Saving the U.S. Air Force

New York Post ^ | Feb. 11, 2005 | Ralph Peters

[Truth29]

SAVING THE U.S. AIR FORCE

By RALPH PETERS

February 11, 2005 -- We need to save the United States Air Force — from itself. This critical component of our national security has become corrupt, wasteful and increasingly irrelevant. The problem doesn't lie with the front-line pilots or ground crews. The cancer is at the top, in the Department of the Air Force and on the Air Force Staff.

Consider just a few recent problems: Former Air Force Secretary James G. Roche, who resigned last month to evade a corruption investigation, has just been cited for ethics violations in dealing with the defense industry. The service's top acquisition official, Darleen Druyun, is in prison for her role in a corrupt tanker-leasing deal. The scam had been a top priority under Roche. The Air Force's top lawyer got the boot for sexual shenanigans with subordinates.

The service continues to demand the nearly useless, $300-million-per-copy F/ A-22 fighter, a Cold-War legacy system wildly out of sync with our security needs.

[Qatar-6]

Sorry, should have sent post 160 to Mr Rodgers in response to post 157

Answered myself instead

[ProudVet77]

You're right RCS varies with a lot of factors, but we also haven't mentioned countermeasures, which the F-22 has the latest as well. The numbers I posted were composite numbers from several on line sources (I hear you). But the F-15, as is the F-14, is the B-52 of stealth. The F-16 and F-18 are much better.
As to the confrontation of 12:1, I still will take the F-22. I didn't say she'd take out all 12. I said the F-22 will come out of it alive. I figure 4-6 of the F-15 will be smoked and the odds are they will not even have seen the F-22. The FB-22 is the one that probably could wipe out all 12 F-15s. Although 2 or 3 may escape the match.
One last thing about "invisibility", you are right, there really is no such thing. But if you paint my ship (I was Navy) I will know your location at 1.5x the distance you can see my reflection. Active radars are usually taken out as fast as we hear them. I suspect that is a job that in the future will be tasked to the X-45/47. Load them up with HARMs and send them in first. The F-22/FB-22 have an advantage here as they have LPI radars unlike the other aircraft mentioned.
We should keep the F-15 as long as the airframe is in good shape. You really only need the stealth aircraft for the very tip of the spear. After we have air supremacy and have silenced SAMs they should go back to the barn to save on wear and tear.

[RFEngineer]

"You really only need the stealth aircraft for the very tip of the spear"

This is the bottom line on the F22 and will ultimately be the reason why the buy will be greatly limited from plans of even a year or two ago. This is also why the F-22, like the F-117 and B-2 will be treated as a "silver bullets".

It would be nice to have 'em wall-to-wall, but failing that, we still get significant leverage from them as the "tip of the spear".

I think what you are saying on the 12:1 scenario is that no F22 will deliberately offensively engage 12 aircraft simultaneously, a point to which I can agree.

The F15 will benefit from F22 technology only when it doesn't look like an upgraded F15 can cannibalize F22 acquisitions, but it seems inevitable that these upgrades to the F15 fleet will occur.

[ProudVet77]

Ultimately the technology for stealth (or at least a greatly reduced RCS) will work it's way down. Next up is the JSF. I don't think the F-15 or F-14 can be improved too much. The are both just huge flying barns. The F16/18 will be the manned platforms of the future, behind the F-22 and JSF. Along side those will be UAVs. We are much further along with these than most people know, even though the details are out on the net. I just found this last night. http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/09204top.xml

As to the 12:1 situation, if my mission were to knock down enemy aircraft, I'd take on all 12. Prefer to have some help but rather than let them slip away, at the minimum I'd unload all my AIM-120s, take out as many as I can to disrupt their mission. I have faith I can disappear. If I can shoot and turn away while the missiles are inflight I'll be flying Mach1.5 in full stealth mode away. By the time the missiles hit I'm 50 miles away and hauling. They will have to look in a 50 mile radius for a very tiny dot.

