Airforce may be be going out of business

[Sparrow]

They say if you do something long enough you witness it's rebirth. You all have remarkable insight into Air force weapon systems. The discussions on the A-10 and A-16 were very interesting.

I also agree with the many comments the Air Force is going though a challanging period of discontent and have lost the confidence of their boss - the Amreican people. I see that as a failure of Gen McPeak.

The Air Force has lost their focus. They need a close air support fighter and yet refuse to rebuild an imporved A-10. The F-16 was not a great ground attack fighter and not the best air-to-air fighter but if you ever had to deploy and need a multi use aircraft it was great.

I still want to bite my nails off when I read how the F22 and F35 are the end all be all. The Air Force should remember the numerous occassions where they threw all of the eggs in one basket. I remember the F-4s - did not have guns because some analyst told them the future would be fought without guns.

For your benefit allow me to describe my perspective. Master Avionics technician, QA inspector for motors and mainframe. I worked F-111, F-16, and F-117A. I have been a 'Gunslinger, Juvat, Bold Tiger, and a member of the GoatSucker Inn. I have since retired and worked servers, network hardware, as a Business Analysis, and dodled into South American terrorism.

I like Ford motor company's suggestion of building a modern mustang with the best of the old school. Beef up the engines, the avionics, and build new airframes. It may look and smell like a mustang but they have their own special identity.

Has it ever occurred to build a new A-10 that was designed around an even better gun with even more powerful engines. Airplanes are like race cars. High performance machines dedicated to taking mankind into another realm. But airplanes like cars can be rebuilt better. Or create a dual engine F-16, update the avionics and vectoring motors and you have a killer.

The worst thing the Air Force could do is only uby one plane from one source. For years we have seen a particular type of aircraft grounded for maintenance issues.

The Air force needs to really assess their missions and that means sitting down with the Army and finding out what are the Army's needs and what type of aircraft they are going to need to address them. I read several federal magazines and I do not see it yet. The Army is the Air Force's customer.

One final note - stealth is an illusion. You can defeat an aircraft using stealth.

The 22 and 35 need much more than stealth to survive. They have a combination of exceptional radar packages, integrated ECM packages, supperior weapons, and advanced engine technology.They need pilots. Drones are invaluable for C4ISR but they have a drawback which I have not seen discussed here. 15, 16, 18, 22, & 35 all have the capability to carry and deploy a tactical nuclear weapon. I turst an officer with this responisbility. Not certain I would trust a SPC.

The Air Force needs to sit down and replan for how to support the Army and the direction they are taking. They need to find and plan for their customer's expectations.

[George L. Singleton]

Dave:

I have and will continue to mainly sit back and read what you young guys think and say on the topic of future weapons systems.

But, I will offer a few quick philosophical observations:

1. World politics, us vs. them, primarily us vs. Islamic terrorists, is the setting for years, perhaps generations to come.

2. NYC was not expected to be the battleground "front" but was twice, in 1993 and on 9/11, same site, Twin Towers.

3. National war planning has been using a mix of weaponry to try to "contain" terrorism, of late, advance missle sites anticipated in Czech Republic and Poland.

4. Presumed targeting is "the terrorist camp" as supported by Iran, and maybe before too long, Pakistan. And if the terrorist persist and persevere, even Afghanistan. Point is targets change and times change. We cannot know the long term future only where we think we are today.

5. This said, it is not so easy to task the Air Force specificially to support ground ops that are somewhat vague at present and non-traditional in nature.

I'm sure you understand what I am struggling to say.

So, some ideas based on where we are now of what the geopolitical situation contingencies might or will be are necessary in deciding capital expendiures on new ground, and air (USAF related) assets.

The old A-10 with it's pilot in a titanium bathtub cockpit is still a favorite of mine, dated as I am. But, you today can kill tanks with all sorts of unmanned heatseeking missile systems so the A-10 itself is becoming and has become pretty dated.

Your System's Analyst unclassified thinking if you are so included would be interesting to now read.

[Ken White]

Then again, with friends like this, who needs enemies...

LINK.

What a piece of work that guy is. Hopefully, the average ten year old would realize that a split fleet like that is an invitation to logistic complications and unnecessary expense...

[1258dave]

From the IHT: World worries how U.S. will pay for stimulus

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/...WT.mc_ev=click

I'm not sure what we're going to use to pay for any of it.

In a simmilar vein:
Does anybody have any feedback on the UK Joint Helicopter Command or the Joint Harrier Command?

