Airforce may be be going out of business

[davidbfpo]

Carl,

A good catch and being written by Mark Bowden, doubly worthwhile. Others will identify the lessons for the USAF, but I liked the comment on an exercise with the Indian AF in 2005.

davidbfpo

[Starbuck]

I think the push to accept unmanned planes has the same psychological effect on the Air Force that the push to eliminate horses had for the Army. (To a small extent, this is true across the broad range of the aviation community, I would say)

Think of how prevalent the image of the fighter pilot is in our society. The Air Force leadership grew up with images of Chuck Yeager. Today's Gen-Yers grew up wanting to be Maverick and Goose, or Luke Skywalker. Think of the plot of JAG--a Navy JAG lawyer also, from time to time, has to pilot F-14 Tomcats to fight terrorists. In order to pilot something, you need to have been (before laser surgery) born with superior eyesight, etc. It's almost as if you're born with a magical "gift".

I will agree that in the USAF's culture, being a rated aviator is everything. It's rare to see someone rise to high ranks and NOT be a rated aviator (although it looks as if this has changed in the last year or two). UAV operators are continually made fun of by the entire aviation community (The fact that UAV operators have received DFCs hasn't helped the resentment, either), and are treated as "less than aviators". But the interesting point of the matter is that UAVs are, in fact, becoming a much more prevalent portion of the aviation community, and is doing so rapidly. I'm not pushing for the complete removal of manned aircraft from the inventory, but we could conceivably add many more unmanned aircraft to the fleet.

The decision to place them under ground or aviation units is a good one, as is whether or not to place them under the control of rated aviators. In my opinion, as congested as the airspace is now, I'd rather have them under the control of rated aviators instead of people who have never experienced a near mid-air incident, which is "game over" in a UAV, but not so much in a manned aircraft.

[selil]

I'm not pushing for the complete removal of manned aircraft from the inventory, but we could conceivably add many more unmanned aircraft to the fleet.

I don't think anybody will ever push for a total removal of manned aircraft from the inventory. I still have reservations about close air support for troops being done with UAVs. There is to much situational awareness a human can process that a computer can not communicate. I think UAVs like other new toys are riding a wave of rapid acceptance while people who point out there problems or limitations are ignored.

I will just say that trusting any technology to much can bite you quick. I can't imagine the C2 systems of drones is that hard to understand. Might be an interesting project to red team.

[Entropy]

I think the push to accept unmanned planes has the same psychological effect on the Air Force that the push to eliminate horses had for the Army. (To a small extent, this is true across the broad range of the aviation community, I would say)

Disagree completely. For one thing, I don't think the analogy is applicable. Horses, when one gets down to it, are a technology and horses were replaced when better technology came along. People cannot so easily be replaced and not every mission or capability should get rid of people.

Furthermore, the Air Force IS, in reality, embracing UAS. For more, see this.

The cultural impediments in the AF against UAS' are actually not that great, IMO. The cultural problems are not with UAS' themselves, but other factors, like planning and command-and-control.

UAS' have a lot of promise, but one must realize that they can increase vulnerabilities, not decrease them. UAS are completely dependent on C2, which becomes the critical vulnerability. Secure, redundant C2 is very expensive and something that is rarely considered when comparing costs to manned aircraft. There's also situational awareness to consider, especially for highly complex warfighting skills like air-to-air engagements. The Mark 1 eyeball is still the best sensor out there. The challenges are immense and it will be a while before unmanned systems are capable of performing many missions currently performed by humans in cockpits.

[carl]

I don't think it is completely fair to attribute any reluctance there is in the USAF to go the drone route to them not wanting to give up the glamourous flyboy image. As Entropy suggests, there is a lot that hasn't been worked out yet and will take a long time to work out. I believe the Air Force is genuinely concerned about mounting complex airstrikes with drones in the mix or nothing but drones.

The story in the Atlantic starts by describing an air battle in which controllers assigned some F-14's to intercept 2 Iraqi fighters. The F-14's missed the intercept and the F-15 driver interviewed had to start the fight with no real warning at 13 miles. People probably worry about winning a fight like that with drones at the current stage of development.

One of the points of the story is it will be years until all this is worked out and in the meantime we had better have F-22s (i have to get my plug in) around to win the air battles with a minimum of fuss.

As a personal observation, I have been flying a long time and I just can't see some of the more complicated things you do in airplanes being done without the ability to directly look at the sky and the ground and whatever else is out there.

