Slater Posted October 29, 2005 Posted October 29, 2005 Since the services apparently have to do some serious budget cutting for the FY 07 Defense Budget, some measures have been put on the table. According to Defense Week, the USAF might retire all the C-5 aircraft, cap C-17 procurement at 180 planes (instead of the desired 220 or so), buy fewer C-130J's, and kill the E-10 program. Acquisition of new tankers to replace the KC-135's would be posponed indefinitely. Retiring all the C-5's would save a lot of money and some observers say that the C-17 force could take up the slack, although I'm not sure if the presumption of additional C-17's was part of their rationale. Thoughts?
Slater Posted October 29, 2005 Author Posted October 29, 2005 Whoops, wrong forum. Mods, please move?
Ken Estes Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 This happens all the time, where the services put obviously essential functions or systems up for cuts, knowing full well they cannot be taken, but it supplies the eyewash to show how they are complying with directives.
Ivanhoe Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 If we're going to have enough C-17s to completely handle the dynamic "kick the door in" operations, then we can play the calculator games to determine if we'd be better served with cargo versions of the 747 and 767 for just hauling bulk cargo to paved airstrips. The eternal risk is that the C-17 critics will howl for fewer airframes, the C-5 critics will howl for retiring the Galaxies, and nobody will stand up and demand a replacement capability using airliner conversions. Given our current optempo in the WOT, I'd say to not screw with things unless I was dead sure any change in the fleet resulting in equal or better capacity.
Kenneth P. Katz Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 Fewer airlifters and fewer tankers is OK as long as we plan on fighting Canada, Mexico and Cuba. The USAF is dumping a ton of $$$ into C-5 modernization so retiring them would be ridiculous at this time. The USAF needs more long range aircraft (tankers, cargo, bombers) and less short range pointy-nosed airplanes. Cancel the F-35 and cap the F/A-22; then concentrate on what is needed. Like Ivanhoe, I am a big fan of airliner derivatives.
Guest pfcem Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 Fewer airlifters and fewer tankers is OK as long as we plan on fighting Canada, Mexico and Cuba. The USAF is dumping a ton of $$$ into C-5 modernization so retiring them would be ridiculous at this time. The USAF needs more long range aircraft (tankers, cargo, bombers) and less short range pointy-nosed airplanes. Cancel the F-35 and cap the F/A-22; then concentrate on what is needed. Like Ivanhoe, I am a big fan of airliner derivatives.240945[/snapback]The USAF needs the F-35 & F/A-22 just as much (if not more) than tankers, cargo planes & bombers. The F-35 & F/A-22 are needed for the USAF primary role & mission, everything else is secondary. You do not buy a bunch of bullets without buying the gun. It is true that much of our cargo hauling needs can be (& has been) done with commercial cargo planes. Hopefully the cost analysis of procuring additional C-17s to replace the C-5s vs modernizing the C-5 fleet has been done.
EchoFiveMike Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 The USAF needs the F-35 & F/A-22 just as much (if not more) than tankers, cargo planes & bombers. The F-35 & F/A-22 are needed for the USAF primary role & mission, everything else is secondary. You do not buy a bunch of bullets without buying the gun. It is true that much of our cargo hauling needs can be (& has been) done with commercial cargo planes. Hopefully the cost analysis of procuring additional C-17s to replace the C-5s vs modernizing the C-5 fleet has been done.240989[/snapback] Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. The job of the fucking air force (read USAF GO's) is to do what it's told to do in the defense of the Nation, right now that means getting the Soldiers and Marines(and their gear) to where they can kill the enemies of this Nation. F/A 22 is money already spent, might as well buy it and have something tangible, the F35 is a waste of money that brings nothing to the table at this time. Where's the threat(??) and that determines where the money goes. S/F...Ken M
T19 Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 Look, modernize them, then give them to Canada. We can make them availible to you in emergancies. We can do it in trade for the $5 billion in Softwood lumber duties you owe us You get to keep this lift, and resolve the outstanding duties, WIN WIN Cheers
