Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bomber

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2018, 23:35
by basher54321
The top Air Force leadership went along with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ termination of the F-22 fighter—after producing less than half the required number—because they believed they couldn’t win the argument and that getting approval to build a new bomber was more important.

In “Journey: Memoirs of an Air Force Chief of Staff,” now in bookstores, retired Gen. Norton Schwartz said his predecessor, retired Gen. Mike Moseley, “never gave up in his principled attempts to get those 381 F-22s,” for which Gates fired Moseley and the then-Secretary of the Air Force, Mike Wynne. Schwartz was named to replace Moseley, and Mike Donley was brought in as Wynne’s replacement.

Although there were at least a dozen internal and external studies confirming 381 as the right number of F-22s, “I wanted an independent assessment to determine the minimum number,” Schwartz wrote, “and what we came up with” was 243 aircraft. Gates rejected that number too, “even though we had shaved over 35 percent off the Moseley/Wynne demand for 381,” Schwartz said. That difference of 60 airplanes would have cost “$13 billion at a time that defense budgets were being tightened,” and Gates wanted that money for “things like remotely piloted aircraft and MRAPs.”

Schwartz and Donley concluded “the F-22 debate had consumed enough oxygen and it was time to move on,” Schwartz said, and the two were “certainly not going to go to the Hill behind Secretary Gates’s back and lobby for more … That was never going to happen on our watch.” Schwartz acknowledged that some thought this “too pristine a judgement,” and that “anything in Washington is fair, but I say no. I had never been disloyal to a boss and I wasn’t about to start then.” Schwartz wrote extensively in the book about how Gates fought for Schwartz’ nomination to be Chief against congressional resistance.

Gates, in his own memoir, “Duty,” argued that the F-22 was useless in the Afghanistan and Iraq counterinsurgencies, was a Cold War relic, and that a Chinese stealth fighter wouldn’t be along until the 2020s, so nothing would be lost by killing it. In actual fact, the F-22 has been essential in the Syria campaign and China fielded its first operational stealth squadron in 2017. Every Air Combat Command chief since Gates tenure has warned that the F-22 force is far too small for the demands placed on it.

There was “a method to our madness,” Schwartz continued. “We felt that the real coin of the realm was the replacement bomber” and “we had our work cut out for us” convincing a “very skeptical civilian leadership” that the B-1 and B-52 would not last forever, that the B-2 fleet was too small, and that a replacement aircraft, in numbers, was urgently needed. Gates terminated the Next-Generation Bomber—the project preceding what’s now known as the B-21—for what Schwartz agreed were “rational reasons.” The NGB “had grown too big” and was carrying too many missions and requirements. It was to have an air-to-air missile capability for self defense, Schwartz revealed, describing that requirement as “not completely nonsensical” but unaffordable. The attitude was that “cost was no object” on the NGB, Schwartz claimed, and that didn’t meet with Gates’ worldview, “So he cancelled it.”

In explaining the termination of the NGB to Congress and the press, Gates claimed that the B-2’s unit cost had swelled unreasonably and this is why it had been cancelled in its day, but that was exactly backwards. It was cutting the planned 132 B-2s to 20 that caused its unit cost to swell, because all of the research and development costs associated with it had to be amortized across a force less than a sixth as large as had been planned.

Nevertheless, Schwartz and Donley believed there was a “valid need” for a new bomber; an “unquestioned requirement” to provide such an option for a future president, “both for warfighting and deterrence purposes.” Schwartz and Donley had to convince Gates the Air Force “would not repeat the experience of the B-2.” They argued that USAF had to have 80-100 new bombers, and the service would swear to keep the cost as the prime consideration and not break a ceiling of $550 million in 2010 dollars. Moreover, they promised the aircraft would rely heavily on offboard sensors, jammers, and other capabilities to keep the cost down, as part of a system of systems.

