AF Secretary and Chief of Staff Dismissed

[Cliff]

I think these fears are starting to get out of hand. Air Force proponents aren't doing the cause any service when they start suggesting they are on the brink of losing any control of the air whatsoever, and US forces in the next war will face what the Germans faced in WW2. I think this is pretty damn far from what the enemy is capable of achieving, regardless of which potential enemy we're talking about. Let's keep it real, ok?

OTOH, if the challenge to American air supremacy is as strong as some would have us believe, the bad guys seem to be doing it for a lot, lot cheaper than the USAF and its contractors are charging the taxpayer to keep its edge. The Air Force is running the red queen's race. Maybe we ought to start buying from their vendors instead of Boeing/ LockMart?

The problem isn't right now neccessarily... but the medium-term (10-15 years) future. Once you close down the F-22 line, you can't just restart it on a whim... it is not like a sheet metal WW-II fighter where a car factory can quickly turn from cars to planes. The technology to produce it is different.

I'm not saying the sky is falling now, I am saying we are on a slippery slope in that direction. And the enemy isn't neccessarily going for air supremacy... just a localized version of it. If we had the SAMs the enemy has, we could do what they may do - and just deny everyone the ability to fly on a general basis, only using our own air locally. My point is that the entire US military depends on Air Superiority throughout the AOR. Take away air superiority/freedom of action in the air and OEF and OIF go way differently - that is my point.

In short, not saying we're hurting now, but we need to invest - things like the F-15C breaking in half are going to start happening a lot more based on the age of our jets.

V/R,

Cliff

[Norfolk]

The problem isn't right now neccessarily... but the medium-term (10-15 years) future. Once you close down the F-22 line, you can't just restart it on a whim... it is not like a sheet metal WW-II fighter where a car factory can quickly turn from cars to planes. The technology to produce it is different.

I'm not saying the sky is falling now, I am saying we are on a slippery slope in that direction. And the enemy isn't neccessarily going for air supremacy... just a localized version of it. If we had the SAMs the enemy has, we could do what they may do - and just deny everyone the ability to fly on a general basis, only using our own air locally. My point is that the entire US military depends on Air Superiority throughout the AOR. Take away air superiority/freedom of action in the air and OEF and OIF go way differently - that is my point.

In short, not saying we're hurting now, but we need to invest - things like the F-15C breaking in half are going to start happening a lot more based on the age of our jets.

V/R,

Cliff

Cliff's very right on this point, and although it might seem unlikely that the US would allow its fighter production capability to go cold, stranger things have happened. It took a year and a half to build an F-15 from start to finish, long-lead items and all, at a peacetime production rate. Even if that could have been reduced by 2/3 rds in wartime, that's still six months waiting for a new aircraft. It seems unlikely that an F-22 or even an F-35 could be built much quicker, let alone at a rate that would suffice to replace losses in a major shooting war. True, there may be no "peer competitor" at the moment, but the AF's fleet is elderly, and will no longer be with us for much longer in many cases. Personally, I have growing misgivings about the F-35, and the high-lo mix concept that began with the F-15/F-16 pairing back in the 70's in order to reduce costs may offer rather less benefit given issues surrounding the F-35's anticipated capabilities (or rather, indications that such capabilities as are to be afforded by the F-35 may turn out to be substantially less than expected). And I will echo wm's warning about the potential consequences of losing control of the air; an obvious point perhaps, but given that U.S. Forces (and National Policy) are thoroughly accustomed to the possession of Air Superiority, and thus are in some ways under-prepared for the converse, even flirting with the potential of substantially weakening it is probably imprudent.

But the Air Force also needs to bear in mind that not a single new MBT has been manufactured for either the Army or the Marines since 1992, and the Navy is increasingly struggling with aging ships and boats, as well as aging aircraft of its own - not to mention that its mine warfare fleet is being reduced to a pittance, and this in a Navy that is supposed to be focussing on Littoral Warfare. And it has no fixed-wing ASW capability on board its carriers. What resources that are available really are going to have to be shared in order to avoid being caught flat-footed in some critical area in the future. Of course, this is not the way things are done...

[Sargent]

Once you close down the F-22 line, you can't just restart it on a whim... it is not like a sheet metal WW-II fighter where a car factory can quickly turn from cars to planes. The technology to produce it is different.

