Posted on 02/11/2005 4:07:50 AM PST by Truth29
His corruption list didn't even mention the many-year-long rape and assault scandal at the Air Force Academy, winked at or ignored by the generals in charge.
That is technically wrong. The Army tried as hard as it could to make the 'stryker' (which was originally a much needed scout/recon vehicle) to fit the C130. Couldn't do it. They could not design a worthwhile vehicle to fit the C130. The original stryker died specifically because of the C130 limitation put on it. The 'Stryker' we have today, the Army didn't design. It is a rehash of the Marine's LAV. The Army stuck a couple of differnt turrets on it...because they desperately needed something.
Second point. It is absurd to design the future around the limits of an obsolescent design. The C130 was designeded in 1951 to carry paratroopers and supplies. The heaviest and biggest vehicle in its design specs was the Jeep. To ask the Army in 2005 to build its armored vehicles to fit it is absurd on the face of it. You might as well have not designed the C130 because it wasn't designed to carry hay for the Army's horses. Go back to its orininal design specs, what armored vehicle WAS it designed to carry? None.
Second: Relationship is wrong. You don't design the tools to fight and win based on transporting them. You design the transportation to fit what is needed to fight and win the nations wars. The C130 can ferry supplies, but it can no longer serve the purpose of primary lift. The Army doesn't exist to give the AF something to ferry around. The AF exists to help the Army fight and win the nations wars. And that now (relatively new mission) includes getting combat forces in theater. And the C130 can't do it.
Third, you asked what should the Army design to? The C17. That is what we can do today. And before you ask 'who is going to pay for it' again why don't you STOP BUYING OBSOLETE AIRPLANES. That might free up some much needed funding. The C130 is proof positive of Mr. Peters point...the AF answers to contractors rather than the other way around.
Fourth the problem is bigger than the frontline vehicles. Even if we could somehow cram a worthwhile vehicle into the C130, what would supply it on the ground? No cargo or fueler vehicle can fit. Not one. Not a HEMMTT. Not a 5 Ton. Certainly not a semi. Not one. The problem isn't the weight. The C130 could carry them easily...IF they could fit in it. It is a fuselage designed around troops.
The C130 isn't obsolete because it is a 50 year old design. It isn't obsolete because it is a prop plane in the jet age. It is obsolete because it can't do what the mission requires. But the AF is still playing politics rather than accomplishing the mission.
Found this on the web
Sat, Jan 29 2005
Shiny New Warthog Makes First Flight
First A-10C Takes To The Air, Continues To Prove Its Resiliency And Value
The newly designated C-model A-10 Thunderbolt II, modified with precision engagement technology, has flown for the first time, piloted by a 40th Flight Test Squadron pilot.
Precision-engagement technology allows the Air Force’s premier close-air support aircraft to also use smart weapons such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions and wind-corrected munitions dispensers, incapable in the previous model, officials said. “We have taken the world’s greatest close-air support platform and made it even better by adding a wide array of laser and Global Positioning System-aided munitions, the latest in targeting pods and the infrastructure to support data link,” said Maj. Michael Rawls, the pilot who made the flight.
The increased capability also allows for the A-10C to accept more high-value target missions.
Despite some speculation into whether to retire the A-10 in full or in part in years past, its performance in recent conflicts and its program enhancements make it an invaluable part of the Air Force fleet, officials said. “The A-10 provides a ground commander with a capability no other platform can in terms of survivability, loiter time and array of weapons,” Major Rawls said. “Bottom line, it means (it) is here to stay for awhile.”
For those who have seen an A-10, the new model looks identical from the outside because the modifications are largely in the software and cockpit hardware. The appearance would be different, though, when loaded with a new array of munitions. The new capability will enable the A-10C to carry six smart munitions, with a standard load of four, Maj. Rawls said.
Although it has not yet flown with a new payload including smart munitions, Maj. Rawls said he felt that the modifications had not affected the performance of the aircraft. “The modification moved the center of gravity slightly forward in the aircraft, but it was not distinguishable,” he said. “The jet handled very well.”
The estimated $300 million program has been a joint Air Force and industry effort that leaders said they believe will breathe yet more life into the 30-year-old aircraft. “We are moving the A-10 into the 21st century with the capability to deliver the latest precision-guided weapons to the battlefield,” said Col. Robert Nolan, 46th Test Wing commander.
(Our thanks to 1st Lt. James Madeiros of the 96th Air Base Wing Public Affairs)
Billy Mitchell's battle with the Navy is no different than the present problem.
One way to reduce waste and bad system choices is to permantly severe the "JOBS FOR "HELPFUL" GENERALS syndome that invites high corruption, waste, and weakened defense.
I do recall back in 1970-71 while stationed at Ft. Carson
in a routine visit to a military dump I saw evidence of
interservice complicity. The AIRFORCE Academy wanted new
desk lamps for the cadets. As nothing ever leaves the government supply unless it is classified obsolete.These
mostly perfectly restoreable stainless steel desk lamps,
had had the felt pad torn back -some had the electric cord
cut- and some had a few dents,but nothing to suggest the lot
needed to be replaced -except someone at the Academy decided the cadets needed new lamps. The black market sale
of a few of those lamps may have increased a lower enlisted
soldiers take home pay-but such out of sight out of mind
transfers of government property to massage the books has
probably gone on since Washington was General of the Continental Army.
You prove your ignorance. The USAF would love to buy/fly a thousand more C-17s. However, A) there is no money for them, and B) they don't go a lot of places the C-130 does.