“We had to convince him of all of this, or like the [NGB], the long-range strike bomber would be dead in the water,” Schwartz asserted. Ultimately, Gates relented, apparently persuaded that “we as an Air Force could field such a system with discipline.” Schwartz said he and Donley are proud of having “succeeded in persuading Gates” the B-21 would be pursued with “discipline like he had not seen, and so it’s up to our successors to deliver on that promise. The Air Force has to, if it is going to bring this one home.”

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... omber.aspx

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2018, 23:55
by popcorn
Another factor going against the F-22 was LM backing down it's lobbying support for more F-22s. No need to expend good will with DoD and jeopardize the much more lucrative JSF deal.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 01:44
by marauder2048
"I had never been disloyal to a boss and I wasn’t about to start then.” Schwartz wrote extensively in the book about how Gates fought for Schwartz’ nomination to be Chief against congressional resistance.

Translation: Gates fired people until he found a transport pilot toady who would, uncritically, do his bidding.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 03:24
by popcorn
The General had certain qualifications that obviously appealed to Gates who was focused on supporting troops on the ground. Actual flying hours in helos and at the controls of Specte/Spooky gunships and leadership roles at SOC were a plus in his favor.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 05:05
by smsgtmac
Feh. A number about "how many F-22s" without the context of all the other force structure and strategy variability is useless. I lost count of how many long range strike studies I worked, but I can tell you exactly zero of them ever had significant overlap in their ground rules and assumptions to make the results repeatable. All you have to have happen to knock your latest and greatest analysis in the toilet is to have some SecDef wannabe CongressCritter throw a wrench in some apparently unrelated acquisition plan--and find out it wasn't unrelated at all.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 13:10
by mixelflick
So over and over, the MINIMUM required number of F-22's was 243. One could argue it was 350 or so and politics brought it down to 243, but it's pretty clear 243 (according to any credible study) was the MINIMUM.

And this idiot refused to ask for more, because of his "loyalty" to his boss - not to the warfighter. Our armed forces are run by these idiots? I'd hate to be in the cockpit as a warfighter, since their needs (and fighting and winning, the Air Force mission) is dismissed so readily.

I can understand now why the Air Force is hemorrahging pilots...

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 13:37
by popcorn
So where would it end? He objects and gets fired. Replacement objects, gets fired.. down the line until all 4-stars are fired.. then all 3-stars.. 2-stars- 1-stars.. . Fact is civilians get to make the call. Schwartz saw the writing on the wall and played the hand he was dealt. His fingerprints can be found all over the B-21.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 13:50
by hythelday
mixelflick wrote:So over and over, the MINIMUM required number of F-22's was 243. One could argue it was 350 or so and politics brought it down to 243, but it's pretty clear 243 (according to any credible study) was the MINIMUM.

And this idiot refused to ask for more, because of his "loyalty" to his boss - not to the warfighter. Our armed forces are run by these idiots? I'd hate to be in the cockpit as a warfighter, since their needs (and fighting and winning, the Air Force mission) is dismissed so readily.

I can understand now why the Air Force is hemorrahging pilots...


Would you rather have entire B-21 programme scrapped over 50 additional Raptors? And I don't know how indespesable F-22 is over Syria, but Cougars and MaxxPros saved a lot of people their lives, health and limbs. Instead of sh*tting on Gates and this "idiot" (who knew exactly what happens to 700-strong Raptor fleet hardliners) better ask people who decided to invade Iraq why wasn't there more money and strategic foresight available.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 14:00
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I can assure you once the MRAP vehicles got to Iraq the number of soldiers I saw coming into the CSH dropped like a rock.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 14:26
by f-16adf
Remember the context of that time.


GOP had a gigantic defeat in Nov. 2006 (lost House and Senate, because of Iraq.)

December 2007 ushered in the beginning of the "Great Recession".


Neither Bush or Obama were going to ask for, or give their approval to X number of F-22's or NGB when our economy was shedding over +300,000 jobs a month and people's homes were going into foreclosure. Not to mention fighting 2 wars, one of which was extremely unpopular.


That would have been political suicide-

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 14:58
by mixelflick
hythelday wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So over and over, the MINIMUM required number of F-22's was 243. One could argue it was 350 or so and politics brought it down to 243, but it's pretty clear 243 (according to any credible study) was the MINIMUM.