[George L. Singleton]

The Air Force has been in a state of change away from pilots for at least 25 years.

Technology and engineering are the way forward today, in addition to piloting.

And, seeking to kill more and loose fewer of our own, unmanned aircraft and drones are highly desirable.

What DOD now has to oversee and manage well is a revival of the late 1950s style of who will build and get credit "for the missiles" which found the Navy allowed the lead, which flopped; then the Army due to Werner Von Braun being an Army missle expert got the ball and with Van Braun and his carried over ex-German scientists won the day, with great long distance visions.

Those old enough to remember COLLIERS MAGAZINE, LIFE, LOOK, MECHANICAL SCIENCE MAGAZINES saw visionary sketches, plans, and ideas from Von Braun only some of which have already been carried out, others of which are yet to be done, and these are still very doable.

Carriers still have sound tactical roles, but even carriers can use some unmanned aircraft, and non-carriers can and do well at launching guided missiles in today's world.

Rated USAF officers are not always the best managers or leaders of working groups vs. high personal skills in the cockpit.

Written by a non-rated retired USAF (Reserve) 06 who turned down consideration for 07 due to then pressing family needs which did and always would come first, which is why I retired reserve instead of active duty.

The day of the uniservice as in Canada is not that far away, either.

Behave.

[carl]

The late 50's should be remembered for a cautionary tale also. That is when the British decided to halt development of manned aircraft because of the promised capabilities of missiles. The missiles still haven't lived up to the promise and the British ended up having to buy manned airplanes anyway, some of them from us. They still are. A main effect of the decision was to badly hurt their aircraft business.

I worry we may go down the same road because of promise that has yet to be demonstrated.

[tankersteve]

OK, let me see if I have this straight.

The Air Force needs super-million dollar aircraft that are very stealthy and high performance in order to establish air superiority because the enemy has fighters that are high performance and/or the enemy has lots of surface-to-air missiles.

The enemy, whoever they are, probably can't train their fighters as well as ours and probably can't afford to have them fly as much as ours. So they resort to lots of SAMS.

SAMS don't get you air superiority. However, if you have alot of them, do you need it? At what point would the expense of dozens of F22s pay for a 'good enough' deployable SAM defense for ground forces?

If we can't afford the aircraft that the Air says they need, do we need to do what other nations do in a similar context: buy cheaper planes and put lots of money into SAMS? Or are we afraid our SAMS wouldn't be good enough?

I think lots of very good (not the best) planes, piloted by the very best pilots (better trained, more capable), in conjunction with some good SAMs, would be cheaper and provide a more layered and effective approach than 381 F-22s. Just think, the pilots are happy because their uber-skill is the deciding factor, so they have to be s***-hot and know it. The congress and contractors are happy because we have planes and missiles to build and buy. And the ground troops are happy because the skies are essentially safe.

We, the U.S. military, have been using and winning with 'good enough' systems for years. Sometimes our greatest advantage is being focused on having sustainable and logistically simple systems to maintain, something I think some nations (Germany in WWII, Russia) forget to emphasize. The Air Force may just have to recognize that the gold-plated objective isn't attainable.

Tankersteve

[George L. Singleton]

Sometimes our greatest advantage is being focused on having sustainable and logistically simple systems to maintain, something I think some nations (Germany in WWII, Russia) forget to emphasize.

This pretty much says it all.

My growing up life long friend General Ron Yates, USAF, Ret., was a darn good pilot, heavy in the Pentagon during his career in driving procurment of new fighter aircraft, but would I suspect not be afraid to admit to the above simplified logic.

I did a few weekender only reservist years of drill in the Pentagon in LGXW and say no more than that on the topic myself.

[Ken White]

We, the U.S. military, have been using and winning with 'good enough' systems for years. Sometimes our greatest advantage is being focused on having sustainable and logistically simple systems to maintain, something I think some nations (Germany in WWII, Russia) forget to emphasize. The Air Force may just have to recognize that the gold-plated objective isn't attainable.

Those good enough systems -- the M4 Tank comes to mind -- allowed us to win because we could produce many thousands of them. That made up, in tanks, for the losses that a 'good enough' tank took because it was out gunned by its opponents.

That doesn't necessarily make up for the excess casualties taken due to 'good enough' as opposed to better.

I'll also point out that the good enough airplanes of today were the 'gold plated' and 'excessively costly' airplanes of yesterday. Quality has a quantity all its own...

