A10 Replacement

[Smitty]

USAF needs to focus on their strengthes and stop defending rice bowls.

 

Then there's the flip side of that argument, which is the US Army should focus on its strengths (e.g. land warfare, OOTW, SASO) and shouldn't try to appropriate missions from other services who spend more time, energy and money thinking about them in the 'big picture' context.

 

What's next? Should the US Army buy their own amphibs, carriers and transport ships so they can ship themselves around and bring their CAS with them? Why rely on the Navy for these missions?

 

USAF transport assets are used for a lot more than moving the US Army around. USAF strike assets are used for a lot more than CAS.

 

Think of the USAF like FedEx. It's (almost always) far cheaper and more efficient to let them own and run the aircraft, because they can call on economies of scale and really get to know the problem, than it is to buy and operate your own aircraft to fly your stuff around.

 

Now I don't think the policy needs to be completely exclusionary. I think the Army should have some organic air assets to call on, as they'll undoubtably be more responsive to their needs. However, I think each buy decision should be evaluated with an eye towards maximizing the value of limited defense dollars.

 

Perhaps more joint operation of assets is in order. Maybe the USAF should own the assets (to leverage purchasing and operational economies of scale), but have Army pilots and crews train jointly on them - as the USAF and Navy do with the EA-6B.

Edited August 17, 2005 by Smitty

[EchoFiveMike]

Then there's the flip side of that argument, which is the US Army should focus on its strengths (e.g. land warfare, OOTW, SASO) and shouldn't try to appropriate missions from other services who spend more time, energy and money thinking about them in the 'big picture' context.

The "big picture" is winning the war in front of us, anything else is generally putting the cart in front of the horse. Unfortunately, the US Army is hamstrung by it's reliance upon USAF lift, the converse is NOT true. What is the USAF reliant upon the US Army for? Not shooting down it's planes with Patriot missiles?

 

What's next? Should the US Army buy their own amphibs, carriers and transport ships so they can ship themselves around and bring their CAS with them? Why rely on the Navy for these missions?

 

The amphib mission is USMC/USN, but I fully agree that the US Army should buy an assload of RO/RO ships so they can actually go fight wars with all their hardware like they're supposed to. We have the USMC for smacking down piss ant 3rd world types, and they are extremely effective at doing so.

 

USAF transport assets are used for a lot more than moving the US Army around. USAF strike assets are used for a lot more than CAS.

Sure, USAF transpo moves all the other services gear about also, but the US Army is most constrained by this fact with no other recourse. Both USN and USMC have their own transpo aircraft to support their missions plus they generally move their personel via commercial charter aircraft, something you don't have available for MBT's and other heavy/bulky crap that is the US Army's reason for existance.

 

Think of the USAF like FedEx. It's (almost always) far cheaper and more efficient to let them own and run the aircraft, because they can call on economies of scale and really get to know the problem, than it is to buy and operate your own aircraft to fly your stuff around.

 

The problem is that there are competitors to FedEX, which forces them to be responsive, this is not true for the USAF. Also, the goal is not efficient, it's effective.

 

Perhaps more joint operation of assets is in order. Maybe the USAF should own the assets (to leverage purchasing and operational economies of scale), but have Army pilots and crews train jointly on them - as the USAF and Navy do with the EA-6B?

 

The more I experience it, the more I loathe "jointness". Purple is for royalty and homosexuals, I'm not interested in either. We have just about enough EA-6B's to cover routine SOCOM operations, that's it. That's not something I would offer as a solution. Just try to get EA-6B coverage for a Bn or Bde level operation in Iraq. Same for AC-130's. I continue to stress my point that if something is not organic to a unit, it's useless. S/F.....Ken M

[Guest SILL]

Then there's the flip side of that argument, which is the US Army should focus on its strengths (e.g. land warfare, OOTW, SASO) and shouldn't try to appropriate missions from other services who spend more time, energy and money thinking about them in the 'big picture' context.  The AF spends how much time/money on air transport? Where in the priority list? (Strategic or tac)  Redheaded bastard stepchild at best.

 

What's next?  Should the US Army buy their own amphibs, carriers and transport ships so they can ship themselves around and bring their CAS with them?  Why rely on the Navy for these missions?  The Army has had a navy (including amphibs) for many years.

 

USAF transport assets are used for a lot more than moving the US Army around. USAF strike assets are used for a lot more than CAS. Yes, during contengency ops most of their hevay lift is devoted to moving outsized crap to support their air wings.  HUGE amounts of "life support"/Hilton in a box stuff, air conditioners, ISO containers, tents, trailers, pallets of comfort BS.  No room for the Army, we have a standard of life to support.  Can't have the AF sleeping rolled up in a poncho in the mud, eating MREs, no warm shower every night.

