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    @Rufus   3/11/2010 11:44:09 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...

No, I'm not. Just extremely familiar with the politics. And I said it's simply a possibility. Which it is. Accepting a nuclear Iran is certainly an option for the United States and not at all unprecedented. I don't know if you are old enough to remember or are familiar with Nixon and China. But people thought it was insane too. It happened and included a secret agreement.

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.  

No one said anything about permission or that nukes can't be developed independent of the USA. I KNOW eventually if they want to Iran can develop nukes. The issue is will the USA bomb the piss out of Iran to stop it. THATS WHAT I MEAN BY ALLOW IT.
 

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. 

No it isn't. You may not be familiar with the way the United States wages war. The USA waits until the last possible moment, fights with proxies ect. before committing it's own combat forces. And like I said, the USA has done this before in recent history. Once with China and again with Iran in 2006-2007. Heck we even did it with the USSR! If you feel that you can actually make an argument for it being insane or unworkable go right ahead and try.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       3/11/2010 11:53:54 AM
Just for the record, DA, in Apr 2009 you were stomping up and down insisting that F-35 would cost $80 mil and that procurement would continue unabated.  (I had the thread somewhere but lost it.)  Where was your prophecy then?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @LB/Nichevo   3/11/2010 11:59:06 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.


No, you two are just simply not at all familiar with the situation nor do you understand it. I ignore parts of your post because they are not relevant to the issue. Neither of you understand the capabilities of the aircraft, the budgetary dynamic, the historical mismanagement of DoD programs, the issues that face the F-22, the role of the SecDef, the need for the F-35, the way aircraft are sustained, the longevity of the legacy fleet or the logistics. Moreover you lack the operational experience I have with these issues. You are trying to google your way through an undebatable subject with a subject matter expert and it's not working. So you two are now cheerleading for one another because you feel insulted about the way I'm responding to you. Perhaps if you asked questions, rather than assert incorrect assumptions, we could get to an understanding. But if you prefer the adversarial debate style then so be it. If you want to learn, clear your mind of assumptions and listen. Your choice.

-DA 


 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/11/2010 12:06:56 PM

Just for the record, DA, in Apr 2009 you were stomping up and down insisting that F-35 would cost $80 mil and that procurement would continue unabated.  (I had the thread somewhere but lost it.)  Where was your prophecy then?

Dead on accurate. Except that you are incorrect about me saying procurement would continue unabated. I've never even typed the phrase "procurement would continue unabated" in 2009. In then year dollars that's what an F-35 A cost.

ht*p://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf 


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       3/11/2010 12:54:31 PM



Just for the record, DA, in Apr 2009 you were stomping up and down insisting that F-35 would cost $80 mil and that procurement would continue unabated.  (I had the thread somewhere but lost it.)  Where was your prophecy then?



Dead on accurate. Except that you are incorrect about me saying procurement would continue unabated.
 
Your remarks were to that effect.  Do I really have to re-find the effing thread for you?  Are you going to give me the lie to my face?
 
I've never even typed the phrase "procurement would continue unabated" in 2009.
 
That was not a direct quote, don't be an ass.  You're not capable of writing such a phrase.
 
In then year dollars that's what an F-35 A cost.

In 2009 the cost was $80M and now it's $110, 130, 150M?  Even with the low estimate which is low...+$30M over a year?
 
 
 Darth, just for purposes of calibration...have you ever admitted error on this board?
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       3/11/2010 1:02:09 PM




But if you prefer the adversarial debate style then so be it. If you want to learn, clear your mind of assumptions and listen. Your choice.


-DA 


What a pompous ass.  I really don't know what else to say.  You don't even know what "adversarial debate style" means.  And if I listened to you, what would I be listening to?  If you had something to say you would have said it by now.  You talk a lot but you say nothing.  I've seen the syndrome before but to go further would become excessively personal, so my choice is, Say what you have to say and be done.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       3/11/2010 1:24:43 PM
"No, I'm not. Just extremely familiar with the politics."
 
"No it isn't. You may not be familiar with the way the United States wages war. The USA waits until the last possible moment, fights with proxies ect. before committing it's own combat forces. And like I said, the USA has done this before in recent history. Once with China and again with Iran in 2006-2007. Heck we even did it with the USSR! If you feel that you can actually make an argument for it being insane or unworkable go right ahead and try."
 
Don't start this BS with me.  Some of the time you seem to know what you are talking about, other times you are clearly utterly clueless, and this is one of those clueless times.  
 
This whole idea is very much in the vein of the various fanboy "What would happen if China and India united and invaded Russia together?! " threads...
 
The idea that the US would somehow reach a secret agreement with Iran wherein they would be allowed to develop nuclear weapons in return for their cooperation with US policy on the Middle East with the threat of force to compel them to hold up their end of the bargain is beyond insane in too many ways for me to even bother listing. 
 
The US would never consider such a plan, the Iranians would never agree, and even if through some kind of inexplicable mass insanity your proposed agreement were reached it would never work. 
 
 
Simplistically...  The entire reason the Iranians want nuclear weapons in the first place is so that they will be better able to deter attacks.  They want to be better able to deter attacks so that they will have a freer hand in their actions in the middle east, and to a lesser extent Central Asia, regions they are seeking to dominate.  They believe that once armed with nuclear weapons a large-scale conventional war against them will be too risky, leaving their adversaries with nothing but proxy wars all over the region, a game they feel they can win.
 