Why assume that in the event of a war we would go back to the F-22? I don't argue with your point that restarting that production line would be difficult and time consuming -- rather, I doubt we'd bother to go back to it all.

The problem with building weapons systems in peace time is that they must take into account many contingencies and have a multitude of capabilities. However, once a war has emerged, the need to have is defined and the required capabilities are narrowed. Thus, I would argue that the aircraft that would be built would be far simpler than what we are building now. I agree that they would not be as simple as WWII aircraft, but likely as relatively simple, given the advancements in production capabilities.

There is a logic to my heresy.

Cheers,
Jill

[Ken White]

10 to 20 year procurement cycle is a permanent fixture. It is not. That length of time results from Congressional ambivalence and on again-off again funding, new administrations with different priorities, low volume peacetime production runs and several other impactors. Given a significant threat, that'll go. The F35, for instance, will almost certainly be produced in two variants, a US only and an all others. I'd bet big money that the 'all others' variant can be rapidly ramped up and produced in plants aside from Fort Worth. It might take a year to hit full volume but I suspect multiples per day would be rolling off the line.

Bombardier could make some...

Huh? How do you get that year? Why, from today's all volunteer force -- just like we did in 1917, 1942, 1950, 1965 and will again. That's why that force exists, to buy that year. We all stuck up our hands and agreed to do that...

[wm]

Huh? How do you get that year? Why, from today's all volunteer force -- just like we did in 1917, 1942, 1950, 1965 and will again. That's why that force exists, to buy that year. We all stuck up our hands and agreed to do that...

Ken,
I'd like to hope that our volunteer forces will give us that year in a future major conflict. However, 2 potentially significant differences from the two wars in your list that may have been life threatening to the US as a nation (the 2 World Wars--Korea and VN were neither direct or indirect threats to the continued existence of the American way of life) make me worry.

1.) Today's technology no longer allows the US to rely on the defenses to its national industrial base provided by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. US industrial infrastructure could be immediately at risk for attack in a future major conflict. Rebuilding destroyed factories is quite a bit harder than retooling them I believe.
2.) The US all volunteer force is currently the only thing protecting the nation. In both of those earlier "big" wars, the US had at least one ally who was already fully mobilized to stand as a shield while the US took the necessary time to bring its military up to speed. In the case of WWI, those allies were the folks who provided the final training that enabled US forces to succeed on a modern battlefield, not in some low level skirmishes against poorly trained and equipped irregulars or third rate national armies. Today, we would most likely need our combat veterans to do the fighting and would not have an adequate battle-experienced cadre available to train up the additional forces being mobilized. Our newly raised forces would probably have to learn most of their lessons the hard way, as we did in North Africa (at Kassserine Pass among others), Buna, and Guadalcanal--the difference being that we would not have another country's army to cover us while we recover from our mistakes.

[Ken White]

Ken,
I'd like to hope that our volunteer forces will give us that year in a future major conflict. However, 2 potentially significant differences from the two wars in your list that may have been life threatening to the US as a nation (the 2 World Wars--Korea and VN were neither direct or indirect threats to the continued existence of the American way of life) make me worry.

I'd argue that none of the wars I listed including the two world wars were life threatening to the US but that's another thread.

1.) Today's technology no longer allows the US to rely on the defenses to its national industrial base provided by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. US industrial infrastructure could be immediately at risk for attack in a future major conflict. Rebuilding destroyed factories is quite a bit harder than retooling them I believe.

It is, of course. However the sheer number and dispersion of them (factories) in a nation this size makes that a somewhat daunting prospect for any potential adversary.

2.) The US all volunteer force is currently the only thing protecting the nation. ... not in some low level skirmishes against poorly trained and equipped irregulars or third rate national armies. ...the difference being that we would not have another country's army to cover us while we recover from our mistakes. (Emphasis added / kw)

I think you sell this Army short. The part in bold denigrates a lot of folks who may be smarter than some seem to think. I also suggest that adequate warning of a potential major adversary, even given the sad state of the IC today, is very highly probable -- enough so that I'm comfortable with it. YMMV

Uh, wm, you aren't going all Euro-centric and north German Plain or Fulda Gap on me are you???

