Abolish the Air Force

[Norfolk]

And a few Internet addicts to remotely pilot their multi-gazillion dollar intercontinental strategic UAV doom doohickies. So, give it 20 or 30 years and somebody will stand up in the Senate and ask "Why are we paying for an Air Force that doesn't actually put combat pilots in the air anymore?" Then the fur will fly...

[slapout9]

Carl, disagree again. The Saturn 5 is very simple and the costs to develop it pale compared to Aircraft even in adjusted dollars. You can see the actual booster at the Redstone Arsenal at the Huntsville,Al. Space museum. They may still have the prototype at Kennedy Space Center (not sure) but trips to both places are well worth it.

When MIRV technology became available the Saturn 5 would have the ability to hit multiple targets in parallel. Penetration strikes are often multiple hits on the same target...one to break through and one to achieve the final effect on the target...agin missiles can do this very well.

Again their is no need for the delivery system to penetrate hostile air space...so why have a plane to do it? Only the warhead needs to get there.

Because missiles travel so fast there's know need to launch until it is the final option.....Air Planes flying around are far more provocative then missiles for this reason. also our enemies know how cheap and how much better missiles are which is why they are developing their missile technologies instead of wasting their money on black airplanes.

Bombing in any form is an Artillery Strike the plane makes it more complicated and longer to respond unless it on station as opposed to have a missile battery on call by the ground force commander who can hit what he wants to hit in minutes with missile artillery.

Having said this I think the Air Forces main missions should be constant ISR probably with satellites more than anything (not sure just a thought) and leave the bombing to us...Army. A second priority mission is Strategic Airlift get the Army to the AO.

Third and a big one the Air Force is good at coming up war games and Strategic Thinking materials... not a real jazzy job but vital to our national security.

And finally one that is also vitally important is the exploitation of Space.

PS if you ever get to Alabama we will go to Huntsville and see some Army Airpower....some good eatin places up there to.

[selil]

They have the Saturn V at Kennedy... I was recently there and they have the whole enchilada suspended from the ceiling. Monster does not describe it well enough. I've got a picture of the wife and kids standing underneath it...

[Adam L]

They have the Saturn V at Kennedy... I was recently there and they have the whole enchilada suspended from the ceiling. Monster does not describe it well enough. I've got a picture of the wife and kids standing underneath it...

It is absolutely staggering to stand next to a machine of such immense proportions. Not to mention that the entire thing had less computer power than my calculator.

Adam

[carl]

Slapout:

I am not so sure the Saturn 5 was either simple or inexpensive. There were a lot of parts to that thing, like thousands and thousands. Plus it was liquid fueled so it took days and days to assemble, transport and fuel. I don't remember but there may have been restrictions on how long you could leave it sitting there fueled and ready to go. And there was a huge infrastructure needed to support it. Liquid fueled rockets make a cumbersome weapon.

Anyway we could go back and forth about relative expense for a long time and not resolve it. I for sure don't know enough to do so.

True our enemies are developing missiles; but the reason those missiles vex us is because they may be used for throwing nukes. For throwing nukes, nothing beats a missile. I don't think we would very worried about North Korean or Iranian missiles if they were only going to deliver h.e. warheads.

The US has a rather different purpose in mind, and airplanes can often fulfill that purpose better that missiles.

As far as arty vs. CAS, people like Cavguy have the experience that makes their opinions really count; but as a civilian who only knows what he's read, CAS has some real value to it.

[Adam L]

Slapout:

I am not so sure the Saturn 5 was either simple or inexpensive. There were a lot of parts to that thing, like thousands and thousands. Plus it was liquid fueled so it took days and days to assemble, transport and fuel. I don't remember but there may have been restrictions on how long you could leave it sitting there fueled and ready to go. And there was a huge infrastructure needed to support it. Liquid fueled rockets make a cumbersome weapon.

Anyway we could go back and forth about relative expense for a long time and not resolve it. I for sure don't know enough to do so.

1. Saturn V development was inexpensive in comparison to other programs due to its simplicity in design.
2. Its parts due to thier large size were actually easier to work with. Where it got nuts is with the wiring and sensors.
3. Fueling was not only time consuming and expensive, it was very dangerous.
4. Liquid fueled rockets must be monitored constanlty when fueled. It is unfeasable and dangerous to leave them fueled for long.

In conlcusion I have to say ther is NO way a liquid fueled rocket is practical nor economical. They require an army to maintiain and monitor thier functions. A second army to deal with it if something goes wrong. Modern solid fueled rockets are far more practical.

Adam

Adam

[Presley Cannady]

PS if you ever get to Alabama we will go to Huntsville and see some Army Airpower....some good eatin places up there to.

What chance is there Navy will roll over if Air Force goes for a nuclear power in orbit?

[slapout9]

Hi Presley,don't really understand your question?

[Presley Cannady]

Hi Presley,don't really understand your question?

My bad. Quoted the wrong sentence. Meant to actually respond to this:

And finally one that is also vitally important is the exploitation of Space.

I'm asking who wins in a pissing contest for ownership of the space exploitation missions: Air Force or Navy?

[selil]

Navy... They are spaceships. Airforce for Orbit to the ground missions. Navy for outside of orbit. Just my opinion.

[Steve Blair]

Agreed. Plus they have the self-contained, expeditionary mindset you need for that sort of thing. Again, IMO.

[slapout9]

My bad. Quoted the wrong sentence. Meant to actually respond to this:



I'm asking who wins in a pissing contest for ownership of the space exploitation missions: Air Force or Navy?

I did not understand the question as purely military as you refer to "ownership of space exploitation missions"...which is one of NASA's main missions. In the purley military part other folks here are better at that then me.

[LawVol]

Maybe you are a dreamer, and that is not a bad thing but this is WAR and we need realists. A service-biased example if I may: No Marine, alive or dead would ever feel the need to justify their service... that is they know what they do, they know they do it well and they KNOW (fundamentally and intrinsically) they are indispensable.

Using my "billion dollar brain," let me tell you that you might want to use yours to open a book about Marine Corps history. It is only recently that the Corps hasn't had to justify its existance. Throughout its history, mostly after wars or large engagments, the Corps has had to sell itself in the halls of Congress. Thankfully, at least a few Marines dreamed of justifying the Corps' existence so we still have one.

Also, you might want to read [B]Stevely's[B] responses to my post. His reasoning was well though out and well written, which has given me some pause to at least consider his arguments. Your post, on the other hand, is so caustic that I can't really take it seriously. Besides, I've never sought to justify the existence of the AF before, so why would I start now?