Airforce may be be going out of business

[Ken White]

[QUOTE=MattC86;35608]
. . .
[quote]I understand current Chinook variants are not optimized for naval use. But the Sea Knight is similar in configuration (and the Super Stallion is in size) to the Chinook, and I don't see why it couldn't be modified for effective from-the-sea capabilities (though I certainly don't know enough to say for sure - that seems to be a permanent caveat of my posts. . .)[quote]

Folding rotor blades for the hook would cost big $ -- the Ch46 had 'em in the design spec. The Hook is too high for the hangars aboarg ship, the CH53 was specifically designed to fit them and its tail boom folds giving it a smaller footprint than the hook.

My problem with the V-22 is more a general issue with military procurement - they simply don't understand the concept of a sunk cost. Because of Congressional oversight, they fear having to say, "We spent a few hundred million in development of this, but it turned out to be a mediocre or non-optimal idea, so we bagged it," and thus they essentially force the development of a system. In some cases that has worked - the AMRAAM should, in all fairness, have been killed given its difficulties in the late 1980s - and in some cases it doesn't work; the service would be better off swallowing the lost development costs and moving on.

While we can agree there's much wrong with the process, it's not nearly that simple -- that is for a separate thread.

The Marines seem to be growing as bad at this as the other services; both the V-22 and the EFV are troubled systems that have been or are being ramrodded through because (1) the service claims it needs them and can't use anything else (which may not be entirely true) and (2) the service shows all the money its (usually wastefully) spent on the system already, and says we owe it to the taxpayer to finish the development.

All the last two paragraphs of complaint are true -- but much of the meat is the fault of Congress, not the services. The EFV will probably die, OBE and a step too far. The MV 22 will get fixed; any technological leap is gong to have beaucoup bigs initially. Is it overpriced, sure -- but IMO almost ALL aircraft are (including the civil side). Sellers market...

... I can't think of any system procured by the military in recent history that has think-tank papers published urging the military to can the program even after it has entered service.

That settles it. If the Think Tanks are against it, I'm for it!!!

Those turkeys make a lot of noise and while there are unquestionably some good and smart guys working for them; they have zero responsibility and do not have to live with the results of their products.

The per-unit cost of even a modified MH-47 would be less than the Osprey, and the reliability and survivability (at least in terms of armament) would be increased.

Possibly, still won't fit in the hangars, still doesn't have the speed -- and even more importantly, it doesn't have the range.

That's my concern. Sorry to hijack this thread from our beloved "Good Lord do I hate the way the USAF does its business" message, but I wanted to say it. Saying "Osprey" and "good and needed" was waving a red flag to me. . .

Sorry, I guess we can disagree on that. However, do note that I said good and not great; and needed and not irreplaceable...

[MattC86]

Folding rotor blades for the hook would cost big $ -- the Ch46 had 'em in the design spec. The Hook is too high for the hangars aboarg ship, the CH53 was specifically designed to fit them and its tail boom folds giving it a smaller footprint than the hook.

It's no fun talking to someone who knows specific facts, rather than someone who makes wild, rather unsubstantiated generalizations. . .

While we can agree there's much wrong with the process, it's not nearly that simple -- that is for a separate thread.

No, and I know it's not quite that simple, but the constant willingness to throw good money after bad has to be the most flagrant (and easily-changed) problem in the procurement process. There is an expectation, no - actually a demand, for any R&D effort, no matter how small or how far-fetched to produce a viable system. That's criminally stupid stubbornness.

All the last two paragraphs of complaint are true -- but much of the meat is the fault of Congress, not the services. The EFV will probably die, OBE and a step too far. The MV 22 will get fixed; any technological leap is gong to have beaucoup bigs initially. Is it overpriced, sure -- but IMO almost ALL aircraft are (including the civil side). Sellers market...

Oh, absolutely Congress is to blame in large part. I worked there last summer; I got to see their dysfunctionality in all its glory. My boss forgot to sign a bill he submitted; a member of the transportation committee called our office asking what railroad companies have track or rolling stock in his district, etc.

I don't share your view that the EFV is going to die - mainly because the AAV is both old and is tainted in the current anti-IED hysteria of Congress, and the Marine Corps needs something else, even if its NOT a vehicle for a questionably-relevant mission that's as big as a house in an era of precision-munitions proliferation. . .

. . .and the MV-22 or CV-22 or whatever will undoubtedly have its bugs worked out, but not it's weak armament (1 7.62mm MG on the ramp?), nor (if it turns out to be the case, as some suspect) the inherent fragility of its tilt-rotor mechanism and subsequent susceptibility to battle damage.

You're right about its capabilities and advantages as compared to other options, I think, and probably in regards to the decision made to buy it, but I'm still violently against the way in which its development and procurement occurred as representative of the process as a whole. . .

