Airforce may be be going out of business

[tankersteve]

Ken,

Back in 1984, we did know we had something (chobham armor) that no one else had yet. That was a good reason to build a new generation. And it really didn't break our procurement budget.

I don't think of the M1A2 SEP as the F22 of the tank world. Especially since we recognized that we can't have as many as we wanted so many of us use M1A1 AIM tanks, with much lower digital coms integration and without the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer or the updated FLIR capability.

When other countries have active defense systems (Trophy, Drozd) and more advanced engines and suspensions, then I don't think I have the best of the best. And I know we can't afford to develop a brand new, latest and greatest model just so we are the absolute kings of the battlefield. But I do have Soldiers with better, more realistic training, and hopefully we have better leaders. And we continue to upgrade what we have to maintain parity where we can. I will just have to work harder and know the risks I face on the big battlefield.

Yes, buying the best now saves some money over time. But I think we may hit diminishing returns on that as things get so expensive to build AND maintain. How many B2 are there? How long did the F-117 serve?

Tankersteve

[George L. Singleton]

So...the old hidden agenda...the Army again wants to take over and reinstitute the Army Air Corp as in charge of all flying, short of the Navy/Marine air arm!

We are still amazing parochial, as was the case during the Bill Mitchell days.

[selil]

Those good enough systems -- the M4 Tank comes to mind -- allowed us to win because we could produce many thousands of them. That made up, in tanks, for the losses that a 'good enough' tank took because it was out gunned by its opponents.

That doesn't necessarily make up for the excess casualties taken due to 'good enough' as opposed to better.

I'll also point out that the good enough airplanes of today were the 'gold plated' and 'excessively costly' airplanes of yesterday. Quality has a quantity all its own...

You willing to give up the M1A2 SEP(V2) for upgraded Leopard 1A5s or M60A3s :D


Using high double digit capability in speed, armor thickness, resistance and what not for tanks to justify low single digit difference (or even negative) for speed, capability, survivability of airplanes as an argument? Where prices over decades M48's M60s to M1A1-2's expanded hugely over decades. Airplane prices have climbed 800 to 1200 percent with reducing numbers of deliveries during the production schedule.

When was the last M1 produced from scratch? What was the longevity of service for the F117?

[Ken White]

Using high double digit capability in speed, armor thickness, resistance and what not for tanks to justify low single digit difference (or even negative) for speed, capability, survivability of airplanes as an argument? Where prices over decades M48's M60s to M1A1-2's expanded hugely over decades. Airplane prices have climbed 800 to 1200 percent with reducing numbers of deliveries during the production schedule.If so, you've confused me -- I know, I know, that's easy :D -- but my point on the tanks was that 'good enough' (of which you hopefully recall I am normally a strong proponent) is a good philosophy generally but it does not apply universally. Tanks and aircraft being examples wherein I think the rule does not apply. Nor did I say anything about Armor. IOW, I have no earthly idea what you're talking about... :confused:

The M1A2 SEP(V2) costs about six times as much (inflation adjusted) as the M48; the F22 costs about six times as much as as the F15C. In both cases, the advance in capability is greater than the cost increase.

My point was that 'good enough' is not always the best argument; I used the M4 because Tanker Steve is, well, Tanker Steve. I also used the thousands of M4s produced because I knew the smart guys here would immediately recognize that we no longer have the capability to rapidly shift production from tractors to tanks or from DC3s to F22s (not least because the composites and techniques used in the latter are proprietary).
When was the last M1 produced from scratch? What was the longevity of service for the F117?For the first question, probably last week LINK (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/egypt-847m-request-for-125-m1a1-tanks-03684/). Ours, OTOH, are now all rebuilds 'cause it's cheaper -- a new one here would run over six times more than the M48 -- more like 12. Longevity of service for the F-117 was 25 years, 1983 to 2008 (but looky -- LINK (http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/flydayton/entries/2008/03/10/f117a_stealth_fighters_retired.html): "Ten of the Stealth Fighters were retired last year and 27 so far in 2008. The remainder will be placed in storage next month according to Diana Filliman, director of the 650th Aeronautical Systems Squadron at Wright-Patt." (emphasis added /kw) they may be resurrected... ;)

Why do you ask?

