Air Force looking at losing entire fleets

Zaphod58
reply to post by juspassinthru

 

Ah right, the old let the world overtake us and leave our allies on their own argument. If you're going to do that just hey rid of them altogether beside they'll be useless.

Any nation that would would join forces to go a-viking around the world (murder, rape, robbery .... classic terrorism) should be left on their own. Hopefully, they will face their victims with the same stoic behavior displayed when they were the aggressor.

reply to post by Zaphod58


That is sad, why not donate them to museums for future generations to enjoy? Or to schools. I have seen some really stupid looking 'art sculptures' in cities, these could be used for decorative purposes too in places like Oshkosh...

Edit to say, Oh wait what is the price of scrap?

reply to post by juspassinthru


Because if it wasn't for the US we'd all be singing Khumbaya and building space shrugs to other galaxies by now. If the US would just eliminate the military or go away mankind would suddenly be peaceful and get along.

reply to post by antar


A small number will be put on static display or sent to museums. Most military aircraft aren't good for schools, either because of the classifieds, or because they have equipment not used in the civilian world.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Good to hear that at least a few of them will be saved for posterity. They are a piece of our history which deserves its rightful place in museums and other public places.

CarbonBase
In the end, we don't NEED the F-22 if we have the F-35 right? We don't need "interceptors" because there isn't anything to intercept. We don't need the A-10 because we're getting our ass kicked out of A-stan next year. We could use more C-5 Class airlifters and more C-17's, but since we aren't going to, and haven't fought an actual war since what, oh yeah right, World War II, what's the point? There isn't ANY PLACE ON EARTH right now where there is a combat mission for the US military and that's a fact. Using the military as a political campaigning tool doesn't count.

So the Russian bombers overflying Guam, and near Alaska, and all over Europe aren't really flying there, since you say there's nothing to intercept? Or should we just let them do what they want.

As for the F-35/F-22 question, the F-35 is going to be another multi-role platform that is going to be decent at all missions and good at none. The F-22 is a totally different mission compared to that. They are meant to compliment each other, not compete against each other. Just like the F-15 and F-22.

We need the A-10, because the ground pounders are always going to need air support. If we get rid of the air support and have to use heavy bombers, and stealth aircraft for CAS, then we've defeated the purpose of eliminating the airframe to save money.

Yes we need more airlift, but what we have, combined with tanker assistance can perform the mission required.

Zaphod58
reply to post by juspassinthru

 

Because if it wasn't for the US we'd all be singing Khumbaya and building space shrugs to other galaxies by now. If the US would just eliminate the military or go away mankind would suddenly be peaceful and get along.

Nobody ever said there were not problems in the world. Fact is, the sole remaining superpower has gone Klingon on our fellow man. It is not justifiable in any sense and will absolutely turn out badly.

Why do you suppose TPTB are using "signature" drone strikes where they murder men, women and children followed by murdering first responders and sometimes murdering the funeral party too? Would it be reasonable to assume that TPTB has gone so far off the deep end that they are trying to cultivate never-ending rage (blood feud) from their victim populations and a perpetual continuation of the war-of-terror?

This diseased and dying political/military/corporate machine needs to be put down for the sake of humanity.

reply to post by Zaphod58


This thread is reminding me of this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The detractors are all over it and off topic.

reply to post by juspassinthru


And if we essentially eliminate the US military, as you suggest, who is going to step into the power vacuum it will create? China? Russia? No thanks. There are ways to reduce the military, without reducing it to a power that couldn't stop a pissed off chihuahua.

Zaphod58
Due to Sequestration the Air Force is now looking at retiring entire fleets, and their supply chains to save money. But of course, here comes politics.

Both the MC-12 and the A-10 face elimination, and the rest of the fleet faces "recapitalization instead of modernization". Gen. Mike Hostage, head of ACC says that the force is "screwed" around the middle of the next decade with modernization, and the F-35 will be able to perform a number of roles.

The F-15C fleet will probably be facing fairly large cuts, with the F-35 performing their mission with the F-22 once it enters service. He goes on to say that B-1s, and the future Long-Range Strike Bomber can perform the CAS mission with current weapons.

The US Air Force will likely have to cut entire fleets of aircraft to comply with the Congressional sequestration law, says a top service official. In order to retain a force capable of operating across the spectrum of operations, the USAF will have to sacrifice single-mission aircraft in order to preserve multirole machines.

“The only way you really save money is to make entire weapons systems go away,” says Gen Mike Hostage, commander of the USAF’s Air Combat Command. That is “so that the whole logistics train, the whole support infrastructure that goes with it goes away.”

Though eliminating single-mission aircraft is the most efficient way to save money while preserving military capability, the problem is politics, Hostage says.