JOE BRENNAN Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 (edited) The USAF is dumping a ton of $$$ into C-5 modernization so retiring them would be ridiculous at this time.240945[/snapback]Hasn't dumped that much yet, that program has been delayed a few times, and the idea is to skip the bulk of the expenditure, avoid something like $10bil of spending (10 here, 10 there and eventually it adds up ). Aviation Week's article last month said the Army doesn't like the C-5 modernization program because they aren't convinced it would address the plane's low mission capable rate (consistently around 1/2) in a timely way if ever. OTOH $10bil is only around 30 more C-17's even if spent rather than saved. Ken E's point is well taken, a proven technique is to concentrate proposed cuts in programs outsiders will perceive as key. Then the eventual compromise is usually less cut, as well as redistributing the cut. If you finely distribute the same cut to begin with, the reaction is more likely to be, "OK fine". We need balanced forces; 180 C-17's with the C-141 and -5 fleets gone is not enough, but balance is a two way street*. And I see our strategy and mode of spending shifting, in a budgetary type of time horizon (several years or more) more toward general preparedness as a maritime/aerospace power, prominently including maintenance of defense industrial base. Right now we're in a land war, so for emergency items and funding the land forces should have priority. But given the political fallout of that war I have trouble imagining the next similar operation. When people speak of shifting emphasis to land capability in several to 10 year horizon I think they must be living in a different country than the one whose reaction to this war I see, for better or worse (let's take it to FFZ if we need to explore more who's "fault" etc. ) *eg. the naval services need more and better tac a/c whether or not the AF really does, we've committed with allies to the F-35 w/ lots or negative political and future commerical impact if we pull out, and important industrial base implications even besides that intl fallout. Find a compromise including both F-35's and some airlifters, muddle through. We all know that's highly likely to be the outcome regardless of our soapbox speeches here anyway Joe Edited October 30, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN
Ken Estes Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 The USAF needs the F-35 & F/A-22 just as much (if not more) than tankers, cargo planes & bombers. The F-35 & F/A-22 are needed for the USAF primary role & mission, everything else is secondary. You do not buy a bunch of bullets without buying the gun. It is true that much of our cargo hauling needs can be (& has been) done with commercial cargo planes. Hopefully the cost analysis of procuring additional C-17s to replace the C-5s vs modernizing the C-5 fleet has been done.240989[/snapback]Coast/benefit analyses have been performed by the dozens in the last 25 years, evaluating rehabed and stretched airframes, C17 production, more C130s, B747s and probably a few B777s by now. The CRAF program still exists with about 100 airframes on line and of course 70% of AMC airlift/tanker crews are USAFR and are very current in civilian airliners they fly every week. In short, the present AMC airlift program is fairly well-tuned for the missions, and I would not expect any changes in the future.
Slater Posted October 30, 2005 Author Posted October 30, 2005 IIRC, the idea of relegating the C-5 fleet to the boneyard has been around for several years now, and usually turns up around budget time. A joke I heard some time ago: Q: If you're on an Air Force base and see two C-5's, and one of them is up on jacks, what does that tell you? A: They've only got one set of jacks.
Guest pfcem Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 Bullshit. Pure, unadulterated bullshit. The job of the fucking air force (read USAF GO's) is to do what it's told to do in the defense of the Nation, right now that means getting the Soldiers and Marines(and their gear) to where they can kill the enemies of this Nation. F/A 22 is money already spent, might as well buy it and have something tangible, the F35 is a waste of money that brings nothing to the table at this time. Where's the threat(??) and that determines where the money goes. S/F...Ken M240999[/snapback] So the USAF should stop procurement of & scrap all combat aircraft & the USN should stop procurement of & scrap all warships since their only jobs are now to transport men & material for the Army. Oh, & you can tell the Army that the only support they can expect form the USAF & USN is transporting men & equipment to the fight. [trying to demonstrate the absurdity of EchoFiveMike's statement with absurdity]
TheSilentType Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 The US Air Force is already perfectly capable of beating the crap out of any potential opponent with the aircraft they already have in the inventory. Sure it would be nice to have newer, more capable aircraft, but right now more strategic airlift would be of greater use than newer fighters.
