Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
MarkW

F-35 news roundup

Recommended Posts

It used to be you had to search far and wide to find people who thought curtailing the F-22 was a mistake :deadhorse1:/>

This is the first I'm hearing of it... :deadhorse1:/> :deadhorse1:/>

Very easy to find folks who felt that this was a shortsighted mistake, however the majority of them aren't high level AF officials (or maybe I just never found their statements). I though the AF higher-ups typically held to the "party line" on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

giJboYL.gif

The second I saw this the "Top Gun Anthem" song popped into my head...now I can't get it out...:bandhead2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very easy to find folks who felt that this was a shortsighted mistake, however the majority of them aren't high level AF officials (or maybe I just never found their statements). I though the AF higher-ups typically held to the "party line" on this subject.

Fact is the F-22 was eating the crap out of the AF budget. Funny how all of a sudden nostalgia kicks in. It was cold, hard, cash that killed the Raptor. Every senior AF official who knew or cared Jack squat about the budget knew it was an unsustainable program once the final cut was made.

That CSAF Mosely was too stupid or just had a fighter pilot hard on to see that is a big part of why he got canned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very easy to find folks who felt that this was a shortsighted mistake, however the majority of them aren't high level AF officials (or maybe I just never found their statements). I though the AF higher-ups typically held to the "party line" on this subject.

http://media.giphy.com/media/qQxevLZrrxRle/giphy-facebook_s.jpg

Edited by TaiidanTomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even LEGO's hopping onto the F-35 bandwagon...

31039-1.jpg?201505131051

Though it's been modified into a two-seater, and the colors are a near-ripoff of 1984 Transformers Thundercracker... LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even LEGO's hopping onto the F-35 bandwagon...

31039-1.jpg?201505131051

Though it's been modified into a two-seater, and the colors are a near-ripoff of 1984 Transformers Thundercracker... LOL

On sale at Toys R Us for $10,000.

Note that the legos don't currently work very well, something about not sticking to each other...

This is a known problem and really isn't that big of a deal. Any toy that pushes the fun factor this much is going to have minor issues like that. The good news for little Jimmy is that LEGO Corp promise the toy will be completely functional by the time he graduates from college. The bad news for little Jimmy is that to get his upgraded, completely functional toy, he will have to send LEGO Corp another check for $25,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFLMAO! Especially with how LEGO Fanboiz can rival the most rabid Hornet Mafia Cultists in the Bitchy Little Girl department... seriously, apparently there's an unposted First Commandment on some sites about "Thou Shalt Never Criticize the Holy LEGO in Even The Slightest Most Trivial Way."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very easy to find folks who felt that this was a shortsighted mistake, however the majority of them aren't high level AF officials (or maybe I just never found their statements). I though the AF higher-ups typically held to the "party line" on this subject.

From Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations, page 36-37;

Secretary Gates recommended no further procurement of F-22s, thus ending the program at 187 planes - the 183 funded thus far plus four planes requested in the FY2009 supplemental appropriation.

Ending production at 183 matched the program of record for the F-22 Raptor; the four additional aircraft requested are intended to replace combat aicraft losses. In follow-on comments, Secretary Gates stated that advice from Combatant Commanders and the Air Force indicated "no military requirement for F-22s beyond...187." Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton Schwartz, stated during his confirmation hearings in 2008 that the right number of F-22 aircraft was greater than 183 but less than the 381 that the Air Force had been arguing for. However, he subsequently avoided public statements on the matter. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said in December 2008 that the Air Force had discussed with him a plan to purchase 60 additional aircraft, but deferred further discussions to the new Presidential administration.

On April 13, 2009 the Air Force's civilian and military leadership, acknowledging the difficult budget environment and the new risk assessments by DoD, formally endorsed Secretary Gates's proposal to complete F-22 procurement at 187 aircraft. Congress added to the budget request $523 million that could be used for advanced procurement of an additional lot of F-22s should the administration choose to do so.

Gates had a hard-on about fighting the last war, the kind of war that we shouldn't be fighting in the first place - a long, drawn out land war in Asia. And he was so hell-bent on forging the military to fight that war, that he was willing to sacrifice systems needed for the next generation. As for the Pacific theater, Gates maintained that China will not be able to field a similar plane until about 2025, at which time the US would have more than 1,700 F-35s. Gates believed that the F-35 was just as good as the F-22 in air superiority, and at a far lower cost. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.

This was back when critics complained that F-22 was a Cold War weapon and Russia was saying that they would support UN sanctions against Iran and not sell the S300 system to Tehran. Six years later, Moscow's selling S300s to Iran and the J-20 is far ahead of the T-50 in development.