[Ken White]

When other countries have active defense systems (Trophy, Drozd) and more advanced engines and suspensions...An added question would be; in what quantities do they have these advanced vehicles? State of training? Logistic aspects? OR rates? Do those folks also have an Air force that can pretty well assure air superiority? Do they have a slew of Apaches that consistently game out to a 10:1 ratio on tanks (Aviator hype, I know but 5:1 is believable).
...then I don't think I have the best of the best. And I know we can't afford to develop a brand new, latest and greatest model just so we are the absolute kings of the battlefield. But I do have Soldiers with better, more realistic training, and hopefully we have better leaders. And we continue to upgrade what we have to maintain parity where we can. I will just have to work harder and know the risks I face on the big battlefield.I suspect the same calculus was applied at echelons above reality... :D[/QUOTE]

[Ken White]

So...the old hidden agenda...the Army again wants to take over and reinstitute the Army Air Corp as in charge of all flying, short of the Navy/Marine air arm!

We are still amazing parochial, as was the case during the Bill Mitchell days.Of course we are -- human frailty. If there was a huge AAC, then the Infantry and Tankers would fight about who was to control it -- allowing the Aviators to do whatever they wanted... ;)

[George L. Singleton]

IN this grim time of economic collapse, a little early aviation history trivia:

1. In World War I Corporal Bennett Powell Singleton, AEF, 31st Division, in France fighting WW I at age 14 (yes, age 14 and a Corporal) was standing under/near the dog fight between the German Red Baron and Captain Quinton Roosevelt, son of then former President Teddy Roosevelt.

2. Dad went over to the shot down/crashed and burning plane of CPT Roosevelt to try to lend assistance, and managed to drag his body away from the plane, but of course Roosevelt was already dead.

3. A few years later Dad, now a young civilian bookkeeper (accountant) in Washington, DC was in the audience at the Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, AAC court martial.

3. Seated next to Dad, randomly, was a young Navy pioneer aviator, Lt. Arthur Gavin.

4. Leap forward in time to 1954, and at age 15 I was an usher at the wedding of Dad's older sister, Carolyn Singleton (an old maid) to...retired Naval aviator, Rear Admiral Arthur Gavin (a widower). Arthur Gavin thus became the brother in law to my Dad!

Talk about a small, random world!!! Dad and his older sister were from Alabama, Gavin was from Wisconsin.

[carl]

Knowingly buying an airplane that is "good enough" now, assumes that the enemy isn't going to spring a nasty surprise of you in the next 20-30 years. If he does, your "good enough" may quickly turn into Fokker fodder and there won't be anything you can do about it for 5 or 10 years. If you buy something that is vastly superior, then you have some wiggle room.

(I was thinking about bringing up Shermans but Ken beat me to it. Zaloga's recent book about the M-4, Armoured Thunderbolt, was very good.)

I would not count on a potential enemy not being able to train as well or better than we can. Both the Indians and the Chileans have given us surprises in exercises over the years. Also at times during Vietnam, our pilot training standards weren't all that great. If you have a superplane like the F-22, that doesn't make so much difference.

SAM's do well enough if you just want to dissuade the other guy from dropping bombs on your head; but not always, as the Syrian air defense forces can attest. But for us that wouldn't be enough.

For the last several generations, we have gone after the other guy in his backyard. We are the ones who fly over his SAMs, destroy them, then drop bombs on their heads. We destroy his fighters over his airfields so they don't bother us as we go about our business. In order to do this, and to do it for the next bunch of years, I think we need the best we can get.

One thing also that has been brought up before; most of the money has already been spent on the F-22. All the r&d checks have already been cashed so what we spend now is production cost, which isn't as spectacular.

[Ron Humphrey]

One thing also that has been brought up before; most of the money has already been spent on the F-22. All the r&d checks have already been cashed so what we spend now is production cost, which isn't as spectacular.

Since this is the case then whats the major difference in ordering 183 now with guaranteed buy of "blank" later in relation to buying it all at once. I get the ordering in volume is cheaper bit but realistically how fast are these things gonna come off the shelves. If you order today how long would it take to have 200 of them in service and in place?

Not trying to say don't buy em pretty sure I've said before I agree we need to have them, just trying to understand the real reasons for why, when, and how many.

[Entropy]

Since this is the case then whats the major difference in ordering 183 now with guaranteed buy of "blank" later in relation to buying it all at once. I get the ordering in volume is cheaper bit but realistically how fast are these things gonna come off the shelves. If you order today how long would it take to have 200 of them in service and in place?