And this idiot refused to ask for more, because of his "loyalty" to his boss - not to the warfighter. Our armed forces are run by these idiots? I'd hate to be in the cockpit as a warfighter, since their needs (and fighting and winning, the Air Force mission) is dismissed so readily.

I can understand now why the Air Force is hemorrahging pilots...


Would you rather have entire B-21 programme scrapped over 50 additional Raptors? And I don't know how indespesable F-22 is over Syria, but Cougars and MaxxPros saved a lot of people their lives, health and limbs. Instead of sh*tting on Gates and this "idiot" (who knew exactly what happens to 700-strong Raptor fleet hars) better ask people who decided to invade Iraq why wasn't there more money and strategic foresight available.


No, but 300 or more new Raptors vs. no B-21's? In a heartbeat..

Our country has enjoyed air superiority for so long, we've forgotten how important it is. The B-2 is perfectly capable of penetrating Russian/Chinese airspace, as are new and better stealth cruise missiles the B-52/B-1 fleet can carry. Hell the B-52 is going to fly until 2060 (at least). The B-1 could fly even longer, and more than a few of both are in flyable storage.

This doesn't even take into consideration hypersonic weapons, which would soundly out-perform the B-21 in all but a small niche of strike/ISR missions. With enough F-22's around, the F-35, B-52, B-1, B-2, F-15E, F-16 and F/A-18E/F/G's can all do their thing unabated. Conversely, because there aren't enough F-22's around that assumption is an open question.

China's J-20's, J-31's, J-10B/C, Flanker derivatives and SU-35 fleet is worrisome. It's not a "given" they'd be wiped from the skies. Face it: Truncating the F-22 buy was the wrong decision. Even Gates has to acknowledge that now. But he's got his pension, while our pilots have to make due with relics from the 1970's...

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 16:09
by mixelflick
In fact, we can't even properly ugrade the F-22 as per this recent DoD report..

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03 ... n-program/

This is further evidence that the USAF has lost sight of air superiority/dominance as a priority. The fact we have 40 year old F-15's soldiering on in this role is pathetic. Sure, it's a great fighter. But staying ahead of the threat is infinitely cheaper than playing catch up, or even staying evenly matched. What kind of wake up call is it going to take for AIr Force (and Navy) leadership to get with the program?

Having our clock's cleaned in the Taiwanese straight? Losing several F-15's/16's to SU-35's in Syria? Or something even more embarrassing, like a single F-22 being forced into the merge by restrictive ROE's and downed by a Mig-29?

"I had never been disloyal to a boss and I wasn’t about to start then.” Schwartz wrote extensively in the book about how Gates fought for Schwartz’ nomination to be Chief against congressional resistance...". And you just read in his own words where *EVERY* credible study pinned the MINIMUM number of Raptors at 243. So this guy ***BY HIS OWN ADMISSION*** put his career ahead of what the war fighter needed. Gates likely knew Obama was no fan of the F-22, so he did the same IMO. Classic case of the blind dove leading the blind, and as we all know sh!t rolls downhill...

I'm sorry but those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Gates was an idiot for truncating the F-22 buy, no apologies. Ditto for Schwartz.

This "we traded the F-22 for B-21" story is dubious IMO. If that's really the case, why are we only hearing about it now? Likely because these "leaders" in power.... only want to stay in power. Gates is gone, he can't be held accountable for his terrible decision. As time has gone on, the decision to cancel the F-22 being a mistake only grows in magnitude. It's only a matter of time before some senator starts asking why we're in this position now. So yeah, I think AIr Force leadership fears being held accountable.

Thus, the "we traded F-22's for B-21's" hoax..

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 16:39
by hythelday
Let's just say I can't agree with anything you wrote on the matter.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 19:39
by botsing
mixelflick wrote:Thus, the "we traded F-22's for B-21's" hoax..

As said by four star general mixelflick who has as Ph.D. in Military and Strategic Studies.