Jump forward to 2013 when Vice-Chairman of the Joint Staff Adm. James “Sandy” Winnefeld raised hackles among the serving and retired officers gathered at the headquarters of the powerful Association of the US Army when he said the nation would probably not need an Army-sized force to do any large-scale, long-duration ground operations. The admiral did not only downplay the possibility of prolonged counterinsurgencies like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam, although he certainly emphasized the decline of COIN: He raised doubt about long wars of any kind.

“I’m talking about a national commitment on a large scale to a long-term combat operation,” Winnefeld said when a skeptical soldier pressed him on the point during the question-and-answer session. “We just don’t see that happening in the near future. But we do need to hedge that bet by keeping enough capacity in case that’s wrong.”

“Marty (General Martin Dempsey, US Army and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and I both would say that the nation needs to keep the capacity to defeat another nation on the ground… if nothing more than as a deterrent, but we don’t see that as being a long fight. We can’t afford it,” he went.

“I simply don’t know where the security interests of our nation are threatened enough to cause us to cause us to lead a future major, extended COIN campaign,” he continued, “though we were very well might provide support to a nation fighting its own COIN campaign, as we continue to do today in Colombia. The President himself made it clear in his Defense Strategic Guidance that we will retain some capability for COIN, but only on a limited scale.”

And from the most recent National Security Strategy, which is released by the President and serves as the source document for all military and force structure planning reveals the emphasis point: "Advance our rebalance to Asia and the Pacific" and "Ensure access to the global commons of cyber, space, air, and maritime environs."

The Quadrenniel Defense Review, National Defense Strategy, and National Military Strategy all build from the guidance in the National Security Strategy. From the QDR:

"
Air/Sea

We will continue to invest in combat aircraft, including fighters and long-range strike, survivable persistent surveillance, resilient architectures, and undersea warfare to increase the Joint Force’s ability to counter A2/AD challenges"

That's the guidance the AF has to plan it's force with.

Also from the QDR:

"Maintaining an Air Force with global power projection capabilities crucial for this updated defense strategy.
We will modernize next-generation Air Force combat equipment – including fighters and bombers – particularly against advancing modern air defense systems
. To free resources for these programs as well as to preserve investments in critical capabilities, the Air Force will reduce or eliminate capacity in some single-mission aviation platforms. If sequestration-level cuts are imposed in FY2016 and beyond, the Air Force would have to retire 80 more aircraft, slow down purchases of the Joint Strike Fighter, and make other difficult adjustments."

Finally, the NMS outlines this gem:

"
Balancing for a broad spectrum of conflict.

Future conflicts could range from hybrid contingencies against proxy groups using asymmetric approaches, to a high-end conflict against a state power armed with WMD or technologically advanced anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities. Reflecting this diverse range of challenges, the
U.S. military will shift focus in terms of what kinds of conflicts it prepares for in the future, moving toward greater emphasis on the full spectrum of possible operations
"

Good thing we got all the F-22s we needed...oh, wait...

giphy-2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC, both civil and military, is like a toilet bowl: the biggest and fattiest turds float to the top, and it's overdue for a flush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to type this as sober as possible, but trigger is right. And at the time a lot of people in blue were unhappy. Including uncle fester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look, there were no major secrets revealed after all.

-Gregg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DC, both civil and military, is like a toilet bowl: the biggest and fattiest turds float to the top, and it's overdue for a flush.

We live in a country where we have to remind people not to leave their kids or animals locked in cars on a hot day. Flush all you want, we'll poop out more.

Edited by Trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gates had a hard-on about fighting the last war, the kind of war that we shouldn't be fighting in the first place - a long, drawn out land war in Asia. And he was so hell-bent on forging the military to fight that war, that he was willing to sacrifice systems needed for the next generation. As for the Pacific theater, Gates maintained that China will not be able to field a similar plane until about 2025, at which time the US would have more than 1,700 F-35s. Gates believed that the F-35 was just as good as the F-22 in air superiority, and at a far lower cost. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.

Gates was focused on the current war, not the last war nor future wars against nation states. How did he forge the military to fight the war? How did he direct BDE, DIV, and Combatant Commanders to conduct whatever type of warfare you claim? When did Gates say the F-35 was just as good as the F-22?

This was back when critics complained that F-22 was a Cold War weapon and Russia was saying that they would support UN sanctions against Iran and not sell the S300 system to Tehran. Six years later, Moscow's selling S300s to Iran and the J-20 is far ahead of the T-50 in development.

Jump forward to 2013 when Vice-Chairman of the Joint Staff Adm. James “Sandy” Winnefeld raised hackles among the serving and retired officers gathered at the headquarters of the powerful Association of the US Army when he said the nation would probably not need an Army-sized force to do any large-scale, long-duration ground operations. The admiral did not only downplay the possibility of prolonged counterinsurgencies like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam, although he certainly emphasized the decline of COIN: He raised doubt about long wars of any kind.