[ProudVet77]

I'd like to invite Rokke to look over our conversation as he has an insight we don't have since he's a fighter pilot.

[jriemer]

"People are confusing numbers with capability. For CAS one B-52 circling overhead with precision munitions does wonders."

....unless targets are mobile

[snip] Early missions in the (Operation Enduring Freedom)campaign were flown with preplanned target coordinates, but that soon changed for the B-1 and B-52. Using capability that Gen John P. Jumper, chief of staff of the USAF, called “transformational,” bombers engaged emerging targets called in by small parties of ground troops. Planners scheduled aircraft to be available 24 hours a day for operations within the engagement zone. The AOC changed the flow of aircraft into the engagement zone to strike time-sensitive targets called in by terminal attack controllers on the ground. B-52s at the end of October 2001 were dropping JDAMs on thefront edge of the battle area north of Kabul on the Shomall front lines. [/snip]
source

Plus:
B-52 Strike on LST (B-52 Test of JDAM on Ships!)

Seems like the old dog keeps learning new tricks

[RFEngineer]

"Seems like the old dog keeps learning new tricks"

True...and they have just successfully tested a laser designated version.

I'm not saying this isn't useful

[archy]

Great airplane - hope they get new engines soon.

I'll run this past my girlfriend, who is a former USAF A-10 wrench-turner VERY familiar with the Pave Penny targeting system of the warties of her day, which she tells me are now obsolete or obsolescent. Though still much better than what much of the rest of the world uses, which is the idea.

[razorback-bert]

Yes, I have watched them learning to fly nap of the earth south of here.

The Germans are flying f-16s, B1-bs are common as dirt out here.

Still and all, I have to pop outside to watch they go over at about 200 feet.

[archy]

The C130 was designeded in 1951 to carry paratroopers and supplies. The heaviest and biggest vehicle in its design specs was the Jeep.

Not so. Both the M37 3/4 ton weapons carrier and a breakdown version of the deuce-and-a-half truck were intended to be air-delivered or air-dropped from the C130 from the beginning; those were the days of the Army's *Pentomic* reorganization after WWII and Korean War considerations of needed OOB changes.

And a number of heavier vehicles meant to buy time for those delivered by C130 until ground-based reinforcements or resupply were also fielded in that same time period. Some were purpose-designed to fit the loading requirements of the new family of post WWII cargo aircraft [C97, C119, C123, C124 and C130] and some were adapted to the then-new generation of aircraft.

[Rokke]

"I would say that our (both ends) inability to communicate effectively is almost funny."

Reminds me of the loving husband who, with a tear in his eye and love in his heart, gives his wife the ULTIMATE valentines gift....only to be informed in no uncertain terms by his wife that the "Lady's Lexicon of Love and Romance" does not classify two tickets to turn 1 at the Daytona 500 a "romantic gift". If we aren't communicating well, at least we are holding up the finest traditions of our respective services.

But in all sincerity, almost all of the problems you bring up are no longer problems. For example, as of 1 December 1995, there is only one definition of CAS. It can be found in the Joint Pub 3-09.3. It is the same definition taught to every forward air controller and tactical air controller who goes through the Joint Air Ground Operations School. When I attended, it was staffed by officers and enlisted members of the Army and the Air Force, and attended by officers and enlisted from every service. We all learned from the same textbook, using the same definitions and the same procedures. I received instruction from Army Apache pilots and artillery officers. In our class was everyone from B-1 weapons systems operators to Army Green Berets.

And while "Joint" is a nice theory, the proof of concept doesn't happen until it's tested in combat. But in OIF it was. If you haven't read the paper I referenced about 50 posts ago ( http://www.ausa.org/pdfdocs/LWP_48.pdf ), I highly recommend it. Believe it or not, the Army was actually pleased with the execution of joint fires (CAS) in OIF. In effect, you are beating a mule that has already done the job you are asking it to do. I know it's hard to believe, but we (the joint services) finally gathered our $hit in one sock, and executed as a team in OIF. And that effort continues. Again, I reference Fallujah as an example of outstanding joint cooperation.

