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

DarthAmerica 2/19/2010 1:19:07 PM

Nice bait and switch except we aren't talking about the USN are we. Not that I think the USN/USMC should not get F-35B/Cs. We are talking about the USAF and it's situation with it's F-22's/legacy fleet and how the F-35A will revitalize it with an aircraft thats going to be much less costly over time, more survivable and will REMAIN TACTICALLY RELEVANT LONGER. Again, your suggestion that we should build a fleet of F-16 blk 60, resume F-22 production and cancel the F-35 is as invalid as ever.

-DA

Quote Reply

Rufus 2/19/2010 1:30:32 PM

"It's seriously incredible to read the above, and then realize the author is making this statement as an argument FOR the F-35. You don't want to spend the extra money for a couple hundred more air superiority fighters, which would allow us to replace our currently decrepit air superiority fleet without costing significantly more to operate, but you do want to spend hundreds of billions on the spiraling cost of developing the F-35 and then buying it by the thousands despite the fact that it costs vastly more to buy, fly, and maintain than its predecessors."

Why would we spend extra more for more air superiority fighters?

For the 100th time, there is no need for more air superiority fighters. If a need arises in the future it won't be so suddenly that the US could not take appropriate steps.

There is however a huge need for a stealthy multi-role aircraft with a new generation of avionics. The US isn't all that worried about dueling with super Flankers over the Pacific, they are a lot more worried about dealing with modern air defense systems being fielded by a long list of regional problem states.

The F-35 adds capability in areas the US needs additional capability. The GAO report you linked to on costs is not good news, but they exist to play the devil's advocate to some extent. Their projections do frequently prove overly pessimistic.

If it was up to them few fighter programs would ever end up being produced. They only like them once the kinks are worked out.

Besides, it is not like they like the F-22 either:

GAO advises against spending on F-22 fighter jets

By Megan Scully CongressDaily June 21, 2006

Faulting the business plan for one of the Air Force's biggest programs, congressional investigators have concluded that the military should halt spending on the F-22 Raptor fighter jet and abandon efforts to use a non-traditional approach for buying the aircraft.

In an unreleased report dated Tuesday, the Government Accountability Office called the Air Force's procurement plans for the Raptor "unexecutable," and questioned whether the next-generation fighter is necessary in a changing military environment increasingly focused on combating terrorists, insurgents and other unpredictable enemies.

"The Department [of Defense] needs to reevaluate the value delivered by continuing production of the F-22A past what it has already committed to by examining the likely future threat and risk environment, the funding it can make available relative to other demands, and the alternative ways to achieve air-to-air and air-to-ground military superiority," according to the report.

While I am at it... the GAO also recommended canceling the Super Hornet back in 1996.

h*tp://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-96-98#recommendations

With a projected total cost of $63 billion, the Navy's program to modernize its fleet of F-18 tactical aircraft ranks among the most costly of military aviation projects. Yet the planned F/A-18E/F will deliver only marginal operational improvements over the current F/A-18C/D model. The operational deficiencies in the F/A-18C/Ds that the Navy cited as a justification for developing the F/A-18E/F either have failed to materialize or can be corrected with nonstructural changes to the C/D. Furthermore, E/F operational capabilities will be only slightly better than those of the C/D model. Given the expense and the marginal improvements in operational capabilities that the F/A-18E/F would provide, GAO recommends that the Pentagon reconsider the decision to produce the F/A-18E/F aircraft and, instead, consider procuring additional F/A-18C/Ds. The number of F/A-18C/Ds that the Navy would ultimately need to buy will depend on when the next generation strike fighter becomes operational and the number of those planes the Navy decides to purchase.