“I’m talking about a national commitment on a large scale to a long-term combat operation,” Winnefeld said when a skeptical soldier pressed him on the point during the question-and-answer session. “We just don’t see that happening in the near future. But we do need to hedge that bet by keeping enough capacity in case that’s wrong.”

“Marty (General Martin Dempsey, US Army and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and I both would say that the nation needs to keep the capacity to defeat another nation on the ground… if nothing more than as a deterrent, but we don’t see that as being a long fight. We can’t afford it,” he went.

“I simply don’t know where the security interests of our nation are threatened enough to cause us to cause us to lead a future major, extended COIN campaign,” he continued, “though we were very well might provide support to a nation fighting its own COIN campaign, as we continue to do today in Colombia. The President himself made it clear in his Defense Strategic Guidance that we will retain some capability for COIN, but only on a limited scale.”

And from the most recent National Security Strategy, which is released by the President and serves as the source document for all military and force structure planning reveals the emphasis point: "Advance our rebalance to Asia and the Pacific" and "Ensure access to the global commons of cyber, space, air, and maritime environs."

The Quadrenniel Defense Review, National Defense Strategy, and National Military Strategy all build from the guidance in the National Security Strategy. From the QDR:

"
Air/Sea

We will continue to invest in combat aircraft, including fighters and long-range strike, survivable persistent surveillance, resilient architectures, and undersea warfare to increase the Joint Force’s ability to counter A2/AD challenges"

That's the guidance the AF has to plan it's force with.

Also from the QDR:

"Maintaining an Air Force with global power projection capabilities crucial for this updated defense strategy.
We will modernize next-generation Air Force combat equipment – including fighters and bombers – particularly against advancing modern air defense systems
. To free resources for these programs as well as to preserve investments in critical capabilities, the Air Force will reduce or eliminate capacity in some single-mission aviation platforms. If sequestration-level cuts are imposed in FY2016 and beyond, the Air Force would have to retire 80 more aircraft, slow down purchases of the Joint Strike Fighter, and make other difficult adjustments."

Finally, the NMS outlines this gem:

"
Balancing for a broad spectrum of conflict.

Future conflicts could range from hybrid contingencies against proxy groups using asymmetric approaches, to a high-end conflict against a state power armed with WMD or technologically advanced anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities. Reflecting this diverse range of challenges, the
U.S. military will shift focus in terms of what kinds of conflicts it prepares for in the future, moving toward greater emphasis on the full spectrum of possible operations
"

Good thing we got all the F-22s we needed...oh, wait...

So if this is how we or the J8 develop our Force Structure...the question is should our strategy be based on budget or should our budget be based on strategy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look, there were no major secrets revealed after all.

-Gregg

Yah.. what a shocker..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Defense: FY2010 Authorization and Appropriations, page 36-37;

Gates had a hard-on about fighting the last war, the kind of war that we shouldn't be fighting in the first place - a long, drawn out land war in Asia. And he was so hell-bent on forging the military to fight that war, that he was willing to sacrifice systems needed for the next generation. As for the Pacific theater, Gates maintained that China will not be able to field a similar plane until about 2025, at which time the US would have more than 1,700 F-35s. Gates believed that the F-35 was just as good as the F-22 in air superiority, and at a far lower cost. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.

This was back when critics complained that F-22 was a Cold War weapon and Russia was saying that they would support UN sanctions against Iran and not sell the S300 system to Tehran. Six years later, Moscow's selling S300s to Iran and the J-20 is far ahead of the T-50 in development.

And exactly what can a F-22 do against the S-300, which is one of the systems the F-35 is designed to defeat? Fire an AMRAAM at it? Gates was also a business man, and saw the secastrastration cuts coming. the F-22 was simply, and still borders on, unaffordable. It has the older style stealth coatings and seam work, like the B-2, that is hideously expensive and manpower/time intensive to use. They give out Airman of the Year Awards to the guy who can shave cure times down to under a day.

Jump forward to 2013 when Vice-Chairman of the Joint Staff Adm. James “Sandy” Winnefeld raised hackles among the serving and retired officers gathered at the headquarters of the powerful Association of the US Army when he said the nation would probably not need an Army-sized force to do any large-scale, long-duration ground operations. The admiral did not only downplay the possibility of prolonged counterinsurgencies like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam, although he certainly emphasized the decline of COIN: He raised doubt about long wars of any kind.

“I’m talking about a national commitment on a large scale to a long-term combat operation,” Winnefeld said when a skeptical soldier pressed him on the point during the question-and-answer session. “We just don’t see that happening in the near future. But we do need to hedge that bet by keeping enough capacity in case that’s wrong.”