Not trying to say don't buy em pretty sure I've said before I agree we need to have them, just trying to understand the real reasons for why, when, and how many.

The current rate of production is 20 airframes per year and could be ramped up if need be, though that probably isn't necessary.

[Sparrow]

They say if you do something long enough you witness it's rebirth. You all have remarkable insight into Air force weapon systems. The discussions on the A-10 and A-16 were very interesting.

I also agree with the many comments the Air Force is going though a challanging period of discontent and have lost the confidence of their boss - the Amreican people. I see that as a failure of Gen McPeak.

The Air Force has lost their focus. They need a close air support fighter and yet refuse to rebuild an imporved A-10. The F-16 was not a great ground attack fighter and not the best air-to-air fighter but if you ever had to deploy and need a multi use aircraft it was great.

I still want to bite my nails off when I read how the F22 and F35 are the end all be all. The Air Force should remember the numerous occassions where they threw all of the eggs in one basket. I remember the F-4s - did not have guns because some analyst told them the future would be fought without guns.

For your benefit allow me to describe my perspective. Master Avionics technician, QA inspector for motors and mainframe. I worked F-111, F-16, and F-117A. I have been a 'Gunslinger, Juvat, Bold Tiger, and a member of the GoatSucker Inn. I have since retired and worked servers, network hardware, as a Business Analysis, and dodled into South American terrorism.

I like Ford motor company's suggestion of building a modern mustang with the best of the old school. Beef up the engines, the avionics, and build new airframes. It may look and smell like a mustang but they have their own special identity.

Has it ever occurred to build a new A-10 that was designed around an even better gun with even more powerful engines. Airplanes are like race cars. High performance machines dedicated to taking mankind into another realm. But airplanes like cars can be rebuilt better. Or create a dual engine F-16, update the avionics and vectoring motors and you have a killer.

The worst thing the Air Force could do is only uby one plane from one source. For years we have seen a particular type of aircraft grounded for maintenance issues.

The Air force needs to really assess their missions and that means sitting down with the Army and finding out what are the Army's needs and what type of aircraft they are going to need to address them. I read several federal magazines and I do not see it yet. The Army is the Air Force's customer.

One final note - stealth is an illusion. You can defeat an aircraft using stealth.

The 22 and 35 need much more than stealth to survive. They have a combination of exceptional radar packages, integrated ECM packages, supperior weapons, and advanced engine technology.They need pilots. Drones are invaluable for C4ISR but they have a drawback which I have not seen discussed here. 15, 16, 18, 22, & 35 all have the capability to carry and deploy a tactical nuclear weapon. I turst an officer with this responisbility. Not certain I would trust a SPC.

The Air Force needs to sit down and replan for how to support the Army and the direction they are taking. They need to find and plan for their customer's expectations.

[George L. Singleton]

Dave:

I have and will continue to mainly sit back and read what you young guys think and say on the topic of future weapons systems.

But, I will offer a few quick philosophical observations:

1. World politics, us vs. them, primarily us vs. Islamic terrorists, is the setting for years, perhaps generations to come.

2. NYC was not expected to be the battleground "front" but was twice, in 1993 and on 9/11, same site, Twin Towers.

3. National war planning has been using a mix of weaponry to try to "contain" terrorism, of late, advance missle sites anticipated in Czech Republic and Poland.

4. Presumed targeting is "the terrorist camp" as supported by Iran, and maybe before too long, Pakistan. And if the terrorist persist and persevere, even Afghanistan. Point is targets change and times change. We cannot know the long term future only where we think we are today.

5. This said, it is not so easy to task the Air Force specificially to support ground ops that are somewhat vague at present and non-traditional in nature.

I'm sure you understand what I am struggling to say.

So, some ideas based on where we are now of what the geopolitical situation contingencies might or will be are necessary in deciding capital expendiures on new ground, and air (USAF related) assets.

The old A-10 with it's pilot in a titanium bathtub cockpit is still a favorite of mine, dated as I am. But, you today can kill tanks with all sorts of unmanned heatseeking missile systems so the A-10 itself is becoming and has become pretty dated.

Your System's Analyst unclassified thinking if you are so included would be interesting to now read.

[Ken White]

Then again, with friends like this, who needs enemies...

LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021601021.html?hpid=sec-nation).

