Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 287

Thread: Airforce may be be going out of business

  1. #1
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default Airforce may be be going out of business

    Interesting article from Government Executive (LINK)

    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
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  2. #2
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default Color Me Skeptical

    I'm having a bit of trouble following the core logic here. If I understand, the problem is that it is difficult for manned aircraft to operate where there are elaborate air defense systems. So the solution is that we need to spend more on really, really, really expensive manned aircraft, including ones which are, in the case given, designed to shoot down forty year old Iranian aircraft.

  3. #3
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    The primary problem is the aircraft are old, very old. Old airplanes are difficult to maintain, hard to update and the operators always live in fear that a major problem, due to problems inherent with aging aircraft, will ground an entire fleet tomorrow. Or if the airplane isn't grounded you ask the crews to roll the dice every time they take off.

    Regardless of whose fault it is, the Air Force is faced with having to replace most of its fighters, transports and tankers within a relatively short period of time. They need to be replaced, but whether the will be or not... The things are just flat wearing out. This will cost a LOT of money, and there isn't any easy way around it, not if we want to continue to enjoy the benefits a strong Air Force has given us over the past 65 years.

    The secondary problem is it is hard for old manned airplanes to operate against good air defense systems without suffering prohibitive losses. The new ones are quite remarkable in their capabilities and can go where F-15E's fear to tread. Another benefit is a potential opponent is more likely to be "psyched out" by the prospect of having to face F-22's than F-16's.

    40 year old Iranian fighters are no problem for 40 year old American fighter designs. They probably wouldn't even take off. But those pesky modern missiles are a different story. The Air Force has to plan to defeat other than the Iranian Air Force too.

    People, including me, view the Air Force with great suspicion, a suspicion that the Air Force has done a lot to bring upon it self. But this is a big, real problem that isn't going away and can't be worked around. The only real, and painful, solution is to throw money at it.

  4. #4
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    The primary problem is the aircraft are old, very old. Old airplanes are difficult to maintain, hard to update and the operators always live in fear that a major problem, due to problems inherent with aging aircraft, will ground an entire fleet tomorrow. Or if the airplane isn't grounded you ask the crews to roll the dice every time they take off.

    Regardless of whose fault it is, the Air Force is faced with having to replace most of its fighters, transports and tankers within a relatively short period of time. They need to be replaced, but whether the will be or not... The things are just flat wearing out. This will cost a LOT of money, and there isn't any easy way around it, not if we want to continue to enjoy the benefits a strong Air Force has given us over the past 65 years.

    The secondary problem is it is hard for old manned airplanes to operate against good air defense systems without suffering prohibitive losses. The new ones are quite remarkable in their capabilities and can go where F-15E's fear to tread. Another benefit is a potential opponent is more likely to be "psyched out" by the prospect of having to face F-22's than F-16's.

    40 year old Iranian fighters are no problem for 40 year old American fighter designs. They probably wouldn't even take off. But those pesky modern missiles are a different story. The Air Force has to plan to defeat other than the Iranian Air Force too.

    People, including me, view the Air Force with great suspicion, a suspicion that the Air Force has done a lot to bring upon it self. But this is a big, real problem that isn't going away and can't be worked around. The only real, and painful, solution is to throw money at it.
    What I'm getting at is that if the strategic and operational objective is a strike capability and manned aircraft have problems with AD systems, perhaps the answer is something other than buying another bunch of hugely expensive manned fighter aircraft. Phrased differently, do we need another generation of manned air superiority fighters for strategic reasons or because that's what we've always had and change is hard (particularly for a service largely led by people who flew manned fighters)? I'm certainly open to the argument that we need a new generation of manned fighters but would like to see the strategic rationale.

  5. #5
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    I am not sure we need a "new" generation of manned fighters either. But we do need the present generation, F-22's, to replace the old which is wearing out. That is the material side. The other side is most of our plans and thinking are based on manned machines and until we have time to really think through an alternative and develop the tools to implement it we have to go with what we have.

    There has been considerable discussion about replacing manned airplanes with missiles and drones and ultimately that will probably happen. But I don't think that day is upon us and I don't think emulating the British and their actions in the 50's is a good idea.

    One example of good use of manned fighters is psychologically dominate an opponent. The sight of contrails above you that you can't do a damn thing about must be a daunting one. We don't have any drones available now that could do that.