Guest pfcem Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 The US Air Force is already perfectly capable of beating the crap out of any potential opponent with the aircraft they already have in the inventory. Sure it would be nice to have newer, more capable aircraft, but right now more strategic airlift would be of greater use than newer fighters.241076[/snapback]Here we go again with the BS that our stuff is good enough so there is no need to replace it. Where would we be if the people making that argument against the F-15 & F-16 had gotten their way? Or the C-17. You fight with what you have but you procure for the future. Do you know what threats we will be facing in 20 years? NO! We can not continue to rely on the current F-15 & F-16 fleets forever, & the longer we wait to start procuring something to replace them, the more desperate & expensive it will be. There are aircraft being built by foreign nations that are already arguably superior the the F-15 & F-16. Are we to believe that if we stopped improving our armed forces with newer & better stuff that EVERYONE else would to? Why is it that we "need" more strategic airlift? Could it be that we have not kept procurement up to keep with the demand as older aircraft became unsuitable for the task (economically or otherwise)?
ross.browne Posted October 30, 2005 Posted October 30, 2005 The US Air Force is already perfectly capable of beating the crap out of any potential opponent with the aircraft they already have in the inventory. Sure it would be nice to have newer, more capable aircraft, but right now more strategic airlift would be of greater use than newer fighters.241076[/snapback] On the theory of 'out of sight, out of mind' the USAF should ONLY be buying C-17s, since that's the only US aircraft that flies over New Zealand on a regular basis! What is the incremental cost of additional aircraft at this stage of the procurement?
Guest Murph Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 Scrape the C-5, increase the C-17 to 220. Scale back the F-35 to 1/2 the number proposed, and the FORCE, FORCE the Air Force to upgrade the A-10, and take the F-15 and put new engines, and avionics in it. Upgrade the F-15, using F-22/F-35 parts. There are more fighter planes than there are infantry squads! Thats terrible. Then take some of the saved money, and add four divisions to the Army, and another to the Marines. Or even better yet. Give all Tac Air to the Army, all strategic forces, and interceptors to the Navy, and abolish the Air Force entirely.
Guest pfcem Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 (edited) Scrape the C-5, increase the C-17 to 220. 241139[/snapback]If you are going to scap the C-5 fleet, you need five more C-17 (170,000 lbs payload) for every three C-5 (290,000 lbs payload) just too keep current lift capacity constant. Scale back the F-35 to 1/2 the number proposed, 241139[/snapback]VERY bad idea, you will only save 1/4 to 1/3 of the total project cost & not have enough planes to fulfill the demand. REMEMBER THE B-2? FORCE the Air Force to upgrade the A-10, 241139[/snapback]I like this idea. The A-10 is the best CAS aircraft there is. take the F-15 and put new engines, and avionics in it. Upgrade the F-15, using F-22/F-35 parts. 241139[/snapback]Better to increase the F/A-22 order & ramp up production to safe per unit cost there. The F/A-18E/F cost more than $80 million each. What if the F/A-22 were only $120 million each? BANG FOR YOUR BUCK PEOPLE! There are more fighter planes than there are infantry squads! Thats terrible. Then take some of the saved money, and add four divisions to the Army, and another to the Marines. 241139[/snapback]Where did you get that information. I seriously doubt that is true, the cutback to the USAF numerical strength has been quite significant. Or even better yet. Give all Tac Air to the Army, all strategic forces, and interceptors to the Navy, and abolish the Air Force entirely.241139[/snapback]Sounds like somebody is upset that the USAF has been top priority since the end of WWII. Edited October 31, 2005 by pfcem
Kenneth P. Katz Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 Wrong. Find the USAF doctrine documents on the Web and read them. Then come back after having done your homework. The USAF needs the F-35 & F/A-22 just as much (if not more) than tankers, cargo planes & bombers. The F-35 & F/A-22 are needed for the USAF primary role & mission, everything else is secondary. You do not buy a bunch of bullets without buying the gun.240989[/snapback]
