That may have very well been considered by
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
What I think the most zealous opponents of the F-22 fail to consider, however, is that a modest number of aircraft means the follow-on to the F-22 could come a lot sooner than it otherwise would have.
said zealous opponents -- not to mention the SecDef, his minions and the Chief of staff of the whole USAF who allegedly acceded to the new lower number...
Quote:
The real risk with this plan is that the DoD is betting on the F-35, which is still a program in development. It seems to assume there will be no more problems and the aircraft will reach IOC on time, with all the advertised capabilities at the advertised cost (which keeps rising).
I really doubt anyone has other than the expectation of teething problems. All new equipment has them. All. If that equipment pushes the state of the art, and the F-35 does, then it's beyond certain such problems will appear. We really know that and long time watchers know that by far the best way to get those problems fixed is to get the equipment in service. Long time watchers know that -- even if the GAO and the ignorant media and most in Congress do not.
On another note, the CSAR and WH bird decisions are most likely simply a time out to await the S-92 fixing the bugs in the CH 148 program. Buying American always sells; the Hook is good but dated and BIG and that other bird has mek-a-nickel probs out the wazoo...
Strategy is as necessary inside the beltway as in the broader world.
Only thing I disagree with is stopping C-17 buys. Now let's see what Obama and his and our 535 (elected) thieves do...
On another note. Okay, Steinbeck -- enjoy watching the Sea Otters off the pier after your Abalone steak...:D
Well, no doubt in my mind the C-17
is a single service and single purpose aircraft -- that provides service to all the Armed Forces and therefor is joint and multipurpose in that sense. I don't think he or anyone else is saying the HH-60G * is a single service single purpose aircraft -- but there is no doubt the VH71 would have been such.
Could there have been an HH 71? Sure but the USAF for whatever reason opted for an HH 47 (to achieve multi service commonality??? As a result of USSOCOM pressure to reduce aircraft types??? ** Maybe Gates is torqued at GAO for sustaining the protest and LM for protesting ;) ) so the 71 became the one-off item he was citing. I'm sure he also considered that the EH 101 from which the VH 71 was derived has multiple problems in wolrdwide service; I believe ALL operators are having mechanical problems with varying models of the a/c.
As for the CSAR assets picking up Medevacs and lost SOF troopies, why not? You've got a capable bird with trained crews as you point out and other, equally capable birds and crews are (one would hope) doing other mundane haulage things and it makes little sense to let that CSAR cape just sit. As I know you know, there are also a few pilots picked with non CSAR assets here and there. LINK, LINK. I think we're all on the same side... :wry:
Oh -- and keep your eye on the newer Sikorsky bird... :D
* Not least because the HH 60G is used by the USAF for other things and the entire 60 series is about as joint as one can get with only the Marines insisting on a less capable bird and figuring that the lower cost to buy and operate compensates for the lack of more capability (that they don't need as the CV 22 fills that requirement for them -- and for AFSOC. For future CSAR also? I've read all the arguments; we'll see...).
** If so, somebody forgot the rotor disks and fitting them on even the big decks...
P.S.
Last I thought I knew, the USAF was the DoD proponent for CSAR (and thus also responsible for some oversight) but each service was indeed responsible for its own CSAR -- anyone know if that has changed or is planned to do so?
I think you're both right...
I have little doubt that SOCOM was the driver on the HH 47 and I totally agree that CSAR is not and should not be a SOCOM mission -- though they will fight for it (and not for altruistic reasons) and have a lever in the PR and validation mission they have long had. Also agree that it will not be good for CSAR and would lead to their fragmentation and misuse. I'm with you on all three points.
He probably is torqued at Boeing -- and they deserve it -- I think he and even the Bean Counters at DoD understand the need for the CSAR mssion but just believe the current capability situation can wait a bit for improvement.
Not to mention that LM can stand the F22 hit...
I still think Buy American, the S-92 and the CSAR and Prez Flight missions are remarakbly synergistic. ;)