Posted on 01/31/2008 9:02:42 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
From the same article-
Pierre Sprey was one of three designers who conceived and shaped the F-16; he also led the technical side of the US Air Force’s A-10 design concept team. James Stevenson is former editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School’s
The Fort-Worth Star Telegram - Like Pravda but with a Texas drawl.
What...and the AF only put thousands of its most experienced and qualified officers out of the service to pay for it.
Another stroke of genius by the leaders who spent much of the Global War on Terrorism making changes to the uniforms. Thank God we got that PT uniform, though...now the country is safe.
None of these guys has ever flown a fighter, let alone this fighter.
One would get another story from the guys that do, and the guys that have gone against it in initial trial combat operations.
What is sad is that the MSM and the left wing politicians actually pay attention to these agenda driven fools.
It would be interesting if this guy wrote a similar article in 1932: "Why should we spend money on the tools of war? There are no wars!"
If the Chicoms ever attack, I'm sure they'll give us plenty of time to develop new weapons.
“Pierre Sprey was one of three designers who conceived and shaped the F-16; he also led the technical side of the US Air Force’s A-10 design concept team. James Stevenson is former editor of the Navy Fighter Weapons School’s”
Are you saying they have a conflict and are not qualified to comment?
I agree with many of the points in this article.
...but oh so pretty!
Or in 1913: “Now that we have the machine gun, there’s no reason for any other tactics than direct frontal assaults.”
Ouch! That makes me feel old. I can recall when an F-111 cost only $8 million.
A-10, designed for Vietnam and it works OK for the sandbox.
I would hate to be the pilot that goes up against a generation 6 5 Chinese/Russki fighter in anything other than a F-22.
You wonder if the author wished we still flew SPADS? (A1E)
January 16, 2008
AFA members and Congressional Staffers, many of you have commented favorably on the “elevator speech numbers” I sent you.
It’s January ... so here are some revealing data on the “State of the Air Force.”
Fighter Aircraft - average age: 20 years; average flight hours 5400+
Bomber Aircraft - average age: 32 years; average flight hours 11,400+
Tanker aircraft - average age: 44 years; average flight hours 18,900+
C2 Fleet - average age: 22 years old; average flight hours 32,000
ISR Fleet (excluding UAV) - average age: 30 years old; average flight hours 18,000
Key Groundings/Restrictions
F-15A-D - 163 of 441 are grounded for structural issues
B-52 - 6 are grounded - past due PDM grounding date - authorized a one-time flight to the bone-yard.
EC-130 - 2 of 14 are grounded due to center wing box cracks
C-130E - 3 are grounded and 13 are restricted due to Service life and wing cracks
KC-135Es - 26 of 86 are grounded due to engine strut corrosion.
AC-130U - 4 of 17 are restricted due to lack of 30MM weapons
B-2 - entire fleet is restricted due to windshield bolt hole cracks
C-5s - 39 of 108 are restricted due to crown skin restrictions (weight limiting)
Additionally:
219 of 223 F-15Es have training restrictions due to vertical stab structural issues
Majority of Block 25/30/32, block 40/42, and block 50/52 F-16s need structural modifications
All 356 A-10s will need new wings and new aircraft skin - many have landing gear issues ... and all need new engines.
C-130Hs have Center Wing Box issues
C-32As have bulkhead structural issues.
Looking across the FYDP - between 2008-2013 - the Air Force will divest itself of 749 aircraft and procure only 698 aircraft (260 of which are UAVs).
To give you the idea of the scale of all of this:
When the AF grounded its 600+ F-15 fleet, it grounded more aircraft than the entire F/A Navy. The F-15s it presently has grounded equate to a bit more than 3 aircraft carriers of aircraft.
The 356 A-10s that need renovations equates to more aircraft than the fixed wing USMC
The Air Force has about 5800 aircraft ... and presently about one-third are either grounded or restricted in one way or another
The central important part of this data is that this is not a third-world Air Force ... And the question we should ask ourselves, why don’t we fund it to ensure our children and grandchildren are safe and secure?
2nd Subject -
Chief of Staff White Paper - Gen Moseley published an exceptional White Paper ... which lays out the strategic foundations for the Air Force of the future. If you haven’t seen it, you can find it on the AFA website: http://dailyreport.afa.org/NR/rdonlyres/868196FC-AABB-4230-84EA-F5358B0C4B34/0/CSAF_white_paper.pdf
My favorite quotes in it are:
“No modern war has been won without air superiority. No future war will be won without air, space and cyberspace superiority.” Page 2.
“With the oldest inventory in history, battered by 17 years of continuous combat, the Air Force’s ability to fulfill its missions is already being tested.” Page 2
“... our reliance on assured access to space will increase exponentially.” Page 8
“The Air Force is smaller in December 2007 than it was in December 1941.” Page 10
For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn, Lt Gen (Ret)
AFA President/CEO
THIS JUST IN:
The Star-Telegram is expensive and irrelevant.
Obviously the authors are correct that using fast, high-flying platforms like the F-22 for ground attack is ridiculous.
But it’s equally ridiculous to decree that we no longer need an air-superiority fighter when there is still a China, a Russia, an Iran, out there. I don’t care what the qualifications of the authors are, that’s just stupid.
“One would get another story from the guys that do, and the guys that have gone against it in initial trial combat operations.
What is sad is that the MSM and the left wing politicians actually pay attention to these agenda driven fools.”
Which part of the story? the maintenance hour per flying hour part? The cost part?
These guys didn’t say the F22 wasn’t a fine aircraft, they basically argued it costs too much, is not presently deployable, and is not capable of missions beyond air superiority that are necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why must they have cockpit time in an F22 to make these points, which are quite relevant?
No kidding. You have to keep your military up to date. Make it obvious to your enemies that they will be smacked down so hard with overwhelming superiority that they dare not TRY to attack.
That said, I’m very suspicious about the true costs of these aircraft, and how badly managed some of these programs are.
If the Chicoms attack, they will hit our navies and be laucnhing missiles at the mainland.
On the one hand, they tell us that we are wearing out our equipment; on the other, they tell us we shouldn’t get new equipment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.