2010 qdr

[mmx1]

goes to congress today
Early purported final version; I'm sure a more official version will be posted later. Summaries are already in the news.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26120037/qdr-feb-2010

Discuss

 

[Crazy8]

It's nice to see more Growlers in the plan, especially since the Air Force gave up on standoff jamming from B-52's and electronic attack F-35 variants may be a long time coming. I wonder if the AT-6 / OA-X is included in the ISR initiative, and how the Navy plans to integrate UCAV's into carrier operations.

 

[mmx1]

I am real surprised by the decision to terminate the C-17 line; it seemed like the sort of support we sorely need from the AF these days.

 

[Flash]

I am real surprised by the decision to terminate the C-17 line; it seemed like the sort of support we sorely need from the AF these days.

Yes and no. There is only so much money to go around these days and the USAF said a long time ago they had enough C-17's, about 30 planes ago if I remember the numbers right. The only reason that we have more than 200 is that Congress keeps buying them, something about jobs. That money could be used for other things in the USAF or DoD budget, stuff that the service or DoD says it needs more than a squadron more or C-17's that will likely end up in a ANG unit. So does the USAF need any more? They certainly don't think so, why buy more? And maybe with all the wing problems with the older C-130's we could use newer ones of those, or modified A-10's, CSAR helos, Predators/Reapers, light attack aircraft, new GPS satellites, RC-135's.....need I go on? And that is only USAF stuff.

 

[helolumpy]

I am real surprised by the decision to terminate the C-17 line; it seemed like the sort of support we sorely need from the AF these days.

The blue suiters had a good thing going for a while. They didn't need to budget for the aircraft and congress just kept giving them extra money.

There is no such thing as having too much airlift. (Like saying you have too much beer in the fridge!) The Air Force has been trying to force money into the F-22 program at the expense of all others to include personnel.

I'm sure they'll get some kind of supplemental to make up the difference, unlike the Navy; the Air Force knows how to say "no" effectively.

 

[helolumpy]

Looks like we're keeping the carriers we have.
According to the 2010 QDR the Navy (2011-2015) will consist of :
10 - 11 aircraft carriers and 10 carrier air wings
84 - 88 large surface combatants, including 21 ? 32 ballistic missile defense-capable combatants and Aegis Ashore
14 - 28 small surface combatants (+14 mine countermeasure ships)
29 - 31 amphibious warfare ships
53 - 55 attack submarines and 4 guided missile submarines
126 - 171 land-based intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and electronic warfare (EW) aircraft (manned and unmanned)
3 maritime prepositioning squadrons
30 - 33 combat logistics force ships (+1 Mobile Landing Platform (MLP))
17 - 25 command and support vessels (including Joint High Speed Vessels, 3 T-AKE Class dry cargo/ammunition ships, 1 mobile landing platform)
51 roll-on/roll-off strategic sealift vessels

 

[Flash]

There is no such thing as having too much airlift. (Like saying you have too much beer in the fridge!) The Air Force has been trying to force money into the F-22 program at the expense of all others to include personnel.

Well the F-22 is gone so that excuse is going away. My point was that the USAF says we have enough airlift, maybe we should trust them. There are plenty of other programs, aircraft included, that could better use the money than getting more C-17's. We only have a finite amount of money, hard to believe but it is true, and there are other priorities out there.

 

[helolumpy]

My point was that the USAF says we have enough airlift, maybe we should trust them. There are plenty of other programs, aircraft included, that could better use the money than getting more C-17's. We only have a finite amount of money, hard to believe but it is true, and there are other priorities out there.

While I will agree that the Air Force says they have enough lift (to support the Air Force) I think the Army may beg to differ. Based on every OPLAN I've ever seen, the shortfall is always on strategic lift assets (both air and sea).

 

[Flash]

While I will agree that the Air Force says they have enough lift (to support the Air Force) I think the Army may beg to differ. Based on every OPLAN I've ever seen, the shortfall is always on strategic lift assets (both air and sea).

If we gave the Army everything they wanted we wouldn't have money left over to paint our ships. There are a myriad of shortfalls in many OPLAN's, from ISR to combat aircraft to lift. We will never have enough of anything, lift included. The point remains that the services, including the USAF, have many more pressing priorities than keeping the C-17 plant open.