You willing to give up the M1A2 SEP(V2) for upgraded Leopard 1A5s or M60A3s

[tankersteve]

Ken,

Back in 1984, we did know we had something (chobham armor) that no one else had yet. That was a good reason to build a new generation. And it really didn't break our procurement budget.

I don't think of the M1A2 SEP as the F22 of the tank world. Especially since we recognized that we can't have as many as we wanted so many of us use M1A1 AIM tanks, with much lower digital coms integration and without the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer or the updated FLIR capability.

When other countries have active defense systems (Trophy, Drozd) and more advanced engines and suspensions, then I don't think I have the best of the best. And I know we can't afford to develop a brand new, latest and greatest model just so we are the absolute kings of the battlefield. But I do have Soldiers with better, more realistic training, and hopefully we have better leaders. And we continue to upgrade what we have to maintain parity where we can. I will just have to work harder and know the risks I face on the big battlefield.

Yes, buying the best now saves some money over time. But I think we may hit diminishing returns on that as things get so expensive to build AND maintain. How many B2 are there? How long did the F-117 serve?

Tankersteve

[George L. Singleton]

So...the old hidden agenda...the Army again wants to take over and reinstitute the Army Air Corp as in charge of all flying, short of the Navy/Marine air arm!

We are still amazing parochial, as was the case during the Bill Mitchell days.

[selil]

Those good enough systems -- the M4 Tank comes to mind -- allowed us to win because we could produce many thousands of them. That made up, in tanks, for the losses that a 'good enough' tank took because it was out gunned by its opponents.

That doesn't necessarily make up for the excess casualties taken due to 'good enough' as opposed to better.

I'll also point out that the good enough airplanes of today were the 'gold plated' and 'excessively costly' airplanes of yesterday. Quality has a quantity all its own...

You willing to give up the M1A2 SEP(V2) for upgraded Leopard 1A5s or M60A3s

Using high double digit capability in speed, armor thickness, resistance and what not for tanks to justify low single digit difference (or even negative) for speed, capability, survivability of airplanes as an argument? Where prices over decades M48's M60s to M1A1-2's expanded hugely over decades. Airplane prices have climbed 800 to 1200 percent with reducing numbers of deliveries during the production schedule.

When was the last M1 produced from scratch? What was the longevity of service for the F117?

[Ken White]

Using high double digit capability in speed, armor thickness, resistance and what not for tanks to justify low single digit difference (or even negative) for speed, capability, survivability of airplanes as an argument? Where prices over decades M48's M60s to M1A1-2's expanded hugely over decades. Airplane prices have climbed 800 to 1200 percent with reducing numbers of deliveries during the production schedule.

If so, you've confused me -- I know, I know, that's easy -- but my point on the tanks was that 'good enough' (of which you hopefully recall I am normally a strong proponent) is a good philosophy generally but it does not apply universally. Tanks and aircraft being examples wherein I think the rule does not apply. Nor did I say anything about Armor. IOW, I have no earthly idea what you're talking about...

The M1A2 SEP(V2) costs about six times as much (inflation adjusted) as the M48; the F22 costs about six times as much as as the F15C. In both cases, the advance in capability is greater than the cost increase.

My point was that 'good enough' is not always the best argument; I used the M4 because Tanker Steve is, well, Tanker Steve. I also used the thousands of M4s produced because I knew the smart guys here would immediately recognize that we no longer have the capability to rapidly shift production from tractors to tanks or from DC3s to F22s (not least because the composites and techniques used in the latter are proprietary).

When was the last M1 produced from scratch? What was the longevity of service for the F117?

For the first question, probably last week LINK. Ours, OTOH, are now all rebuilds 'cause it's cheaper -- a new one here would run over six times more than the M48 -- more like 12. Longevity of service for the F-117 was 25 years, 1983 to 2008 (but looky -- LINK: "Ten of the Stealth Fighters were retired last year and 27 so far in 2008. The remainder will be placed in storage next month according to Diana Filliman, director of the 650th Aeronautical Systems Squadron at Wright-Patt." (emphasis added /kw) they may be resurrected...

Why do you ask?

[Ken White]

When other countries have active defense systems (Trophy, Drozd) and more advanced engines and suspensions...

An added question would be; in what quantities do they have these advanced vehicles? State of training? Logistic aspects? OR rates? Do those folks also have an Air force that can pretty well assure air superiority? Do they have a slew of Apaches that consistently game out to a 10:1 ratio on tanks (Aviator hype, I know but 5:1 is believable).

