KC-X and CSAR-X delayed....again, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 22-12-2008 @ 05:24 PM by Zaphod58

I heard from a source today that both the KC-X and the CSAR-X have been delayed at least another year, to allow them to stay under the R&D budget. This lets the Air Farce buy another 60 F-22s, bringing the total up to 243.

The fighter pilot mentality is destroying the Air Force. All they want are F-22s because they're the shiniest new toy in town. When the time comes for them to go anywhere they won't be able to because we won't have enough tanker support to get them there. And we'll be fighting future wars with the YOUNGEST bomber in the inventory being 20+ years old, because bombers aren't "sexy" enough to buy.

reply posted on 22-12-2008 @ 05:30 PM by RFBurns

Ya us engineers need to improve something or add something so the thing will do what its supposed to do.

Yep thanks to the engineers who designed and built it to begin with, were making sure it stays in the air when its supposed to.

Cheers!!!!

Mod Note: Please stay on Topic – Review This Link.

[edit on Mon Dec 22 2008 by Jbird]

reply posted on 22-12-2008 @ 05:37 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply posted on 22-12-2008 @ 06:17 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by RFBurns

What does that reply have ANYTHING to do with the USAF delaying badly needed tankers and helicopters?

Stick to the topic please.

By staying under the R&D budget that means that the money to "buy" them comes from another part of the budget than the money for the F-22s. Both the CSAR-X and the KC-X have been awarded at least once and overturned. It has NOTHING to do with engineers or engineering.

[edit on 12/22/2008 by Zaphod58]

reply posted on 22-12-2008 @ 06:38 PM by GenRadek

I'm surprised that our AF is still managing to operate at the limits its on with all these delays. But then again, I think the Pentagon itself needs a clean out and kick the head of Pentagon out, because I am still upset over the low number of F-22s to be purchased. I don't know what they are thinking!
We have tankers that are nearly 30-40 years old, with the newest maybe 20 years? (DC/KC-10 Extender? I maybe wrong on the age). But this is getting ridicules!
I think we should take control of the Pentagon and fix them to run properly. This is getting embarrassing.

reply posted on 22-12-2008 @ 06:43 PM by Zaphod58

The KC-10 was bought starting in 1979, and I BELIEVE the last ones were bought in 1986. It was somewhere around 86 when the last ones were bought. All but one are still flying. They lost one in a ground fire accident, and it burned to the ground. That's the only loss so far for the -10s.

reply posted on 22-12-2008 @ 07:36 PM by GenRadek

reply to post by Zaphod58

Well at least we are not that bad off on the KC-10s!

I still believe the Boeing bid with its version of the tanker is the best bet. I hope the Pentagon gets it act together and head out of its a$$ and starts working for the benefit if our defense.

But dont get me started on the mucho delayed bomber program!

reply posted on 22-12-2008 @ 09:58 PM by WestPoint23

reply to post by Zaphod58

The KC-X contract and CSAR-X program have been suffering long before the F-22 had anything to do with it. I personally am in favor of buying another 60 Raptors, I think we need more, but this is better than nothing. If we faced a global DEFCON 2 situation the tanker force could be maintained effectively in the near future, however you can't produce more F-22's once the line closes. And the AF is buying more bombers, currently there is a medium bomber in development scheduled for service in 2018. That dovetails nicely with FOC for a significant number of units with the F-35. The only things the USAF is not replacing is the E-3 fleet. AWACS have always been an integral part of the air umbrella, I guess we'll be headed to another KC-X scenario with that one too.

reply posted on 22-12-2008 @ 10:11 PM by Zaphod58

Yeah, it's great to have more F-22s. But do you realize that our YOUNGEST KC-10s are 22 years old? Our YOUNGEST KC-135s are over 40? They're older than the crews flying them in most cases! You say we can maintain the tanker fleet, but if the Air Force had any brains they would have replaced them a LONG time ago, so we wouldn't have to scramble to keep 40 year old planes flying. Do you realize how much the maintenance costs have skyrocketed over the last few years? Or how much the downtime has skyrocketed over the last few years? Have you ever seen how many planes in the tanker fleet are completely unflyable, but are still on the books? Because the Air Force CAN'T retire them? They taxi them around the base every so often, and start engines every so often, but that's all they can do.

