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

Phaid 3/11/2010 3:08:01 PM

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.

DA, not for nothing, but you are not an SME on this stuff, and you most definitely are being personally insulting to everyone who has disagreed with you on this subject. Even if you weren't actually calling people names, it's simply tiresome to read you say "...you haven't provided any supporting evidence... " when I and others have cited volumes of evidence that you simply refuse to address with anything more than "but the SecDef said it's wrong". Calling people fanboys, talking in the third person about others, etc, is just disrespectful and below the level of conversation that others are trying to have with you.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Because people forget... 3/11/2010 3:15:36 PM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KXcw9ALHtFQ/SU4TI2T-pdI/AAAAAAAABZ8/tVKZbkoLUP0/s320/436_stinger_missile2050081722-9880.jpg" width="262" height="190" alt="" />

I wonder where that missile was manufactured and how it got to these guys?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/02/25/books/gadd600span.jpg" width="600" height="350" alt="" />

I wonder how "unthinkable" that dinner was in the 1970's with these communist?

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/jb/wwii/jb_wwii_stalin_1_e.jpg" width="600" height="452" alt="" />

Hmm, another strange meeting of the minds I suppose? A Soviet Dictator on the right arm of the US President? No, the seats aren't arranged by coincidence. In the military academy prior to commissioning they do cover things like this in case you are unfortunate enough to get stuck in an embassy or generals aide de camp.

http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/uploads/cuban-missiles.jpg" width="468" height="474" alt="" />

I wonder how those missiles got removed...hmmm

http://www.pragoti.org/pragoti/pics/fidel_castro_ruz590.jpg" width="443" height="590" alt="" />

Or why this guy is still alive?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Manuel_Noriega_mug_shot.jpg" width="397" height="436" alt="" />

Or how about this CIA double agent?

http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_fenzels_blog/images/2007/12/19/usaf_jupiter_irbm.jpg" width="600" height="480" alt="" />

What happened to the Jupiter in Turkey?

http://www.appletreeblog.com/wp-content/2008/09/oliver-north.jpg" width="400" height="254" alt="" />

Happy snaps? I don't think so...

Anyway, folks, this who good vs evil badguy nonsense that people debate here on the internet is not how it works in the real world. Get involved and on the ground and you would be surprised. Or just be humble enough to listen to people like me who have done it on your behalf. Some peoples understanding of geopolitics and military affairs is so fragile it's laughable they even attempt to bring things up.

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Because people forget... 3/11/2010 3:23:14 PM

Wrong. And your evidence is/was invalid. Sure, to cite your recommendation specifically, 400 Raptors and x number of F-16 blk 60 is an option the USAF COULD HAVE GONE WITH. But they didn't. And for good reasons. Some of which I've explained here AT LENGTH. Rather than debate on whether or not I'm a SME, just try and understand what's being debated. I don't call names because it isn't necessary. I'm not here to pick fights. But I will pick apart invalid arguments where appropriate. If you or others don't like that. Put together a better argument. The only thing "volumes of evidence" means is you posted a lot of bad data. This issue isn't even at all that complicated. But when you have a bias and are religious about the subject matter. I may as well be back in Iraq trying to talk a AQI member out of praying 5 times a day. Data Phaid! Data. Make an informed logical argument that actually addresses the problem and I would support you. You haven't. Don't blame me, blame yourself.

-DA

Quote Reply

Rufus 3/11/2010 3:35:59 PM

Do you really think posting a bunch of random crap to muddy the water somehow supports your original idiotic statement?

Maybe that is something you learned form Harold/Hamilcar but it is no more attractive coming from you.

Here is what you said:

"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."

That is a simply idiotic thing to suggest and the fact that you threw it out and have since tried to defend it absolutely rules out any possibility that you have, or have ever had, any insight into US policy making.

This is no different than French Stratege claiming to be an aeronautical engineering Phd while trying to argue that an ejection seat makes up X percent of an airframe's cost because it is X percent of that airframe's mass. (something he really tried to argue at one point)

It is clear that there really are some areas where you know what you are talking about, but it is also clear that you are not the expert on everything you seem to think you are.

