Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz revealed in his major speech at the Air Force Association conference that the service began a wide-ranging technology study to come up with approaches that may help the service answer some of its pressing mission challenges and help find technologies that should underwrite our future..
Schwartz told reporters after the speech that the study is being led by the services chief scientist, Werner Dahm. The horizon study was launched in July and should be finished by next summer. One promising technology ahs already been identified, Schwartz said. Virtual machines could be used to help protect the utility and integrity of the services networks. That technology is close at hand. I would not have known about that if our chief scientist had not told me, Schwartz noted.
Schwartz also addressed a wide range of other acquisition issues, including that the Quadrennial Defense Review may result in the service losing some capabilities it hoped to develop. It may e that in many areas we might, in (Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. James) Hoss Cartwrights word, not end get as exquisite systems as perhaps the service had planned for.
Schwartz on other programs:
The tanker RFP: Speaking personally, Schwartz said he wants the Air Force to run the KC-X program but ultimately this is a decision for the Secretary of Defense to decide. He also said service had done a much better job of communicating with the companies since the GAO protest was issued. I think Jim Albaugh (Boeing) and Ron Sugar (Northrop Grumman) and Paul Meyer (Northrop) will tell you that there has been far better communication than had been the case he said.
Read the rest of this story and more coverage of the Air Force Association 2009 conference at DoD Buzz.
– Colin Clark
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Hopefully the future Land Based Strategic Deterrent will be covered.
Know what would be revolutionary? Programs staying within budget.
I can’t shake the nasty suspicion that whatever this grand design entails it won’t divert the USAF one jot from its utter conviction that everything can be solved through air superiority and if the Congress just turned over the entire budget to more planes then everything would be magically better and there’ll be no terrorists and there will be ponies for everyone!
Am I indulging in hyperbole? That’s the sad thing, because the honest answer is “yes, but only a little, given their views in the past”.
did you see any movement on that area ,bobymike?
Okay, I thought I was awake. Maybe I’ve been drinking, though, and didn’t realize it.
Seems this story missed the spell chech. “E” is not “be”, and “ahs” should read “has”.
check* -_-
elgatoso – nothing specific but some bits and pieces from industry press releases. Aerojet as tested new 46″, 52″ and 92″ diameter solid rocket motors that have been described for use in “future strategic strike” both nuclear and conventional. Hopefully, we learn more in the soon to be released Nuclear Posture Review, although a lot of that will be classified.
But nothing about any actual full scale development and potential replacement for the MMIII. The FY2010 R&D budget has an increase for ICBM funding but the increase is from $50 million to $76 million so probably detailed design work and maybe future sub-system tests, no “full up” system.
A lot of hopes are pinning on General Schwartz to change things around. He’s working against a pretty entrenched system, but he’s not alone.
Two wars and twenty years of bassakwardness has built up a lot of anger. The SAC generals were dragged down, The Fighter Mafia can and may very well be next.
But as to whether or not the AF will stop seeing Air power as the solution all the problems? Depends, will the Navy ever stop believing in the importance of sea dominance? Will Marines ever stop seeing themselves as the be-all end-all land warfare force? Will the army ever stop using the phrase “Boots on the ground”?
Generals are rewarded for presenting solutions to problems, not highlighting the shortcomings of their forces. Air and sea power can’t win a war, but the land component can’t get to the war without air or sea power. Its a long walk to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thanks,bobymike,I read something about replacement of the old nuclear warheads in defense news or NDIA but nothing specifics.
At the risk of nit picking, curtis, the Air Force is capable of winning a war all on it’s own, providing, of course, that you don’t care if any remnant of your enemy to survive, (see Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Even with the politically correct answer of yes, which is fortunately the norm, the fact is in conventional war, the Air Force still pulls the majority of the work load. Case in point, during the first Gulf war, the Air Force accounted for what, 75% of the Iraqi armor?
Oh and seeker, 2 words. Land Warrior