If the GAO had had its way the F-22 would have been drastically delayed/cancelled/redesigned way back in 1994:

h*tp://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-94-118#recommendations

"Since the F-22 program entered full-scale development in

Quote Reply

Phaid 2/19/2010 2:21:02 PM

We need the capability, but equipping every single tactical fighter with it is just unnecessarily expensive. In terms of dealing with advanced air defenses, there is not a whole lot the F-35 brings to the table that the F-22 could not do just as well and in many ways better. The F-22 is more stealthy, at least as capable of detecting C4I infrastructure and SAM threats, can carry just as many PGMs in a stealthy configuration (albeit limited to 1,000 lb class weapons) and has the speed and altitude performance to emply JDAMs and SDBs at standoff ranges. And we don't need 1763 of them in the Air Force to do those missions.

As far as the GAO, yes they are frequently excessively pessimistic. However, as you can see in my last post, they are far from the only government agency expressing doubt about the F-35. And that doubt is backed up with clear, hard numbers. My point in bringing up the particular GAO studies was to highlight the DoD numbers they contain, not an appeal to the GAO's authority.

My opposition to the F-35 is two fold: on the one hand, it is simply too expensive, and even if it works as advertised we will be paying too much for it. It will cost too much to operate and will drain budget resources from other equally important systems. On the other hand, I don't believe it will succeed at all, and we should cut our losses now rather than continue to throw money at it that could be put to much better use.

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 2/19/2010 3:08:53 PM

I seem to have started a firestorm...

I think we're going to need both systems. We're going to keep F-15s in service past 2025? That's insane. People seem to think that aircraft are interchangeable: since the B-52 and the A-10 can't seem to be replaced, because they're that awesome, then we don't need to replace the F-15 either. That seems like traditional bureaucrat thought to me. "There's nothing wrong with the Enfield musket! Why should we replace it with Henrys repeaters?" "There's nothing wrong with the battleship! Why do we need aircraft carriers?" It saves money...but in the long run, not lives.

The B-52 and the A-10 can carry on because one is an uncomplicated bomb truck; the other is an uncomplicated kill-people CAS aircraft. The air superiority mission carries much different performance and tech requirements, and that's what I think some people don't get. You can't shoehorn in the F-35 into the air superiority mission, no more than you could shoehorn a F-16A with no BVR missiles or a Rafale. They're simply not designed for it. Sure, they may do okay, but is that what we want? Just "doing okay"?

Don't tell me we don't have the money. That's crap. If we're going to piss away billions of dollars in Congressional pork, we have the money. I guess Montana will just have to make do with less baseball stadiums and Arkansas with less fly research, or New York without a Woodstock museum. Now if you're talking about real cost-cutting by the US government, okay--but along with the F-22 getting the axe, I want to see Congressional salaries, voter payoffs, Freddie and Fannie, and bailouts on the chopping block right next to it. Until that happens, "we don't have the money" is a dodge for "we think the military doesn't need fancy toys, unless Congresscritters can ride in them." (See: Gulfstream Vs, Why the USAF Doesn't Want Them But Congress Does.)

DA, you and I have our differences, but one thing I do respect about you is your service to this nation. That said, I think you are looking at this from an Army POV. The Army doesn't give a rat's ass about air superiority, because they've enjoyed it since 1943. They want bombs killing the enemy, UAVs coming out of nowhere to tell you what the enemy is doing, body armor, and more stuff the soldier can use to kill people/avoid being killed by people with. All of which they should have. But since the F-22 can do none of these, you don't see the reason for it. And in the sense of the current conflict, that attitude makes perfect sense.

But again, there's the what-ifs. Some don't see China as a threat. Maybe they're not, but what if they become one? The geopolitical ramifications of what happens if China takes Taiwan are huge. We need to insure that the cost of taking Taiwan will be so high that they won't even consider it--same as we did with the Soviet Union in Central Europe. A few creaking F-15s that are 40 years old won't do it. Kill-you-before-you-see-them F-22s might, just as MiG-23 drivers once dreaded engaging F-15s. You're concentrating on what's happening right now, but some of us are worried what could happen in the future.

