The U.S. Military's 'Top Guns' in the Air Have a Big Weakness

The National Interest ^ | October 13, 2015 | Dave Majumdar

[SkyPilot]

That, and Political Correctness (read: lies) have also taken their toll. I spoke to an active duty NCO - he said in the past year he has had to attend a total of five sexual assault "training" sessions. One was a disgusting "small group" discussion about male on male sexuality, that devolved into a "micro-aggression" discussion.

I seriously doubt the Russians, Chinese, or Iranians are wasting their time with such nonsense.

War is the most serious of business, and our military leaders have allowed those who serve to be fodder for the worst of gutter politics and immoral agendas.

[TalonDJ]

“The military restricted itself to weapons that would fit in stealth aircraft.”

Nonsense. They can carry external stores. And there are ways to make those stores stealthy.

[TalonDJ]

“During WW II, we could design, manufacture, and field weapons with alarming speed.”

A zeal that cost the lives of many test pilots.

“For example, the P-51 went from drawing on a napkin to a flying prototype in 102 days.”
People love throwing that number around but forget that it took YEARS longer before the design was perfected.

The complexity different between a P-51 and an F-22 is several orders of magnitude.

[mrsmith]

"Years of deep budget cuts, with Sequestration on top of those cuts, have made our military readiness a disaster waiting to happen."

NO!

The cost of the welfare state is the problem. We can't even afford our welfare state.
Liars like McCain who blame 'sequester", or anything else but our bread and circus economy for the military's reduced abilities are just BSing.

[pfflier]

I remember those dreadful Race Relations/Human Relations indoctrination classes of the 1970's. Not only were they incredible time wasters but they simply grated against my beliefs.

To get out of the race relations seminar we had to discuss several questions. One was "Would you encourage your son or daughter to marry someone of a different race?"

I went ballistic about the question, mostly about it just being a poorly worded one. I said my son or daughter would choose whomever they wanted to marry, not me. I also pointed out that arranged marriages were from the dark ages and had to be counseled by the Race Relations NCO for two more days just for that.

I can't imagine how bad it is today.

[AndyJackson]

And do not forget that North American originally fielded it with the Allison engine. It was the Brits who recognized that it was a superior airframe and would be a top notch high-altitude fighter if they used the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

[USNBandit]

Go spec out an air to air missile 4 feet longer than an AMRAAM and see what happens.

[whistleduck]

Why would you fail to highlight the crucial factor force multiplier of rump ranger integration at the senior staff level? What is the matter with you?

[SkyPilot]

I agree, the welfare state is the problem. When they passed the Budget Control Act, all welfare and entitlements were exempt from Sequestration, but the military must “pay” for 50% of all cuts. Obama must have been laughing when the Republicans signed onto this. But Sequester cuts do come on top of already existing cuts. It is akin to bleeding a dead body.

[SkyPilot]

You make precisely my point - the complexity of today's weapon systems means that we have to be planning for war now. We cannot do so on the fly. The Russians and Chinese have spent the last decade rearming, while we have been going in the opposite direction since around 2007. The 102 days number is historically accurate, and the prototype was the essential aircraft. And as Andy mentioned, they refitted one with a Merlin engine (from the Allison non-supercharged one). That took only a few weeks, and in only one flight they realized the benefits and started the transformation on models almost immediately. Can you imagine that happening today? No. It would take 5 years for even a technological equivalent test to even occur.

[mrsmith]

I figured your comment was meant to be about the cuts and not the cause.
I see no hope. Every government that went the ‘bread and circus’ route fell.
The Catch-22 for the military-cutters is that our bond yields are kept low by our military strength. We’re a very ‘safe haven’.
So they won’t have any more money for welfare- their military ‘savings’ will go to pay increased borrowing costs.

[Jet Jaguar]

Active Duty ping.

[xzins]

Not with this commander in chief.

[SkyPilot]

Your dead on there. It was always our military strength that help sustain our political and economic strength. It is a house of cards now, in a strong wind.

[publius911]

For example, the P-51 went from drawing on a napkin to a flying prototype in 102 days.

And it only cost about $55k per copy (1945)
($723k today)

[USAF80]

Russian hardware is crap when it’s used by third rate armies like Saddams.

[discostu]

Air superiority is now about drones.

[pfflier]

True. But those "third rate armies" get all the training and tactics indoctrination from the Russians along with the hardware. They employ their assets like the Russians would. The russian hardware has a very good shootdown record against unarmed airliners, not so much against F-15s.

I know it's dangerous to underestimate an enemy and we did in Korea and Vietnam when it came to soviet flying hardware.

Still, the Russian hardware generally suffers from design and reliability problems. The Mig-15 in Korea had severe control problems at transsonic speeds. The MiG 17 and Mig 21 suffered from range limitations.

The MiG 17 in Vietnam flew rings around our first line fighter, the F-4 but was eventually mastered by tactics. There, we also created our own problems with the dogma of BVR missile only equipped aircraft and some very lousy tactics along Thud Ridge.