If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As Date: June 6, 2008 Allowing the Air Force to buy more F-22As in exchange for fewer F-35 Lightning IIs does not make sense given the nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young told reporters this week. Any decision on buying more F-22As at the expense of F-35s would have to be based on operational requirements that the service identifies, Young said during a June 5 briefing. He will leave this decision up to the Air Force. “The Air Force has taken some looks at that and been uncomfortable with cutting some more Joint Strike Fighters, so that’s coupled [to] a force-structure decision,” Young said. The “Joint Strike Fighter is totally coupled to the requirements and force-structure decision. It’s not a law of just buy fewer and see if everything works out.” Both aircraft have unique capabilities that are best suited for specific missions, he said. However, when looking at the current conflict environment, Young said that the F-35 is probably the better-suited airplane, pointing to the F-35’s ground- attack capability and datalinks as advantages in the current wars. “JSF is incredibly capable, half the price of the F-22 . . . I would agree that any decision to buy more F-22s at the expense of JSF is not a good choice for the taxpayer,” Young said. “F-22 is still working to add the air-to-ground capability after the fact and at some significant cost,” he said. Still, Young warned that future requirements may change, especially with a new administration taking power next year. Alluding to the Air Force’s next-generation bomber, the acquisition czar also repeated comments he made earlier this week claiming that he would not approve any program he determines is not likely to stay on-budget and on-time. This week, Young told lawmakers that he does not believe the Air Force will be able to field the bomber by 2018 because of funding issues. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the 2018 was a nice planning date in the [Quadrennial Defense Review], it is not a mandatory date . . . the degree to which the Air Force is willing to fund [the bomber] will determine the date that [it] will be available,” Young said. Early cost estimates for the bomber were “significantly less” than comparable programs, especially given how quickly the service wanted to field the plane, he said. He is now waiting for the results of a Defense Science Board review into the costs and schedule for the program before he will sign off on the program. “I do not want to be part of another marquee failed program,” he said, adding that he hopes to use their review in budget decisions about the bomber by 2009. Also at this week’s briefing, Young told reporters that the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program could be challenged by the fact that many parts for the 40-year-old airlifter are becoming obsolete, and the service could face a supplier gap. “We are discovering that we may have some suppliers who want to get out of that business space,” Young said. “I may have some obsolete parts. [But] I have no authority to go buy a life-of-type buy for that program” because of a current law. He noted that, without being able to lock in current parts in a multiyear deal, he will be forced to find new parts that will have to be re-qualified and retested, causing the costs to rise by tens of millions of dollars. “So the law will force me to let those parts go obsolete, and then I’ll have to go spend $10 [million], $20 [million], $40 million to re-qualify and test the new parts and I can’t do it,” he said. In an effort to reign in costs, the C-5 RERP program has been slashed to 48 aircraft from 108, allowing the Pentagon to save $9.8 billion from the program which was re-certified earlier this spring after breaching the Nunn-McCurdy statute that caps per-unit cost growth in military programs. The Pentagon recently ordered the Air Force to infuse another $1.8 billion into the program which DOD expects to cost $7.7 billion through 2015. The C-5 RERP is meant to make the airlifters 75 percent more mission capable than current C-5s. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Mike" wrote in message ... Inside the Air Force Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As --------------------------------- Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1 Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers. What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish quantities with great precision. What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are designed to fight a major European war. -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. .. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black"
wrote: What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are designed to fight a major European war. Until the next war? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"eyeball" wrote in message ... On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" wrote: What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are designed to fight a major European war. Until the next war? Who with? -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"William Black" wrote in
: "eyeball" wrote in message . .. On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" wrote: What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are designed to fight a major European war. Until the next war? Who with? Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown. Rest assured however that at some point there will be both "who" and "with". IBM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message .. . "William Black" wrote in : "eyeball" wrote in message . .. On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" wrote: What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are designed to fight a major European war. Until the next war? Who with? Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown. Rest assured however that at some point there will be both "who" and "with". IBM its best to deal with real threats now than to worry about a hypothetical threat that will probably never materialize. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Jun 10, 8:14*pm, Ian B MacLure wrote:
Who with? * * * * Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown. * * * * Rest assured however that at some point there will be both * * * * "who" and "with". * * * * IBM Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted the next war. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message .. . "William Black" wrote in : "eyeball" wrote in message . .. On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" wrote: What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are designed to fight a major European war. Until the next war? Who with? Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown. Rest assured however that at some point there will be both "who" and "with". I'm sure. But if it turns out to be yet another gang of urban terrorists the F35s will be about as useful as the SSBNs. -- William Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
eyeball wrote:
On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black" wrote: What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are designed to fight a major European war. Until the next war? Next war - to bomb Peking you either need a very long range (twice across the Pacific) or launch from a carrier. Tactical against insurgents does not need the range and stealth. Sea launch may be needed if there are no near by airports. Short take off using roads could be useful. Tactical and stategic bombing are going to need different planes. Andrew Swallow |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"William Black" wrote in
: [snip] Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1 Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers. Rubbish. What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish quantities with great precision. Evidently you've missed the point that PGMs can be delivered from altitudes where the carrier is largely immune from ground fire of the kind asshats have available. What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are designed to fight a major European war. Which would neatly rob us of the ability to deal with a war of that kind. You may think thats wise but most folks don't. IBM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logger Choice | Jamie Denton | Soaring | 10 | July 6th 07 03:13 PM |
Headset Choice | jad | Piloting | 14 | August 9th 06 07:59 AM |
Which DC Headphone is best choice? | [email protected] | Piloting | 65 | June 27th 06 11:50 PM |
!! HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Military Aviation | 2 | September 3rd 04 04:48 PM |
!!HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Soaring | 0 | September 3rd 04 12:01 AM |