And no, eliminating the F-22 would NOT give you the money for enough C-17s.
Unless you can come up with a buttload of cash to design/build a new tactical airlifter, you'll have to live with the only plane doing the job - the C-130.
BTW - did a planning exercise involving moving a Stryker brigade, assuming it could fit easily into a C-130. Don't even think about it - it would take forever.
The Army moves by sealift and by land. Small amounts only can be moved by air.
Wasting my tax dollars ping.
"Last year, in war games with the Indian air force, our blue-suiters suffered embarrassing defeats. Our guys were arrogant and failed to think innovatively. We also had crucial high-tech gear turned off. The Indians used imaginative tactics — and overwhelmed us with numbers."
Anyone have a some info on this? This struck me as odd.
A bit old, but:
Actually, the other way around. (BTW, I was Air Load Planner certified by the AF.)
Your arguement is that the AF has obsolete planes, so deal with it. Mr. Peters point is to bring in Army Generals. That I don't quite buy, but certainly somewhere in the behemoth of the the AF there is someone who 'gets it' Find him (likely to be singular) and put him in charge.
Your A argument: the national defense needs it. Find the money.I didn't say cancel F22. That was his argument, I didn't touch it because I don't agree with it.
Unless you can come up with a buttload of cash to design/build a new tactical airlifter, you'll have to live with the only plane doing the job - the C-130.
Or, miracle of miracles, we could get the AF off its @$$ and get it to do what it needs to do. I can understand if the AF says, we can't do it now, we can get it done in 3 years. But the arguement that we can't do it now, so we're not going to do it in the future is the quintisential thinking that Rumsfeld its very appropriately trying to sweep out of the defense department.
Your B argument is true and irrelevent. The C17 can get to darn near as many places, and it has a much better range. And if it wasn't a worthwhile plane, why did the AF design and build it?
BTW - did a planning exercise involving moving a Stryker brigade, assuming it could fit easily into a C-130. Don't even think about it - it would take forever.
Yup. Because the C130 is not the right plane, as already established. How many horse cavalry regiments can it move though? The Army tried to get the airlift specs of the original Stryker moved from one in the C130 to 3 in a C17...didn't happen, but it would certainly speed up AF ground operations a lot, wouldn't it?
The Army moves by sealift and by land. Small amounts only can be moved by air.
You are right. We are never going to airlift the assets we need to face off with PRC. But in case you didn't notice, Iraq demonstrated how effective relatively small ground forces can be. One Heavy division, one marine Division, One British division and what amounts to an attack helicopter division attacked and quickly destroyed 21 divisions. Getting a Brigade into theater may not sound like much if you are thinking about fighting the Soviets in the Fulda gap, but it is enough to defeat the vast majority of countries entire military. The point is that in this new world, when we need to be there, we need to get there NOW, not in a month. That's reality. Now make it happen.
Here is a simple question that addresses Mr. Peters point. The AF already has too many C130's and they are don't meet future mission needs.
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-98-108.htm
Why is the AF still buying them?
Great. Now convince Congress.
I can understand if the AF says, we can't do it now, we can get it done in 3 years. But the arguement that we can't do it now, so we're not going to do it in the future...
The point is, Congress won't pay for it. It is DOA. You can imagine anything you want, but you have ZERO chance of getting Congress to go along.
The Army tried to get the airlift specs of the original Stryker moved from one in the C130 to 3 in a C17...didn't happen, but it would certainly speed up AF ground operations a lot, wouldn't it?
We also looked at it with C-17s. A) C-17s couldn't fit in the only available field. B) It still took too long. The C-17 is a great plane - but it doesn't replace the C-130.
The point is that in this new world, when we need to be there, we need to get there NOW, not in a month. That's reality. Now make it happen.
We would LOVE to! But we don't have the cash! With an unlimited budget, I could do wonders - but that isn't reality. Sorry - wish it was.
Your problem isn't with the USAF - it is with the US Congress, and the taxpayers who elect them.
Interesting take.
That axe has been ground to powder. Sorry, it proves this guy is just a self appointed know it all with no understanding of the air force or any of the issues it actually faces. No need to look any further.
Because they work? Because we have them, and they are paid for? Because they can go places the C-17 cannot (it weighs nearly 3 times as much)? And BTW - we aren't buying very many more of them.
There is a good reason the GAO doesn't control what we buy. I've had several dealings with them - they are usually wrong. I read the report you mention - the GAO proves, once again, that they didn't have the smarts to understand the question, let alone the answer. They ought to go to work for CBS...
Although I'm a fighter guy, I'm a big fan of the C-17. I wish they would buy a couple hundred more - but we can't get them to fund an additional 40, let alone an additional 200. And it STILL wouldn't go places the Herk does...
All - it is after 11PM in this time zone, and I'm going to bed...will read this thread tomorrow morning.
Make that, weighs nearly 4 times as much - 150K vs 600K. Sorry - it is past my bedtime.
Now convince Congress.
That is the AF's job. If it is what you need to do the job, make the case. So far, the AF hasn't.
If your case study managed to find one of the places that only C130s and not C17's could land, then it was designed to support the C130 not find the truth. And if it did, it just establishes that the AF design criteria for the C17 suck...it was designed as a STOL aircraft for rough surfaces. And what is your definition of 'too long' for your study? What were the limiting factors?
But we don't have the cash!
But you do have the cash to buy more 1950's era prop driven paratrooper droppers that you already have too many of?
The USAF has always had more money than they knew what to do with it, and money is power and power corrupts.
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.