"Anyway, folks, this who good vs evil badguy nonsense that people debate here on the internet is not how it works in the real world. Get involved and on the ground and you would be surprised. Or just be humble enough to listen to people like me who have done it on your behalf. Some peoples understanding of geopolitics and military affairs is so fragile it's laughable they even attempt to bring things up."

...and you can spare us all the patronizing BS. You have some guts to suggest I of all people should be "humble enough" to listen to your crackpot theories about US foreign policy options or to suggest that I don't know how it works in the "real world."

You hopped right over the moron line tonight.

Quote Reply

RedParadize 3/11/2010 4:32:12 PM

DA, I carefully readed you few previous post, and for me it just make no sense. I do have some counter argument for you, but its probably more sage to keep it for me cause obviously you are not very receptive right now.

Rufus, I just want to say the for me being called fanboy is not pejorative for me. I am not a professional so yes, I can be call a fanboy. But saying "you are wrong and I know more than you" is insulting and pointless yes. Thats why I did go against some people that were probably more informed than me in the past. Bad attitude = bad response.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @Redparadize 3/11/2010 4:46:51 PM

Redparadize,

I'd be delighted to read a counter argument. That doesn't mean I'll agree but I don't take these things as personal as some seem to. THe reason I posted the pictures is to demonstrate the precedent. The US-Iran dynamic and the real contest going on in the ME is not very well understood. There is a lot going on "under the hood" so to speak that casual observers don't pick up on. If you read carefully the statement I made which Rufus completely misunderstood, I'm simply saying that their exist a possibility that Iran and the USA could come to an agreement that would avoid conflict. Whether or not that includes Iran having nuclear arms is entirely up to the USA. That's because only the USA has the power to stop that. For those who think the US and Iran coming to an agreement is "idiotic" or whatever else, they are simply misinformed. I've seen it happen twice this decade with my own eyes. First during OEF and again in 2006-2007 during OIF. Iran and the USA have some common enemies and interest that could help fascilitate a deal. Again, what I'm talking about is a POSSIBLE course of action. I haven't stated how likely.

-DA

Quote Reply

heavy DA 3/11/2010 5:36:22 PM

"Nuclear capability is a red line."

By "Nuclear capability" I assume you mean a very public fission device test.

By crossing the "red line" I assume you mean a military response on targets within Iran.

Are you positing that Iran would not test a device without tacit permission from the US?

Conversely, are you suggesting that such a test without an "agreement" as you put it would guarantee a military response?

If you aren't suggesting either of these things, are you just generating a laundry list of all possible outcomes in the universe?

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 3/11/2010 5:49:37 PM

DA, I have to give you credit: it takes balls the size of grapefruits to go anywhere and admit you have never been wrong. Especially on a message board, where those who have the time and inclination can go back through the archives and prove that, yes, you indeed have been wrong.

Okay, so let's say you're right. We need to ally with Iran secretly for...what? The examples you listed above, there was a good reason for those:

1) Nixon allied with Mao as a counterweight to the USSR and to play them off each other, as well as get the PRC and USSR to stop supporting North Vietnam, since Nixon planned on knocking the hell out of Hanoi. This strategy was brilliant, but Nixon did it not because he liked the murderous SOB, but because he saw an opportunity to wedge China away from the USSR.

2) FDR's alliance with Stalin came only because Hitler attacked the USSR, which sort of put Stalin in the same position as Churchill and later, FDR. Once more, FDR didn't particularly like Stalin (though FDR was under the mistaken impression Stalin could be "controlled"), but did it because he needed the might of the Red Army to defeat Hitler.