Oh wait... :mrgreen:

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2018, 20:11
by wrightwing
hythelday wrote:Let's just say I can't agree with anything you wrote on the matter.

I agree.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 01:41
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
China's J-20's, J-31's, J-10B/C, Flanker derivatives and SU-35 fleet is worrisome. It's not a "given" they'd be wiped from the skies. Face it: Truncating the F-22 buy was the wrong decision. Even Gates has to acknowledge that now. But he's got his pension, while our pilots have to make due with relics from the 1970's...



Disagree 100% as the F-35 is more than capable of handling any current or projected threat in the next 20+ years. In addition it will be built in vast numbers and will be continually upgrade over it's lifetime.


In short the F-35 will be around long after the F-22 is retired....... :wink:

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 02:06
by count_to_10
So, even with the “operational” squadron, the projection that the Chinese won’t have usable stealth fighters until the 2020’s isn’t looking that bad.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 02:27
by marauder2048
popcorn wrote:So where would it end? He objects and gets fired. Replacement objects, gets fired.. down the line until all 4-stars are fired.. then all 3-stars.. 2-stars- 1-stars.. . Fact is civilians get to make the call. Schwartz saw the writing on the wall and played the hand he was dealt. His fingerprints can be found all over the B-21.


Or that amount of attrition would result in Congress recommending that the Secretary of Defense be dismissed.
With just Wynne and Mosley fired it looked like a personality clash but with this amount of blood letting it's a problem
with the Secretary..

Congress was absolutely right to oppose Schwartz's nomination; as events have shown he was not particularly qualified.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 03:00
by popcorn
Congress opposed him? He was appointed so obviously had enuf support.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 04:17
by marauder2048
popcorn wrote:Congress opposed him? He was appointed so obviously had enuf support.


Looking above:

"Gates fought for Schwartz’ nomination to be Chief against congressional resistance."

Gates also admitted in his books to exaggerating much of the Air Force's alleged non-cooperation
with things like ISR. So who knows what Gates misrepresented to Congress during this period.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2018, 14:54
by Scorpion1alpha
Disagree 100% as the F-35 is more than capable of handling any current or projected threat in the next 20+ years.


Disagree 100% with your 100% disagreement

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2018, 01:02
by Corsair1963
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
Disagree 100% as the F-35 is more than capable of handling any current or projected threat in the next 20+ years.


Disagree 100% with your 100% disagreement


So, what type do you believe will out perform the F-35 in the next 20 years to so....... :?

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2018, 17:58
by mixelflick
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
China's J-20's, J-31's, J-10B/C, Flanker derivatives and SU-35 fleet is worrisome. It's not a "given" they'd be wiped from the skies. Face it: Truncating the F-22 buy was the wrong decision. Even Gates has to acknowledge that now. But he's got his pension, while our pilots have to make due with relics from the 1970's...



Disagree 100% as the F-35 is more than capable of handling any current or projected threat in the next 20+ years. In addition it will be built in vast numbers and will be continually upgrade over it's lifetime.


In short the F-35 will be around long after the F-22 is retired....... :wink:


I think it'd be fair to say that for the next 10 years, the F-35 may hold an advantage vs. foreign adversaries. It's a pretty bold thing to look 20 years out though, don't you think? China's LO/VLO airframes are only going to get better, and I'd expect them to be at parity with us on that front eventually. The same however, probably won't be true of engines and avionics/sensors. Still, maintaining our lead 20 years out I think is..... dicey.

It's going to be interesting to see how the USAF deals with the PERCEPTION that the F-35 can't hold its own air to air. I'd bet anything though the Israeli's do it for us first, as they did with the F-15/F-16...

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2018, 18:01
by mixelflick
botsing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Thus, the "we traded F-22's for B-21's" hoax..

As said by four star general mixelflick who has as Ph.D. in Military and Strategic Studies.

Correction: 5 stars

Plus I've built several scale models including an F-14, 15, 16, 18, B-1B, Testors F-19 stealth fighter, an A-10 etc.. And I've been to a lot of airshows... :)

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2018, 23:21
by XanderCrews
f-16adf wrote:Remember the context of that time.