What a piece of work that guy is. Hopefully, the average ten year old would realize that a split fleet like that is an invitation to logistic complications and unnecessary expense...

[1258dave]

From the IHT: World worries how U.S. will pay for stimulus

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/30/business/borrow.1-419211.php?WT.mc_id=glob_mrktg_lnk1&WT.mc_ev=click

I'm not sure what we're going to use to pay for any of it.

In a simmilar vein:
Does anybody have any feedback on the UK Joint Helicopter Command or the Joint Harrier Command?

[SethB]

What a piece of work that guy is. Hopefully, the average ten year old would realize that a split fleet like that is an invitation to logistic complications and unnecessary expense...

Ken, I understand what you are saying, but the Defense Science Board had a few interesting recommendations over the years.

For one thing they supported two tanker designs in order to prevent the entire fleet being grounded if a design flaw pops up later, and they supported one being larger than the other.

They also argued that making the planes they fuel more efficient would reduce the need for tankers right off the top.

Interesting arguments. I won't support either, and I certainly don't think Murtha is using anything resembling logic...

Note: I just read Sparrow's note regarding using one type of plane. I had typed the above before I read his post.

As for Air Force priorities, I am continually being told on other boards that strategic strike and air superiority are their most important missions, with CAS being something they do "when they don't have anything better to do."

I thought that that attitude does not well serve the Army when their agreement with the USAF precludes them from flying fixed wing CAS assets.

[Ken White]

...they supported two tanker designs in order to prevent the entire fleet being grounded if a design flaw pops up later, and they supported one being larger than the other.We started WW II with a number of aircraft designs in involuntary and unplanned competition with each other -- to see which had the best overall operational and survival rates -- induced by the war. Both the Army Air Force and the Navy/Marines effectively homed in on one design that was the most effective compromise in each category as being the most rational and effective solution.

That's why the P-51 and the F4U (not to mention the DC-3 and the AD-1...) continued flying for many years after their contemporaries disappeared. You can do one type, work very effectively and save both effort and money -- but it better be the best of type you can get...

Thus, I have no problem with a single type. I know that multiple types complicate inventory, clog the supply system and increase costs. The DSB does some good work and they do some less good work. Their logic is usually good and they need to be listened to -- but they are no more omniscient than you or I happen to be.
They also argued that making the planes they fuel more efficient would reduce the need for tankers right off the top.Even the AF has long been aware of that; has been working toward that goal and thus the possibility of a couple of hundred plus new tankers replacing over 500 KC-135s (out of over 800 built). That and this LINK (http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/2008/08/21/first-synthetic-fuel-air-force-fighter-flight-achieved.asp).

[SethB]

The DSB focused on replacing the bombers with blended wing designs. Barring that, they offered a study on new engines for the B52, although the issue hasn't come up since the DoD started moving to the FBCF (Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel), which was something that came up in about three or four studies in the last few years. Essentially calculating the all in price of delivered fuel. I've mentioned this in the RFI section of the Council regarding the topic of a paper that I wrote.

The synthetic fuels are still extremely expensive, in part because the AF is not allowed to buy it for regular use. Making JP8 from coal produces roughly twice the amount of C02 as producing the same from crude, so Congress will allow them to purchase test batches only. I actually think it is funny that they make such a big deal about it, the process is old and South Africa has been flying planes on CTL fuel for a while now.

Actually, I think the idea behind CTL is kind of suspect. America produces 40% of our oil supply domestically, and our largest suppliers of imports are Mexico and Canada. I don't think strategic disruption is the issue. Operational issues are a different deal, with supply difficulties in theater having caused difficulties in several wars.

[Ken White]

is right on target... ;)

[carl]

Very interesting discussion of Mark Bowden's article today at this site (look for F-22):

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/

This is mostly a Navy related blog, but very good, as Dave has said in the past.

[Ken White]

I need to break myself of the habit of reading the comments...:eek:

[Entropy]

Ken, I completely understand what you mean. Unfortunately, the only way to know the quality of a comment's section is to read them!

BTW, found this Powerpoint briefing created by Bill Sweetman today (http://www.sendspace.com/file/z2v3l1). I think it's a pretty good primer on some of the issues on fighters in general and the F-22/F-35 in particular.

[Ken White]

He's knowledgeable but not infallible. Server's busy, I'll try again later.