Kenneth P. Katz Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 Why scrap the C-5? It is a very useful airplane when it works. Making it more reliable with new avionics and engines is a cost-effective upgrade. Cutting back the F-35 half way means that you pay all the nonrecurring costs and get much less. Bad, bad idea. The USAF is upgrading the A-10A to the A-10C right now. Next upgrade is improved engines. Exactly what would you like to force? Selected F-15C's are getting AESA radars like the F/A-22. But it's still an aging and non-stealthy airframe. Reengining it with the F119 would be either impossible or incredibly expensive for not much benefit. Bad idea. The United States is basically a aerospace and maritime power, not a land power. Aerospace superiority is essential to everything the United States does including global power projection. It leverages American advantages in wealth and technology to create overmatch that cannot be equalled by any other country. Why you propose dismantling that incredible advantage, and what possible benefit would result from painting "US Army" or "US Navy" on the sides of airplanes escapes me. Scrape the C-5, increase the C-17 to 220. Scale back the F-35 to 1/2 the number proposed, and the FORCE, FORCE the Air Force to upgrade the A-10, and take the F-15 and put new engines, and avionics in it. Upgrade the F-15, using F-22/F-35 parts. There are more fighter planes than there are infantry squads! Thats terrible. Then take some of the saved money, and add four divisions to the Army, and another to the Marines. Or even better yet. Give all Tac Air to the Army, all strategic forces, and interceptors to the Navy, and abolish the Air Force entirely.241139[/snapback]
Kenneth P. Katz Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 It's 2005, not 1985. There is no such thing as TacAir and no such thing as strategic forces. To regard airpower as essentially a form of artillery was recognized as a bad idea in 1944. When the reach of airpower is vastly greater today than it was in 1944, it would even be a worse idea today. Or even better yet. Give all Tac Air to the Army, all strategic forces, and interceptors to the Navy, and abolish the Air Force entirely.241139[/snapback]
FlyingCanOpener Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 It's 2005, not 1985. There is no such thing as TacAir and no such thing as strategic forces. To regard airpower as essentially a form of artillery was recognized as a bad idea in 1944. When the reach of airpower is vastly greater today than it was in 1944, it would even be a worse idea today.241178[/snapback] It's the other way around really. After all, you could easily fit this famous quote by Jackie Fisher to what the US Army is today in terms of its use to not only the Navy, but the USAF also... ...the [u.S.] Army is a projectile to be fired by the [u.S.] Navy [and Air Force too]...
Rubberneck Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 MG (Ret.) Robert Scales said this at the National War College last year. BANG FOR YOUR BUCK PEOPLE!Where did you get that information. I seriously doubt that is true, the cutback to the USAF numerical strength has been quite significant.241143[/snapback]
TheSilentType Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 I wasn't saying the Air Force should stop buying new fighters. Obviously we can't use F-15s and -16s forever, and we've already paid most of the cost of developing the F-22 so scrapping that would be a terrible idea. I agree with several others though who said cancel the F-35 program. Obviously a force of F-22s and F-35s would be nice, but a force of F-22s along with upgraded versions of the aircraft they have now would be good enough to get the job done. On the theory of 'out of sight, out of mind' the USAF should ONLY be buying C-17s, since that's the only US aircraft that flies over New Zealand on a regular basis! What is the incremental cost of additional aircraft at this stage of the procurement?241089[/snapback]
Ken Estes Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 MG (Ret.) Robert Scales said this at the National War College last year. 241210[/snapback]I saw that earlier, but nowadays I wonder if the USAF has aircrew for all the a/c carried on its inventory.... [on reflection, certainly not active duty aircrew]
Burncycle360 Posted October 31, 2005 Posted October 31, 2005 (edited) I'm all in favor of new fighters- my issue is, don't have them as pet projects and then neglect the support aircraft until you're _forced_ to deal with their problems lest they fall out of the sky. We've been babying the F-22 and JSF for a decade, it's time to give the support aircraft some loving too and get them good to go for the forseeable future, then go back to working on the sexy fighters. Work on a C-130 replacement (boeing ATT, etc) that gives the army a little more flexibility with regards to weight and dimensions on their AFV Work on a Skycat, Pelican, or other strategic transport that ends up in between airlift and sealift in cost and capability (then you won't need C-5 for oversized cargo) to improve your strategic mobility and augment the C-17 Both of these projects are long term and will take decades to work on and probably decades to field, so it would be nice to get started on it now. In the medium term, we can find a common support airframe to take us to 2050 and beyond (or a couple, if one won't do it all) for the tanker, AWACS, JSTARS, bulk cargo, and other roles that use civilian airframes. Buy them _new_ instead of leasing old, tired airframes only to end up buying them anyway at a greater cost than a new bird. It's all about cost of course, and there isn't enough money to go around, so it seems... not to mention the political aspect of procurement that tends to grind things to a crawl. So, I'll just sit back and let the guys who get paid to do this kind of stuff, and know more about it than I ever will, do their jobs and hope for the best. Edited October 31, 2005 by Burncycle360
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now