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    @Nichevo   3/10/2010 1:58:30 PM


You're a Zelig - you've been everywhere and done everything - you're the magic man.  I don't understand how you have not risen far higher than you have.  I must say that in a formal debate session, asking to be taken at one's word will get you laughed right out of the room.  And if you are trading on secret knowledge, careful walking that line. 

 

Actually, as far as I can gather you are or were Army.  You seemed to intimate that you once had a role at McD but other than that I am not aware of any fixed-wing aviation that you have been intimately involved with other than as a consumer of services.  So other than having a friendly ear in the councils of the mighty, I am not aware of any relevant qualifications you possess.  Your unwillingness to explain yourself, the resentment of requests for proof, is the hallmark of a con man as I have sadly come to know.  (I don't call you a con man, but your argumentative traits have unfortunate precedents.)


Well actually I have. And since you have no idea "how high up I am" or what I do and vise versa lets not go there. Rather, judge the data and compare that to whats actually going on. If you did that you would see that what I'm saying is in fact true. But if you chose not to believe me, well then that's fine too! After all this is the internet and everybody has an opinion. It should at least concern you that the DoD is doing the exact opposite of the suggestions of the pro F-22 fanclub. I'm just sayin'...
 
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       3/10/2010 2:35:40 PM
"USAF generals have learned the hard way what happens to those that actually say what they believe and it does not coincide with the views of that political whore, better known as SoD Gates"

Generals work for the Secretary of Defense and the President.  Generals that undermine the decisions made by their superiors get fired.  It is unacceptable for generals to actively work against those decisions that are reached through the proper procedures and channels because of their personal opinion. 
 
The completion of the F-22 production run at 187 is not something Gates invented. That is a number that was already in place when he took office and that was the end result of cut after cut by one administration after another.  Gates is taking the heat today for actually following through with a plan that was made years ago. 
 
Gates is probably the best thing that has happened to the US military in I don't know how long. Your calling him a "political whore" proves beyond a doubt that you are utterly clueless about just how screwed up things had grown in the Pentagon before his arrival. 
 
We were in the midst of a war and yet couldn't be bothered to buy the equipment that would help us win that war and save the lives of the soldiers and marines we had ordered into harms way. This is not about cool looking planes and national bragging rights.  These are people I know who were being sent into combat to be maimed or killed fighting for the richest country on earth without the appropriate tools to accomplish the mission.  You ask yourself how you would feel about welding scrap metal onto your vehicle as improvised armor while knowing that your country could for a small fraction of its defense budget buy the appropriate vehicle for the mission you were being ordered to do.
 
Contracts for even routine acquisitions were blowing their budgets by ridiculous margins even while the contractor in question was being awarded full bonuses and incentives.   Contractors were supervising contractors with no incentive to protect the government's money or interests.  There was seemingly zero accountability anywhere and contractors were being hired again and again even as they robbed the government blind in broad daylight. 
 
The acquisitions planning and programs were out of control and rapidly headed for a complete disaster.  We were continuing to pursue programs like the Future Combat System when their basic operating premise had been conclusively shown to be flawed.  We were continuing to pursue programs like the DDX despite the obvious fact that it was simply hopelessly expensive and could never be purchased in the require numbers.  etc etc etc
 
Is all of this fixed?  Absolutely not, but give Gates some credit for shaking up the pervasive attitude of complacency by holding some people accountable, and canceling programs that could not be salvaged. 
 
The F-22 is not US security.  Ideally we could have bought 300+ of them, but as of right now it is just not one of the highest priorities.  If the foreign air-to-air threat increases in the future the US will have to take the appropriate steps, whatever those prove to be. 
 
 
"Hopefully in 2012 when the new administration comes into office it will put someone who actually cares what happens to this nations military in the office of SoD and not some clown who couldn't tell you the difference between a F22 and a M1 tank!!!"
 
Honestly, grow up... the F-22 is a cool plane, but that doesn't make it the top priority. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    DA   3/10/2010 3:09:20 PM
It is perfectly typical of you not to address the arguments above but start at Zelig (actually "you have" what?).  There has been a lot of debate over "how high up you are," some of which says you're an electronics tech.  If you're afraid to tell me what you are, I'm not afraid to tell you. 
 