[Entropy]

He's knowledgeable but not infallible. Server's busy, I'll try again later.

Let me know if you can't get it - I have it downloaded and can email it to you if needed. It's about 7MB.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I got the link from Sweetman's blog entry here (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae2427131-e8d2-4127-a5f2-0f8df75bb857).

[Ken White]

and am not terribly impressed. Mostly, he makes sense (in this briefing as well as generally) but as is true with many Gurus, he can get carried away with rectitude...

He also tends to try to sensationalize things and he cheats. For example, he cites and shows picture that purport to show "Aegis cruisers" awaiting disposal but which actually show Spruance Destroyers which were inactivated due to large crew size, not to obsolescence. There a a slew of ships that last as long as fighters -- and then, both the B-52 and C-130... :wry:

There are other glitches which may be accidental -- all are certainly "deniable" -- or may not be. In my observation over the years, he does that too often. He really gets torqued -- as do many so-called and self appointed 'experts' -- when his 'advice' is not followed by DoD. :D

Still, thanks for the link. I only check that blog about once a week or so, it's a gossip column by a bunch of wanna bes and little more IMO. I gave up my subscrip0tion to the magazine years ago when they got political. If I want that stupidity, I can read the newspapers.

Sorry to appear to take that out on you, I hope you know that is not the case, you make more sense than the average bear but I do tend to discount media 'experts' and the punditocracy in general. Thus ends the curmudgeon's rant for the day. ;)

[Entropy]

Sorry to appear to take that out on you, I hope you know that is not the case, you make more sense than the average bear but I do tend to discount media 'experts' and the punditocracy in general. Thus ends the curmudgeon's rant for the day. ;)

Didn't take it that way at all and I agree with some of your points about Sweetman in general. Curmudgeon away! :)

Overall, though, (despite some of the errors) I think he makes some valuable points here, particularly that old does not necessarily mean bad, that "fighters" are pretty versatile, and that "stealth" is not necessarily the end-all and be-all. In the debate over the future fighter force for Air Force, Navy and Marines, many of those issues are valid yet rarely heard.

As far as media "experts" and pundits, I agree that they should be viewed skeptically, but at the same time one can and should be able to distill valid arguments from them, even when they are pushing an agenda.

[Ken White]

my wife and kids plus numerous friends and acquaintances say I'm sometimes verbally clumsy...:confused:
In the debate over the future fighter force for Air Force, Navy and Marines, many of those issues are valid yet rarely heard.Very true. With no technical knowledge to use in evaluating, I'm sort of skeptical about LO technology. I look at is as being like Armor on the ground: Yes, it provides some protection (Good) but it also engenders a false sense of security (Bad). It can be overcome by a counteraction and it tends to lessen reliance on skill and agility; the real keys to combat survivability. Not to mention I'm still waiting for the son of the Warthog to hit the order book...
...at the same time one can and should be able to distill valid arguments from them, even when they are pushing an agenda.Yep, given the way the processes operate today, one has little choice. Filtering becomes a necessity...

Thanks again for the link.

P.S.

Those same people say my attempts at humor often miss the mark, so that tells you that we need pay them little mind... ( :eek: )

[Entropy]

...you're not verbally clumsy at all - quite the opposite actually. Your critique of the brief and Sweetman was quite good and provided a good basis for skepticism and a more critical look at the presentation. You've got a sharp mind and eyes as well. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that as a former Navy guy I missed that the ships in the picture were Spruance's and not Tico's. :o Thank goodness this is a (relatively) anonymous forum or I'd be buying drinks for all my Navy friends :D

[tankersteve]

However, like Ken (not that I am his peer), I think some of the argument is not that credible. For instance, do you have to escort ISR if it is unmanned, small, and stealthy?

I don't want to appear to be 'Air-bashing' but the key arguement that I think the AF has missed is 'affordability'. How bad is the threat of advanced capability fighter aircraft? Can a viable threat buy, maintain, train, and fly an advanced 4th or 5th Gen fighter force? Do we see that as likely? Would a lot of slightly less capable, yet much more affordable aircraft do a better job? Mass (quantity) has a quality all its own. :D

What if we had brand new F15s, with the latest electronics built right in, with the newest engine variants, with every update other countries have developed, etc? Perhaps made even better than the originals, with stronger materials, better engineering for superior maintenance access and reliability? Is it capable, especially if we could afford many more of them (at the rate of 3x or 4x as many F22s) of accomplishing much of what the F22 could do? Obviously stealth would be a limit, but it seems that the stealth requirement has turned our fighter fleet into a night-focused force.