 

Think of the USAF like FedEx.  It's (almost always) far cheaper and more efficient to let them own and run the aircraft, because they can call on economies of scale and really get to know the problem, than it is to buy and operate your own aircraft to fly your stuff around.More like Panam decades.  Arrogant, uncompetitive, overpriced monopoly.

 

Now I don't think the policy needs to be completely exclusionary.  I think the Army should have some organic air assets to call on, as they'll undoubtably be more responsive to their needs.  However, I think each buy decision should be evaluated with an eye towards maximizing the value of limited defense dollars. 

 

Perhaps more joint operation of assets is in order.  Maybe the USAF should own the assets (to leverage purchasing and operational economies of scale), but have Army pilots and crews train jointly on them - as the USAF and Navy do with the EA-6B.  Desert One?

208495[/snapback]

[Smitty]

The "big picture" is winning the war in front of us, anything else is generally putting the cart in front of the horse. 

 

No, the "big picture" is larger than the current conflict. It's about examining not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but future conflicts and mission requirements.

 

Unfortunately, the US Army is hamstrung by it's reliance upon USAF lift, the converse is NOT true.  What is the USAF reliant upon the US Army for?  Not shooting down it's planes with Patriot missiles? 

 

If you sent the airlift mission to the Army then the USAF would definitely be reliant on them.

 

The Army is not 'hamstrung' by its reliance on the USAF, it's hamstrung by Pentagon assessments of airlift requirements. The 2005 Mobility Requirements Study estimated that we'd need 54.5 million ton-miles per day (MTM/D) of airlift capacity (negotiated down from 67 MTM/Ds as a cost-cutting measure). The current capability is around 44 MTM/D.

 

So moving aircraft between services won't get you anywhere if you don't have enough to begin with.

 

More recent calculations, based on current conflict usages, put that need at 60 MTM/D.

 

Sure, USAF transpo moves all the other services gear about also, but the US Army is most constrained by this fact with no other recourse.  Both USN and USMC have their own transpo aircraft to support their missions plus they generally move their personel via commercial charter aircraft, something you don't have available for MBT's and other heavy/bulky crap that is the US Army's reason for existance.

 

So even though AMC is underfunded and has done studies to prove it, your solution is to continue to underfund them and let the Army start buying aircraft? Seems like odd logic. How 'bout just increase AMC's funding?

 

In any event, aren't MBTs and other Army heavy equipment usually moved via sealift?

 

Also, the goal is not efficient, it's effective. 

Efficiency and effectiveness go hand-in-hand. Maximizing efficiency maximizes effectiveness of limited resources.

 

We have just about enough EA-6B's to cover routine SOCOM operations, that's it.  That's not something I would offer as a solution. 

 

The lack of EA-6Bs has nothing to do with the jointness of the program. It has to do with lack of funding.

 

I offered it as an example of how to improving coordination and responsiveness of assets between branches, without expensive duplicating of resources.

[Smitty]

The AF spends how much time/money on air transport? Where in the priority list? (Strategic or tac)  Redheaded bastard stepchild at best.

 

Over 140,000 redheaded, bastard stepchildren (in the AMC).

 

I'll look for dollar figures on air transportation. To date, the AMC has flown over 50,000 missions in support of Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, moving close to 3 million personnel, almost nine hundred thousand tons of cargo.

 

http://public.amc.af.mil/Library/library.htm

 

Desert One?

 

Yes, what about it? It was an ill-conceived plan to begin with.

 

"Jointness" had little to do with its failure. Use all Army assets and it's still and ill-conceived plan.

Edited August 18, 2005 by Smitty

[EchoFiveMike]

Smitty, what you seemingly refuse to understand is that services control what moneys they ask for, and they ask for moneys for what they consider important. IOW, the USAF generals solicite for the F-22 and their Gucci lifestyle and then when the airlift mission goes wanting, they go to Congress and claim they don't have the money to accomplish the mission, can we get an emergency supplemental? Their priorities are FUBAR. Yeah, it's a matter of people not being held accountable. Sure, people should be dragged out in the street and shot.

 

Just as the GO's in the Army are responsible for not having spare parts and GO's in the USMC are responsible for not having armoured HUM-V's and the God damned V-22, the GO's in the USAF are responsible for airlift being inadequate. Period, end of sentence.

 

If you sent the airlift mission to the Army then the USAF would definitely be reliant on them.