“Marty (General Martin Dempsey, US Army and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and I both would say that the nation needs to keep the capacity to defeat another nation on the ground… if nothing more than as a deterrent, but we don’t see that as being a long fight. We can’t afford it,” he went.

“I simply don’t know where the security interests of our nation are threatened enough to cause us to cause us to lead a future major, extended COIN campaign,” he continued, “though we were very well might provide support to a nation fighting its own COIN campaign, as we continue to do today in Colombia. The President himself made it clear in his Defense Strategic Guidance that we will retain some capability for COIN, but only on a limited scale.”

And from the most recent National Security Strategy, which is released by the President and serves as the source document for all military and force structure planning reveals the emphasis point: "Advance our rebalance to Asia and the Pacific" and "Ensure access to the global commons of cyber, space, air, and maritime environs."

The Quadrenniel Defense Review, National Defense Strategy, and National Military Strategy all build from the guidance in the National Security Strategy. From the QDR:

"
Air/Sea

We will continue to invest in combat aircraft, including fighters and long-range strike, survivable persistent surveillance, resilient architectures, and undersea warfare to increase the Joint Force’s ability to counter A2/AD challenges"

That's the guidance the AF has to plan it's force with.

You're kind of stringing a bunch of unrelated stuff together here like it somehow proves it was J.Edgar Hoover on the grassy knoll or something...and completely ignore the FACT that the F-22 was EATING THE ENTIRE AF BUDGET. What part of that are people not getting? We were killing other, needed development programs; the A-10 was retired (the first time) before it was revived, our bomber fleet was slashed, squadrons were being shut down, all so CSAF Mosely could keep popping F-22 Viagra pills. Blame Gates, Obama, FDR, whomever, but the reality is the program was bankrupting the entire AF.

Also from the QDR:

"Maintaining an Air Force with global power projection capabilities crucial for this updated defense strategy.
We will modernize next-generation Air Force combat equipment – including fighters and bombers – particularly against advancing modern air defense systems
. To free resources for these programs as well as to preserve investments in critical capabilities, the Air Force will reduce or eliminate capacity in some single-mission aviation platforms. If sequestration-level cuts are imposed in FY2016 and beyond, the Air Force would have to retire 80 more aircraft, slow down purchases of the Joint Strike Fighter, and make other difficult adjustments."

Finally, the NMS outlines this gem:

"
Balancing for a broad spectrum of conflict.

Future conflicts could range from hybrid contingencies against proxy groups using asymmetric approaches, to a high-end conflict against a state power armed with WMD or technologically advanced anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities. Reflecting this diverse range of challenges, the
U.S. military will shift focus in terms of what kinds of conflicts it prepares for in the future, moving toward greater emphasis on the full spectrum of possible operations
"

Good thing we got all the F-22s we needed...oh, wait...

The cult of the F-22 has. to. stop. Yes, it is the MOST kick fool A2A fighter EVAH!!!!! Got it, and agree. But that is also ALL it is. It doesn't play nicely with the rest of the joint force,and to retrofit it to do so would be a multi billion exercise that would also, BTW, this would be done by Northrop Grumman and Lockheed, the dream team currently cobbling the F-35 together. It was a single point design, to do basically one thing--distribute MiG parts. To make it doe something else, like the F/B-22 nonsense Uncle Fester floated to keep it alive, was also insane and insanely expensive. The F-35 addresses many of the shortfalls the F-22 has that prevent it from being a true force multiplier or leveraging the investment we have in still functional and capable 4th gen systems.

All that said, we will continue and need the development of a single mission/capability platform in broad terms with Long Range Strike. The capability of reaching out and touching someone far, far away will always be needed. Otherwise, multi role is what we can afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark - I find your comments on the F-22 interesting. As far as being just a one trick pony, the F-22 now has A2G capability (as was seen against those fearsome ISIS air defense systems). I know that it's stealth has drawbacks compared to the F-35 but supercruise at a very high altitiude also provides some defensive advantage compared to the F-35, no?

Even when the F-35 comes fully online, does anyone really expect it to perform the air dominace role?

I get the reason why the F-22 was curtailed but I still thought it offered some incredibly valuable attriibutes compared to the other platforms out there. Maybe I read wrong but it almost seemed like you are suggesting that the F-22 doesn't have a place in the future force, which in your view seems to be mutli-role (read F-35) and the LRS system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah.. what a shocker..

you do realize these pictures were selected to be released and many other weren't for just those reasons?

Even when the F-35 comes fully online, does anyone really expect it to perform the air dominace role?

Yes, many people expect that. Why is it so incomprehensible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...