The 2018 bomber looks great. ON PAPER. Seriously Westpoint, how many projects have you seen come in on time in the last 30 years? Not many. Even if the 2018 bomber comes in on time, how old will the bomber fleet be by then? The B-52s will still be flying, which will put them well into their 50s. The B-1 design will be approaching 40 or so, and the B-2 will be 29. That's IF the project comes in on time. And even then it's going to be a MEDIUM bomber. We need a new heavy bomber design on the order of the B-52.

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 04:52 AM by waynos

I disagree Westpoint, why does the USAF 'need' another 60 Raptors? I would say that keeping the line open is the only reason they are needed. There is no threat to the USA that could only be met by another 60 Raptors as far as I can tell.

However I think that the age of the current tanker fleet is a very real and immediate problem, similar to the quandary faced by the air force of my own country with its desire for more Typhoons and the F-35 against the age of the Nimrod fleet, but at least that aircrafts successor is flying and (at long last) close to service. The fact that there is still no replacement in sight for the KC-135 is nothing short of appalling. And what if the evenual losers of KC-X mk 2 also appeal and get it overturned again? I think the way that contracts are awarded in the USA needs to be shaken up with firm rules in place to stop this sort of thing.

Just imagine if N-G had protested the ATF award? The F-22 might not have been in service at all yet

Hey zap, looks like you've got a stalker!

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 10:06 AM by GenRadek

reply to post by Zaphod58

I don't know what they are thinking over there in the Dept. of Defense and the Pentagon. Sure, our AF is still a powerhouse not to be taken lightly, but damn, we have legacy aircraft that are all at least 20-30 years old (and these are the youngest ones!), with airframes that require constant maintenance and upgrades just to keep them flying. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some are held together with spit and chicken wire. And this is what we are to go forward with into combat in the 21st century? F-15s that snap in half for no reason? Tankers and bombers that are almost twice as old as those flying them? Flying fighters that are older than the pilot too?

And I agree with the AF's original requirement of nearly 300 F-22s to be produced to cover all aspects into the 21st century. But they think 160-180 is enough? When Russia and China are mass producing top of the line fighters that can really do damage to our aging fleet? And no way the F-35 can do everything the F-22 can.

What we need is new tankers, more new fighters and a damn heavy bomber that works and won't be limited in numbers like how they did with the B-2. I hope the Boeing bid wins because its not just about buying American, its about making sure we have the best of the best supplying our fleet.

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 10:22 AM by C0bzz

Have your cake, and eat it too.

Get the 60 new F-22's and get the A330's later. Besides, if we don't buy the F-22 now, we don't get the F-22 ever. If don't buy the A330 now, we wait a couple of years.

[edit on 23/12/2008 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 11:00 AM by Canada_EH

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Zaphod58

F-15s that snap in half for no reason?

Now don't get carried away. We know plenty well what happened to the 15's. Don't disregard facts when making your good points. If you need information on the F-15 accidents just visit the link here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 11:03 AM by WestPoint23

reply to post by Zaphod58

I don't disagree with you, the vacation of the 90's, in all aspects, has cost us today. Couple that with the high tempo ops currently going on and it's not a happy picture.

However, the Tanker fleet, while perhaps being the most aged, is not the only one overdue for replacement. The Fighter fleet needs replacing too, the F-15's would be a liability to fly into a the next great war, for both safety and capability reasons. Clearly the AF, like any other military unit works as a team, no one single component in isolation is the end all be all. Sure the US might not face a peer competitor with their own F-22's soon, but like I said, once that line closes, that's it. Most F-35 units will not hit FOC until the middle of the next decade. Even if you issued a new KC-X contract six months, even a year early, it's not going to translate into much, any time soon. And it is my firm belief that the USAF still does not know what to do with that issue so they delay it and instead purchase more Raptors to gain something out of nothing.

