Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 287

Thread: Airforce may be be going out of business

  1. #41
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I can agree with all that...

    fortunately, the A10 is a tough bird and will be around for a long time. The AF ought to be working now on a equally tough and very similar (and at least equally heavily gunned) replacement.

    They need more 130Js and the problems need to fixed; and more C17s; and re-engining the C5s...

    They just need, as you say, to get their act together and get in touch with their customer base...

  2. #42
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Quibbling allowed

    Ken: I agree on your 75:25, I hope our planners see it that way as well and not the reverse. If this makes any sense, I think we would "see" a conventional conflict coming. In our last two out of three we had a long build-up time prior to, even though we failed to see the invasion of Kuwait prior to GW I. OEF was executed on our initiation so we saw it coming as well.

    Yes, we lost aircraft in Korea and Vietnam to ground fire but those conflicts were set in an era absent the amazing standoff capability we currently have. FACs have nearly been replaced by Predators and even fast movers can "see" from a safer distance. Munitions are virtually pinpoint accurate. Plus detection and countermeasures have improved. So we traded quantity for quality, at a significant cost (wasn't it Stalin who said "quantity has a quality of its own").

    While Congress isn't on top of my hate list (liver is) I think Eisenhower's admonition fell short. We must beware the military-industrial-congressional complex!

    John: Not to impugn the good general, but Charlie Dunlap is a lawyer, not a pilot. So while he is no doubt expert at making an argument IMO I feel he is a bit too much of a cheerleader for air power as the be all end all (one need only look at the USAF acquisition strategy). He acts like a 21st Century LeMay.

    Love your four points for USAF relevancy, very much on the mark. Although they are already organized for those missions what they need to do is change their priority to match yours (although you forgot "space superiority" and "information superiority").

    It would be difficult today to build an "all weather" anything (airframe or weapon sys). Mother Nature just will not allow it. Although I believe your point is more along the lines of we need to build aircraft that are not so susceptible to environmental impacts.

    Whoops shouldn't have done all our testing in Nevada during blissfully calm bright sunny days.
    Last edited by Umar Al-Mokhtār; 12-19-2007 at 10:06 PM.

  3. #43
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Ouch!

    Somebody just needs to make them realize that they are in fact a "service" organization and their customer base predominantly wears combat boots!

  4. #44
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    I just had another thought--if the Air Force DOES go out of business, I wonder if they'll have a clearance sale? It would be way cool to own a B2. Or the VIP Q from an air base. One of those with mirrors on the ceiling.

  5. #45
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default

    B-2's too big, A-10 for me: Hog wild baby!

    Which DVQ has the mirrors? I musta missed that one, although Aviano's are pretty primo.

  6. #46
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking That's good; you just invited more...

    Quote Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār View Post
    Ken: I agree on your 75:25, I hope our planners see it that way as well and not the reverse. If this makes any sense, I think we would "see" a conventional conflict coming. In our last two out of three we had a long build-up time prior to, even though we failed to see the invasion of Kuwait prior to GW I. OEF was executed on our initiation so we saw it coming as well.
    I'd submit that Korea was missed by the Spooks; Viet Nam was missed by the Army (in a broad sense); Grenada was not foreseen and while you're correct in saying the invasion of Kuwait was not foreseen, it should have been (we virtually invited him to do it). I disagree that OEF was foreseen (Sep to Nov isn't much foreseeing and the executed effort did not at all resemble the ConPlan) and, if you meant OIF, yep, we initiated it -- and totally missed WHAT was bound to happen (Well, WE didn't, a lot of folks knew but the folks in charge didn't want to hear that...).

    That's not a very good track record on which to base what's likely to be next...

    (quote)Yes, we lost aircraft in Korea and Vietnam to ground fire but those conflicts were set in an era absent the amazing standoff capability we currently have. FACs have nearly been replaced by Predators and even fast movers can "see" from a safer distance. Munitions are virtually pinpoint accurate. Plus detection and countermeasures have improved. So we traded quantity for quality, at a significant cost (wasn't it Stalin who said "quantity has a quality of its own").

    Didn't mean ground fire, that's why I said ""Recall also that in both Korea and Viet Nam, proxy wars with small air forces for our opponents, the opposition managed to shoot down a lot US planes.""(emphasis added / kw) I specifically meant in air to air combat -- which is a part of the air superiority realm. In fairness to the AF (and Navy), once they realized they had an air to air problem, they fixed it rapidly but there were more initial losses than they liked. Air superority is pretty important.

    Which is what the F22 is all about -- as for your precision attack, totally true -- and the F35 is optimized for just that.

  7. #47
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār View Post
    B-2's too big, A-10 for me: Hog wild baby!