That settles it. If the Think Tanks are against it, I'm for it!!!

Those turkeys make a lot of noise and while there are unquestionably some good and smart guys working for them; they have zero responsibility and do not have to live with the results of their products.

LOL, fair enough, I was desperate for credibility. You're pretty confident of its eventual success, so I won't argue the point further. I hope you're right.

Sorry, I guess we can disagree on that. However, do note that I said good and not great; and needed and not irreplaceable...

Fair enough - I will admit that I'm more skeptical of the aircraft's performance rather than adamantly opposed. To tie this into the thread's original message, however, I will say that part of the conditions for funding the AF's massive boondoggle should be a change in the procurement system. Not that the costs of the aircraft themselves are going to go down - you're right about that as well - but at least the system should be run better.

And maybe a little foresight, like maybe forcing them to invest in SLEPs or something of that ilk when their new-acquisition programs are cut, wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Matt

[carl]

Yes the P-3 is for maritime patrol, but of the long range, long loiter type. For immediate fleet tactical ASW support there are LAMPs and S-3 Vikings. If you are just looking to track surface targets there are active and passive sensors used aboard all surface combatants, coupled with aircraft when available.

While a P-3 would probably have no difficulty sinking a "boat," it might have problems with a real surface warship (subs are poor AA platforms, even on the surface).

If surface combatants are available they are grand for tracking ships. But near as I can figure (there is no library near and I'm not that good at using the net) the US Navy has rather less than 300 ships so in most of the world most of the time, one will probably not be available. That is why I think it so handy to have an airplane that can go a long way to a remote part of the ocean and hang around a while to check out a boat... I mean ship. (you know an attempt at clever doesn't work when you have explain it.)

[carl]

The F/A-18E is replacing the F-14 only, I thought. It's far too expensive to replace the F/A-18Cs (right?) One of the goals of the F-35 program, back when it was the JSF was to get the per-unit cost down to something around the F-15/F-14 range ($30-40M a pop) rather than at the F-22 or F/A-18E's $100-200M.

Since F/A-18Cs make up 3 out of the four squadrons of strike fighters in a CVW, I would assume this is a problem.

Matt

Probably what gets replaced by what depends on what you can talk Congress into buying. The Navy originally wanted near 1,000 FA-18E/Fs. Now they are going to get a little less than 500. And they will get who knows how many F-35s who knows when. I believe the Navy is keeping on the FA-18C/Ds because they have to, not because of a "noble spirit of self-sacrifice" that the Air Force refuses to to evince.

To get back to the issue of aging aircraft; the Navy is having to spend $2 million per FA-18C for structural mods to keep the aircraft going.

[George Raihala]

The USN is switching out its F/A-18C/Ds for single seat F/A-18Es (although I don't know if they are swapping out all of them; I suspect not), and replaced its F-14s with two-seat F/A-18Fs (although I believe that one F-14 squadron transitioned to the single seat "E" models).

The Marines decided not to buy any Super Hornets (the E/F models), instead deciding to wait for the F-35 to replace their older Hornets and AV-8Bs.

[Stevely]

When you can no longer afford stuff, you either stop buying it, or go with the cheaper substitutes. This rule applies to institutions as much as to individuals and families. Can't afford the Mercedes and the Chateau Rothschild? Time for a Civic and Three Buck Chuck. Maybe it's time the Air Force sets the F-22 and F-35 aside and start buying cheaper planes. Boeing and Lockmart not offering any? Then buy Eurofighter or Gripen or even Su-37.

The defense aerospace industry has had the taxpayer over a barrel for so long, it's time to return the favor. In any event, we have to do something different - we're pricing ourselves out of the war business. F-22 and F-35 are already bankrupting the Air Force.

[Steve Blair]

Or stop buying spare parts and other items they no longer need. CBS had a story the other day about military stockpiling of obsolete spare parts, and the AF was the worst abuser with something like $18 billion or so this past year. Haven't run this through the "fact check" system, but it does square with some things I used to see on various bases.

[Penta]

Or stop buying spare parts and other items they no longer need. CBS had a story the other day about military stockpiling of obsolete spare parts, and the AF was the worst abuser with something like $18 billion or so this past year. Haven't run this through the "fact check" system, but it does square with some things I used to see on various bases.

Define obsolete? If it's still in service *somewhere* in the US inventory, the military needs to have spares for it.

Re the V22: Matt may be right. Maybe the aircraft isn't ready for primetime.

However, the V22 is probably better thought of as something like the first tanks. Not necessarily combat-effective or useful themselves, but necessary to prove the technology and figure out where we want to go with RDA activities.

[Steve Blair]

Penta: The gist of the story was that these were spares for equipment that was no longer in service anywhere in the US inventory.

[Ron Humphrey]

Penta: The gist of the story was that these were spares for equipment that was no longer in service anywhere in the US inventory.

