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.
posted by Zaphod58
The reason they're using private companies right now is simply because we don't have enough tankers for all the missions, and we aren't GOING to have enough tankers thanks to the KC-767 Great Tanker Fiasco. I have literally seen planes sit parked on the ramp waiting for a tanker for over a month.
Officially, the Pentagon is listening to all kinds of bids for tanker service, including the idea of contracting it out to a third party, much the way the Royal Air Force has done in the United Kingdom. But the U.S. Air Force is cool to that idea, MarketWatch said.
Key Quote: "Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley say the service will listen to all comers. In interviews last week, however, both officials were skeptical about any solution that didn't involve outright purchases of new aircraft."
Originally posted by soulforge
The Air Force has 59 KC-10 Extenders, but over 400 KC-135, many of which are nearing end of service life. I'd thought we'd had many more KC-10 than we actually do.
I'm curious as why we wouldn't simply buy more KC-10s, instead of starting a new competition for a new refueler?
KC-10 Factsheet
KC-135
[edit on 3/7/2006 by soulforge]
posted by Anon4this1
There are several USAF articles and pubs from the Secretary of the Air Force regarding the current aging fleet and how it's not being replaced. Average age of aircraft when he began flying in the early 70's, was 7 years old. Average age now? It’s 30 years old. It's a bigger problem.
[Edited by Don W]
posted by Zaphod58
10 carriers, with two building. Guess how many are ready to sail or at sea at any given time? 3-4 in each fleet. There is usually 1 in refit/refueling and 1 in overhaul per fleet. That's why during both Gulf Wars they sailed carriers from the Atlantic and Pacific to the Gulf for air ops . . . “ [Edited by Don W]
“ . . We NEED to have 10 carriers just to keep our operational pace going . . “
“ . . one of them is a CVN-21, which will replace PROBABLY the Enterprise when she goes active. So we're gaining one and losing one.
posted by Zaphod58
It has nothing to do with how much we spend. It has EVERYTHING to do with politicians tying our hands and preventing us from prosecuting the war the way it SHOULD be prosecuted. This is the same thing they did in Vietnam. During that conflict all target selection had to go through DC and the ROE was so insanely strict that by the time they got authorization for a pop up target, the target was long gone.
[Edited by Don W]
In Iraq they're so determined to win the hearts and minds that they're hamstringing our soldiers and keeping them from fighting the war, and taking out the insurgents. As far as the 3 CVNs, they were 2 from PACFLT and 1 from ATLANTFLT.
donwhite
We’re talking about putting atom bombs in space. That ought to be a war crime.
posted by Murcielago
donwhite
We’re talking about putting atom bombs in space. That ought to be a war crime.
I didn't know the US was planning that . . link? BTW, I see weapons in space inevitable . . were you thinking that re-building a country and putting in place a new government would be cheap . . We have to stay there until they have a good police force and acceptable military. which I guesstimate is 2-4 years. Oh, and only having a couple carriers is plain stupid. BTW, they’re not just used for wars . . but the help out during major disasters (I.E.: Katrina & the Indian Ocean Tsunami). [Edited by Don W]
Excerpted from The NY Times for May 19, 2005
Air force urges Bush to deploy space arms . . USAF seeks approval of a national security directive that could move the United States closer to having offensive and defensive space weapons . . The proposed change would be a substantial shift in policy . . would replace a 1996 Clinton administration policy that emphasized a more pacific use of space. In 2002, Bush withdrew from the 30-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, [acting illegally?] which banned space-based weapons. A new presidential directive is expected within weeks,
With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them. The AF believes "we must establish and maintain space superiority" said General Lance Lord, who leads the USAF Space Command, "Simply put, it's the American way of fighting."
USAF strategy called Global Strike calls for a military space plane carrying precision-guided weapons armed with a half-ton of munitions. [Nuclear bombs?] Global Strike would be "an incredible capability" to destroy command centers or missile bases "anywhere in the world" . . the weapon could strike from halfway around the world in 45 minutes. "This is the type of quick Global Strike I have identified as a top priority for our space and missile force," Gen. Lord said.