    Which DVQ has the mirrors? I musta missed that one, although Aviano's are pretty primo.
    I didn't find any with mirrors, but these would be just find by me

    3-1.6.4 Visual Screening Unattractive views or objects identified by the site analysis will be screened with appropriate plant materials to minimize negative visual impacts....

    3-1.6.5 Wind Control Wind is either a pleasant or unpleasant climatic factor depending on ambient air temperature, relative humidity, and velocity.
    These folks have obviously never visited an Army base

  8. #48
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār View Post
    B-2's too big, A-10 for me: Hog wild baby!

    Which DVQ has the mirrors? I musta missed that one, although Aviano's are pretty primo.

    My boss told me that the squadron room of an A10 unit during Desert Storm had a sign that read, "Unleash the Hogs of War"

    Maxwell. I seriously expected there to be bondage equipment in the closet next to the ironing board.

  9. #49
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Did you ever notice how A10 pilots aren't like other airforce pilots? The airfarce just treats A10 pilots like they should be swept under the rug.
    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.

  10. #50
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Did you ever notice how A10 pilots aren't like other airforce pilots? The airfarce just treats A10 pilots like they should be swept under the rug.
    That's what happens when you spend too much time in a titanium bath tub.

  11. #51
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Pilot? Bathtub? That

    doesn't track at all, they always told me the best place to hide your money from a pilot was under the soap...

  12. #52
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default

    Stan: LOL! I loved the link. “Wind is either a pleasant or unpleasant climatic factor depending on ambient air temperature, relative humidity, and velocity.” Really? That’s brilliant!

    I've actually stayed in the Osan DVQ! And the USAF wonders why they are scrambling for money when they think nothing of dropping a few thousand Benjamins on what amounts to a five star hotel, then charges $35 to stay there.

    Although Maxwell sounds...interesting..to say the least. Maybe the USAF has a hidden "Directorate of BDSM"

    Ken: Yep we totally missed Korea, and it didn't help that Truman and Johnson totally eviscerated the military, except the nascent USAF who assured them that there was no need for the other three services. Not sure Grenada was "missed" nor could it truly be considered "conventional" (but at least afterwards I could finally claim that I had been on a Caribbean cruise ). Vietnam was a "gradual" build up, plus LBJ wanted initially to fight it on the cheap. I guess what I meant was that we are typically postured for conventional war and are out of our depth when it's not a nice "clean" war.

    Sorry for the mix up on aircraft loss in Vietnam…still, while we did have air-to-air losses, we adapted and increased the kill to loss ratio.

    selil: A-10 pilots are considered the knuckle draggers of the Farce, perhaps it’s because they actually put their cojonés on the line supporting us ground pounders. Not quite the image the leather jacket and silk scarf crowd try to promote.

  13. #53
    Council Member LawVol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    339

    Default

    I have to give you guys a great big hat tip. Its been about a month or so since you've had the urge to dogpile on the Air Force. I didn't think you'd make it that long.



    We still love you "knuckledraggers" though.
    -john bellflower

    Rule of Law in Afghanistan

    "You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)

  14. #54
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
    We still love you "knuckledraggers" though.
    I've got this warm, "fuzzy", right here.

  15. #55
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
    I have to give you guys a great big hat tip. Its been about a month or so since you've had the urge to dogpile on the Air Force. I didn't think you'd make it that long.



    We still love you "knuckledraggers" though.
    I don't see this discussion as a "dogpile" at all. There are some very constructive comments in here. And if the Air Force was smart, they'd pay heed to at least some of them.

    Want to know how they could get rid of their 40,000 "excess" personnel? Do away with all the expensive QOL crap only the Air Force appears to be able to afford.

    And the people who are in the AF for the "goodies" will leave, leaving the warriors behind....

  16. #56
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LawVol View Post
    I have to give you guys a great big hat tip. Its been about a month or so since you've had the urge to dogpile on the Air Force. I didn't think you'd make it that long.



    We still love you "knuckledraggers" though.
    So, are the rumors about putting greens on C-5s true?
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  17. #57
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I'd submit that Korea was missed by the Spooks; Viet Nam was missed by the Army (in a broad sense); Grenada was not foreseen and while you're correct in saying the invasion of Kuwait was not foreseen, it should have been (we virtually invited him to do it).
    Minor point in this thread. But some of us did see the invasion of Kuwait coming and gave strategic warning. I made that call as soon as he began moving the RGFC south. My DCSINT--who had removed Iraq from the world wide threat list that spring and earned Schwartzkopf's ire by doing so--continued to spout bluff until 2 August.

    As for inviting him to invade, too strong a word, Ken. Gallespie screwed up by leaving the door open instead of slamming it in his face. She did not invite him.