[SethB]

What a piece of work that guy is. Hopefully, the average ten year old would realize that a split fleet like that is an invitation to logistic complications and unnecessary expense...

Ken, I understand what you are saying, but the Defense Science Board had a few interesting recommendations over the years.

For one thing they supported two tanker designs in order to prevent the entire fleet being grounded if a design flaw pops up later, and they supported one being larger than the other.

They also argued that making the planes they fuel more efficient would reduce the need for tankers right off the top.

Interesting arguments. I won't support either, and I certainly don't think Murtha is using anything resembling logic...

Note: I just read Sparrow's note regarding using one type of plane. I had typed the above before I read his post.

As for Air Force priorities, I am continually being told on other boards that strategic strike and air superiority are their most important missions, with CAS being something they do "when they don't have anything better to do."

I thought that that attitude does not well serve the Army when their agreement with the USAF precludes them from flying fixed wing CAS assets.

[Ken White]

...they supported two tanker designs in order to prevent the entire fleet being grounded if a design flaw pops up later, and they supported one being larger than the other.

We started WW II with a number of aircraft designs in involuntary and unplanned competition with each other -- to see which had the best overall operational and survival rates -- induced by the war. Both the Army Air Force and the Navy/Marines effectively homed in on one design that was the most effective compromise in each category as being the most rational and effective solution.

That's why the P-51 and the F4U (not to mention the DC-3 and the AD-1...) continued flying for many years after their contemporaries disappeared. You can do one type, work very effectively and save both effort and money -- but it better be the best of type you can get...

Thus, I have no problem with a single type. I know that multiple types complicate inventory, clog the supply system and increase costs. The DSB does some good work and they do some less good work. Their logic is usually good and they need to be listened to -- but they are no more omniscient than you or I happen to be.

They also argued that making the planes they fuel more efficient would reduce the need for tankers right off the top.

Even the AF has long been aware of that; has been working toward that goal and thus the possibility of a couple of hundred plus new tankers replacing over 500 KC-135s (out of over 800 built). That and this LINK.

[SethB]

The DSB focused on replacing the bombers with blended wing designs. Barring that, they offered a study on new engines for the B52, although the issue hasn't come up since the DoD started moving to the FBCF (Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel), which was something that came up in about three or four studies in the last few years. Essentially calculating the all in price of delivered fuel. I've mentioned this in the RFI section of the Council regarding the topic of a paper that I wrote.

The synthetic fuels are still extremely expensive, in part because the AF is not allowed to buy it for regular use. Making JP8 from coal produces roughly twice the amount of C02 as producing the same from crude, so Congress will allow them to purchase test batches only. I actually think it is funny that they make such a big deal about it, the process is old and South Africa has been flying planes on CTL fuel for a while now.

Actually, I think the idea behind CTL is kind of suspect. America produces 40% of our oil supply domestically, and our largest suppliers of imports are Mexico and Canada. I don't think strategic disruption is the issue. Operational issues are a different deal, with supply difficulties in theater having caused difficulties in several wars.

[Ken White]

is right on target...

[carl]

Very interesting discussion of Mark Bowden's article today at this site (look for F-22):

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/

This is mostly a Navy related blog, but very good, as Dave has said in the past.

[Ken White]

I need to break myself of the habit of reading the comments...

[Entropy]

Ken, I completely understand what you mean. Unfortunately, the only way to know the quality of a comment's section is to read them!

BTW, found this Powerpoint briefing created by Bill Sweetman today. I think it's a pretty good primer on some of the issues on fighters in general and the F-22/F-35 in particular.

[Ken White]

He's knowledgeable but not infallible. Server's busy, I'll try again later.

[Entropy]

He's knowledgeable but not infallible. Server's busy, I'll try again later.

Let me know if you can't get it - I have it downloaded and can email it to you if needed. It's about 7MB.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I got the link from Sweetman's blog entry here.

[Ken White]

and am not terribly impressed. Mostly, he makes sense (in this briefing as well as generally) but as is true with many Gurus, he can get carried away with rectitude...

He also tends to try to sensationalize things and he cheats. For example, he cites and shows picture that purport to show "Aegis cruisers" awaiting disposal but which actually show Spruance Destroyers which were inactivated due to large crew size, not to obsolescence. There a a slew of ships that last as long as fighters -- and then, both the B-52 and C-130...

There are other glitches which may be accidental -- all are certainly "deniable" -- or may not be. In my observation over the years, he does that too often. He really gets torqued -- as do many so-called and self appointed 'experts' -- when his 'advice' is not followed by DoD.