I am not just stirring the pot, but hopefully learning about (and maybe even appreciating) my brothers in blue a bit more.

Tankersteve

[SethB]

I don't know if it would be a step in the right direction, but the original Hornet led to a land based version which was 30% lighter. It never entered production I read online that Boeing just offered the Navy 149 units (Super Hornets) for only $49.9M a unit.

For what it's worth.

[carl]

What if we had brand new F15s, with the latest electronics built right in, with the newest engine variants, with every update other countries have developed, etc? Perhaps made even better than the originals, with stronger materials, better engineering for superior maintenance access and reliability?

Tankersteve

I think what you would have is a new airplane that looked like an F-15. Sort of like what the F-18C/D is to the F-18E/F. When you mention materials and engineering that is a new design. Even if you could keep the defense beurocrats (sic) from piling on requirements it would still take years and mucho dinero to get it on the flight line.

The F-22 is what we have now. We've paid for the r&d and to get anything that is even close to what it can do now would take years to develop and cost probably more.

[Entropy]

However, like Ken (not that I am his peer), I think some of the argument is not that credible. For instance, do you have to escort ISR if it is unmanned, small, and stealthy?

It's situational, but yes, it would require escort to operate over denied territory - otherwise they'd get shot down. They don't have any of the threat-mitigation advantages of manned aircraft currently - they are low speed, not maneuverable, lack basic defensive aids, etc. But in reality I think it's unlikely we'd see that situation to begin with - the current crop of ISR UAV's are not exactly designed to be escorted or operate in high-threat environments. Once true UCAV's come along, then that will change.


I don't want to appear to be 'Air-bashing' but the key arguement that I think the AF has missed is 'affordability'.

Don't worry, that's not bashing! But I think the Air Force would agree with you! While the fighter community loves the capabilities of the F-22, they are not happy about the price tag because it has resulted in many fewer aircraft being produced at the end of the day (originally it was going to be 700). Of course, no one should feel sorry for the Air Force on that count, because it deserves much blame for the state of things. The Air Force has proven itself completely incompetent at procurement.


How bad is the threat of advanced capability fighter aircraft? Can a viable threat buy, maintain, train, and fly an advanced 4th or 5th Gen fighter force? Do we see that as likely? Would a lot of slightly less capable, yet much more affordable aircraft do a better job? Mass (quantity) has a quality all its own. :D

Today it's not that bad (absent China and Russia), but down the road things will probably get worse from an air-to-air standpoint. The Air Force position is that the F-22 is going to have to last for 30-40 years or more, so the service is, in part, looking at the long-term threat. There is some validity to that, but again, the AF has made its own bed and deserves a lot of blame.

The main problem today from a threat perspective is actually ground-based air defense which is very capable and much simpler to operate for most nations than a fleet of aircraft.


What if we had brand new F15s, with the latest electronics built right in, with the newest engine variants, with every update other countries have developed, etc? Perhaps made even better than the originals, with stronger materials, better engineering for superior maintenance access and reliability? Is it capable, especially if we could afford many more of them (at the rate of 3x or 4x as many F22s) of accomplishing much of what the F22 could do? Obviously stealth would be a limit, but it seems that the stealth requirement has turned our fighter fleet into a night-focused force.

The F-15 is still being produced, with variants for, I believe, Korea and Singapore. These latest models are very capable - better than our own in many ways, with a lot of the latest gear. But even these aircraft are $110 million a copy, which is only 25-30% cheaper than an F-22. Obviously opinions vary, but most in the AF (including me) believe that extra cost is worth it for the tremendous leap in capability. We'll still have F-15's of course and they will still be around for quite a while.

I've said elsewhere on this forum that if I could turn the wayback machine to the late 1990's, I would have canceled the F-22 and done what you suggest here. It would have saved us a lot of money and allowed time for many of the F-22's technologies to mature. Kicking the development can down the road about 10 years would have been wise, but unfortunately that didn't happen. The aircraft is done and in full-rate production, so the "cancel the F-22" ship sailed some time ago. The question is how many should we buy and for that I don't have an answer, though I think 183 is a bit low when a 40-year time-span is considered. The Air Force is going to ask the new administration for 60 more aircraft, which would cost about $3-4 billion a year for three years and is 140 aircraft less than the service has been asking for the past few years. We'll see what happens.


