Posted on 02/11/2005 4:07:50 AM PST by Truth29
The Marine Corps is buying them as well. But the Air Force generally doesn't request anymore C-130's. Congress inserts them into defense budgets outside of USAF requests. For example, the USAF did not want the C-130J. It's getting them anyway, because Congress forced them into the budget.
Having said that, some versions of the C-130 have exceeded their expected lifespan and need replacement (WC-130s, HC-130s, MC-130s, some AC-130s). There isn't anything out there better than the C-130J to replace them. And there won't be for decades. Take a look at the ridiculous European option. Its been on the drawing board for decades, isn't any better than anything that already exists, and probably won't be produced for another decade.
Because they work?
No, they don't. That is the point. They can't do what we need done.
Because we have them, and they are paid for?
You already have too many, and you justify buying more because they are paid for? Change it. Fix it. And before you make the argument that production can't change on a dime (which is true), the requirements changed a decade ago. And the AF is still trying to make the case that it doesn't want to change now. If you can't change now, fine, but at least change the future. And you're not...you are still trying to argue that you don't have to change. Which means we'll be in the same hole in another decade.
You go on about how the GAO doesn't get it, but don't mention one thing that they don't get. Don't tell me that they're wrong, tell me where and why you think they are they wrong. Because, quite frankly, I think they're right. Not that the C130 needs to entirely go away, but that they AF has too many Herks and not enough others to the great detriment of its airlift capabilities.
If you are such a big fan of the C17, why are you defending the continued aquisition of the C130, not pushing for more C17s, and trying to get the Army to do the absurd...trying to design a combat vehicle that fits into the C130?
Tell it to the other guy...he's the one saying it can't be done.
Rapid deployment is going to be a matter of early reinforcement when the other guy is attacking, not something the entire army needs to be able to do.
That is the entire point of developing 'medium' brigades. They aren't designed to be better, they are designed to get to the fight easier, but the AF isn't doing the things it needs to do to get the job done.
As for the desire to change the air force rather than relax snake eater horsefeathers
What does that even mean?
The air force remains our leading means of winning wars because it still believes in firepower, and that isn't going to change.
That is a fundamental mistake and problem. The AF was designed to help the Army win the wars(the Navy and Marines have their own air capabilities) Ever since they split, they've been trying to blow up their self importance. The AF doesn't win wars. Never has, never will. The AF is so focused on its fight in the air (which is an important fight) that it forgets WHY that fight is important. The whole point of winning the fight in the air is to help win the fight on the ground. The AF forgets that. That is why the CAS role is so low on the totem pole in the AF. That is why the airlift capability is so ignored. The AF is only interested in enough airlift to gets its assets in theater, and essentially ignores the Army needs. That is what the 'make it fit in a C130' BS is about. That is why the fly boys tried to kill the A-10 a while back.
My take: either the AF should become the Army Air Corps again (the navy and marines both have their Air Corps.) or at the vary least the Army needs to take over the CAS/interdiction roles and the Airlift roles. Let the AF shoot down fighters and do the strategic bombing that it deems worthwhile, and let the Army do the jobs it needs done. Having one branch meet the needs of another doesn't work...that is why they are seperate branches.
It is true that Congress and defense contractors are pushing the C130 not the AF. But the AF is not fighting it. They should be. They are letting their contractors buy congressman and push something that even the AF recognizes it does not need for the security of this country. They should be fighting the funding for the C130 to be steered into more valuable assets, like C17s. But they are as under the influence of the defense contractors as the congressman. Their job is protecting America, not being buddy buddy with the people who are going to hire them after they retire from the military. And that is what has Peters, and a big part of the Army, up in arms.
Enjoyed reading your post. Here are a few more thoughts:
1. Why doesn't the Pentagon re-align the airlift function to the Army? Give the Army the pilots and let the ARMY figure ou what kind of aircraft they need? I understand the rift between the US Air Force and the US Army, going back to General Mitchell and the US Army Air Corps.
But we need to make things work instead of intra-service fighting.
2. The F-22 is VITAL to the US Air Force.
The US pioneered flight and combat aircraft, yet, in 1940, Germany and Japan and Britain were FAR ahead of us. Here's hoping that never happens again.
THe F-14 flew it's test flights in 1972, 33 years ago.
The F-15 flew it's test flights in 1973, 32 years ago.
The F-16 flew it's test flights in 1975, 30 years ago.
The F-18 flew it's test flights in 1978, 27 years ago.
