It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USAF losing the Edge

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Greetings,

I have seen many threads on this site stating that the USAF could easily over come China, due to their vast budget and training that their pilots enjoy, compaired to "Red" China, well it is interesting that the USAF seem to be depending on their new fleet of aircraft [F/A-22] rather than the training of their crews.



Tight budgets are forcing the Air Force's combat squadrons to cut back their training hours by nearly 60 percent -- "leaving frontline units unprepared to go to war," according to Defense News.

Air Combat Command (ACC), the primary provider of combat airpower, is cutting 32,000 flying hours to help compensate for its $825 million operations and maintenance shortfall.

The cuts come as Air Force aircrews are heavily worked, flying missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and over some U.S. cities in an attempt to prevent another terrorist attack.

"Starting early this summer, units may have aviators unable to get required training to maintain full combat-ready status," Col. Jim Dunn, deputy director of flight operations for ACC, said in a written statement. "Overall effectiveness will become a growing challenge."

With this cut, the command now has 21,000 flying hours left of the original 53,000-plus hours programmed for the rest of this fiscal year -- a 60 percent reduction...

Retired Gen. Hal Hornburg, former ACC commander, said the cuts are "a big deal" and show the military's grim financial situation.

"They're not cutting fat, they're cutting to the bone," Hornburg said, noting the Pentagon has taken large sums of money away from the Air Force to pay for the Army in Iraq.

Reducing flying hours will free up about $272 million, not quite a third of the command's shortfall, said Col. Dave Goossens, ACC comptroller.


This is bad news -- another sign of how the Iraq war is slowly grinding down American military readiness. But are times really that tight at the Air Force? I mean, if the generals there wanted to save $272 million, couldn't they just take a F-22 Raptor or two out of the budget, instead of staging a giant PR campaign for the dubious stealth jet? Is an extra fighter plane that much more important than every pilot's training time?

And how's this for poor choices: two of the only groups not affected by the flight-time cuts... are the "Raptor squadron [and] the Thunderbird aerial demonstration team," says Defense News.


To me, it looks like that with the current operations in Iraq, the USAF have been forced with the choice of Training their crew with their currently fleet of aircraft and hoping that better training will do the job or Use better technology to do the job with reduced training due to the fact that the better aircraft will give the under trained pilot better time to correct his mistakes.

What do you think?
- Phil

Forgot the Link
www.defensetech.org...

[edit on 3-6-2005 by gooseuk]




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Greetings,

I though I would add the opinion of a Ex-USN Pilot, based on the above post.
- Phil



Training Cuts: Ex-Pilots React

Former Navy F/A-18 pilot Harry Hirschman is disgusted by the Air Force's decision to drastically cut back on training time for fighter jocks.

F-5_3-plane_SandMntn.jpg"There's a lot of gamesmanship that goes into the training and readiness numbers. But you can't game the number of hours each pilot gets to fly," he tells Defense Tech.

In the Navy, it took at least 32 hours per month to even come close to full combat readiness. And that needs to be maintained for several months per squadron per pilot in order to be able to get the myriad types of training in. It's impossible to be 100% efficient on the training too, because senior pilots end up repeating certain types of sorties with junior pilots in order to move them along the learning curve.

A cut like the one described below will hurt across the board because it's so deep. Squadrons will give as much time to the junior pilots as they can in order to get them up to a minimum level of competence and safety but they won't be able to do it all because they'll have to send senior guys along to teach. It's a very difficult situation for a squadron commander and training officer.

But then, there may be some gamesmanship in what the Air Force is doing. By cutting so dramatically into something that defense watchers know will impact combat readiness, they may be hoping for a reprieve.

"The irony is the savings projected are a pittance," adds retired Gen. Tom Wilkerson, who logged over 3,000 hours in the front seats of F-4s and F/A-18s. "What is $272 million against one F-22 [stealth fighter] purchase?"



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Hey Goose matey maybe they should be buying those affordable Su 27-35 types you like so much?




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Sminkeypinkey,

I am not sure if that was a friendly comment or attack, but I more than happy and willing answer it.

Yes I happen to like the SU 27 and SU 35 Combat aircraft, I also like the Saab Gripen, the F-111, TSR and the A-6. Merely having some personal taste in aircraft design is nothing more that like a type or make of car. I also believe that any aircraft effectivally employed skillfully, no matter how old the aircraft can successfully attack and overcome a better agressor.

If you meant that, as an attack, I can only assume that you are assuming that due to my logo, I am in favour of the Chinese main land or a "ChiCom". You couldn't be farther from the Truth, as if you read the text you will see that it Says: OPFOR "Training the Next Generation". OPFOR stands for Opposing Forces, Militaries use them to train their troops against the enemy, using their tactics and training.

Lets get back on Topic though

- Phil



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by gooseuk
Sminkeypinkey,

I am not sure if that was a friendly comment or attack- Phil


- I thought the emote would have told you, I was just kidding.

(and I had not even considered your avatar as connected to any of that 'chicom' stuff people like to talk about here, what's so short & handy about that when they are the PRC anyway......do you think there's a need to get "com" in?
)

Anyhoo, I was just trying to inject a little fun and a mild little joke. Sorry.