Still, thanks for the link. I only check that blog about once a week or so, it's a gossip column by a bunch of wanna bes and little more IMO. I gave up my subscrip0tion to the magazine years ago when they got political. If I want that stupidity, I can read the newspapers.

Sorry to appear to take that out on you, I hope you know that is not the case, you make more sense than the average bear but I do tend to discount media 'experts' and the punditocracy in general. Thus ends the curmudgeon's rant for the day.

[Entropy]

Sorry to appear to take that out on you, I hope you know that is not the case, you make more sense than the average bear but I do tend to discount media 'experts' and the punditocracy in general. Thus ends the curmudgeon's rant for the day.

Didn't take it that way at all and I agree with some of your points about Sweetman in general. Curmudgeon away!

Overall, though, (despite some of the errors) I think he makes some valuable points here, particularly that old does not necessarily mean bad, that "fighters" are pretty versatile, and that "stealth" is not necessarily the end-all and be-all. In the debate over the future fighter force for Air Force, Navy and Marines, many of those issues are valid yet rarely heard.

As far as media "experts" and pundits, I agree that they should be viewed skeptically, but at the same time one can and should be able to distill valid arguments from them, even when they are pushing an agenda.

[Ken White]

my wife and kids plus numerous friends and acquaintances say I'm sometimes verbally clumsy...

In the debate over the future fighter force for Air Force, Navy and Marines, many of those issues are valid yet rarely heard.

Very true. With no technical knowledge to use in evaluating, I'm sort of skeptical about LO technology. I look at is as being like Armor on the ground: Yes, it provides some protection (Good) but it also engenders a false sense of security (Bad). It can be overcome by a counteraction and it tends to lessen reliance on skill and agility; the real keys to combat survivability. Not to mention I'm still waiting for the son of the Warthog to hit the order book...

...at the same time one can and should be able to distill valid arguments from them, even when they are pushing an agenda.

Yep, given the way the processes operate today, one has little choice. Filtering becomes a necessity...

Thanks again for the link.

P.S.

Those same people say my attempts at humor often miss the mark, so that tells you that we need pay them little mind... ( )

[Entropy]

...you're not verbally clumsy at all - quite the opposite actually. Your critique of the brief and Sweetman was quite good and provided a good basis for skepticism and a more critical look at the presentation. You've got a sharp mind and eyes as well. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that as a former Navy guy I missed that the ships in the picture were Spruance's and not Tico's. Thank goodness this is a (relatively) anonymous forum or I'd be buying drinks for all my Navy friends

[tankersteve]

However, like Ken (not that I am his peer), I think some of the argument is not that credible. For instance, do you have to escort ISR if it is unmanned, small, and stealthy?

I don't want to appear to be 'Air-bashing' but the key arguement that I think the AF has missed is 'affordability'. How bad is the threat of advanced capability fighter aircraft? Can a viable threat buy, maintain, train, and fly an advanced 4th or 5th Gen fighter force? Do we see that as likely? Would a lot of slightly less capable, yet much more affordable aircraft do a better job? Mass (quantity) has a quality all its own.

What if we had brand new F15s, with the latest electronics built right in, with the newest engine variants, with every update other countries have developed, etc? Perhaps made even better than the originals, with stronger materials, better engineering for superior maintenance access and reliability? Is it capable, especially if we could afford many more of them (at the rate of 3x or 4x as many F22s) of accomplishing much of what the F22 could do? Obviously stealth would be a limit, but it seems that the stealth requirement has turned our fighter fleet into a night-focused force.

I am not just stirring the pot, but hopefully learning about (and maybe even appreciating) my brothers in blue a bit more.

Tankersteve

[SethB]

I don't know if it would be a step in the right direction, but the original Hornet led to a land based version which was 30% lighter. It never entered production I read online that Boeing just offered the Navy 149 units (Super Hornets) for only $49.9M a unit.

For what it's worth.

[carl]

What if we had brand new F15s, with the latest electronics built right in, with the newest engine variants, with every update other countries have developed, etc? Perhaps made even better than the originals, with stronger materials, better engineering for superior maintenance access and reliability?

Tankersteve

I think what you would have is a new airplane that looked like an F-15. Sort of like what the F-18C/D is to the F-18E/F. When you mention materials and engineering that is a new design. Even if you could keep the defense beurocrats (sic) from piling on requirements it would still take years and mucho dinero to get it on the flight line.

The F-22 is what we have now. We've paid for the r&d and to get anything that is even close to what it can do now would take years to develop and cost probably more.