he said, "I think that something along the lines of 183 is a reasonable buy."

All things considered, the DoD still holds this view. Now lets see what the USAF has to say shall we:

Representing the USAF are the USAF Secretary and USAF CoS

?We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line,? they wrote.

Quote Reply

mustang22 3/10/2010 12:31:42 PM

They have different stresses and they all need to be maintained but unless a physics expert or engineer would like to prove otherwise, the stress level of a fighter and the heat generated from extremely high speeds has more of an effect on the life span. Of course if the constant 60,000psi of chamber pressure is stressing the M4 to the point of failure then DOD has a huge problem on their hands don't they?

Quote Reply

Nichevo 3/10/2010 12:46:53 PM

There is no need that would justify more F-22's. NONE.

Not even the fact that the first 60 are apparently "broken?"

Nope. Don't need them.

So we only needed 120 to begin with?

And is it not striking how close is the price of the F-22 to that of the latest F-15?

Against the F-22 the F-15 is a baby seal, no? So at $120M vs $130M why get second best? Why not recoup those sunk costs? Why not invest in what is now a known quantity?

Really, why build F-22 at all? What point is there to building your forces around something that will never be there when you need it, and can just be substituted with something else anyway?

Ah the irrational emotional argument. Scream the sky is falling. Well it isn't. Your statement is 100% unfounded. We have enough F-22's in service today that they could meet any threat as needed. They can self deploy globally. Why would they not be there if needed?

I'm not screaming, kindly don't mischaracterize my arguments. Arguing the reductio ad absurdum is not screaming. I believe I've been fairly respectful if a little acerbic. You decide what tone you want to set, I will follow.

You think 187 (or 183?) is plenty. You think 120 is plenty. Why shouldn't we think you think zero is plenty?

You seem to have an Army-centric viewpoint that holds that anything not putting steel on ground targets is a waste of time. Maybe Stryker is a waste of time. Just do your patrols walking or buy SUVs. The irregulars who are kicking our asses use SUVs, they have no armor. Maybe we should just accept the casualties or use other "system approaches" or ROE to minimize casualties. A Hummer or even a Jeep can go faster than any AFV. Buy hybrid SUVs, run them on battery, and sneak up on the enemy that way. Cars have GPS and USB ports now, I'm sure Buick will do a factory install of BFT for you.

Why build either F-22 or F-35? Just take the avionics and stick 'em into 4G birds.

We do all of the above.

So the aeroshell is of no concern to you whatsoever. F-16s with EODAS, DIRCM and all the bells and whistles should do what you want. That seems to be the only thing that makes F-35 special and needed to you. We'd save zillions, all of which can buy lavish supplies of body armor and baby wipes and still leave money for bank bailouts and healthcare fiddling.

Just for the record, Darth, there is no other known or rumored supercruise a/c in US inventory or planning, right? F-22 is it? None of the DEW, MALI, KC-X, RQ-170, or other yada yada stuff you cited above will do that?

So what? Neither does a P-3 do that either. But it's not a requirement either. When engineers make something, they build to a spec which is based around requirements. We don't just make "stuff" supercruise because we think it's cool.

Supercruise, only one of the key 5G technologies (that F-22 has and F-35 doesn't), is a force multiplier that is its own particular kind of magic. UCAVs can replace F-35 but they cannot replace F-22. No development at all in the supersonic regime is known to be taking place. The F-35 can be replaced, its aerosh

Quote Reply

Beazz 3/10/2010 1:31:32 PM

We are about to find out if you are a hypocrite LB. See below:

Representing the DoD:

All things considered, the DoD still holds this view. Now lets see what the USAF has to say shall we:

Representing the USAF are the USAF Secretary and USAF CoS

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 3/10/2010 1:51:40 PM

They all have different life spans, but they all wear out over time. That's why when you design a product you plan for through life support. Thats a process that continues throughout the life cycle. The USAF wouldn't fly their Eagles if they are broken. Nor would they go with a plan that doesn't adequately address the fatigue and age of the airframe. Only here on the internet do people think we are dealing with some vast political conspiracy to undermine air superiority.

-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