[edit on 3-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Nah I apologise Lad,

I have just had some interesting experances due to people attacking me based on what they assume from the Logo, I apologise Lad.

- Philip



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
hey.. This TSR, what was its nick?...
I have traced connections of the TSR-2 and the BOR12 enegine design back to the InAF HF-24 MArut.. interesting..



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
What connections are they Daedalus? The Marut used the Orpheus engine however not the Olympus of the TSR 2.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
hey.. This TSR, what was its nick?...
I have traced connections of the TSR-2 and the BOR12 enegine design back to the InAF HF-24 MArut.. interesting..


The TSR-2 was designed during the 1960`s and was cancelled in 1965 ; the engine were later used to power Concord (RR Olympus)

so , how can that be `traced back` to the HF-24??



TSR-2 for those who are interested

[edit on 3-6-2005 by Harlequin]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Oh, now you've got me drooling over a bloody photograph again. And I had so carefully avoided one in my own reply



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   


the only other surviving prototype


MODS i hope the image isn`t too big.


edit:

www.f-111.net...

the TSR-2 and the aircraft it was cancelled for (which the RAF never got anyway)

[edit on 3-6-2005 by Harlequin]

second edit:

www.targetlock.org.uk...

TSR-2 in flight

sorry im going off topic :blush:

[edit on 3-6-2005 by Harlequin]



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Could this lower flight hours not be because of todays more advanced simulators?
For example the F-22 will not have the training (2 seat) version at all. Most of the training will be made on simulators.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
With the F-22s, there will be less need for longer flying hours. After all, you can't shoot what you can't see



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
With the F-22s, there will be less need for longer flying hours. After all, you can't shoot what you can't see


no , what this is about is pilot readiness - sim time is all well and good for the basic`s and fundementals , but you need hands on time to get familiar with the aircraft you fly rather than the clinical environment of a sim that everyone uses.

you can`t programme in every idiosyncrasy for every aircraft into a sim.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
XR220 & XR222, beauties! (and rare survivors)

(non-flyers too IIRC, it was only XR219 that flew?......I presume she was broken up with the others?)



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I think XR219 met its end at the Shoeburyness gunnery range. The shocking thing for me regarding the scrapping of TSR 2 (apart from the madness of it) was that 40 aircraft were in various stages of manufacture when the axe fell (on the very day I was born, no less) and yet we cancelled it to order 50 F-111's instead! If the root of all that isn't in some sort of conspiracy I don't know what is.

"whats that over there in the distance? Oh yes, its the topic"


[edit on 4-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I think XR219 met its end at the Shoeburyness gunnery range.


- Ah, ta for that.


The shocking thing for me regarding the scrapping of TSR 2 (apart from the madness of it) was that 40 aircraft were in various stages of manufacture when the axe fell (on the very day I was born, no less) and yet we cancelled it to order 50 F-111's instead! If the root of all that isn't in some sort of conspiracy I don't know what is.


- Well thankfully we never had need of them even if it did play a large part in banjaxing our aero industry for decades.

(As for conspiracy I do not think this is stretching things at all.......with good ol British secrecy it'll be a while yet until the story comes out; some central characters - Healey in particular - are still alive, but I can imagine it coming out at the 50yrs rule mark when he's safely dead and buried)


"whats that over there in the distance? Oh yes, its the topic"


- Oh well, no doubt there'll be ample opportunity to debate the US and whether it's "edge" has gone walkabout from now on.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Time will tell... For the moment the USAAF has the most powerful AF in the world... But if Russia had the money they could come up with something against the Americans...

China is developing new fighters too, we'll have to wait and see if they are as good as what the Americans have come up with...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
While this isn't good at all, the USAF will still be #1 in terms of air-to-air combat for a very long time, no one has the capability to match them.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Without fully reading this whole thread, and just simply knowing the basic emphasis on how the USAF is possibly losing the edge when it comes to it's aircraft as war fighters, I can very easily incorporate a few opinions into this. I am in the USAF myself and I will be the first to agree that somewhere along the line in the last decade or so, the U.S. Military as whole has lost it's edge. We may think that the U.S. Military is on the upswing in terms of what we witness/account for/hear when being informed by the media about the seemed to be power/-military might hold. Well, it's sad to say, but we (USAF/Military as a whole) have become more lethargic and egotistical in power than one could ever imagine.

It's a matter of time before we go up against some other super power like China or even a not so much super power Korea when we realize how weak we really are. Just because we supposedly gained (far from it) deplomacy and democratic power in the middle east due to superior Air Power, doesn't mean we will easily out number the rest of the crazed not so democratic nature other rutheless countries are in as easy as a fashion that we did with Iraq/Afganistan. Hence, the USAF in terms of the War Fighting Aircraft they currently have aren't strong enough by any means in terms of numbers and power than what China, Russia, and especially Great Britain has. I don't need technical proof, just the experience I have in the Air Force and the lethargic mood/egotistical tone that will sooner or later cause the U.S. Military/USA as a whole to crumble in due time. Just wait and see. But for now, lets pretend the USAF is the more superior Air Power upon this planet. As for USAF and it's Space Power they have, well thats a whole other story, which I will get into at a later, more feasible time. Until then...


~ U.S. Air Force ~

Airman Eric 'Adamo'




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join