I am not just stirring the pot, but hopefully learning about (and maybe even appreciating) my brothers in blue a bit more.


Stir away! It's all good.

[davidbfpo]

Sent by a non-SWC observer from WaPo entitled 'Combat Generation: Drone operators climb on winds of change in the Air Force' and goes over familiar territory as the Drone gang gain traction if only in the public's mind :http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/27/AR2010022703754.html

[William F. Owen]

Sent by a non-SWC observer from WaPo entitled 'Combat Generation: Drone operators climb on winds of change in the Air Force' and goes over familiar territory as the Drone gang gain traction if only in the public's mind :http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/27/AR2010022703754.html

From the article:

"Valor to me is not risking your life," he said. "Valor is doing what is right. Valor is about your motivations and the ends that you seek. It is doing what is right for the right reasons. That to me is valor."
Sorry, this is twaddle. Valour is being scared and going anyway. If you're not scared, then you're not doing it.

Sorry, but I just cannot see how a UAV operator gets to up his "status" above a someone like a Patriot Missile Operator. They do not give air-traffic controllers "wings" or call them "pilots".

[Hacksaw]

From the article:

Sorry, this is twaddle. Valour is being scared and going anyway. If you're not scared, then you're not doing it.

Sorry, but I just cannot see how a UAV operator gets to up his "status" above a someone like a Patriot Missile Operator. They do not give air-traffic controllers "wings" or call them "pilots".

Not sure what you meant by the reference to the Patriot Missile Operator, but say what you might... they sit on the assets they are defending

[Steve Blair]

Sorry, but I just cannot see how a UAV operator gets to up his "status" above a someone like a Patriot Missile Operator. They do not give air-traffic controllers "wings" or call them "pilots".

Actually, to stray on the simplistic side, they do give air traffic controllers wings. They call them ABMs....:D

[Entropy]

Agree on the "valor" thing.

I work in the predator/reaper community now and 95% of the time pilots are just bus-drivers supporting the sensors and the intelligence collection mission.


The clash between the old and new Air Force was especially apparent in the aftermath of the 2006 strike that killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq.

Predator crews spent more than 630 hours searching for Zarqawi and his associates before they tracked him to a small farm northeast of Baghdad.

Minutes later, an F-16 fighter jet, streaking through the sky, released a 500-pound bomb that locked onto a targeting laser and killed Zarqawi.

The F-16 pilot, who faced no real threat from the lightly armed insurgents on the ground, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the same honor bestowed on Charles Lindbergh for the first solo flight across the Atlantic Ocean.

The Predator pilots, who flew their planes from an Air Force base outside Las Vegas, received a thank-you note from a three-star general based in the Middle East. Senior Air Force officials concluded that even though the Predator crews were flying combat missions, they weren't actually in combat.

As is typical, no mention is made of the analysts who actually solved this puzzle and put the pieces together to find this guy. If anyone deserves credit, it is them.

[carl]

As is typical, no mention is made of the analysts who actually solved this puzzle and put the pieces together to find this guy. If anyone deserves credit, it is them.

No mention was made of a lot important things in the article. It was a collection of facts without context. God help the man who had to make a reasoned decision based on this article.

No kidding Maj. Bright, you have to constantly coach an inexperienced guider driving a dreadfully slow machine. The Army seems to have done quite well with, God-forbid, enlisted men guiding those things around.

A Pred saved the day when it first used the Hellfire. Perhaps that was due more to the characteristics of the Hellfire rather than what it was mounted on.

One fighter pilot was unhappy because training drone guiders to be only drone guiders was something akin to a "puppy mill"; the implication being that the resulting "canine" was inferior to the pure bloods coming out of pilot school. He should watch some to the simulator techs at the simulator training centers like Flight Safety, do some of the wonderous things they do in the sims. They learned by just dinking around. They guide the sim via a computer. How is that different from guiding a drone by computer? Those "puppy mill" products at least have the benefit of formal training.

As far as recognition goes, the people who directed convoys around wolfpacks, radar guided night fighters close enough to a target so the night fighters short range radar could be used, manned the Red Crown aircraft, etc., etc. were recognized for the vital work they did in some way. Why can't the drone guiders be recognized in the same way?