After 22 years and nearly $100 billion, Pentagon officials say they cannot reliably detect and destroy a threat. Studies by leading weapons scientists, physicists and engineers place the cost of a space-based anti missile system at anywhere from $220 billion to $1 trillion . .
The Air Force has launched the XSS-11, an experimental micro satellite . . another space program, nicknamed Rods From God, aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten or uranium from the edge of space striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour, with the force of a small nuclear weapon.
No nation will "accept the U.S. developing something they see as the death star," Teresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information, Senior military and space officials of the European Union, Canada, China and Russia have objected publicly to the notion of American space superiority.
donwhite
1) Nothing is inevitable. Especially weapons in space. Only a few countries can launch those and anyone can tell when that happens.
donwhite
2) Rebuilding? And just who asked us to “re-build?” Like in New Orleans? Or “teach” them how to hold elections like in Florida? Come-on now, M, we have enough work at home to keep us busy for a decade or two.
donwhite
3) After 1991, we had no foreign enemy. We are still looking for an enemy worthy of our arsenal.
3A) Even the Ruskies like it in the non super-power status. Life is much less complicated. And less expansive.
donwhite
4) So are you suggesting, M, we could send a tank in place of an ambulance on a 911 call? Disaster specific ships would be great if we didn’t waste our national treasure on 80,000 ton aircraft carries.
In 2002, Bush withdrew from the 30-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, [acting illegally?] which banned space-based weapons.
The AF believes "we must establish and maintain space superiority" said General Lance Lord, who leads the USAF Space Command, "Simply put, it's the American way of fighting."
No nation will "accept the U.S. developing something they see as the death star," Teresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information, Senior military and space officials of the European Union, Canada, China and Russia have objected publicly to the notion of American space superiority.
posted by Murcielago
They may know that we launched a classified satellite . . but they don’t know what it does. [Edited by Don W]
And what do you purpose? That we cut and run . . You sound like a politician back during Vietnam . . If we leave now before they are standing on there own 2 feet then its likely that the entire country will turn into a terrorist harboring country . . we are already there . . we have to finish the job.
We are still looking for an enemy worthy of our arsenal. Iran & North Korea?
The Ruskies non super-power status . . in fact they aren’t [a super power] A look into their military shows one that continues to rust away faster then they can build new items to replace the old ones.
“ . . disaster ships exist . . just in too small of numbers to help out with the entire world . . Carriers have been here a long time . . If it were up to me . . I would get rid of them . . I would build missile ships . . which have hundreds of missile tubes, it would be crewed by a dozen people, not thousands. You obviously have a 'left' point of view . .
2002, Bush withdrew Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty acting illegally? which banned space-based weapons.
Illegally? Not hardly. The US gave Russia the required 6 month "heads-up" on it that they were leaving that treaty.
No nation will "accept the U.S. developing the death star" the European Union, Canada, China and Russia have objected publicly to American space superiority. ummm yeah. I don’t think that shocked anyone. I don’t think anyone expected these big players (except for Canada, (they just like to pretend they’re big)) to want to have the US military be once again . . another step ahead of them.
Originally posted by donwhite
And privatization of government is a theory born in hell. It is the final act of disempowerment of the American people. It is the American version of Hitler’s Nazi-style fascism of the 1933-1945 era. The Third Reich, once removed. Updated with the Patriot Act. And Bush’s novel Commander-in-Chief theory (no limit on his self-determined war fighting power).
posted by kilcoo316
posted by donwhite
privatization is a theory born in hell . . the final act of disempowerment of America . . the American version of Hitler’s Nazi-style fascism of 1933-1945. The Third Reich . . the Patriot Act . . Bush’s novel Commander-in-Chief theory (no limit on his self-determined war fighting powers). [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by waynos
The A330 ended commercial sales of the 767