On the military ad Civil defense side.

[Penta]

Penta: The gist of the story was that these were spares for equipment that was no longer in service anywhere in the US inventory.

Ah. That's much different...And I would completely agree, sell it or destroy it.

Then again, from secondhand experience, we have had a bad habit of PDOing (selling as surplus) stuff that shouldn't be...So perhaps its an overreaction after someone accidentally PDOed a SAM.

[wm]

Ah. That's much different...And I would completely agree, sell it or destroy it.

Then again, from secondhand experience, we have had a bad habit of PDOing (selling as surplus) stuff that shouldn't be...So perhaps its an overreaction after someone accidentally PDOed a SAM.

But the AF recently almost managed to PDO (BTW, DRMO is the New Age term for the surplus/excess agency) a few missiles with nukes still attached. Remember that news item?

[MattC86]

Spilled my coffee when I saw this in the Chicago Tribune this morning:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...944816.gallery

Go to #8.

Apparently, this boondoggle is catching on. . . the next manned bomber is next, I'm sure.

Matt

[Ken White]

Spilled my coffee when I saw this in the Chicago Tribune this morning:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...944816.gallery

Go to #8.

Apparently, this boondoggle is catching on. . . the next manned bomber is next, I'm sure.

Matt

The world wonders...

[MattC86]

You're right of course, it was 9, not 8.

However, "the world wonders?" It's Leyte Gulf and TF 34 all over again! Is that a subtle jab from CINCPAC, or did my computer forget to discard "the world wonders" as message encryption padding?

Matt

[Ken White]

Still wonders.....

[carl]

"Scores of F-15s Likely to Stay Grounded
Los Angeles Times | By Julian E. Barnes | January 09, 2008
The Air Force is likely to order dozens of its F-15 fighter jets permanently grounded because of critical structural flaws, significantly reducing the number of planes available to protect the United States, officials said Tuesday.

After one of the fighters broke apart during a simulated dogfight in November, Air Force officials grounded the entire F-15 fleet, nearly 700 planes, fearing such a defect. The newest versions of the fighter jets were allowed to resume flying shortly afterward, but 440 of the older model F-15s have remained out of service.

The Air Force plans to allow about 260 of the remaining grounded planes to return to duty today. About 180 will remain idle because of suspected structural flaws.

"Many of them may never fly again," said a senior Air Force officer. The officer, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because results of the investigation were not to be made public until today.

Many of the F-15s, long the nation's most sophisticated front- line fighters, have been around for 30 years, and the fleet is being replaced gradually. The Air Force still relies on F-15s to protect the continental United States and to fly combat missions abroad. Newer model F-15Es are used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and were the first of the planes to resume flying after the mishap in November.

The problems with the F-15, Air Force officials argue, have increased the need to buy additional F-22s, a swift and stealthy but expensive new fighter plane.

"This is grave," said a senior Air Force official. "Two hundred of our air superiority aircraft are on the ground, and we are acting like it is business as usual."

An investigation of the Nov. 2 crash shows the F-15 that broke apart in midair had a fault in a crucial support component called a longeron, a structural beam that serves as part of the spine of the aircraft. F-15s have four longerons around the cockpit.

Air Force officials have not yet learned how a defective beam came to be installed in the plane when it was manufactured in 1980. But Air Force officials emphasized that the age of the airframe, combined with the faulty part, put the older F-15s at risk.

There is one squadron of about 20 F-15s based at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton. Langley spokeswoman Lt. Georganne Schultz said Tuesday night that the base has not received any word that its jets will be among those permanently grounded."


...and it is not just some sly Air Force trick.

[Ken White]

Possibly. It may not be sly and it may not be a trick and I have no doubt the birds need replacement, none at all.

However, all the public utterances of Moseley et.al. recently in the "we're dying here" mode and the Op-Eds by Dunlap along with several major errors in new contracts (or attempts to let new contracts) are not making them look too good to Congress or even the public. Not to mention our ignorant attack dog media...

So I suspect they'll be accused of trickery.

[carl]

How true again, Ken. Sometimes I think the air force that poses the greatest threat to the United States having air supremacy in the future is the American one. (sigh)

[Steve Blair]

Possibly. It may not be sly and it may not be a trick and I have no doubt the birds need replacement, none at all.

However, all the public utterances of Moseley et.al. recently in the "we're dying here" mode and the Op-Eds by Dunlap along with several major errors in new contracts (or attempts to let new contracts) are not making them look too good to Congress or even the public. Not to mention our ignorant attack dog media...

So I suspect they'll be accused of trickery.

The biggest issue here is that the AF has a long history of "crying wolf" when it comes to this sort of thing. It's their own PR legacy coming back to bite them in the ass, combined with their own procurement and research practices.