Which brings us back to the Enfield/battleship question. Nobody wants a war with China (or Russia, or whoever), but we should be prepared if one does happen. Not being prepared makes a war more likely, which has been a watchword from Sun-Tzu to Seneca to G. Washington. Otherwise, the US might begin the next war like we've begun nearly every other war in our history: getting our ass kicked with a lot of dead Americans. Sooner or later, we're going to run out of our traditional luck and stupid enemies giving us the chance to get our act together. Or maybe we'll avoid war entirely by being ready.

Absolutely the soldier in Afghanistan needs everything he/she can get right now, and they should have priority. But if we had a budget process that didn't consist of "what have you done for my voting district lately" and more along the lines of "how does this nation survive the next 20 years," the soldier in Afghanistan would get everything they need, and there would still be some money left over for at least low-level production of the F-22.

The problem isn't capability. The problem is political.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @Sentinel 2/19/2010 3:22:23 PM

Do you understand that there is no need for more F-22s now? Do you understand that later with the F-35 we will still not need more? Do you also get that if we are wrong steps have been taken to deal with that and the F-22 can be put back in production? Please confirm or deny your understanding of these facts.

-DA

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 2/19/2010 4:03:44 PM

1) I understand we do need more F-22s, though we don't need to start churning them out like B-24s at Willow Run. I understand this because I talk to fighter pilots a lot.

2) I understand that the F-35 is a great airplane that will do a superb job of replacing the F-16 and dropping bombs on people. I also understand that it, like FS' favorite airplane, was not designed for the air superiority mission. Saying that it is does not make it so.

3) I understand that steps can be taken to put the F-22 back in production. However, I also understand that Hamlicar has a point, and that restarting production takes time we may not have.

Now, let me ask you if you understand, since one condescending reply deserves another.

1) Do you understand that there was no real reason to take the F-22 out of production, since the cost of sustaining low-level production is a fraction of the money Congress just blew on the "stimulus"?

2) Do you understand that sometimes you have to be prepared for a future war on occasion, so you don't have to play catch up--like we did in our recent unpleasantness?

3) Do you understand that you cannot magically make aircraft do what they're not designed to, simply because it looks better on a GAO report?

4) Do you understand that the F-35 might end up being cancelled, leaving us with no new fighters at all? (I doubt this, personally, and I think the F-35 will do just fine...but I also never underestimate the stupidity of bureaucrats. Or Congresspeople desperate to be reelected.)

5) Do you understand that aircraft, especially fighters, age more rapidly than bomb trucks and therefore our magical F-15s might not last until 2020?

6) Do you understand that Peyton Manning is like the best QB ever and we should bow down and worship him?

Quote Reply

Rufus 2/19/2010 4:21:15 PM

"We need the capability, but equipping every single tactical fighter with it is just unnecessarily expensive. In terms of dealing with advanced air defenses, there is not a whole lot the F-35 brings to the table that the F-22 could not do just as well and in many ways better. The F-22 is more stealthy, at least as capable of detecting C4I infrastructure and SAM threats, can carry just as many PGMs in a stealthy configuration (albeit limited to 1,000 lb class weapons) and has the speed and altitude performance to emply JDAMs and SDBs at standoff ranges. And we don't need 1763 of them in the Air Force to do those missions."

When I mentioned "dealing with" advanced SAMs I didn't mean simply destroying them. I meant operating in an environment where they are present. Many of the most dangerous of those systems are not the big strategic SAMs but rather the smaller tactical systems that are highly mobile and very difficult to suppress completely even after you have badly degraded the overall IADS.

Additionally, I think you are overstating the F-22's capability to carry out attack missions by a fair bit. It can carry a 1,000 JDAM and the SDB.... and that is it. It has no targeting pod and is thus completely reliant on its EW system and SAR radar mode to locate targets. What it has is useful, but very much a niche capability.