I suggest that the mule analogy applies to your concerns about USAF aircraft correctly discerning between friend and foe on the ground. While frat is ALWAYS an issue, we are well on our way toward limiting that problem too. The evidence is in the zero incidents of fratricide from USAF aircraft against Army forces since the initiation of OIF. Give credit where it is due. There certainly have been many opportunities for fratricide to occur. As a personal anecdote, one of my squadron mates was kicked out of CAS request for refusing to drop on a target he wasn't sure of. An Army helicopter took his place and fired on the target and injured 12 US soldiers. Again, the potential for Frat ALWAYS exists, but the equipment we bring into the fight now goes a long way toward helping us identify who is who. And the overwhelming mindset of the fighter pilots flying over Iraq today is, "If you aren't sure, don't drop". Incidentally, the only USAF combat aircraft flying in Iraq for almost two years have been F-16's, F-15E's, and AC-130's. No bombers or A-10's. They are busy elsewhere.

I agree that you and I have an incredible ability to talk around each other. But the good news is, the services we belong to are finally on good speaking terms. And all evidence indicates that when we work together, we are unbeatable.

[Rokke]

"I somehow am just a bit skeptical about your "marine squad" with the same uplink and visibility on the battlefield as an Army brigade commander."

It is a question of datalink. There are PC based systems that allow me to access the position, composition and condition of just about every fighting element in the world with near realtime updates. I don't even want to know how it works. But it works well.

"Low fly overs to get them to break contact? If they're doing it right they break contact anyway."

Reference your discussion of Fallujah. At the risk of offending someone, remember that we are fighting Arabs. Many of them are suicidal and prefer a martyrs death to the miserable existance they currently suffer. Especially if they are in Iraq from a different country.

"The majority of contacts are over before the air component can get involved"

I'll repeat that several times a day, fighters are tasked with a show of force in support of ground forces. We've got lots of weapons system video of armed fighters running like rats from behind berms and palm trees. But I will agree, that the low passes do boost the morale of the good guys. You can often hear them cheering on the radio. Of course, you can also hear gunfire.

[Rokke]

"Sorry, should have sent post 160 to Mr Rodgers in response to post 157"

Oh man, I wish you hadn't corrected that. I was rolling.

[Rokke]

Actually, I was very much enjoying both of your posts. I thought you each had good points. My only thought beyond what you've already discussed is the best way to destroy enemy aircraft is before they get airborne. I would like to see a lot more money rolled into long range cruise missile and UCAV technology. The technology we already have is amazing (it is a little known fact that almost all of "shock and awe" was cruise missiles). With a little more work we will have the capability to fly stealthy UCAVs with realtime and continuous retargeting capability that actually WILL be invisible to radar, into some of the highest threat environments on earth. They will be far cheaper to build and maintain than aircraft like the F-22, and will only need to fly once in their lifetime. They could even be equipped with active radar air to air missiles that could be used against aircraft 100's of miles outside of F-22/Amraam range.

Of course, in the meantime, I'll just enjoy my old fashioned manned jet.

[Qatar-6]

"Several times a day" out of dozens (if not more) separate contacts that day- while nice, is hardly operationally significant

Fallujah was an exception, Would it be that the enemy presents us with more opportunities like that.

Most of the enemy isn't suicidal and is Iraqi national. They are fighting a classic urban guerilla war in the same manner of the FLN in Algieria in the 1950s and early 60s.

Whenever they stood against the French (and the French got to use their airpower) they got their dicks knocked in the dirt.