...then I don't think I have the best of the best. And I know we can't afford to develop a brand new, latest and greatest model just so we are the absolute kings of the battlefield. But I do have Soldiers with better, more realistic training, and hopefully we have better leaders. And we continue to upgrade what we have to maintain parity where we can. I will just have to work harder and know the risks I face on the big battlefield.

I suspect the same calculus was applied at echelons above reality... [/QUOTE]

[Ken White]

So...the old hidden agenda...the Army again wants to take over and reinstitute the Army Air Corp as in charge of all flying, short of the Navy/Marine air arm!

We are still amazing parochial, as was the case during the Bill Mitchell days.

Of course we are -- human frailty. If there was a huge AAC, then the Infantry and Tankers would fight about who was to control it -- allowing the Aviators to do whatever they wanted...

[George L. Singleton]

IN this grim time of economic collapse, a little early aviation history trivia:

1. In World War I Corporal Bennett Powell Singleton, AEF, 31st Division, in France fighting WW I at age 14 (yes, age 14 and a Corporal) was standing under/near the dog fight between the German Red Baron and Captain Quinton Roosevelt, son of then former President Teddy Roosevelt.

2. Dad went over to the shot down/crashed and burning plane of CPT Roosevelt to try to lend assistance, and managed to drag his body away from the plane, but of course Roosevelt was already dead.

3. A few years later Dad, now a young civilian bookkeeper (accountant) in Washington, DC was in the audience at the Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, AAC court martial.

3. Seated next to Dad, randomly, was a young Navy pioneer aviator, Lt. Arthur Gavin.

4. Leap forward in time to 1954, and at age 15 I was an usher at the wedding of Dad's older sister, Carolyn Singleton (an old maid) to...retired Naval aviator, Rear Admiral Arthur Gavin (a widower). Arthur Gavin thus became the brother in law to my Dad!

Talk about a small, random world!!! Dad and his older sister were from Alabama, Gavin was from Wisconsin.

[carl]

Knowingly buying an airplane that is "good enough" now, assumes that the enemy isn't going to spring a nasty surprise of you in the next 20-30 years. If he does, your "good enough" may quickly turn into Fokker fodder and there won't be anything you can do about it for 5 or 10 years. If you buy something that is vastly superior, then you have some wiggle room.

(I was thinking about bringing up Shermans but Ken beat me to it. Zaloga's recent book about the M-4, Armoured Thunderbolt, was very good.)

I would not count on a potential enemy not being able to train as well or better than we can. Both the Indians and the Chileans have given us surprises in exercises over the years. Also at times during Vietnam, our pilot training standards weren't all that great. If you have a superplane like the F-22, that doesn't make so much difference.

SAM's do well enough if you just want to dissuade the other guy from dropping bombs on your head; but not always, as the Syrian air defense forces can attest. But for us that wouldn't be enough.

For the last several generations, we have gone after the other guy in his backyard. We are the ones who fly over his SAMs, destroy them, then drop bombs on their heads. We destroy his fighters over his airfields so they don't bother us as we go about our business. In order to do this, and to do it for the next bunch of years, I think we need the best we can get.

One thing also that has been brought up before; most of the money has already been spent on the F-22. All the r&d checks have already been cashed so what we spend now is production cost, which isn't as spectacular.

[Ron Humphrey]

One thing also that has been brought up before; most of the money has already been spent on the F-22. All the r&d checks have already been cashed so what we spend now is production cost, which isn't as spectacular.

Since this is the case then whats the major difference in ordering 183 now with guaranteed buy of "blank" later in relation to buying it all at once. I get the ordering in volume is cheaper bit but realistically how fast are these things gonna come off the shelves. If you order today how long would it take to have 200 of them in service and in place?

Not trying to say don't buy em pretty sure I've said before I agree we need to have them, just trying to understand the real reasons for why, when, and how many.

[Entropy]

Since this is the case then whats the major difference in ordering 183 now with guaranteed buy of "blank" later in relation to buying it all at once. I get the ordering in volume is cheaper bit but realistically how fast are these things gonna come off the shelves. If you order today how long would it take to have 200 of them in service and in place?

Not trying to say don't buy em pretty sure I've said before I agree we need to have them, just trying to understand the real reasons for why, when, and how many.

The current rate of production is 20 airframes per year and could be ramped up if need be, though that probably isn't necessary.