Airforce may be be going out of business
Interesting article from Government Executive (LINK)
Quote:
The Air Force pleads for modernization funds.
In an arresting turn of phrase this fall, Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne suggested that absent more investment, the service might be "going out of business." He noted that on average, aircraft in his fleet are 24 years old. Air Force planes flying in support of coalition ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are fast wearing out, and "at some time in the future, they will simply rust out, age out, fall out of the sky," he told a gathering at a Washington think tank on Sept. 19.
Wynne raised the specter that the days of U.S. air dominance might be coming to an end. In a conflict with Iran, he said, front-line fighters would not be allowed to operate freely for fear of losing them to the Russian-built air defenses Tehran now is deploying.
During an Oct. 30 conversation with Government Executive Editor Timothy B. Clark, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley reinforced the theme. He said air dominance could be preserved only through the new technologies now rolling off Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. assembly lines in the form of the F-22 and F-35 advanced fighter jets. The Air Force is in a bitter fight to gain the funding needed to assemble a fleet large enough to meet the strategic demands of its Air Combat Command.
This fall has seen a rare public display of dissatisfaction with the White House on the part of military leaders, as both Wynne and Moseley have been saying the Air Force is $100 billion short of the money it needs to recapitalize its fleet over the next five years. Echoing other service chiefs, Moseley said on Oct. 30 that the nation should seriously consider devoting more of its gross domestic product to its defense program.
But the extra $20 billion a year the Air Force seeks will not come easily from a Democratic Congress whose defense specialists aren't satisfied that the Air Force has articulated a convincing long-term view of its role in the strategic challenges the country faces.
Moseley and Wynne are disappointed that their plan to help fund their service's recapitalization by eliminating 40,000 uniformed billets has not materially helped the cause. Money freed up by cutting 30,000 positions so far has been eaten up by operating costs in the ongoing wars. Wynne has said the service remains "desperate to figure out how to save money."
More at the link
True on the Australians (and the USN...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
carl
Both of course would be better, but if the choice had to be made, I would give up the F-35. The Australians are already covering their bet in that regard.
The Australians are less bureaucratic and more focused than we are. They also have a booming economy (right now) and can afford alternatives. The other JSF partners are not so fortunate -- aside from the fact that we said we would do something (a fact the USAF senior leadership in some cases appears to be willing to ignore)...
History is full of similar examples. Army Ground Forces fought tenaciously for the Tank Destroyer concept in WW II in spite of overwhelming evidence form 1940 forward that it was an extremely stupid idea; as late as 1944 they were still wasting money, material and effort developing Tank Destroyers and trying to derail the M26 Tank. They fought mightily to prevent it being deployed in Europe, it took a personal plea from Eisenhower to Marshall to fix that. Criminal malfeasance in my view.
The USAF fought all through the 70-00 period buying enough Transports to fund more than enough fighters; they tried at least twice to dump the A-10. They don't like the F35 because it 'won't do the air superiority mission...' and siphons funds from the F22. Also criminal malfeasance in my view, perhaps even more so as the USAF has fought tenaciously to retain the CAS mission while avoiding until forced to buy the right gear for the job.
Both aircraft are equally necessary; the workhorse F16 is also a '70s design. so's the A-10 -- all of them are going to wear out soon.
The US Army diligently ignored COIN all through that same 70-00 period -- they paid and are paying a price for that. If you want a job, better be prepared to do it and to do it right you need the right tools for those jobs...
Or someone else will take your job. :cool:
Mine is busted to. 'Ours' seems to stay in the
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Umar Al-Mokhtār
. . .
Ken, unfortunately my crystal ball is busted... :wry:
shop -- ours as in the US Government. However, my history books are still available and we have not been great at predicting our next war. We also, historically since WW II have not had very accurate foreign intelligence....
Quote:
While I dare not predict the length of the "GWOT" many inside the building are favoring the term "the Long War." IMHO we will be faced with more LIC/COIN scenarios vice conventional ones over the next decade or two. Why? OEF and OIF demonstrated that it is hard to meet us head on in a conventional slug fest. We will win. So our enemies tear a page out of Ho and Giap and cannot help but notice they might do better in a long, exhaustive conflict. Easier to test our political will than our overwhelming firepower.
No big argument from me over any of that; Other than a minor quibble or two, I'd say the odds are about 75:25 that will be correct. However, I do have two questions about the probability -- (1) What occurs if we prepare for such conflicts and a Political decision is made not to engage? I suggest that given the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq that is a likely prospect. (2) What do we do if that 25% chance occurs ( in the Balkans, in South America, if a bilateral treaty with any of a dozen nations is invoked)?