Who said change mission responsibility? I said be responsible for your own house. It fixes who's accountable for what, and that way there's none of this bullshit about everybody clamoring for the same resources all at once. No more of this crap where everybody is pointing the finger at everybody else. You fight wars with what you have, nothing's changed there, it just prevents a lot of the fantasy bullshit of people assuming that other services are going to provide X to support them, when the providing service has no intention of doing so.

 

The lack of EA-6Bs has nothing to do with the jointness of the program. It has to do with lack of funding.

 

Really??? How many new build EA-6B's were purchased to offset the retirement of the 42 EF-111's? Near as I could tell, there was a reorganization of squadrons but no new purchases, IOW, it was simply consolidation, it didn't do anything for capability. The practical result of all this consolidation is that the DoD tries to get by with less and convinces themselves that they're OK. This has been the trend the US DoD has been following since the end of the Cold War, new stuff that's more capable on a per unit basis, but the total capability of the force goes down. Broad capabilities, but very shallow. S/F....Ken M

[Ivanhoe]

So even though AMC is underfunded and has done studies to prove it, your solution is to continue to underfund them and let the Army start buying aircraft?  Seems like odd logic.  How 'bout just increase AMC's funding?

 

Increasing AMC's funding may not have any effect on the Army's transpo and logistics thruput. It is not just a problem of resource level, it is a question of resource allocation.

 

I went thru an analogous situation in the workplace. I came into computing at the tail end of the mainframe era. The department I was supporting (in a large gov't lab) was getting "taxed" in their annual budget to support the computer center, which owned the mainframes. Funny thing was, when my dept wanted computer time, many of its users were denied accounts and those with accounts got CPU time quotas more befitting a secretary than a researcher. There were procurement rules which gave the computer center absolute veto power over all computer purchases (essentially a Key West Agreement). How was the problem solved? Simple; my dept started buying minicomputers but filling out the purchase orders as "data acquisition systems" rather than "minicomputers". Efficient? Not particularly. Effective? You better believe it.

 

Efficiency and effectiveness go hand-in-hand.  Maximizing efficiency maximizes effectiveness of limited resources.

 

This is so badly wrong I don't know where to begin. I'll try to construct an analogy. Lets say your warehouse needs a new forklift. For $25k you can buy a 1-ton forklift, or for $75k you can buy a 5-ton forklift. In terms of $/ton-day of palletized cargo, the 1-ton forklift is more efficient than the 5-ton. But lets say your vendors start delivering their goods on 3-ton pallets. That 1-ton forklift may be efficient, but it is not effective.

 

Vague military example. Lets say you are fighting a foe with great numerical superiority. You engage in a war of attrition and achieve a 3:1 kill ratio, but do not permanently capture and control terrain nor break the OPFOR's willpower. Efficient, but not effective.

[Smitty]

Smitty, what you seemingly refuse to understand is that services control what moneys they ask for, and they ask for moneys for what they consider important. 

 

I fully understand this. There are always funding priorities. Priorities change. Requirements change.

 

You don't believe the F-22 and other USAF programs are important to national security, they do.

 

Who said change mission responsibility?  I said be responsible for your own house.  It fixes who's accountable for what, and that way there's none of this bullshit about everybody clamoring for the same resources all at once.  No more of this crap where everybody is pointing the finger at everybody else. 

 

So now you're saying the Army and USAF should both have sufficient lift to meet their individual needs? How wasteful is that! Double the infrastructure, double the training, half the economies of scale.

 

Really???  How many new build EA-6B's were purchased to offset the retirement of the 42 EF-111's? 

 

Again, that had nothing to do with jointness and everything to do with funding.

[Smitty]

Increasing AMC's funding may not have any effect on the Army's transpo and logistics thruput.

 

Well, on the other hand, it may.

 

 

How was the problem solved? Simple; my dept started buying minicomputers but filling out the purchase orders as "data acquisition systems" rather than "minicomputers". Efficient? Not particularly. Effective? You better believe it.

 

That may work for relatively 'inexpensive' assets, but try that with $220mil C-17s plus their assorted infrastructure and O&M costs.

 

Did your dept buy its own business jet to take you to meetings on the other side of the country? No, my guess is you flew commercial air.

 

This is so badly wrong I don't know where to begin. I'll try to construct an analogy. Lets say your warehouse needs a new forklift. For $25k you can buy a 1-ton forklift, or for $75k you can buy a 5-ton forklift. In terms of $/ton-day of palletized cargo, the 1-ton forklift is more efficient than the 5-ton. But lets say your vendors start delivering their goods on 3-ton pallets. That 1-ton forklift may be efficient, but it is not effective.

