I'm a bit late with this thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
There was also a great deal of internal downplaying of the Minot incident, and the Taiwan shipment didn't make much of a ripple that we could see down here. Once you combine all that with Mosley's ties to the Thunderbirds fiasco and a recent letter in either AF Times or AF Magazine (don't remember which) that basically suggested that generals were above the law, I'm not surprised in the least that Gates acted. Wynn and Mosley were products of a particular culture...one that does not take criticism well and really isn't wired to look at itself in a critical way. That's been shown throughout the years. Hopefully the AF as a corporate whole will learn something from this other than "they're all out to get us."
While I agree that Gates is partially going after cultural issues with these latest leadership changes, these issues exist in all the services. Furthermore, I might suggest that none of the services take criticism particularly well. Rather than singling out the Air Force, I think an argument can be made that the entirety of DoD isn't "wired to look at itself in a critical way." It may be true the AF is worse in this regard, but I would like to see some evidence the AF is worse than any other service.
And, like it or not, there is a basis for the Air Force believing that "they're all out to get us." There are the many articles and commentaries that have made the rounds for decades that advocate the disbanding of the Air Force or at least consider it a serious option to consider. One can hardly visit anyplace that discusses AF issues without this desire being raised by someone. The comments in an AM post from today is but one example of thousands.
Then there are Gate's comments which are almost always mis-reported and interpreted as being critical of the AF and not the other services. Probably the worst was Gate's comments about a month ago in Colorado Springs which are discussed in another AM thread (see the comments). When Gate's says something about the services not doing enough for the current war, it's the F-22 that is inevitably highlighted as "proof" of the AF's malfeasance, yet the billions spent by the other services (including the Army) on capabilities with no utility in Iraq and Afghanistan go completely unmentioned. By the same token the need for an air superiority fighter is endlessly questioned while other capabilities that are arguably less important go unmentioned. If you want to see defensiveness, try suggesting to the Marines that amphibious warfare is perhaps not as important as they might think.
Add in the fact that many making these arguments are clearly advocates for the Army and their arguments are parochial in intent and I think the AF has some justification for being defensive.
All this isn't to excuse the AF in any way. I've said many times before in this forum and others that the AF has serious problems that need addressing, but its extremely frustrating when so much criticism directed against the AF is just plain wrong and based on what appears to be parochial hatred of the service. These invalid criticisms do not go unheard by AF leadership and they certainly do affect how the leadership acts and reacts.
In closing and rereading this post, I want to make clear this post is venting a general frustration and is not directed at you in particular. Your post just happened to be the springboard.
Its not just the hardware...
Software takes a looong time to code, test, fix, and retest.
Take, for example, something relatively simple like putting Link-16 into the B-1 (something I have direct experience with). The software effort alone for that will take the better part of 3 years, long after the hardware is ready. And that's for one application. Aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 are completely software-driven aircraft, from the radar to the displays to the flight control system. We are talking millions of lines of code for a new aircraft. That all takes time. If you are designing a new airframe, you are then talking about new flight control laws, envelope expansion, etc, etc...that can take years to test. The notion that we can afford to wait until we are in a shooting war to develop new aircraft is simply not practical in any sense.
I would also disagree with some on this board that have suggested we go with simpler aircraft. Our enemies surely aren't. The latest versions of the SU-27 have very sophisticated avionics, radar missiles, and thrust vectoring. Simple aircraft with unsophisticated sensors simply have no chance against a modern fighter aircraft, especially in the BVR arena. The F-22 is defeating F-15s in simulated air combat virtually every time...even a well trained pilot in a 4th-gen machine doesn't have a whole lot of options against a less well trained pilot in a 5th-gen jet.
And the simple fact also remains...our fighters (and every other type) are old...coming apart in mid-air, actually. The design factor for the F-15 was 9g, and the St Louis-based ANG jet that came apart broke after a 7g turn. No matter how much we upgrade our Eagles, we are still talking about 25 year old airframes. Older jets also cost more to maintain, and that cost increases every year, which in turn means less money to buy new aircraft.
One could argue that we won't fight an opponent with 5th-gen jets, which is a possibility. Maybe we won't. Its probably in the unlikely category, even. But, do we really want to take that bet?
My apologies for insulting your intelligence...
Ken,
Didn't mean to impugn your intelligence, which is, in all seriousness, impressive (no sarcasm there). I see the F-35 referred to as an Air Force-only weapons system often enough I let assumption get the best of me. My apologies.
As for an air war, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You're totally correct that much depends on the specifics of the conflict, but I can envision no likely scenarios where air supremacy by one side or the other would still be in doubt after a year. I admit this may be lack of imagination on my part.
As for the squids/marine's, I agree with you there. I began life as a squid, after all, and it is still the service I love the most. A major problem for the Air Force in any conflict, as I'm sure you know, is basing - no bases, minimal Air Force participation.
None required, just couldn't resist a minor needling
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
...I see the F-35 referred to as an Air Force-only weapons system often enough I let assumption get the best of me. My apologies.
and did it tongue in cheek...
Quote:
As for an air war, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You're totally correct that much depends on the specifics of the conflict, but I can envision no likely scenarios where air supremacy by one side or the other would still be in doubt after a year. I admit this may be lack of imagination on my part.
We can disagree. See Jill below. You might consider numbers available to opponents vs. quality avaliable. The SU-30 is a tough bird; it's locally assembled elsewhere clones not so much. Fair amount of the latter, not too many of the real deal. As I said, very arguable but not here or now
Quote:
As for the squids/marine's, I agree with you there. I began life as a squid, after all, and it is still the service I love the most. A major problem for the Air Force in any conflict, as I'm sure you know, is basing - no bases, minimal Air Force participation.
True. I suspect others know that as well... :D