Results 1 to 20 of 287

Thread: Airforce may be be going out of business

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Acronymitis

    Norfolk and carl I apologize for my dependency. AMC is Air Mobility Command the successor to MAC, the lowly trash haulers and tankers who do Herculean service in theater. SAC and TAC have combined into Air Combat Command, silk scarved fighter jocks and bomber guys.

    The AF is scrambling to redefine itself to deal with LIC/COIN and yet yearns for a conventional conflict with China or a resurgent Russia. They are a bit on the defensive, witness Dunlap et al, who write op eds decrying those with "boots on the ground." They are having an identity crises and often fail to play to the strength of their current relevancy in the AOR: ISR and airlift. Predator and Global Hawk are force multipliers that pay huge dividends in COIN, as they are passive/aggressive platforms. Strategic and theater airlift are the lifeblood for those boots on the ground.

    The F-15 and F-16 are both sufficient platforms able to be upgraded to deal with any foreseeable air threat. The F-22 is an outstanding fighter but to what end? And JSF is an expensive proposition as well.

    These high tech advancements were important when our primary opponent was the Soviet Union. We had to keep one step ahead in order to drive them into acquisition defeat. But it is time now to wisely spend the shrinking availability of cash. Our addiction to high tech as the ”silver bullet” of solutions is a chimera. The GWOT is a war of ideals and idealists, it is SO/LIC/COIN and PSYOPS in a global context.

    Expending ever decreasing allocations of funding to prepare to fight a symmetrical war in the face of the present and near term asymmetrical threat is pure folly.

  2. #2
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Interesting. But...

    I agree with your second paragraph but have some questions on the remainder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār View Post
    . . .
    The F-15 and F-16 are both sufficient platforms able to be upgraded to deal with any foreseeable air threat. The F-22 is an outstanding fighter but to what end? And JSF is an expensive proposition as well.
    Even allowing for the Air force manipulating the F15 fleet issues for their F22 procurement benefit, the bulk of the fleet is still approaching an age where upgrading is not an option. The real workhorse in your "GWOT" scenario is the F16. even with all the A/B models retired, the C/D fleet median usage is at 4,600 hours out of 8,000 hour life (and some are approaching 6,000 hours). Extensive upgrades to either fleet are not really cost effective.

    Ideally, purpose specific platforms would be procured as attempts to go multi mission always impose compromises. Everyone knows that quantity has a qualitative effect. Also ideally, large production runs offering economies of scale would the norm. Unfortunately, in the era of declining budgets we are likely to face, the Air force is going to have to wrestle with those conflicts and produce a solution -- and I'd submit that cancellation of any of their major programs would be a mistake.

    The F35 does not offer the fighter capabilities of the F22 -- but it is likely to exceed most anything else out there to include the F15 and F16. It also provides some great CAS and ISR cape that none of those other three offer. Given the time to develop and field new aircraft, it would, I think, be quite wrong to cancel it though the delivery schedule could be stretched a bit and could ramp up if needed. That doesn't even count the allies that are buying it. It isn't going away for those reasons. And it should not.

    Same with the F22; right now we are capable of achieving air superiority in most of the world and fairly quickly. That is a capability we should be quite cautious in lessening.

    These high tech advancements were important when our primary opponent was the Soviet Union. We had to keep one step ahead in order to drive them into acquisition defeat. But it is time now to wisely spend the shrinking availability of cash. Our addiction to high tech as the ”silver bullet” of solutions is a chimera. The GWOT is a war of ideals and idealists, it is SO/LIC/COIN and PSYOPS in a global context.
    Can you assure us that the GWOT is the only conflict we will face in the next 20 years or so -- because it is toward the end of that time period that the aircraft you seem to wish to retain will be falling apart...

    Expending ever decreasing allocations of funding to prepare to fight a symmetrical war in the face of the present and near term asymmetrical threat is pure folly.
    Asymmetrical is a buzz word, it means the other guys strikes where you're weak and / or that he's more flexible than you are. The available equipment -- and money -- have little to do with that. That is mind game pure and simple and we're not doing too well at it.

    You say the "GWOT" is war of ideals and idealists. Perhaps. I'd be more comfortable if it were a war between dreamers and pragmatists -- with us being the latter. Even one between plots and common sense. Not at all sure we're there yet...

    Preparing to fight a conventional (not at all the same thing as symmetrical) war as well as we can is one factor that drives opponents to those 'asymmetric' strikes -- which are annoying, even dangerous to an extent but are far from threatening the demise of the Republic. As Global Scout quoted the other day; we can afford to lose a COIN war, we cannot afford to lose a conventional war.

    Are you sure you want to give up that deterrent factor?
    Last edited by Ken White; 12-19-2007 at 12:25 AM. Reason: Typo

  3. #3
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Preparing to fight a conventional (not at all the same thing as symmetrical) war as well as we can is one factor that drives opponents to those 'asymmetric' strikes -- which are annoying, even dangerous to an extent but are far from threatening the demise of the Republic. As Global Scout quoted the other day; we can afford to lose a COIN war, we cannot afford to lose a conventional war.

    Are you sure you want to give up that deterrent factor?
    All true, but I'm becoming more and more wary of giving the AF a blank check to meet its needs. That's been done before, and left us in many cases with a mess. It's always instructive to remember that the AF didn't want the F-16 at first, and we've already gone over their efforts to get rid of the A-10 on multiple occasions.

    The more I look at it, the more I really want to strip CAS away from them in total. Let them build F-22s and the next generation manned bomber (and yes, they are looking at one of those), and then mandate that they upgrade and maintain the heavy fleet (tankers, lift, and AWACs). But since the AF as an overall institution has proven very reluctant to actually devote long-term interest and effort to CAS strip it out and give it to the Army and Marines. The Marine air wing system has proven itself over the years..so why not give the Army something similar?
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

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
  •