 

I disagree, it is not so much wrong as incomplete. There's a difference between not being able to perform the task, and not performing it to maximum efficiency.

 

Here's a counter example:

 

Since there are usually limited numbers of aircraft parking/service locations at expeditionary airfields, the turn-around-time for aircraft is of critical importance to airlift throughput. Say you have one organization that, on average, turns around an airlifter on the ground (unloads, refuels, maintains, recrews, reloads) in 1 hour, and another (due to lack of experience, training, material handling equipement or whatever) takes 2 hours turn around the same airlifter.

 

Org 1 will have twice the throughput of Ord 2 and therefore is more efficient with the same number of aircraft.

 

Also, when considering efficiency you have to consider O&M costs. A larger organization can amortize depot facilities and other lifecycle costs across a larger fleet, and therefore reduce the overall lifecycle cost per aircraft. This means more airlifters can be bought, serviced and maintained for the same amount of money.

[EchoFiveMike]

So now you're saying the Army and USAF should both have sufficient lift to meet their individual needs? How wasteful is that! Double the infrastructure, double the training, half the economies of scale.

Huh? Did you just say that you disagree with the USAF and Army having enough lift to meet their needs? What is this fetish you have with economy at the expense of EFFECTIVENESS Guess what, wars and military forces by their nature are not economically sound. BUT, it's much cheaper in the long run, both in dollars and lives, to have enough "stuff" to win wars quickly and overwhelmingly instead of mucking about while you get organized and figure stuff out. You business model types just don't get it. Spreading out lift over a time window isn't efficient or effective, it gets people killed needlessly because you piss away TIME, the one thing you can NEVER EVER replace or substitute for. You force compromise and miss opportunities and accept more less than ideal solutions then will already happen anyways and there's already going to be FAR too much of that in any military activity due to onforeseeable events to invite more problems by knowingly going into an endevour half assed.

 

Again, that had nothing to do with jointness and everything to do with funding.

 

What part of reality don't you understand? Are you going to FORCE the USN to buy more Prowlers? They are the ones asking for the money in the 1st place and do you really think Congress knows enough about ECM to ram that down the USN's throat? Redundancy is GOOD for the military, it means that you're not completely reliant upon one service or system for a capability. Competition is a GOOD thing, eliminate competition and you get where we are today, large bureaucracies full of brain dead drones concerned only about consolidating their fiefdoms and ensuring a nice cushy job after they retire. S/F.....Ken M

[Smitty]

Huh?  Did you just say that you disagree with the USAF and Army having enough lift to meet their needs?  What is this fetish you have with economy at the expense of EFFECTIVENESS   Guess what, wars and military forces by their nature are not economically sound.  BUT, it's much cheaper in the long run, both in dollars and lives, to have enough "stuff" to win wars quickly and overwhelmingly instead of mucking about while you get organized and figure stuff out.  You business model types just don't get it.  Spreading out lift over a time window isn't efficient or effective, it gets people killed needlessly because you piss away TIME, the one thing you can NEVER EVER  replace or substitute for. 

 

Eh? I never said that. What I said is, like it or not, there are limited defense dollars. You can't buy everything you want. If the USAF and Army each need 50 aircraft, but you can only afford 70, you're better off keeping them together so they can surge either way.

 

I also understand that a piss-ant airfield in bum-f*ck can only support a handful of aircraft on the ground at one time. So ofthen there is no CHOICE but to spread out lift over time. So you have to maximize what those few aircraft can do.

 

That's what us 'business model types' understand.

 

 

What part of reality don't you understand?  Are you going to FORCE the USN to buy more Prowlers?  They are the ones asking for the money in the 1st place and do you really think Congress knows enough about ECM to ram that down the USN's throat?  Redundancy is GOOD for the military, it means that you're not completely reliant upon one service or system for a capability.  Competition is a GOOD thing, eliminate competition and you get where we are today, large bureaucracies full of brain dead drones concerned only about consolidating their fiefdoms and ensuring a nice cushy job after they retire.  S/F.....Ken M

 

Redundnacy may be good, competition may be good (in the commercial world), but it's a REAL tough sell in Congress. "Duplication" equals "waste" in their eyes.

 

Like it or not.

[5150]

I think you're taking human nature out of your approach, Smitty, along with displaying a bit too much comfort with what should be rather than what is. Having served in the Air Force on an Army post, I can tell you that there are cultural differences. Big ones. That means communication sometimes breaks down. Each service tries to satisfy its needs first, and reasonably so. They each have to satisfy their primary customers before worrying about secondary ones. This is especially true when time or distance separates the need and the resource. Scarcity tends favor the problem at hand as well.