[Entropy]

The F35, for instance, will almost certainly be produced in two variants, a US only and an all others. I'd bet big money that the 'all others' variant can be rapidly ramped up and produced in plants aside from Fort Worth. It might take a year to hit full volume but I suspect multiples per day would be rolling off the line.

Bombardier could make some...

Actually, there are a lot of variants. It's a USAF, USN, USMC and coalition aircraft that is designed to be modular enough to satisfy all those requirements.

Regardless, if we are still fighting an air war a year after the initiation of hostilities then we've probably already lost. Air supremacy will be decided relatively quickly.

[Ken White]

.................

[Ken White]

Actually, there are a lot of variants. It's a USAF, USN, USMC and coalition aircraft that is designed to be modular enough to satisfy all those requirements.

Who knew. Why wasn't I informed of thi...

Whoops, sorry. Sarcasm is unbecoming; it's always brought on by condescending tutorials for the uninitiated. I may be old but I ain't uninitiated.

Yep, multiple variants of the US types A, B and C. Then there's the British B (or will it be a C? TBD). The Canadians are talking a C instead of an A, bigger wings and rudder plus stronger gear are handy on ice and snow. Then the Euro variants and the Stryne mods -- they're also talking some Bs. Then the Israeli mod (also mumbling about Bs). Plus Singapore and of course, LM will push for India. But I digress...

I meant the stealth cape and the avionics fit for multiple variants -- multiple as in probably a dozen or more. Further you get from the US, less complex the bird will be.

Regardless, if we are still fighting an air war a year after the initiation of hostilities then we've probably already lost. Air supremacy will be decided relatively quickly.

Totally arguable and not that likely. Depends on the opponent and location, location, location. Among several other things.

Why, it could be a Squid/ Marine, three or four CVW versus them air battle including SM3s and over before the Air Exped Wings even get there...

[Entropy]

Ken,

Didn't mean to impugn your intelligence, which is, in all seriousness, impressive (no sarcasm there). I see the F-35 referred to as an Air Force-only weapons system often enough I let assumption get the best of me. My apologies.

As for an air war, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You're totally correct that much depends on the specifics of the conflict, but I can envision no likely scenarios where air supremacy by one side or the other would still be in doubt after a year. I admit this may be lack of imagination on my part.

As for the squids/marine's, I agree with you there. I began life as a squid, after all, and it is still the service I love the most. A major problem for the Air Force in any conflict, as I'm sure you know, is basing - no bases, minimal Air Force participation.

[J Wolfsberger]

Why assume that in the event of a war we would go back to the F-22? I don't argue with your point that restarting that production line would be difficult and time consuming -- rather, I doubt we'd bother to go back to it all.

The problem with building weapons systems in peace time is that they must take into account many contingencies and have a multitude of capabilities. However, once a war has emerged, the need to have is defined and the required capabilities are narrowed. Thus, I would argue that the aircraft that would be built would be far simpler than what we are building now. I agree that they would not be as simple as WWII aircraft, but likely as relatively simple, given the advancements in production capabilities.

There is a logic to my heresy.

Cheers,
Jill

I think you're overlooking the time to design. That involves years of system analysis, design and terst. The worst aspect of the problem is staffing up to do the work. Engineers who have spent a career in the civilian sector often have difficulty addressing the completely different set of needs and considerations for defense systems. Engineers who have "escaped" the defense sector usually refuse to return. The conflict would likely be over by the time the new aircraft emerged.

On the other hand, if we'd started in 2001 on an aircraft to support COIN ... we'd have found a way to put the A-10 back in production.

[Tom Odom]

On the other hand, if we'd started in 2001 on an aircraft to support COIN ... we'd have found a way to put the A-10 back in production.

But it would be made of composites and would cost 10X as much...kind of a reverse multiplication table engineering...

I caught a bit of a military channel program on P47s last night--the true macho fighter of WWII. Just an incredible A/C, heavy, durable, powerful, and at wars end long range. Just not as sexy as a Mustang...

I wonder who would have won then had we followed today's practices...

[J Wolfsberger]

But it would be made of composites and would cost 10X as much...kind of a reverse multiplication table engineering...

I caught a bit of a military channel program on P47s last night--the true macho fighter of WWII. Just an incredible A/C, heavy, durable, powerful, and at wars end long range. Just not as sexy as a Mustang...

I wonder who would have won then had we followed today's practices...