GOP had a gigantic defeat in Nov. 2006 (lost House and Senate, because of Iraq.)

December 2007 ushered in the beginning of the "Great Recession".


Neither Bush or Obama were going to ask for, or give their approval to X number of F-22's or NGB when our economy was shedding over +300,000 jobs a month and people's homes were going into foreclosure. Not to mention fighting 2 wars, one of which was extremely unpopular.


That would have been political suicide-


They suicided anyway

So they spent a trillion dollars on a stimulus everyone agreed failed, killed actual jobs with the F-22 production, doubled down in Afghanistan, Withdrew prematurely from Iraq setting the rise of ISIS, introduced a massively divisive and deceptive healthcare plan and lost the Democrat Super Majority within just 2 years.

Obama was re-elected in 2012 they held the white house at least, with yet more republicans moving into both houses, and by 2016 the democratic golden girl lost to Donald Trump. The Republicans had more power than they had since the 1920s.

If that isn't suicide I don't know what is. The entireity of Obama's first term should have been nothing but jobs and the economy but that Super Majority was just too much fun to let go to waste so they engaged in stupid crap.

You'll never get anyone on the Obama dream team to admit to it easily but they screwed it up badly when they had blank check basically. Even at the time congress critters from F-22 manufacturing districts were asking why we were killing jobs on the F-22 assembly to "create" jobs with the stimulus at the cost of trillions. And why on earth couldn't F-22 production simply be rolled into there somehow. But it was important we gave all this money for "shovel ready" jobs in the near future rather than jobs we already had going, but wanted to kill off. Government will always government. The stimulus failed hard. Turns out just unleashing a trillion dollars in fun money lead to a lot of waste and make work projects without much effect (shocking I know)

But lets use the context argument. I don't really agree with the notion of this "horse trade" for B-21s thats kind of ridiculous. (didn't we horse trade it for the F-35 back then? thats what I was told)

The biggest issue at the time was that the F-22 was taking a bunch of heat for huge cost and you had unarmored humvees and other gear that was seemingly defenseless against the latest in haji technology leading to more casualties. Rumsfield was "cavalier" about all this and seen as an uncaring monster. Gates was the breath of fresh air to ge things back on track but seems just as cocksure and pigheaded for other reasons. So its not like we "traded" F-22s for MRAPs directly but the F-22 was the white elephant.

However, even at the time people who could think beyond election cycles were pointing out that it would not be RPGs and IEDs forever, and F-22s were going to take us into the next 50 years, and in wars that you had to win, rather than just get bored with and leave eventually. Theres no getting the F-22s back, and its telling as had been said how many times bringing them back comes up, and not just in internet land.

The B-21 had better deliver, I would hate see the F-22 "traded" for the A-12 Avenger II

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2018, 23:48
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
I think it'd be fair to say that for the next 10 years, the F-35 may hold an advantage vs. foreign adversaries. It's a pretty bold thing to look 20 years out though, don't you think? China's LO/VLO airframes are only going to get better, and I'd expect them to be at parity with us on that front eventually. The same however, probably won't be true of engines and avionics/sensors. Still, maintaining our lead 20 years out I think is..... dicey.

It's going to be interesting to see how the USAF deals with the PERCEPTION that the F-35 can't hold its own air to air. I'd bet anything though the Israeli's do it for us first, as they did with the F-15/F-16...



Honestly, I don't think even 20 years is that much of a stretch at all. As the US still has a considerable lead in a number of technologies and some are even growing. For example China isn't close to matching the current F119/F135 Turbofans. Let alone something like the New ACE (Adaptive Cycle Engine) in development by both GE and P&W.

As a matter of fact while China is trying to catch up with todays technology. The US is hard at work on tomorrows.....So, unless the US takes if foot way off the gas and in a big way. It should be able to maintain a healthy lead for sometime to come.