Quote:
Both the B-52 and the C-130 have lasted a long time, granted fighters work in a different realm thus requiring a different set of upgrades, but the advances in technology are more in the avionics than in the airframe. The AF needs a cultural paradigm shift, compared to the other services they have a tendency to squander funding on “nice to haves.” Having created some really nice infrastructure in the name of QOL they now spend more O&M to maintain it. Their champagne taste is now funded on a beer budget. ;)
Agreed -- but that doesn't affect my point on the practicalities of potential conflict. To me, that potential is the issue and parochial 'who shot John' arguments don't address that point.
Quote:
Who is our conventional opponent in the air?
China? They have an air force of some merit but I do not foresee a head on with them. If we tangle with the Chinese I feel it will be by proxy, possibly in Africa, so it will be LIC/COIN.
Russia? Despite Putin’s recent bellicosity, it will take them many years to straighten out their internal problems before they become more than just a regional power.
Iran? After the NIE the strident calls for war have subsided and a convential war against them at this juncture might be unwise.
Who else has the power to challenge us decisively in the air?
Define decisively? :D Who could achieve temporary local superiority to achieve some tactical or operational gains at some cost to us a dozen places in the world? What nut could decide to take on the USAF in an air dominance battle no matter how stupid or doomed is the idea? Who would take advantage of our involvement in, say Afghanistan and Iraq, to foment hatred and discontent elsewhere to further occupy us and create a distraction while they really aim for greater turmoil in a third location?
Decisively is not the issue; avoiding any challenge in the air is to our advantage. Recall also that in both Korea and Viet Nam, proxy wars with small air forces for our opponenets, the opposition managed to shoot down a lot US planes. We prevailed in the air because we had a lot more planes. Given the costs of those things today, we don't have that quantity nowadays...
Quote:
Yet we are so enamored with technology. The ABL is one example of a program gone amok, a cash cow for defense contractors but a money pit for the taxpayer. JIEDDO also squandered funding searching for "silver bullet" techno answers, many of which proved to be pipe dreams.
Agree in part. Totally with respect over reliance on technology and to JIEDDO, less so on the ABL, I suspect we'll gain some good spin offs from that, one of which may be DEW for the AC130 replacement program -- and another for the F35. :)
There are, of course others that meet your criteria, FCS for one (again, some good spin offs but an unnecessary and ill conceived end goal).
We have always tended to reach for technological solutions instead of starting with better and tailored training which would probably be more effective and cheaper. Unfortunately, training dollars don't help numerous Congressional Districts, big ticket hi tech items do.
(quote)I have no special prescience and realize it is a tough call to posture our military for success in multiple scenarios that involve varying levels of technology.(/quote)
Yes, it is and I too realize that. I also know that all the services sometimes do it well, sometimes not -- and it goes in cycles. The Air Force flubbed it for a few years and bought themselves a problem. I'm merely suggesting that, yeah, it IS their problem -- but, like it or not it unfortunately affects us all and it needs to fixed.
(quote)But I do know those tasked with being the stewards of the citizen’s taxes can do a much better job.[/QUOTE]
With that, I can totally agree, Perhaps unlike you, my hate list on that topic starts with the Congresses (plural, the last 20 or so...).
Mine is busted to. 'Ours' seems to stay in the
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Umar Al-Mokhtār
. . .
Ken, unfortunately my crystal ball is busted... :wry:
shop -- ours as in the US Government. However, my history books are still available and we have not been great at predicting our next war. We also, historically since WW II have not had very accurate foreign intelligence....
Quote:
While I dare not predict the length of the "GWOT" many inside the building are favoring the term "the Long War." IMHO we will be faced with more LIC/COIN scenarios vice conventional ones over the next decade or two. Why? OEF and OIF demonstrated that it is hard to meet us head on in a conventional slug fest. We will win. So our enemies tear a page out of Ho and Giap and cannot help but notice they might do better in a long, exhaustive conflict. Easier to test our political will than our overwhelming firepower.
No big argument from me over any of that; Other than a minor quibble or two, I'd say the odds are about 75:25 that will be correct. However, I do have two questions about the probability -- (1) What occurs if we prepare for such conflicts and a Political decision is made not to engage? I suggest that given the experience in Afghanistan and Iraq that is a likely prospect. (2) What do we do if that 25% chance occurs ( in the Balkans, in South America, if a bilateral treaty with any of a dozen nations is invoked)?
Quote:
Both the B-52 and the C-130 have lasted a long time, granted fighters work in a different realm thus requiring a different set of upgrades, but the advances in technology are more in the avionics than in the airframe. The AF needs a cultural paradigm shift, compared to the other services they have a tendency to squander funding on “nice to haves.” Having created some really nice infrastructure in the name of QOL they now spend more O&M to maintain it. Their champagne taste is now funded on a beer budget. ;)
Agreed -- but that doesn't affect my point on the practicalities of potential conflict. To me, that potential is the issue and parochial 'who shot John' arguments don't address that point.
Quote:
Who is our conventional opponent in the air?