"As far as the GAO, yes they are frequently excessively pessimistic. However, as you can see in my last post, they are far from the only government agency expressing doubt about the F-35. And that doubt is backed up with clear, hard numbers. My point in bringing up the particular GAO studies was to highlight the DoD numbers they contain, not an appeal to the GAO's authority."

Just to be clear, I agree completely that the F-35 is facing some serious cost questions. The whole program was designed around the idea of offering a more or less do-everything fighter that could also operate in a highly stealthy configuration... on a budget.

That is the major reason why the F-35 is a single engine aircraft, a decision that limited its overall dimensions, because two engines would be more expensive. That is the main reason why there are three separate variants of the F-35... because that was far cheaper than trying to develop three completely new airframes and it would allow economies of scale. That is why a lower level of stealth was targeted, because F-22 level stealth was too difficult to build and maintain. (and export, which impacted the economies of scale argument)

etc etc etc

The whole idea of the F-35 was to create an affordable 5th generation plane. If the program fails to do that then it will have failed to meet one of its key objectives.

Right now nobody(credible) is suggesting the F-35 is in a death spiral. The problems it has encountered so far are really very mundane and do not seem likely to keep it from meeting its performance targets. The big question is the cost factor. In order for the F-35 to serve as the backbone of the future US/NATO air fleet they will need to find a way to drive costs down.

This is certainly worrisome, but it has been done successfully in the past.

"My opposition to the F-35 is two fold: on the one hand, it is simply too expensive, and even if it works as advertised we will be paying too much for it. It will cost too much to operate and will drain budget resources from other equally important systems. On the other hand, I don't believe it will succeed at all, and we should cut our losses now rather than continue to throw money at it that could be put to much better use."

Well, that is our fundamental disagreement I suppose. I agree that it has suffered from some developmental and programmatic issues but I don't see anything about the program that suggests it is irrecoverable or in danger of failing.

You have to keep things in perspective. What modern fighter program hasn't suffered delays? There is an element of "nobody bats 1.000" here. It is disappointing that the F-35 hasn't arrived on time and on budget, but on the other hand every other program, most of them far less ambitious, have suffered similar delays and cost over-runs.

Once they have F-35s rolling off the production line in

Quote Reply

LB Troops Dying 2/19/2010 9:22:33 PM

Thank you for your positive contribution to this discussion and your even and fair minded tone.

If the US has troops dying due to lack of funding that would be a newsworthy event that some congressman(s) would be using right now to further their re-election. Moreover, if this situation exits it's an argument for increased funding for specific items. At best it's an argument in favor of increased funding for the US Army and USMC. It's up to Congress to decide if that money has to come from increased spending or transferred from other services. If it did mean it had to come from the USAF then it's up to the USAF to decide where it might best come and thus saying more fighter planes means more troops get killed is not only simplistically wrong on myriad levels it's also an attack at everyone not agreeing with you and thus an insult.

The US Army budget does not directly go up or down in relation to the USAF budget. Buying F-22's, F-35's, or MQ-9's does not mean directly translate to grunts wearing old boots or lacking NVG.

Moreover, the entire rationale that we need the F-35 for Iraq or Afghanistan is so ridiculous there are cartoon characters exploding from laughter. Frankly the USAF has not served us as well as they might have in these conflicts and they should have been spending more on UCAS (including making sure the MQ-1/9 bottleneck was fixed, getting a 2nd production line up, or buying another model- exactly the level of priority made for the MRAP), purchased and operated more in theater transport (the lack of support to US Army is criminal), not delayed another to the FY2012 Budget getting the COIN wing up and running (it should have been done 5 years ago), etc. In short nothing that makes the fighter mafia all hot and bothered means squat in COIN.

For that matter everyone and their dead grandmother knows the US Army is too small and requires more divisions. Hell both Clinton and Obama promised to do so in the 2008 campaign. The US Army keeps begging not be expanded because it's certain it will not receive the funding to maintain the new units. Either the Army leadership, DOD, or Congress is at fault on this issue. The USMC has expanded and is increasing to add combat battalions. Blaming the other services is total BS.