    Best

    Tom

  18. #58
    Council Member MattC86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    REMFing it up in DC
    Posts
    250

    Default

    I remember my grandfather, a WWII Navy vet, calling the USAF the "junior birdmen" in reference to Tom Lehrer dubbing "Up in the Air Junior Birdman" the USAF official song. . .

    I don't see most of this as piling on at all, LawVol. It is somewhat incongruous for the Army and Marine Corps to be stretched absolutely to the limit; dealing with casualties, retention issues, personnel shortages, plus all the equipment and procurement issues that accompany 6 years of sustained war, and then to see the Air Force come along and say, "by the way, we need hundreds of billions of dollars for a spanking-new fighter fleet."

    I think that now, more than ever, its imperative that the Army take control of CAS aircraft, and develop a SLEP for the A-10 or a successor. You simply aren't going to convince the USAF that they exist to support the soldier on the ground, and thus without that change in mission and purpose, you aren't going to see procurement priorities that mesh with "what their customers want," namely the CAS and airlift capabilities.

    That said, here are my questions. Is the USAF really that worried about its F-15s, F-16s, and so on in a bombing campaign against Iran or maybe North Korea? Or is it because of the general air-worthiness condition of the fleet?

    Second, why isn't the Navy offering similar rumblings about their F/A-18Cs, S-3s, etc? Or, for that matter, their ships, some of which are aging rapidly (submarines in particular. . .)

    Finally, I'd just like to point out that every service right now is upping their procurement and personnel requirements, as they always do while in crisis mode. The funds demanded right now are enormous (I'm thinking of McCaffrey's call for a 800,000 man active-duty Army, the fighter force recapitalization, and the Navy's Virginia submarine program, among others) and everybody is going to have to live with some cuts. The past has shown how hard it is bureaucratically to minimize a service's role and funding level to support another, and the dangers in doing so (Truman's emphasis on the USAF before Korea; emphasis on the Navy before WWI)

    Matt
    "Give a good leader very little and he will succeed. Give a mediocrity a great deal and he will fail." - General George C. Marshall

  19. #59
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār View Post
    The Stars and Stripes additionally states:

    "P-3C aircraft were grounded three times in 2005 and 2006, but those aircraft have since returned to service, Davis said. He also said the Navy is confident the P-3C aircraft not affected by the grounding are safe to fly. The Navy has 161 P-3C Orion aircraft,...The average age...is 28 years...The oldest aircraft is 44 years old, and the youngest is 16 years old. The first squadron of the P-3C’s replacement, the P-8A Poseidon, is expected to stand up in 2013..."

    While the article mentions 10 of the 39 are deployed it makes no mention of how many total are deployed. The P3C is a platform in search of a mission since the undersea threat has diminished significantly (but could soon rise as China flexes and Russia rearms)

    And while structural fatigue will always be a problem for aircraft, and more so as the airframe ages, it is still should not always the ratioanl for replacing the aircraft with a more expensive version. To wit the B-52.

    The KC-135 is still doing service and a telling statement made by a senior USAF officer went something like this: "The father of the last KC-135 pilot hasn't been born yet."
    That the P-3C has been grounded repeatedly in recent years should not be viewed as reassuring, it should be viewed as alarming; especially if you have to fly the thing or count on it to perform a mission.

    One of the missions of the P-3C is maritime patrol. The world is mostly covered with ocean and on that ocean are thousands of boats, that float on the surface. The ability to look for those ships, find them and track them is a pretty obvious mission. Satellites can only go so far. I don't believe there are any that can take a photo of a ship's name at night beneath an overcast, and then sink it on the spot if need be.

    The comment by the Air Force officer about the KC-135 was, I'll bet, more a lamentation than an endorsement.

    Additionally, the C-17 is still in production but only for a few (2) more years. From what I've read, the Air Force wants more but the DOD won't go along. This is a very critical need, as judged by someone who sees multiple AN-12's and IL-76's landing daily to supply this big base.

    We may have some warning of the next conventional war. But it won't be enough to develop and field a superior fighter. 10 years wouldn't be enough.

    My take on history is the guy with superior fighters, both numbers and quality, gets to beat up on the other guy's ground troops at will. There may have been a fundamental change to this pattern but I doubt it. And I would hate to see our soldiers have to endure the pounding the Chinese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese and Iraqis had to take.

    Too bad there are no old soldiers from those armies commenting here on this topic. I think they could add a lot to the discussion.

    Hey, LawVol. How about some help here. I feel outnumbered.

  20. #60
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattC86 View Post
    Second, why isn't the Navy offering similar rumblings about their F/A-18Cs, S-3s, etc? Or, for that matter, their ships, some of which are aging rapidly (submarines in particular. . .)

    Matt
    In the case of the F/A-18Cs, I would guess it is because they are replacing them with FA-18Es and Fs, and F-35 if they can get them.

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
  •