For example, the L-3 MC-12 Project Liberty aircraft has excellent capability, if funding was not an issue, Hostage says. Other single-mission aircraft that might be sacrificed include the Fairchild Republic A-10.

www.flightglobal.com...

Laughable. Those same F-35s that still don't do what Lockheed said they would do ten years ago, and still aren't operational. If they would just cut their losses and drop the F-35 program, a plane that just plain sucks and can't do what it was sold to do, there would be money to use for systems we have that are known to work.

reply to post by D_Mason


The problem, as General Hostage points out is that within ten years the current inventory of everything but the F-22 will be seriously outclassed. At this point we're stuck with it. By the time anything else got to this point in testing our F-15 fleet would be lucky to be getting airborne let alone fighting.

Where do you suggest we lower military spending? The last great "effort" was closing military bases that had little function or use.

The U.S. spends more on military spending per year than the next 10 countries COMBINED. We spend roughly 30% more than the next leading country, China. You wonder why we are in horrible debt - look at military spending. Almost 700 billion in ONE year?

I only bring it up because I think it's ironic we are complaining about military cuts of any sort. We should be cutting a ton of military spending. Tell me - China, who spends some 30% less than us.. or Russia, who spends 35% less.. do you feel they are in danger of being invaded or unable to defend themselves any time soon? Which is what military spending should be for. To DEFEND ourselves. It was much more accurate when it was the Department of War.. instead of the Department of Defense. We only need to spend a fraction of what we are spending to defend ourselves. China and Russia have a much greater landmass to defend, and spend so much less.

So I really can't get up-in-arms over this sort of thing. Even if we could cut it 50%.. we'd still be much greater than any other country. If we put half of that towards our debt.. and half towards fixing OUR country.. we could spend 150 BILLION on the U.S. Think of the # of improvements we could foster with that sort of money.

But no.. let's talk about how we can get more jets, because clearly, we are hurting in the air superiority department.

The only reason the Air Force still has the A-10s is that the Marines wanted them if the air force dropped them.

The Air Force never did like doing close air support and marine air does it and the A-10 is perfect for the Marines.

snafu-solomon.blogspot.com...

reply to post by ANNED


Actually the Hog is a lousy fit for the Marines. One of the reasons for the Harrier is to provide CAS when there is no airfield available. All Marine CAS aircraft can operate off ships. The Hog would be useless if there wasn't a forward base.

By the way, I love your posts Zaphod. And I actually happen to love jets, and play any decent flight sim I can get my hands on. So I have nothing against military aircraft in general. I am just disgusted with our governments inability to manage military finance, and their opinion that we need to spend more than the entire world by magnitudes, to keep us "safe."

Zaphod58
And if we essentially eliminate the US military, as you suggest, who is going to step into the power vacuum it will create? China? Russia? No thanks. There are ways to reduce the military, without reducing it to a power that couldn't stop a pissed off chihuahua.

Been hearing this propaganda all my life. There is "defense" and there is "aggression". We have not been involved in defense for a half a century.

Unless you can explain to me how teaching foreign troops to rape and murder nuns gives the US greater security, I'll pass on your world view.

reply to post by juspassinthru


Yes because all the military is for is mass rape and murder. In fact once you get to Tech School you can take Advanced Rape and Murder.

I've been listening to people like you too going in about how evil the military is. Try telling that to all the people the military has rescued after a disaster, or the people of Kuwait after being liberated from Iraq. Oh wait that was our fault too wasn't it.

I'm sure the people around China would love the US to go away so China could take their territory and resources. Oh wait, if it wasn't for us China wouldn't need them right?

Zaphod58
reply to post by D_Mason

 

The problem, as General Hostage points out is that within ten years the current inventory of everything but the F-22 will be seriously outclassed. At this point we're stuck with it. By the time anything else got to this point in testing our F-15 fleet would be lucky to be getting airborne let alone fighting.

Stuck with a substandard product. I reiterate, ten years later, the F-35 can't do half the things it was sold on, and is still not operational, while the cost sky rockets. They are speaking of cutting things that are dated, but still work, so they can keep pushing this F-35 crap that doesn't. Ten years in the future, even if they get it to do everything Lockheed claims it would be able to do, it won't be at the forefront of fighter jets. It isn' that stealthy, not very maneuverable, has a huge blind spot behind the the pilot, and isn't fast enough to get in and out in scenarios where it is detected by more modern radars, which will be in even more abundance ten years from now.

I say dump it, cut your losses. They really need to stop with these no bid type contracts, and sweet heart contract deals, and go with what company puts together the best prototype. Lockheed sold the Pentagon some bull#, plain and simple. It is almost like there is a conspiracy to purposefully weaken American military capability, all across the board. The same thing is happening with some of these high priced naval vessels that can't do half the # they were sold on and aren't even seaworthy in all types of weather scenarios.