"IMHO" 8)

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2018, 00:37
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:



I think it'd be fair to say that for the next 10 years, the F-35 may hold an advantage vs. foreign adversaries. It's a pretty bold thing to look 20 years out though, don't you think? China's LO/VLO airframes are only going to get better, and I'd expect them to be at parity with us on that front eventually. The same however, probably won't be true of engines and avionics/sensors. Still, maintaining our lead 20 years out I think is..... dicey.

It's going to be interesting to see how the USAF deals with the PERCEPTION that the F-35 can't hold its own air to air. I'd bet anything though the Israeli's do it for us first, as they did with the F-15/F-16...


The J-20/31 will never reach parity with the F-35, in terms of signature reduction, even 20+ years from now. The F-35 will be at Block 6/7 20 years from now, so the Chinese won't reach parity, in terms of systems/avionics, either

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2018, 02:04
by weasel1962
The aircraft may be "invisible" in the air but the airfield isn't "invisible" on the ground and neither are the aircraft that keep the rest in the air. The Chinese don't need stealth parity to threaten air superiority just like the Russians don't need ballpoint technology to write in space. Since the 90s, the Chinese have already adopted "asymmetry" in their approach to the US military technology advantage.

The Chinese don't need 30cm accuracy to take out facilities on the ground. They can do it with the 15m accuracy they have already achieved. They just need to ensure that enough airplanes survive (including those the F-35s and next gen fighters will take out both in the air and ground) to do the job. That means numbers.

The Chinese don't need F-35 level stealth to penetrate defended airspace. They just need enough stealth to lob increasingly faster and stealthier bombs/missiles which they are increasingly able to do from further distances.

The J-20 is more difficult to handle than the flankers and it will constantly evolve. There will be new "j-series" fighters. 20 years out is exactly what US planners will need to look. However at this moment, imho many more F-35s are required especially 20 years out.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2018, 02:46
by f-16adf
XC,

I would also add, since the Democrats have great influence in our news media; If the GOP (Bush 43, or even the 2008 candidates) would have been in favor of more -22s or whatever. I could just have heard it now, the Dem control news media (CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, WP, MSNBC, CNN, ...) would have said (circa mid 2008):

"Bush or candidate X is in favor of more gold plated overtly expensive jets that are not needed while people are losing their homes (to foreclosure), the stock market is in near free-fall, and people are losing their jobs. Hence, the GOP is out of touch and doesn't understand the middle class or the problems facing working families."


Fast forward to post Jan 20, 2009. It really doesn't matter if Gates or whomever want more -22's. Obama would never been if favor of it. And he wasn't. For 2 years his party controlled everything. That type of military procurement was never on his (Obama) and their (the Dem controlled House and Senate) radar.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2018, 03:40
by XanderCrews
weasel1962 wrote:The aircraft may be "invisible" in the air but the airfield isn't "invisible" on the ground and neither are the aircraft that keep the rest in the air. The Chinese don't need stealth parity to threaten air superiority just like the Russians don't need ballpoint technology to write in space. Since the 90s, the Chinese have already adopted "asymmetry" in their approach to the US military technology advantage.


You know that pen/pencil thing is Bulls**t right?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nasa-spen/


The Chinese don't need 30cm accuracy to take out facilities on the ground. They can do it with the 15m accuracy they have already achieved. They just need to ensure that enough airplanes survive (including those the F-35s and next gen fighters will take out both in the air and ground) to do the job. That means numbers.

The Chinese don't need F-35 level stealth to penetrate defended airspace. They just need enough stealth to lob increasingly faster and stealthier bombs/missiles which they are increasingly able to do from further distances.

The J-20 is more difficult to handle than the flankers and it will constantly evolve. There will be new "j-series" fighters. 20 years out is exactly what US planners will need to look. However at this moment, imho many more F-35s are required especially 20 years out.



So China perfected the cruise missile/saturation attack? Overwhelming the target with SSMs, and then sending in waves of fighters is nothing new either...