In FY 2011 an F-35 costs the same as an F-22. So even by logic presented of dying troops means expensive planes are bad the whole thing is rubbish. The F-35 is more cost effective long term (we all hope), short term it's not and has nothing at all to do with our current conflicts. The F-35 is not a COIN oriented platform. Moreover, paying the premium for LO for every strike aircraft in the entire tactical aviation fleet for the USAF is not cost effective and it's in fact idiotic. Moreover, it will not happen. Sec Gates is clear that he views MQ-9 units as replacements for F-16 wings in some proportion.

The fact is you buy equipment to maintain force structure. If the nation decides the USAF needs 10 wings of strike aircraft then you must have enough aircraft to fill those slots. Changes in force structure can take decades and often impact the forces decades down the line. Here it's worth citing the 1990's shortfall in funding ships and the destruction of the shipping base. Congress was told repeatedly this would happen. The USN will never recover from this. Seriously. Never. The bare minimum number of ships the USN needs is around 320 according to every study done the past few years, including the one done by Adm Mullen when he was CNO, and the projections are we will keep falling in ships below the 280 or so we have now.

If the nation needs 4, 6, or 8 wings of air superiority fighters in the USAF then that is what we need long term to deal with future threats. It's of no matter whatsoever that this force structure does not directly assist troops in combat today as the US has to plan for and deal with things beyond today. The SSN force doesn't help much in Afghanistan either to cite one other important force structure requirement.

The force structure of the USAF has been and will continue to be cut (see QDR). The exact platform is irrelevant. Fighter planes wear out and do not have the same length of service life as other aircraft and this is more relevant for air superiority fighters. The USAF in the QDR has a stated requirement for 6 air superiority wings. The needs of these wings for aircraft does not mean troops die. What it does mean is either we have these aircraft or not.

Quote Reply

Nichevo 2/19/2010 10:46:00 PM

My back hurts so that I can hardly sit at my computer so let me just say this. 1) Glad to hear about the 2010 bill to save F-22 infrastructure. However it is an insufficient, retro move, making no mention of knowledge management/tacit knowledge capture, and this should have been planned for in the seeds of the program. Murphy come a'knocking.

2) Yes, at the moment we need X COIN systems, fine, no argument (and no conflict). Have we forgotten, though, that leading-edge systems take ten and twenty years to develop? If the F-2x, the F-22 replacement, starts development in 2020, when do you think it will be designed, QA'd, IOC'd, and built in significant numbers?

3) Armor never won a war! In the race between armor and warhead, warhead always wins. We won WWII without any ****ing armor on the Jeeps and Deuce-and-a-halfs (barring tactical exceptions that prove the rule). Nor on the men as a rule.

Any ideas for more effective offensive and intel tools, for the grunts now? Logistics maybe? Off-road transport so everyone isn't canalized into predictable IED-bait routes? More air transport (someone is always saying 'we have enough C-130s - is it something else we need then)? LO, armored, countermeasured transport that can fly into hotter airspace, more survivable in hot LZs? Lighter, cheaper (hence more available) pocket arty that lets you blow up threats instead of entering them or going through the fire support cycle?

How about a better rifle? A better cartridge? An alternative? Gee, maybe the fighter mafia has been holding out on the troops for a proper 6.5-7mm long arm? Not enough effort on the brass' part?

But explain to me, in the history of COIN, when anyone ever had the advantage of having bullets and bombs bounce off them? Then maybe you can explain the leap in physics that will ever enable this in future.

Ow, my back. Signing off, have at it.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 2/20/2010 12:10:55 AM

The air superiority F-15C has been out of production since the mid 80's (mid 90's for the CJ), for the simple reason that the multi-role F-15E was an overall more capable package.

The F-22 was doomed the moment the two seat variant was canned to save money, removing the option for an F-22 based F-15E replacement left it an orphan.

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