One of its leaders has admitted the obvious: for years the USAF has concentrated on limited COIN-op tech at the expense of other needed communities that actually provide real and valid deterrent capability to the nation.
“I think right now what we’re trying to do is remind everybody that we’ve got to start planning to build systems and to field capabilities to fight in a contested environment again,” Lt. Gen. Charles “CR” Davis, the Air Force military deputy for acquisition, said during his first interview since becoming the service’s top uniformed weapons buyer.
The lost decade-plus. Any USAF leadership that doesn't concentrate on all areas of needed combat capability is cheating the nation, especially when you consider the billions we pump into the USAF every year.
Fielding the RC aircraft club using permissive-air, permissive-WX drones with up-rated snowmobile engines was only one segment of needed air power, and a very small one at that.
Also, a great way to sink a military article is to quote the Teal Group who on any given day, might be able to estimate future airliner sales.
We do not need a $500B long-range bomber, since any kind that is made won't be survivable in anti-access scenarios where the enemy has a broad suite of sensors, fighters and SAMS.
If the USAF is to invest anything for the Pacific Rim anti-access world what should it be?
1. Keep B-1 bombers and F-15Es updated/sustained for JASSM.
2. Convert some C-130s and C-17s into JASSM carriers.
3. Qualify the Tomahawk Block IV on the B-52.
4. Build the FB-22.
5. Build a new F-22.
6. Cancel the F-35
7. Invest in a few different models of 737 ISR.
7 comments:
Eric; the USAF dilemma is somewhat a consequence of the 'multi-role combat aircraft' syndrome. John Boyd had it right in believing aircraft should be purpose-designed, which is what he envisioned for the F-15, F-16, A-10. But the 'F' platforms have been more utilised in 'A' functions and so counter-air capabilities have declined. The F-35 of course will likely have debatable air combat capabilities.
Considering the huge amount of research that was done re F-16 enhancements, a purer air combat platform should have been developed and another version purpose built for the JSF role.
The more telling quote from Lt Gen Charles 'Slick' Davis is this:
“We’ve become very good at fielding the conventional, non-hardened, non-threatened type of systems,” Davis said. “Now, we’ve got to take a look at a different kind of mindset when we start planning for how we’re going to tailor acquisition for that.”
A bit like trying to close the gate after the horses have already bolted while all the cattle and other livestock are being rustled out the open back door of the barn by the hired hands!
Doesn't really matter, though, because all the feed stock has been eaten by the rats and mice.
Slick Davis, one of the architects of the JSF debacle, now spruiking the new strategy. ROFL
This lot live in la-la land.
And what is the different kind of mindset you now need to be looking at to start your planning for how to tailor acquisition for that, Mr Davis?
Have you finally realised you have f*cked up?...or is that a bridge too far, for you?
Take a look at the issues with the Global Hawk , they can't even get frigging drones right!
Meanwhile the Chinese are hard at work building up the largest and most modern manned fighter force in the world.
Gee, you think it's time to do something other than perpetuating the last manned fighter is the Just So Farcical F-35?
Hey I've go another great idea, lets double the number of crew on the light skinned semi-functional LCS and send them into the now contested South China Sea?
Holy cow, the bridge too far was never finished. Watch out for that last step, its a winner!
To Cocidius, I wouldn't give up yet on the friggin drones. They (the jet-powered models) will most likely become a more reliable, cost-effective and critical piece of the overall mix within the next 10-15 yrs.
I'd put them up there with the call to develop an FB-22 class platform.
As to Eric's plan... Very interesting and seemingly a rational viewpoint at that. I'll concur with much of your proposed strategic assessment listed above.
My only add-on would be in what to do in the interim, stop-gap wise, 'if' the F-35 is indeed cancelled or excessively further cut back during an uncertain LRIP?
Let's say, for argument sake, that USAF will actually NOT have $5bn to $8bn to play with in [F-35A] TACAIR procurement over the next 8 years as is currently assumed.
So then what? Maybe $2bn per year or so in Gross Weapon System costs, could go into an F-16V type derivative procurement? Ultimately 20 ships per year? To at least get something 'modern' and competitive up in the air -- operationally wise -- in the next 8 years?
Proposing a slightly different list:
1. Build robust and performant orbital data relay and ISR infrastructure
2. Get the *autonomous* UAV thingies (carrier capable) online asap, build carrier capable X-47 asap
3. Build a new optionally manned, large (for strategic tasks), loitering VLO aircraft (called it bomber if you must) as boost-phase interceptor platform, ISR platform, and tanker for LO assets
4a. Build a new, heavy, theatre range VLO cruise missile
4b. Build a new, heavy, theatre range ballistic missile for time critical, mobile targets
5. Build carrier capable NGAD/FAXX with 1500nm combat radius to replace every tactical fastmover that is not replaced by the F-35C (yes, I know ... build only F-35C ...)
6. Build (modernized) C-17 till you have 350 aircraft, then keep on building open end on minimum rate
7. As stated, do a plug'n'play cruise missile magazine for the C-17
8. Build more carriers
Post a Comment