 

The example I have isn't one of vast scale, but it demonstrates the mindsets involved. I was in a weather unit. We were considered a GSU (geographically separated unit). My HQ was at Fort Bragg. I was at Fort Knox. My HQ's parent unit was at Pope AFB, which is where all of their paperwork was processed through. Mine went through Wright-Patterson. You might guess that this complicated certain issues, even though in theory it should be pretty effective. It largely was, until resources became scarce. The scarce resource was admin troops. We didn't have enough secretaries. In the process of re-engineering the career field, our SNCO billet became an NCO billet. We went from having an E-9 in charge to an E-7, with an E-6 managing day to day operations. That quickly became just the E-6. At that point Squadron had to choke up an admin troop to the greater whole of the USAF, so they took ours. After all, we were out of sight, and things at Squadron were quite busy. They didn't feel they could lose one of their two admin troops, as their situation and problems were undoubtedly more complex than those of their unit several hundred miles away. Besides, if we needed anything, we could just call them...

 

That was the mindset at play. Inevitably, our admin tasks didn't go away. None of us had any knowledge of the system. I was the golden boy, and could do any task given to me. Naturally the admin tasks fell to me. Working between two different personnel flights, a local Army post, and still having all of my regular duties, things fell through the cracks. The guys at Squadron had their own problems. I spent less time with my troops, and because of that their performance suffered. The guys from Squadron came out twice a year to help me with the admin stuff, which took them away from their tasks and me away from mine. What should have been a reasonably efficient and effective system (from a design standpoint) most certainly was not.

 

I'm not saying that the Army should have their own organic lift. I'm saying that without someone actually overseeing the taskings, things can and will be dropped. The mindset I described above scales. How effective/efficient something should be has little bearing on what it actually is.

[Smitty]

I think you're taking human nature out of your approach, Smitty, along with displaying a bit too much comfort with what should be rather than what is.

 

Umm, ok. I'm not sure what to make of this. Are you saying cultural differences preclude the Army and USAF working effectively together? If so, then, IMHO, cultures need to change.

 

Besides, what's wrong with trying to determine how things 'should be', and then adjust 'what is', where necessary?

 

I'm not saying that the Army should have their own organic lift. I'm saying that without someone actually overseeing the taskings, things can and will be dropped. The mindset I described above scales. How effective/efficient something should be has little bearing on what it actually is.

 

Ok, well TRANSCOM is supposed to do that. If they aren't, then fix 'em!

[5150]

Umm, ok.  I'm not sure what to make of this.  Are you saying cultural differences preclude the Army and USAF working effectively together?

 

At times it makes things more difficult than it should be. Anyone with experience in dealing with the separate branches will have a story or two about that for you.

 

If so, then, IMHO, cultures need to change.

We'll send out the memo today. I'm sure things will then begin to change.

 

Besides, what's wrong with trying to determine how things 'should be', and then adjust 'what is', where necessary?

209311[/snapback]

 

Because you're missing a large part of the equation. That's what these guys have been trying to tell you, and you're not listening. They're trying to adjust your 'what is.'

[Smitty]

At times it makes things more difficult than it should be. Anyone with experience in dealing with the separate branches will have a story or two about that for you.

 

I've heard plenty of stories about this. I concede that cultural changes are difficult (but possible).

 

We'll send out the memo today. I'm sure things will then begin to change.

 

I can see the point of thoughtful discussion on this topic is nearing an end.

 

Because you're missing a large part of the equation. That's what these guys have been trying to tell you, and you're not listening. They're trying to adjust your 'what is.' 

 

I'm fine with people adjusting my 'what is'. That's the main reason I read these boards!

 

So I don't think I'm missing what they're saying.

 

What I don't agree with is the "we don't trust/like you, so our budget needs to expand dramatically to duplicate your capabilities" sentiment.

 

The 'right way' should always be to maximize the efficiency AND effectiveness of limited defense dollars.

 

If that means services have to play nicely together, then senior leadership needs to make it happen!

[5150]

If that means services have to play nicely together, then senior leadership needs to make it happen!

209373[/snapback]

 

It's not just senior leadership, but that's where it would have to start. It's pretty tough for them to rise above their own needs and see the needs of the whole, however. One can't just say "change" and expect it to happen.

[Smitty]

It's not just senior leadership, but that's where it would have to start. It's pretty tough for them to rise above their own needs and see the needs of the whole, however. One can't just say "change" and expect it to happen.

 

No, they actually have to work at it, and instill the need to change in their subordinates, but it has to start somewhere.

 

Plus I think changing culture is ultimately cheaper than duplicating capabilities.