The F-35 is about what you can ask for as it can across the F-35 A, B, and C launch and attack from anywhere. For as much as people whine about the F-35B "ruining" everything about the program its a beautiful hedge against the unexpected. China isn't the only one playing the asymmetry game either.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2018, 03:49
by XanderCrews
f-16adf wrote:XC,

I would also add, since the Democrats have great influence in our news media; If the GOP (Bush 43, or even the 2008 candidates) would have been in favor of more -22s or whatever. I could just have heard it now, the Dem control news media (CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, WP, MSNBC, CNN, ...) would have said (circa mid 2008):

"Bush or candidate X is in favor of more gold plated overtly expensive jets that are not needed while people are losing their homes (to foreclosure), the stock market is in near free-fall, and people are losing their jobs. Hence, the GOP is out of touch and doesn't understand the middle class or the problems facing working families."


Fast forward to post Jan 20, 2009. It really doesn't matter if Gates or whomever want more -22's. Obama would never been if favor of it. And he wasn't. For 2 years his party controlled everything. That type of military procurement was never on his (Obama) and their (the Dem controlled House and Senate) radar.


2009 was a weird time. Had they chosen to keep the F-22s going, they could have gotten away with it. But they didn't and here we are. It really falls on Gates as he actually served both Presidents as I recall.

My point was simply that with the benefit of hindsight:

A. We should have bought more F-22s because yes they cost big bucks, but we were also going to spend a trillion bucks and have very little tangible things to show for it 5 years later, let alone 10.

B. The Stimulus was an expensive failure


c. The story about cutting F-22s to trade for a hypothetical Strategic bomber 10-20 years in the future is total horseshit, and like hindsight it seems like they are trying to tell us retroactively that was some brilliant forward thinking plan. In other words "Uhh We meant to do that!"

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2018, 14:46
by mixelflick
Right!

Lke I said, it's a hoax story...

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2018, 15:19
by p33lmybanana
XanderCrews wrote:
f-16adf wrote:XC,

I would also add, since the Democrats have great influence in our news media; If the GOP (Bush 43, or even the 2008 candidates) would have been in favor of more -22s or whatever. I could just have heard it now, the Dem control news media (CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, WP, MSNBC, CNN, ...) would have said (circa mid 2008):

"Bush or candidate X is in favor of more gold plated overtly expensive jets that are not needed while people are losing their homes (to foreclosure), the stock market is in near free-fall, and people are losing their jobs. Hence, the GOP is out of touch and doesn't understand the middle class or the problems facing working families."


Fast forward to post Jan 20, 2009. It really doesn't matter if Gates or whomever want more -22's. Obama would never been if favor of it. And he wasn't. For 2 years his party controlled everything. That type of military procurement was never on his (Obama) and their (the Dem controlled House and Senate) radar.


2009 was a weird time. Had they chosen to keep the F-22s going, they could have gotten away with it. But they didn't and here we are. It really falls on Gates as he actually served both Presidents as I recall.

My point was simply that with the benefit of hindsight:

A. We should have bought more F-22s because yes they cost big bucks, but we were also going to spend a trillion bucks and have very little tangible things to show for it 5 years later, let alone 10.

B. The Stimulus was an expensive failure


c. The story about cutting F-22s to trade for a hypothetical Strategic bomber 10-20 years in the future is total horseshit, and like hindsight it seems like they are trying to tell us retroactively that was some brilliant forward thinking plan. In other words "Uhh We meant to do that!"


Hello everyone. I am a long time stalker. I just signed up and this is my first post :)

I think cutting the f-22 production line was very prudent at the time. The Chinese were decades from producing a 5th generation jet until they hacked Lockheed Martin servers. We were knee deep in two simultaneous wars in the middle east that required more immediate equipment, such as more drones and armored vehicles. The f-22 was irrelevant to what we were doing. The jet was amazing for its time, however, there were already huge flaws that were apparent at the time. It is a hangar queen which requires too much maintenance, especially to it's Ram coatings. The software and processors have quickly becoming outdated due to the exponential increase in technology since it's inception. Obama had already wanted to shift our interest to ASIA, where the range of the f-22 was in question. We are currently planning a 6th generation fighter. It will have better range, baked in stealth coatings and should be on an order of magnitude better due to what we have learned from the f-22 and f-35.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 00:09
by southernphantom
lrrpf52 wrote:Who is the only...