With modern design tools, techniques and technologies, we can design aircraft with capabilities that were impossible in the WW II era. As an example, the big trade off for fighters is manueverability vs. stability. Todays fighters are inherently unstable, but have maneuverability unheard in the past.

With respect to the Mustang, "The prototype NA-73X [which became the P-51] was rolled out just 117 days after the order was placed, and first flew on 26 October 1940, just 178 days after the order had been placed..." The A10 was 5 years from RFP to production.

Still, I understand the point, and I agree we could probably shorten the design cycle. I wonder how quickly we could do it if our backs were to the wall.

[wm]

I'd like to hope that our volunteer forces will give us that year in a future major conflict. However, 2 potentially significant differences from the two wars in your list that may have been life threatening to the US as a nation (the 2 World Wars--Korea and VN were neither direct or indirect threats to the continued existence of the American way of life) make me worry.

I'd argue that none of the wars I listed including the two world wars were life threatening to the US but that's another thread.

Concur--remember my original post only said may have been life threatening to the US.

However the sheer number and dispersion of them (factories) in a nation this size makes that a somewhat daunting prospect for any potential adversary.

Not too much dispersion these days vis-a-vis critical defense industry factories--for example, Lima, Ohio is the only tank factory in the US. Two big strikes--at, for example, Galveston, TX and Linden NJ--would have significant inpact on US mid/down stream petroleum industry. Or imagine the impact of a large ADM detonation in the vicinity of Hampton or beautiful downtown Norfolk, VA.

2.) The US all volunteer force is currently the only thing protecting the nation. ... not in some low level skirmishes against poorly trained and equipped irregulars or third rate national armies. ...the difference being that we would not have another country's army to cover us while we recover from our mistakes. (Emphasis added / kw)

I think you sell this Army short. The part in bold denigrates a lot of folks who may be smarter than some seem to think. I also suggest that adequate warning of a potential major adversary, even given the sad state of the IC today, is very highly probable -- enough so that I'm comfortable with it. YMMV

Ken you quoted me out of context (are you looking for a job at the NYT? ) I was comparing the quality of our past and potential opponents, not the capabilities of our own forces. Having been part of the IC's I & W (indications and warning) world, I am not quite as comfortable as you are about IC forecasting. I am even less comfortable with the decisionmakers' ability to draw the right conclusions and act based on what the IC may tell them.

Uh, wm, you aren't going all Euro-centric and north German Plain or Fulda Gap on me are you???

Far from it. I never expected that war to occur after about 1978 anyway. I'm more worried about some mid rate power thinking it can pull off a Pearl Harbor-like event on US infrastructure in order to buy itself enough time to to do some local conquests and then be able to consolidate on its objective while the US tries to rebuild its shattered infrastructure. The attacking power would expect its consolidation would be strong enough to deter the US (and others) from interceding to restore the status quo ante. Imagine how things might have turned out in the Mid-East had Saddam tried such a tactic as or before he rolled over the border into Kuwait.

[Sargent]

I think you're overlooking the time to design. That involves years of system analysis, design and terst. The worst aspect of the problem is staffing up to do the work. Engineers who have spent a career in the civilian sector often have difficulty addressing the completely different set of needs and considerations for defense systems. Engineers who have "escaped" the defense sector usually refuse to return. The conflict would likely be over by the time the new aircraft emerged.

I don't expect that our folks are sitting around twiddling their thumbs during this time period.

With advances in computer modelling, etc., much could be done to have virtual prototypes of weapon systems ready to be pulled "off the shelf" when necessary. I suppose the most apt metaphor for what I envision are the set of strategic plans created for a variety of different conflict contingencies during the 30s. I'd include plans for factories/means of production as well.

Being resource constrained is often a great source of inspiration. Some good ideas have been developed without spending a lot of cash -- during the interwar lean years, Evans Carlson travelled to China to observe the early phase of the Sino-Japanese War and departed with the germ of a new warfighting model that later played a role in the Marine Corps' Pacific campaign (Raiders).

On the other hand, if we'd started in 2001 on an aircraft to support COIN ... we'd have found a way to put the A-10 back in production.

Don't be a tease!

Cheers,
Jill

[slapout9]

Switch to Missiles like the Army said in the 1950's they are cheaper,better and safer.