3) The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved because neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev wanted to see a nuclear war that neither side would win. Kennedy offered the Jupiters (which were obsolete and needed to be withdrawn anyway) as a counter to Khrushchev pulling the missiles from Cuba. Khrushchev also knew that Kennedy was willing to go to war to remove the missiles, and decided he was holding a very weak hand should war break out. Castro? He had nothing to do with it. Being an idiot, Castro wanted war with the US. Remember that Robert Kennedy had done much to try and kill Castro, and continued this even after JFK's death. That's not the action of an administration that wants to swing a deal.

So in all three cases, both sides had something the other needed or wanted. Iran wants a free hand in the Middle East. We're not going to give it to them, because we don't want to have an Islamist Shi'a running Iraq, and also every one of our allies in the Gulf would tell us to kiss off, because the Arab Sunnis loathe the Persian Shi'a, and have since about the 6th Century. So we would be trading the goodwill of every Arab nation for an alliance with Iran, for which we would get basically nothing.

This doesn't even take into account Israel's feelings. Unlike you, DA, Israel believes Ahmadinejad when he talks about wiping Israel off the map. They can't afford to say, "Oh, it's merely rhetoric to buck up the home crowd," because one nuke into Tel Aviv will wreck the nation. So we swing a deal with Iran, secret or not, and we lose Israel as an ally. That has all sorts of negative effects: we lose Israeli tech (which we use), China gains it (since the Israelis would not feel constrained by US wishes), Hezbollah and Hamas (Iran's allies, in case you've forgotten) are emboldened, and, oh yes, we basically toss into the toilet a 40-year old alliance with one of two democracies in the Middle East.

And this of course also convienently forgets that the Iranian people have been dying in the streets at the hands of Ahmadinejad, who's arguably insane. That's who you want us to ally with? I know, I know...Stalin and Mao were genocidal maniacs too. But there's a difference, looking at it from a realpolitik POV: we needed Stalin's Red Army; we needed Mao's one million PLA fanatics as a counter to Brezhnev. We don't need Iran for anything in the Middle East.

An alliance with Iran would give them everything and gain us nothing. They're allowed to have nukes? Do you honestly believe that Iran will not use those nukes as leverage to get what they want? Good heavens, I give FS a lot of crap about appeasement, but apparently it's not France we need to worry about.

I now return you to the previous F-22 discussion, already in progress.

Quote Reply

LB Program Update 3/11/2010 10:46:43 PM

The new IOC for the USAF and USN is 2016.

The original cost was $50 million in 2002 dollars. The current cost estimate is $80 to $95 million in 2002 then year dollars or $95 to $113 in today's dollars for average cost.

This 60% to 90% cost increase is more than enough to trigger Nunn McCurdy and Sec Donley will so informe Congress shortly.

Everything above was stated by Dr Carter to Senate Armed Services today March 11, 2010.

The Corp still lists IOC for Dec 2012 but this is with block 2 software and I believe lists full combat capability at 2024.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @Heavy 3/12/2010 12:44:07 AM

"Nuclear capability is a red line."

By "Nuclear capability" I assume you mean a very public fission device test.

That depends. Not necessarily a device. But a functional weapon system. Something that can be reliably delivered. Contrary to popular belief there is a very high threshold of tolerance to put of conflict until the last possible minute. Remember, we lived for a short period with IRBMs just off our coast.

By crossing the "red line" I assume you mean a military response on targets within Iran.

Yes. The negative and unavoidable consequences of which will weigh heavily in the decision making process. We have to be sure we get them all and substantially degrade the ability of Iran to reconstitute them quickly. Moreover, it will be necessary to keep Iran from destroying the global economy by disrupting the flow of oil as well as ensuring that Iraq doesn't explode into such violence that we can't get out.

Are you positing that Iran would not test a device without tacit permission from the US?

No. I'm saying that Iran can't get and keep a device without the USA allowing it to take place unhindered.

Conversely, are you suggesting that such a test without an "agreement" as you put it would guarantee a military response?

No. It could take more than a test. In order to guarantee, it would have to be developed to the point of a viable operational weapon.

If you aren't suggesting either of these things, are you just generating a laundry list of all possible outcomes in the universe?

I'm simply listing the courses of action. I haven't assigned probability.

-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