    Stealth in the F-22 is a lot more than a nice to have feature. I've been told that modern short range missiles are so deadly that if both sides were equipped with something like Python 5s nobody will come out of a visual fight. The F-22 probably won't be seen so hopefully it won't be hit. At least for the next few (20) years, we need this thing.

    Can we agree that the tankers and transports have to be replaced quick?

  6. #6
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    One example of good use of manned fighters is psychologically dominate an opponent. The sight of contrails above you that you can't do a damn thing about must be a daunting one. We don't have any drones available now that could do that.
    Why does a manned craft have more psychological impact than an unmanned one? Does the guy on the ground know which is which?

    Plus, doesn't the idea of visible contrails run counter to the idea of avoiding air defenses?

    Seems to me that there is even greater psychological impact when the guy on the ground doesn't see anything and all the sudden stuff blows up.

  7. #7
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Let's not forget the elephant in the room ...



    All joking aside, there hasn't been a successful enemy-initiated airstrike on American troops for decades. I don't feel comfortable myself putting that record at risk by automating the pilots. We know the many problems with human pilots and have much experience dealing with them - I don't think they are so myriad as to require getting rid of them.

  8. #8
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    Let's not forget the elephant in the room ...



    All joking aside, there hasn't been a successful enemy-initiated airstrike on American troops for decades. I don't feel comfortable myself putting that record at risk by automating the pilots. We know the many problems with human pilots and have much experience dealing with them - I don't think they are so myriad as to require getting rid of them.
    Austrian body builders?

  9. #9
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Stealth in the F-22 is a lot more than a nice to have feature. I've been told that modern short range missiles are so deadly that if both sides were equipped with something like Python 5s nobody will come out of a visual fight. The F-22 probably won't be seen so hopefully it won't be hit. At least for the next few (20) years, we need this thing.

    Can we agree that the tankers and transports have to be replaced quick?
    Couple of things with the F-22...it's good and stealthy when it flies, but it's also big. If you're in visual range you can see it. And with its notional SEAD mission, I don't know that bigger is better.

    One thing that's biting the AF in the butt here is their own procurement procedures and silver bullet mentality, IMO. Stealth is nice, but do you need it for every platform? We saw the same thing back with the XB-70 when the manned bomber was seen as the backbone of the AF. Dumping tons of money into that program left TAC to make do with aircraft that weren't designed for the mission at hand (the F-100 and F-105) and even borrowing a Navy design (the F-4).

    Gonna be tough, but I really don't think that giving the AF a blank check is the answer.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  10. #10
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Why does a manned craft have more psychological impact than an unmanned one? Does the guy on the ground know which is which?

    Plus, doesn't the idea of visible contrails run counter to the idea of avoiding air defenses?

    Seems to me that there is even greater psychological impact when the guy on the ground doesn't see anything and all the sudden stuff blows up.
    I was thinking of a show of force short of war. Contrails left by an airplane that can smash you can be pretty effective at that. We don't have any drones that can do that.

    Again in a situation short of war, something you can see may be scarier than something you can't. For example, it is hard to do gunboat diplomacy with submarines, aircraft carriers are better.

    And in a small war, a low fast run by a fighter in afterburner is, I've read, a good tactic to scare away bad guys. We don't have a drone that can do that either.

    This is, of course, a conservative's argument; I am reluctant to give up what I know works for what might work.

  11. #11
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    I was thinking of a show of force short of war. Contrails left by an airplane that can smash you can be pretty effective at that. We don't have any drones that can do that.

    Again in a situation short of war, something you can see may be scarier than something you can't. For example, it is hard to do gunboat diplomacy with submarines, aircraft carriers are better.

    And in a small war, a low fast run by a fighter in afterburner is, I've read, a good tactic to scare away bad guys. We don't have a drone that can do that either.

    This is, of course, a conservative's argument; I am reluctant to give up what I know works for what might work.
    What I was suggesting is that if it's contrails you want, easier to build drones that make them than to buy more multi bizillion dollar fighter planes.

  12. #12
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Austrian body builders?
    yeah they get elected guvnor and you can't get rid of 'em

  13. #13
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Couple of things with the F-22...it's good and stealthy when it flies, but it's also big. If you're in visual range you can see it. And with its notional SEAD mission, I don't know that bigger is better.