Too often, people think I'm just picking on the Air Force because of the times I slept on hangar floors waiting for planes that didn't show up,
or because after three weeks in Alaska in February on operation JACK FROST that the C-130 that flew us (slowly) back to McChord didn't have any heat in the cargo compartment,
or because we had to re-do entire combined arm live fire exercises so the pilots could break off in time for happy hour at Eglin,
or because of the times I've stood on a runway learning for the first time that the plane was broke by the sight of the flight crew speeding off in a van enroute to their hotel,
or because we flew for hours from Cairo West Airfield to Mogadishu only to turn around and fly back without landing because somebody was shooting on the other side of town,
or because just after prepping several dozen vehicles and pallets for airloading with one Air Force loadmaster he left and a new one came in with a completely different set of standards for the same loads and planes,
or because of a parachute drop into a parking lot full of busses in the middle of night,
or because of living in the dirt and getting shot at daily got me the same hazardous duty pay and tax break that that the air guys got for flying over that dirt at 10,000 feet for a couple minutes one day each month,
or because our brigade ALO at JRTC would leave the field each evening to stay in a hotel while we continued 24 hour field ops,
or because while enroute back from combat and changing planes at Rhein-Main AFB being told to keep the soldiers outside in the rain because we were armed,
or because of flight pay & flight crewmember pay.
I AM NOT ANGRY, BITTER OR RESENTFUL. I'M NOT!!!! This is a professional discussion.
I think I beat you to the punch in calling for a re-alignment including some AF functions to the Army. I even included CAS/interdiction.
In an earlier post I already said I disagreed with Peters about the F22. The AF needs a new fighter, indeed, the Abrams tank is just as old. Whether the F22 is the right fighter for the job I am not qualified to say, but I trust the AF judgement on it. What I don't trust is their judgement in continuing to buy C130s. Or planes for CAS/Interdiction. The AF does need to move away from 'multi-role' fighters. CAS and air-to-air are incompatible. They need a replacement for the A10. And not just an upgrade.
I'm glad that finally someone in the press understands the problem well enough to actually state it.
The C-130 requirement has affected more than one Army system. It's affected many.
Peters is right.
Congress and the CNNization of current operations has its hand in changing requirements also.
Witness uparmored HMMWVs.
Last Updated: Thursday, 24 June, 2004, 01:20 GMT 02:20 UK
War games in India 'show up US' By Nick Childs BBC Pentagon correspondent
US military policy relies on air power The success of India's air force against US fighters in an exercise suggests the US may be losing its air superiority, a US general has said. Gen Hal Hornburg said an exercise in February, known as Cope India, had been "a wake-up call".
The mock air battles in central India had pitted US F-15s against advanced Russian-designed Sukhoi SU-30s. General Hornburg said the results show the US may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as it had thought. Cold War mentality
Of course, it suits the US Air Force at the moment to argue that it needs to invest more in air power, as it tries to get funding for advanced new planes like the next generation of stealth fighters, the F/A-22 and F-35.
Some analysts, and some members of Congress, argue that the air force is stuck in a Cold War mentality, and is pressing for planes that it does not really need. But establishing air superiority and air dominance is key to US strategy and many in the air force have argued that there are still many more sophisticated potential adversaries out there than Iraq and Afghanistan.
You are aware that the USAF won't allow their precious C17's actually land on primitive air strips? The planes were designed to do so, but if they actually did it it would seriously shorten the life of the airframe. This is why the C17 is filling the role of strategic lifter, replacing the C141B and now the C5.
Delivering armored vehicles by air is always going to be a problem. Too light to fight.
Good point. I fully concur. The defense industry should be completely prohibited from having any association with retired brass who can influence purchasing decisions within the Pentagon.
By the definition of the mostly uneducated, the Army already has the ideal CAS platform in the AH-64. It flies low, slow, has a big gun and carries lots of ordinance. Even better, it operates very closely to the forward line of troops. But the Army chose to use its Apaches in Iraq as deep strike platforms, and lost almost all of them to battle damage within the first week of the war. If the Army is going to take over the CAS role, it better get its house in order quickly.
Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell is turning over in his grave.
I don't deny corruption exists, but I think it has been shown here and elsewhere that the "$600 toilet seat/$900 hammer/$1200 coffee maker nonsense of the 70s" was largely a distortion of reality by a news media hungry for a dramatic story and anxious to discredit the military.
Wow. I'll be sure to pass that on to my buddies who fly them. They'll be relived.
If C17s can't land on 'austere' strips without falling apart ('seriously shortening the life of the airframe') than they weren't properly designed to do so. And if they weren't properly designed to do so, they should not have been tauted as such.
Too light to fight is not the problem. The Army can produce something worth bringing to the battlefield within the weight limitations. It is the physical size limitations of the C130 that were the limiting factor. Anything built to that space was unstable. It is like a rectangular eraser and a pencil. Vehicles should be stable like the eraser, but anything that would fit in a C130 rolls like a pencil...with people inside it.
Actually the AH is a demonstration of the unwillingness of the AF to do its job. Helicopters are very far from ideal CAS platforms, but they are the ones the Army is allowed to have, and the AF isn't doing the job so the Army settles for what it can get. The fact that they not only were used to do CAS, but also did deep strike (something they were not at all designed to do) further demonstrates the AF's almost total inability to shape the battlefield in any meaningful way closer than strategic. There is a need, and the AF isn't doing it. The Army is trying to plug the holes, but it is a square peg in a round hole.
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.