China? They have an air force of some merit but I do not foresee a head on with them. If we tangle with the Chinese I feel it will be by proxy, possibly in Africa, so it will be LIC/COIN.
Russia? Despite Putin’s recent bellicosity, it will take them many years to straighten out their internal problems before they become more than just a regional power.
Iran? After the NIE the strident calls for war have subsided and a convential war against them at this juncture might be unwise.
Who else has the power to challenge us decisively in the air?
Define decisively? :D Who could achieve temporary local superiority to achieve some tactical or operational gains at some cost to us a dozen places in the world? What nut could decide to take on the USAF in an air dominance battle no matter how stupid or doomed is the idea? Who would take advantage of our involvement in, say Afghanistan and Iraq, to foment hatred and discontent elsewhere to further occupy us and create a distraction while they really aim for greater turmoil in a third location?
Decisively is not the issue; avoiding any challenge in the air is to our advantage. Recall also that in both Korea and Viet Nam, proxy wars with small air forces for our opponenets, the opposition managed to shoot down a lot US planes. We prevailed in the air because we had a lot more planes. Given the costs of those things today, we don't have that quantity nowadays...
Quote:
Yet we are so enamored with technology. The ABL is one example of a program gone amok, a cash cow for defense contractors but a money pit for the taxpayer. JIEDDO also squandered funding searching for "silver bullet" techno answers, many of which proved to be pipe dreams.
Agree in part. Totally with respect over reliance on technology and to JIEDDO, less so on the ABL, I suspect we'll gain some good spin offs from that, one of which may be DEW for the AC130 replacement program -- and another for the F35. :)
There are, of course others that meet your criteria, FCS for one (again, some good spin offs but an unnecessary and ill conceived end goal).
We have always tended to reach for technological solutions instead of starting with better and tailored training which would probably be more effective and cheaper. Unfortunately, training dollars don't help numerous Congressional Districts, big ticket hi tech items do.
(quote)I have no special prescience and realize it is a tough call to posture our military for success in multiple scenarios that involve varying levels of technology.(/quote)
Yes, it is and I too realize that. I also know that all the services sometimes do it well, sometimes not -- and it goes in cycles. The Air Force flubbed it for a few years and bought themselves a problem. I'm merely suggesting that, yeah, it IS their problem -- but, like it or not it unfortunately affects us all and it needs to fixed.
(quote)But I do know those tasked with being the stewards of the citizen’s taxes can do a much better job.[/QUOTE]
With that, I can totally agree, Perhaps unlike you, my hate list on that topic starts with the Congresses (plural, the last 20 or so...).
I can agree with all that...
fortunately, the A10 is a tough bird and will be around for a long time. The AF ought to be working now on a equally tough and very similar (and at least equally heavily gunned) replacement.
They need more 130Js and the problems need to fixed; and more C17s; and re-engining the C5s...
They just need, as you say, to get their act together and get in touch with their customer base...
That's good; you just invited more...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Umar Al-Mokhtār
Ken: I agree on your 75:25, I hope our planners see it that way as well and not the reverse. If this makes any sense, I think we would "see" a conventional conflict coming. In our last two out of three we had a long build-up time prior to, even though we failed to see the invasion of Kuwait prior to GW I. OEF was executed on our initiation so we saw it coming as well.
I'd submit that Korea was missed by the Spooks; Viet Nam was missed by the Army (in a broad sense); Grenada was not foreseen and while you're correct in saying the invasion of Kuwait was not foreseen, it should have been (we virtually invited him to do it). I disagree that OEF was foreseen (Sep to Nov isn't much foreseeing and the executed effort did not at all resemble the ConPlan) and, if you meant OIF, yep, we initiated it -- and totally missed WHAT was bound to happen (Well, WE didn't, a lot of folks knew but the folks in charge didn't want to hear that...).
That's not a very good track record on which to base what's likely to be next... :eek:
(quote)Yes, we lost aircraft in Korea and Vietnam to ground fire but those conflicts were set in an era absent the amazing standoff capability we currently have. FACs have nearly been replaced by Predators and even fast movers can "see" from a safer distance. Munitions are virtually pinpoint accurate. Plus detection and countermeasures have improved. So we traded quantity for quality, at a significant cost (wasn't it Stalin who said "quantity has a quality of its own").
Didn't mean ground fire, that's why I said ""Recall also that in both Korea and Viet Nam, proxy wars with small air forces for our opponents, the opposition managed to shoot down a lot US planes.""(emphasis added / kw) I specifically meant in air to air combat -- which is a part of the air superiority realm. In fairness to the AF (and Navy), once they realized they had an air to air problem, they fixed it rapidly but there were more initial losses than they liked. Air superority is pretty important.
Which is what the F22 is all about -- as for your precision attack, totally true -- and the F35 is optimized for just that. ;)