Your ARFCOM is showing, LRRP :wink:

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 14:30
by mixelflick
Gates sucks. Traitor and guilty of gross negligence.

That is all...

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 17:13
by XanderCrews
p33lmybanana wrote:I think cutting the f-22 production line was very prudent at the time. The Chinese were decades from producing a 5th generation jet until they hacked Lockheed Martin servers.



This is a false narrative. But even if it was true, the Chinese who literally flew a J-20 in front of Gates' eyes in 2011 might have been what we call a "clue" that the Chinese were further along than he thought. Seeing as the F-22 line was still running the last F-22 didn't leave the factory until Decemeber 2011, that might have been a great time for a "course correction" but it turns out that Gates was just as stubborn and pig headed as the man he replaced.

It still falls on Gates. All of it, only apologists who don't understand the truth and spin false narratives at this point are still clinging to the idea he made the proper call, even after a "wild J-20 appears!"

We were knee deep in two simultaneous wars in the middle east that required more immediate equipment, such as more drones and armored vehicles.


Iraq was effectively over by 2008. We were "surging" in Afghanistan, but by presidential decree, only temporarily. Simply put it wasn't going to be RPGs and IED forever and even you mention the shift to more important theaters, like ASIA:

Obama had already wanted to shift our interest to ASIA, where the range of the f-22 was in question. We are currently planning a 6th generation fighter. It will have better range, baked in stealth coatings and should be on an order of magnitude better due to what we have learned from the f-22 and f-35.



You have no clue what a 6th generation fighter will or won't have, including range. Moreover, a 6th generation fighter won't be used to replace the F-22, but instead to finally retire the F-15s that Gates and company failed to replace by cutting the F-22. It only be billions more and decades later though, and the Chinese decades ahead of schedule so thats nice.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 17:30
by zero-one
Got me thinking,

If we had more Raptors, maybe we wouldn't be rushing to get to 6th gen as much. China has how many J-20s? Russia has around 12 Su-57.

I won't be surprised if by 2030 they would still have just around 100+ of either units going against 350 F-22s and some 700 F-35s. 6th gen can wait.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 17:44
by scudbuster
USAF has only 186 operational F-22's.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 17:50
by SpudmanWP
I think he was postulating IF the F-22 had continued production to the minimum 350.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2018, 17:18
by disconnectedradical
zero-one wrote:6th gen can wait.


Why? More F-22 won't change how fast A2AD develop or how fast Russia and China make countermeasures. In the 2030s and 2040s the answer isn't going to be F-22.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2018, 08:25
by wrightwing
lrrpf52 wrote:
disconnectedradical wrote:
zero-one wrote:6th gen can wait.


Why? More F-22 won't change how fast A2AD develop or how fast Russia and China make countermeasures. In the 2030s and 2040s the answer isn't going to be F-22.

F-22 programmable architecture and systems growth capacity will more than likely be highly capable in the 2030s.

2040 is about where whatever few airframes are left should be finished with their service life.

Russia might not even be a Federation anymore by then.

China's internal economic and political challenges will likely have gone through major escalation and collapse, just like every previous cycle in Chinese history, while being checked by a rising Japan and other Asian ring nations like Vietnam.

Meanwhile, the US Military Industrial Engineering and Innovation giant will be thinking about and preparing for the future, while 6th Gen and 5th Gen + assets continue to maintain a qualitative and quantitative edge over any other world power.

The F-22 won't be close to being out of airframe life in 2040. It won't need a SLEP until 2060. It may well be retired before it runs out of airframe life, depending on when the next generation fighter starts entering service.

Re: Schwartz, in Memoir, Says F-22 was Traded for B-21 Bombe

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2018, 10:20
by zero-one
scudbuster wrote:USAF has only 186 operational F-22's.


Thats why I said If we had more. IF they bought the original 350+ air-frames before Gates cut the line