They learned not to do that

Although it was indeed satisfying to kill a bunch of guys who wanted a one way ticket to glory for a chance to kill us in Fallujah, the smart guys who are in the guerilla war for the long haul didn't stay in town

I'm sure you do have film of guys running. How many were you able to engage (or couldn't because of ROE restrictions on weapons from high performance AC)?

The "sound of freedom" is a swell recruiting slogan, but having done this from an infantryman's point of view, in the current fight I'd much rather have the "drone of the AC-130"

Don't run them off, KILL THEM

[Rokke]

""Several times a day" out of dozens (if not more) separate contacts that day- while nice, is hardly operationally significant "

Um Hmm. Maybe you can ask the Army to stop requesting it then. We do what the Army asks, but if it isn't needed, I don't think it will break anyone's heart to come home.

"They learned not to do that"

Perhaps you've missed the reports of large groups of insurgents engaging our guys in Najaf, Mosel, Ramadi, Abu Ghraib, Samarra.....

"How many were you able to engage "

Again. We do what the Army asks us. Typically it is a matter of Army ROE more than ours. But when they ask us to drop, we do.

"I'd much rather have the "drone of the AC-130"

No argument there. It is the ultimate killing machine. Unfortunately, there just aren't that many of them.

[ProudVet77]

"old fashioned"? When I was with ASW group 4 the intrepid had A4s :) For first wave cruise missiles are OK. you might want to look at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ssgn-726.htm as it's a good way to deliver a first punch.

To me the best first use of UAVs is as a cruise missile with multiple warheads, which just happens to return back to base. Lots of HARMs.
To accomplish destroying them on the ground a cruise missile is a bad choice. They are not very stealthy. Prefer a B-2 or F-117 with F-22 as escort. Here's a link to a neat trick the B-2 can do now. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/985405/posts
Time it so that just as the first bombs are landing the cruise missiles lead by X-47s with the ECM package leading are on the way.

Pilots are not going away anytime soon!

[ProudVet77]

This is why the air force puts air controllers on the ground. You are two americans but don't have a common language :)
"The majority of contacts are over before the air component can get involved" In sheer numbers that will never changed. Must fire fights (and I've been in a few) end within 2 minutes. You can't even get a tank to shoot that fast. But if you have an entrenched enemy I want something overhead that can see both sides of the battlefield and then can stick a 500pounder into the bad guys back pocket and cure his hemorrhoids.

[Qatar-6]

Trust me, I am acutely aware of the large fights and the small ones.

A lot of good friends or former subordinates of mine are up to their armpits in this fight. I've been back for less than a year and will be going out again before the end of the year.

I'm maybe a bit too old and crotchety. All tools are necessary, and the AF is certainly an indispensible tool. However, I've seen a lot of overclaiming and underdelivering in my closing in on 30 years of enlisted and commissioned service. Perhaps it was merely the certainty and triumphalism of your tone that put my antenna up. I used to be a certain young man. I wasn't always right. Nor did I always have the grasp on things that I thought I did.

So do your best, but remember Peter's arguement. The AF is not investing in the proper force structure to support the fight we have (and are likely to have in the near to mid future). Your vehement defence of the capabilities of CAS in this urban guerilla fight is, in a way, confirmation that the platforms we have now are sufficient

Let me leave you with an analogy as to where we are (and are likely to remain) for the next five years or so.

The Chicken makes a contribution to breakfast...

The Pig makes a committment

We are overresourcing the chicken

And underresourcing the pig

Thanks for the eggs.

[Ax]

This has been a fascinating exchange. The beauty of FreeRepublic.com is that it attracts people like you who've been there and done that. I'm an old Air Force guy from the early 60s, a SIGINTER, so I haven't spent all that much time with aircraft. I've PAXed in a fair share of C-130's and C-141's and once on an old C-124 from Mildenhall to RM. My last ride on an AF bird was a "Special Flight" from Homestead to Howard on 26 Dec 1989. My big question: why don't the latrines on C-141's ever work?