The US meanwhile, along with all of our principal allies in and outside of the region, is seeking to deny Iran a nuclear weapon capability to avoid emboldening the Iranian government and sparking a regional arms race that could achieve no good end.
 
A nuclear armed Iran would not suddenly fear the US more than it does today, it would fear it far less.  It would know that "nuclear armed" would be appended to its name in every world media outlet any time tensions were high, just as is now the case with NK, India or Pakistan.  This would make it far harder for the US to take decisive military action against Iran, not easier.  (and Iran already knows that it can oppose the US continually everywhere in the region both overtly and through proxies without the US striking them provided it does not cross certain red-lines)
 
It would not be the end of the world if Iran successfully became a nuclear state, the US would still have options... but to propose that the US might secretly go against virtually every meaningful ally it has in the Middle East and Europe by proposing such a hopelessly flawed deal to Iran is just insane. 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

RedParadize       3/11/2010 2:10:00 PM
I cant agree with that you say above DA. Rufus already the way I would have (with a better english lol) The only thing I would like tho had is that if Iran get the bomb, on top of deterrence, they will become de facto a Regional Power that cant be neglected. no more embargo or air strike form Israel. Thats a good enough reason too seek nuclear power.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Rufus   3/11/2010 2:46:12 PM


"No, I'm not. Just extremely familiar with the politics."


"No it isn't. You may not be familiar with the way the United States wages war. The USA waits until the last possible moment, fights with proxies ect. before committing it's own combat forces. And like I said, the USA has done this before in recent history. Once with China and again with Iran in 2006-2007. Heck we even did it with the USSR! If you feel that you can actually make an argument for it being insane or unworkable go right ahead and try."


Don't start this BS with me.  Some of the time you seem to know what you are talking about, other times you are clearly utterly clueless, and this is one of those clueless times.  


Nobody has time to BS you. If you disagree then fine, feel free to offer an explanation. Otherwise don't accuse someone of BS when you clearly don't understand what I'm saying.
 

This whole idea is very much in the vein of the various fanboy "What would happen if China and India united and invaded Russia together?! " threads...

LOL please.
 

The idea that the US would somehow reach a secret agreement with Iran wherein they would be allowed to develop nuclear weapons in return for their cooperation with US policy on the Middle East with the threat of force to compel them to hold up their end of the bargain is beyond insane in too many ways for me to even bother listing. 

Here is where you are wrong in your assumptions. Let me explain it to you before you continue on in the logical errors...
 
a. The USA can do nothing and leave the status quo and hope to compel Israel not to start a war the US would have to finish.
 
b. The USA could go to war against Iran to stop a nuclear program with all the huge risk of that course of action.
 
c. The USA could try limited targeted sanctions. Difficult considering the other parties who would require further US concessions in other regions of the world.
 
d. The USA could come to an agreement with Iran that redefines the political landscape.
 
Now with regard to option d. IF THE USA decides like it has with several other countries that Iran having a nuclear bomb isn't the end of the world, then it will be so. THAT IS WHAT I MEANT by the USA allowing it. Don't come in here misinterpreting what I said. The options listed above ARE whats in front of the president now and as you can see, none are ideal. I never said that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons on their own. I said that they are FAR from being able to do that on their own. Rufus. If wish to dispute that, go ahead and try.

The US would never consider such a plan, the Iranians would never agree, and even if through some kind of inexplicable mass insanity your proposed agreement were reached it would never work. 

I never said it would work. Only that it's an option. Who knows how well it would actually turn out. It would not be the first time we made a deal with a nation that later turned out to be bad.
 


Simplistically...  The entire reason the Iranians want nuclear weapons in the first place is so that they will be better able to deter attacks.  They want to be better able to deter attacks so that they will have a freer hand in their actions in the middle east, and to a lesser extent Central Asia, regions they are seeking to dominate.  They believe that once armed with nuclear weapons a large-scale conventional war against them will be too risky, leaving their adversaries with nothing but proxy wars all over the region, a game they feel they can win.

Bull crap. The Iranians are using nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip. They know that getting them actually INCREASES the risk of conflict unless it's part of an understanding.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nichevo   3/11/2010 2:52:06 PM







Just for the record, DA, in Apr 2009 you were stomping up and down insisting that F-35 would cost $80 mil and that procurement would continue unabated.  (I had the thread somewhere but lost it.)  Where was your prophecy then?







Dead on accurate. Except that you are incorrect about me saying procurement would continue unabated.

 

Your remarks were to that effect.  Do I really have to re-find the effing thread for you?  Are you going to give me the lie to my face?

 

I've never even typed the phrase "procurement would continue unabated" in 2009.

 

That was not a direct quote, don't be an ass.  You're not capable of writing such a phrase.


 

In then year dollars that's what an F-35 A cost.




In 2009 the cost was $80M and now it's $110, 130, 150M?  Even with the low estimate which is low...+$30M over a year?

 

 

 Darth, just for purposes of calibration...have you ever admitted error on this board?

No need to because I haven't been wrong. I haven't been wrong because unlike you, I don't speculate on things I'm not familiar with. You do realize that the cost of a program can go up do to bad program management. Just as easily the cost of the F-35 could turn out to be a lot lower as well. When I told you the cost in 2009, that is what it was. I never said those cost could not grow due to mismanagement. Why would I do that when part of what I do for a living is manage programs. If you can show that I said otherwise, go right ahead. Otherwise stop getting emotional. Actually try and have a conversation without the blinders and bias.

-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