Now I'm 100% with you at being upset with how the AF runs it's general procurement process and sets it development priorities but it's hardly something to blame on the Raptor. As for the interim bomber, it's all about timing. Again, due to great foresight in the 90's the B-2 line was closed after 21 airframes, and we were left with no capability to quickly develop a strategic and stealthy next generation bomber. (see an F-22 comparison here?) Now, it takes far less time and money to produce a new "medium" bomber, and procure it in large numbers (100+) than to wait even longer for an exotic bomber which would be once again procured in limited numbers. Not an ideal situation, but that's how it is.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by WestPoint23]

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 04:46 PM by GenRadek

reply to post by Canada_EH

No no, I understand the reasons why it did (ie the airframe stresses and structural failure from way too much use). Hence why I mentioned them "snapping in half". (I should have said for no "observable reason") I wouldn't want to fly aircraft that are so worn out, there is a danger I'd have to bail out when I do a high G maneuver while the plane falls apart around me!

I'm sure you are aware of the A-10's similar problem with the wing's and the structural deficiency in, I believe its called, the "wing box". Are these the signs our AF is in serious trouble?

This is why I am upset with the current leaders and "professionals" and "experts" in the DoD and the Pentagon. They think they know whats best, but in reality, they are dumber than rocks.
Problems with acquiring new aircraft, bickering over allotments of funding/aircraft/projects/etc, shortsightedness of acquisitions of new weapon platforms and vehicles, can't decide what role the AF will play in the 21st century. Geeze, someone has to fix this fast. If we can't get an agreement on a new tanker, what else will happen?

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 05:02 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by WestPoint23

Yes we do need more fighters to replace the F-15s and F-16s. But it's not going to do any good if we don't have tankers to get them anywhere. Do you have any idea how many times we had to FCF a fighter, because it sat for THREE WEEKS waiting on a tanker to move it to where it was going? And then they had the gall to SELL KC-135s to Turkey and Singapore! We need a LOT of new aircraft, but they're concentrating on buying their shiny new fighter, and ignoring the other aircraft we need to replace. I realize that the new tanker would take time to get fully into service, but every year we delay it makes the KC fleet that much older, and that much more risk, and costlier to fly.

We need to have something in the pipes NOW, not two years from now. With the protests, and delays by the time the KC-135 gets replaced at this rate, it's going to be 100 years old.

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 05:31 PM by RFBurns

Stick with topic...your wish is granted sir engineer basher.

Lets talk about the delay, which IS topic related yes?

Perhaps the delay's are part of the opening eyes of congress and the public seeing that all this false premise war and expense is not justified to dump billions more into hardware we really dont need when the effort is to stop the current false pretense war and prevent another from starting, hence no funds allocated for those new war toys.

Its not just a matter of what the field generals and the well wishers of war want, its what the public wants and what congress sees as priority or not.

It comes right down to economics, and even the military and its industrial complex are also affected by the overall economic situation. When taxpayers cant foot the bill due to loss of jobs and industries moving overseas and banks and auto industries taking even more freebie money, there isnt any way congress is going to finance more funds for military hardware when there wont be anyone able to pay for it.

I fully agree that the military needs the best and latest hardware it can get. But realistically, it comes down to the basic fundamentals of the nation being able to afford it. And right now, the economic situation can barely afford to put food on the table, much less finance the much needed new hardware.

Give it some time, couple of years after this new administration gets into place and starts developing a plan to revive the money machine so that these war toys can be paid for.

Cheers!!!!

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 05:39 PM by Zaphod58

Sorry, but that's not the reason for the delay. The reason is that they want to buy more F-22s, and the only way to get the money is to delay the tankers and rescue helicopters that they need.

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 05:52 PM by RFBurns

Here is a link to the Status of Appropriations Legislation for Fiscal year 2009 which includes defense spending.

At this link, which is from the same site, it shows at the bottom of the page the already allocated budget for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 under "Amendment #1" and there are 3 other amendments that have to be meet.

Hope that helps. 162.5 billion just for appropriations to the defense department combined for 2008-2009. The year 2008 had 96.6 billion and 2009 has less allocted at 65.5 billion.

Looks to me like they may be able to purchase those F-22's but there isnt enough allocated to add the KC-X and CSAR-X. I would just take a wild guess that it is part of the reasons for the delays so they can either amend the current set budget for 2009 or shoot at it again for 2010.

Cheers!!!!

reply posted on 23-12-2008 @ 05:59 PM by Zaphod58

That's exactly what I said in the first post, only without the numbers. The entire reason they were left in the R&D budget is to keep them out of the appropriations budget. By taking the money to keep them alive out of R&D instead of appropriations, it frees up the money for the Raptor purchase.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^