Your constant appeals to authority are dismaying in a person of your intelligence.   Take for example the 2007 NIE which said the Iranians had abandoned nuclear programs.  Now this is the subject of an "oopsie."  Many other statements by authority are changed or reversed - the cost projections of the F-35, the requirements for F-22 numbers, Garner/Bremer in Iraq, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam.  Many decisions are wrong, e.g., helping the Chinese with their space program, fixing Yakhont for the Russians, the results of the Iraq Survey Group.  The brightest, higher-up people are often wrong and this has more impact exactly because of their power (viz., Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Watergate).
 
You have a bigger emotional stake in being thought right than in being right.  It's a weakness.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/10/2010 3:11:27 PM


We were in the midst of a war and yet couldn't be bothered to buy the equipment that would help us win that war and save the lives of the soldiers and marines we had ordered into harms way. This is not about cool looking planes and national bragging rights.  These are people I know who were being sent into combat to be maimed or killed fighting for the richest country on earth without the appropriate tools to accomplish the mission.  You ask yourself how you would feel about welding scrap metal onto your vehicle as improvised armor while knowing that your country could for a small fraction of its defense budget buy the appropriate vehicle for the mission you were being ordered to do.

This is the ultimate RE-TWEET. It sucked!
 
This is not to say that air superiority isn't important either. It is and well all acknowledge that. Just for now, the demand for that type of mission is very low. The demand for that mission over the coming decade is accessed to be within the capability of our 187 Raptors and legacy fighters plus whatever F-35's we get to deal with. That being the case, SecDef Gates has forced the DoD to do some very wise and prudent things to get us out of these wars and make sure we are prepared for future wars should they come. More specifically. If the F-22 is determined to be needed in greater numbers, a plan exist to bring them back into production. Therefore we are covered. We are very fortunate to be led by someone like this at a time like this.
 
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/10/2010 3:26:46 PM

It is perfectly typical of you not to address the arguments above but start at Zelig (actually "you have" what?).  There has been a lot of debate over "how high up you are," some of which says you're an electronics tech.  If you're afraid to tell me what you are, I'm not afraid to tell you. 

That's fine.
 

Your constant appeals to authority are dismaying in a person of your intelligence.   Take for example the 2007 NIE which said the Iranians had abandoned nuclear programs.  Now this is the subject of an "oopsie."  Many other statements by authority are changed or reversed - the cost projections of the F-35, the requirements for F-22 numbers, Garner/Bremer in Iraq, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam.  Many decisions are wrong, e.g., helping the Chinese with their space program, fixing Yakhont for the Russians, the results of the Iraq Survey Group.  The brightest, higher-up people are often wrong and this has more impact exactly because of their power (viz., Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Watergate).

I told this forum before and then(when I was actually on the ground there dealing with it first hand) that the NIE would be worded that way. First, I know as an engineer and nuclear enthusiast why the Iranians weren't nearly as close to a nuclear bomb as people thought. I also knew that the USG was working clandestinely on a compromise with the Iranians to settle the OIF issue. Otherwise, Iraq would not be in the much better state it is today. The problem is many of you do not fully grasp the geopolitics of this issue. I remember reading how we were betraying "Israel" and how Obama was weak because he chose to stay the Bush course on Iran and nuclear weapons. The USG uses documents like the NIE to serve political ends. The Iranians use the threat of nuclear weapons for the same reason. on't lead the MSM headline 60 secong OMG news clips fool you. Iran is trying to keep Iraq on a tight leash. They aren't going to nuke Israel. They aren't going to Nuke the USA. They most certainly arent going to give a nuke to a non state actor outside their control. Nor are the Russians actually intending to let Iran go independent with their nuclear capabilities for obvious reasons. The whole game is one where you have 4 primary players trying to get the best negotiating position. There is no "oopsie." Just geopolitics as usual.
 
You have a bigger emotional stake in being thought right than in being right.  It's a weakness.
Don't fool yourself. I don't care what people think of me being right. Either you do or you don't. This forum and others are simply a fun hobby for me. I hope I can share what I know in the process but if not then that's no issue for me.
 
-DA



 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize    More should understand that   3/10/2010 5:04:15 PM
Quote From DA:

....They aren't going to nuke Israel. They aren't going to Nuke the USA. They most certainly arent going to give a nuke to a non state actor outside their control. Nor are the Russians actually intending to let Iran go independent with their nuclear capabilities for obvious reasons. The whole game is one where you have 4 primary players trying to get the best negotiating position....


I completely agree. The outcome of that kind of move is impossible to predict, and more importantly it would be against Iranian interest.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/10/2010 5:31:57 PM

Quote From DA:



....They aren't going to nuke Israel. They aren't going to Nuke the USA. They most certainly arent going to give a nuke to a non state actor outside their control. Nor are the Russians actually intending to let Iran go independent with their nuclear capabilities for obvious reasons. The whole game is one where you have 4 primary players trying to get the best negotiating position....






I completely agree. The outcome of that kind of move is impossible to predict, and more importantly it would be against Iranian interest.

There is only one way Iran will EVER get nuclear weapons. That's if the United States ALLOWS IT in a secret alliance where Iran is allowed to have a nuclear program in exchange for full Iranian cooperation in the M.E and SWA. This would include an understanding that any deviation from the agreement would bring a crushing attack on Iran that would end Iran as it exist today much like Iraq is different today. This would fascilitate the ending of US involvement in the regions wars and removal of very significant portions of the US military which would then allow the USA to focus on Russia. Something the Russians are terribly afraid of BTW. This would not be unlike the secret US-Chinese alliance in the 1970's that help to end the Soviet Union. Key word is SECRET. All the rhetoric and politics would continue. But in reality, just like the 2007 deal, the US and Iranian interest would actually be aligned.
The wild card is obviously Israel. It would take a lot to compel them to accept such an agreement and they could easily disrupt it by starting a war with Iran which would put pressure on Tehran to retaliate which if so would require the USA to get in between depending on how far the Iranians take things.
 
This is not necessarily what I think will happen but it's possible. Regardless, the fear of Iranian nukes is so over rated and portrayed out of context that it's hard to find people who really appreciate the dynamic of the situation.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Charge the Windmill   3/11/2010 12:59:22 AM
It can be seen as a lack or courtesy to cite the first sentence in a 35 sentence message and seemingly not bother the rest- especially when the body of the message indicates why your response is non responsive and a bit of a straw man.
 
The main point you have failed entirely to grasp, though I have so stated it more than three times, is that I'm not talking about a specific platform.  It is only your own prejudices you are seemingly at war with.
 
You have entirely failed to grasp that whether it's an ANG F-16, a 30 year old F-15C, an F-35A (whenever we might get them), or even your favorite aircraft to demonize that there is either some type of aircraft in the 6 air superiority wings maintained by the USAF, as indicated in the QDR, or there are not.
 
It's one thing to stop buying F-22's (however wrong or right that decision was and your failure to read the rest of my message might have let you see I in fact mentioned twice we should not have bought any) but this did not remove the task requirement.  There are 10 AEF's in order to maintain a steady rotation of deployed aircraft of which each has 1 sqdn of air superiority fighters- these will mostly remain F-15C's for a long time now.  We did not stand down the units because we failed to purchase new fighters.
 
Your quaint notion that fighter aircraft are just like any other kit and can soldier on forever is absolute rubbish as indicated by the facts I presented from SR 111-035 a couple pages back on this thread.
 
You continue to attempt to belittle and insult others and demonstrate you can't be bothered to read beyond one sentence before you must assault us with your singular world view.  You lack courtesy and act very much like a troll.  You do not seemingly exist within a fact based construct but merely one where your views are factual truths and facts presented by others are dismissed for a mirage.
 
 



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.



 





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."





 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       3/11/2010 1:27:50 AM
"There is only one way Iran will EVER get nuclear weapons. That's if the United States ALLOWS IT in a secret alliance where Iran is allowed to have a nuclear program in exchange for full Iranian cooperation in the M.E and SWA. This would include an understanding that any deviation from the agreement would bring a crushing attack on Iran that would end Iran as it exist today much like Iraq is different today."
 
 
You have to be out of your mind...
 
First off, nobody needs the US's permission to develop nuclear weapons.  It is non-trivial technology but enough states have done it by now that it is clearly possible.  Left on their own Iran will eventually develop their own nuclear weapons.  
 
The whole idea of such a secret alliance is simply insane and completely unworkable.  If it were feasible to compel their cooperation with such threats we would be well advised to go ahead and make them right now and skip the whole "wait until they have the bomb" part of the plan. 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       3/11/2010 1:49:58 AM
LB, he ignored the meat of mine and only went for the last part, so maybe this is his notion of symmetry.  Good strategy as he has no hope on the merits.  His best chance is to be grating and then seize on any related personal remarks, ignoring substantive ones.
 
Like he said, he just wants to win, or look like he's winning, or make himself believe he's winning.
 
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