    One thing that's biting the AF in the butt here is their own procurement procedures and silver bullet mentality, IMO. Stealth is nice, but do you need it for every platform? We saw the same thing back with the XB-70 when the manned bomber was seen as the backbone of the AF. Dumping tons of money into that program left TAC to make do with aircraft that weren't designed for the mission at hand (the F-100 and F-105) and even borrowing a Navy design (the F-4).

    Gonna be tough, but I really don't think that giving the AF a blank check is the answer.
    There is no way to have an airplane with long range (endurance), sensors and an adequate weapons load that won't be big. The F-22 though is about the same size as an F-15, 62'x44' vs. 63'x42' so there is no great change there. Bigger is easier to see but that is why stealth in this fighter is so important; if your radar can't tell your eyes where to look you are going to have a hell of a time finding it. The fact that the F-22 flies 20,000' feet higher than anyone else is rather a help to. Stealth is nice and you don't need if for every mission, but I think it vital to this one.

    In full agreement about the Air Force painting itself into a corner, but unfortunately, they painted all the rest of us in the corner with them.

    Also agree about not giving a blank check. I wouldn't fund the F-35. But I do think the F-22 is critical as are fast replacement of the transports and tankers.

  14. #14
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    What I was suggesting is that if it's contrails you want, easier to build drones that make them than to buy more multi bizillion dollar fighter planes.
    Given the history of military procurement, I am not sure building a drone with the capability of say, an F-18F, will be any easier or cheaper than continuing to build the fighters on the production line. I am sure it wouldn't be faster.

  15. #15
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Bluntly if you run something by computer or remote telemetry (two different things) sooner or later it will be vulnerable and used against you. Buy me a beer and I'll tell you about sooner.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  16. #16
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Quoth Carl:

    "Also agree about not giving a blank check. I wouldn't fund the F-35. But I do think the F-22 is critical as are fast replacement of the transports and tankers."
    My conversations with assorted thinking Grunts * indicate they strongly disagree and most -- not all -- would say:

    ""Also agree about not giving a blank check. But I do think both the F-22 and F35 are critical as is replacement of the transports and tankers.""

    The alternative to the capabilities a mature (note that word) F35 will bring is the Army having its own CAS with UAVs and E-4s flying them.

    Your choice, Air force...


    * Those are the Army types, haven't talked to any Marines on the topic recently but I suspect they feel even more strongly that the F35 should stay (for some strange reason). That's without even addressing the other Nations that have bought into the program and have a right to expect something for their money. I suggest that if the AF wants the air missions required for national defense, it needs ALL the capabilities including the ones it does not like and has consistently tried to ignore over the years...

  17. #17
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Bluntly if you run something by computer or remote telemetry (two different things) sooner or later it will be vulnerable and used against you. Buy me a beer and I'll tell you about sooner.
    Are you talking about what the Israelis reputedly did to the Syrians only from the ground up rather than from the air down, so to speak?

  18. #18
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Bluntly if you run something by computer or remote telemetry (two different things) sooner or later it will be vulnerable and used against you.
    Not only that, but let us not forget about software bugs.
    How many times have each of us cursed Bill Gates when we get some kind of glitch associated with a software programming error?

    Just think how many KSLOC (thousands of software lines of code) would have to be written and, at best only partially, debugged to get a fully automated or remotely piloted drone capability that comes close to matching what a human does in an aircraft moving at supersonic speeds. "Oops" just doesn't quite cut it when you get a 404 error and your Predator launched Hellfire flies into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul instead of Balla Hissar in Kabul.

  19. #19
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    My conversations with assorted thinking Grunts * indicate they strongly disagree and most -- not all -- would say:

    ""Also agree about not giving a blank check. But I do think both the F-22 and F35 are critical as is replacement of the transports and tankers.""

    The alternative to the capabilities a mature (note that word) F35 will bring is the Army having its own CAS with UAVs and E-4s flying them.

    Your choice, Air force...


    * Those are the Army types, haven't talked to any Marines on the topic recently but I suspect they feel even more strongly that the F35 should stay (for some strange reason). That's without even addressing the other Nations that have bought into the program and have a right to expect something for their money. I suggest that if the AF wants the air missions required for national defense, it needs ALL the capabilities including the ones it does not like and has consistently tried to ignore over the years...
    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.

  20. #20
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True on the Australians (and the USN...).

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •