tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post4082628148096775675..comments2024-03-28T23:57:50.103-05:00Comments on Bayou Renaissance Man: Weekend Wings #21: Whither The USAF?Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10595089829300831372noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-19705625900470117102008-07-03T16:13:00.000-05:002008-07-03T16:13:00.000-05:00Being a Navy man myself, I fail to understand what...Being a Navy man myself, I fail to understand what the USAF actually brings to the table anymore except strategic airlift capability. Every mission the USAF does, the Navy and Marines can do. I never understood why the USAF took the lead in space flight, since you are right, the Navy is the group that are masters at operating in tight spaces, hostile environments, and at damage control. USAF just does not have the institutional mentality to operate a large ship in space (one with a crew of more than four) or in combat. Most USAF guys I've met are completely baffled by Navy life.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think we should be focusing on getting short range tankers that can operate from a carrier deck with a small handful of long range tankers for special missions.<BR/><BR/>And I agree, the strategic bomber needs to go, small smart bombs and cruise missiles are much more effective than vast amounts of dumb warheads.<BR/><BR/>As for laser weapons, stealth takes two forms, passive and active. A stealth attack flight could enter an area and right before the attack, begin broadcasting heavy jamming (thus denying the lasers a target), drop weapons, and once the weapons hit, turn off the jamming and leave. And if we ever figure out how to make a stealthy cruise missile, just give it HARM abilities and let 'em go.<BR/><BR/>It's time for the USAF to go or get absorbed by the Army the way the Navy owns the Marines.Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03605660561691357227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-11960019664108393002008-06-23T01:26:00.000-05:002008-06-23T01:26:00.000-05:00The Future Combat System for the Army has been a p...The Future Combat System for the Army has been a pie in the sky dream simply because the commercial equipment hasn't yet been miniaturized enough for the "ruggedization" process that will make it bulkier.<BR/><BR/>One of the biggest lessons we've learned in the Army is that developing our own product is stupid. The Stryker vehicle that is so successful was already a product (the LAV III). Our communications backbone is COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf).<BR/><BR/>Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier is the Army oversight for fielding equipment. Instead of focusing on equipment as an endstate, it focuses on the "Soldier as a System" so that we have synergy across equipment. It's not perfect, but it is better than the old way of procurement.SordidPandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00657526230826604643noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-48165767526557355182008-06-22T21:15:00.000-05:002008-06-22T21:15:00.000-05:00The branches should have missions, rather than equ...The branches should have missions, rather than equipment, and they should be tactically independent. That means while the Army might rely on the Navy and Air force to get to the war, on the battlefield they should be supporting themselves--That means Army close air support and theater airlift at a minimum.Sevesteenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439626386416115766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-71143509389275985742008-06-22T20:37:00.000-05:002008-06-22T20:37:00.000-05:00You have some interesting comments on the use of f...You have some interesting comments on the use of former Soviet aircraft. In the 70s/80s the C5, when occasionally released to friendly governments when there was capacity available, cost about $18,000/hr. In the late 90s when the US military began to use the An124 the commercial price for that airplane was of the order of $10,000/hr. Although an apparently equivalent airplane (though, as usual for the Soviets, substantially more robust) and coming from a developed, high tech economy the An124 should have been about the same price. It was the fire sale of the resources of the former Soviet Union in the early 90s that reduced the price to one that would have been impossible for any western airplane to approach. <BR/><BR/>The point of that argument is that the US military is getting a great, cost effective deal by using the An124 as supplemental airlift.<BR/><BR/>The An70, when independently assessed by the German government early this decade was determined to be; 'operationally, technically and financially by far the best choice'. However, the European political/industrial complex was not about to let the Airbus A400 project die by allowing Germany, one of it's main customers, to go for a cheaper, better solution to it's needs. In exactly the same way that the US military/industrial complex looks after it's own.<BR/><BR/>The An70 was, and remains, streets ahead of any competition despite the fact that if the Soviet Union had remained in play it would have been in series production in 1991 nearly 17 years ago! Antonov is one of the major industrial pillars of the Ukrainian economy and desperately wants to keep the airplane in play. Yet there is no way that it can finance the continued development of the model while obvious customers make obviously political purchasing decisions to by other airplanes with inferior performance and higher prices that are still not yet in production.<BR/><BR/>If any western economy was truly serious about building bridges with Ukraine then it could produce effective solutions to any problem relating to security of prodcution that would aid its own economy as well as that of Ukraine by cooperation with Antonov.<BR/><BR/>Bruce Bird<BR/>http://www.an124.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-52969609837727959782008-06-22T18:38:00.000-05:002008-06-22T18:38:00.000-05:00I am with you on purchasing late model fighters li...I am with you on purchasing late model fighters like the F-16 and super hornet, and constantly annoy my state senator who is also a UASFR pilot!<BR/><BR/>This insane obsession with decades long procurement cycles has to stop, not only in the AF but especially in the AF! <BR/><BR/>I have a radical notion. Why do we need jet tankers anyway? If we were to do without them we'd have to depend more on combat UAVs which have far greater endurance on a tank of gas than a manned fighter, a couple of days versus a couple of hours. The tanker war is a product of the jet age, and we are now in the digital age so such cold war era thinking should go the way of the battleship.<BR/><BR/>I also concur with your thoughts of placing the entire nuclear deterrent at sea. For pete's sake, the SSBN's are practically invulnerable, the bomber and ICBM force, mostly not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6244999628674918029.post-66704428406937031192008-06-22T15:18:00.000-05:002008-06-22T15:18:00.000-05:00The managerial incompetence of the USAF correlates...The managerial incompetence of the USAF correlates exactly with the retirement of senior officers trained at West Point and their replacement with officers who graduated from the Air Force Academy. Add to that the continued scandals at the Air Force Academy and a light begins to dawn. The Navy and marines corps continue to run their own air branches. It's time to convert the Air Force back into the Army Air Corps.GeorgeHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10736838055941100599noreply@blogger.com