The Fighter Mafia may win again

It looks like the Fighter Mafia motto of "if it ain't a fighter, it ain't #" may come true yet again, thanks to the HASC. The Air Force has been directed to report on the cost of restarting F-22 production by 1 January. If ordered to restart, guess where funding will come from. So much for tankers, trainers, and JSTARS. Even with retiring F-15Cs, which will be part of the report, they're going to need a lot of money, which can only come from delaying or canceling programs. Also included in the report is an F-15 SLEP/Upgrade, which is more money.

God bless the Fighter Mafia.

www.combataircraft.net...

a reply to: Zaphod58

LOL, the ghost of Col. John Boyd is still roaming the halls of the Pentagon.

Gotta love it....

a reply to: Zaphod58

We should be surprised, right?

No tankers, so you can't get those super-fighters where they need to be, as fast as they need to be there...

No trainers? Now that's just too stupid for words to describe.

No Jstars? *sigh*


Let it happen, then those career polishing morons get to explain to Congress why those fighters were stuck on the ground and not able to get where they needed to be... Good bye, careers. Or so it is to be hoped.

Stupid short sighted idiots...the lot of 'em. Do we learn nothing?

a reply to: seagull

Not when all but one CSAF in the last forty years have come from the ranks of fighter pilots.

The arguments will be as follows:

Tankers- the current fleet has an estimated 30-40 years life left in the airframes. With modifications and careful maintenance they can fly for years.

Trainers- the T-38s are fine for everything but fifth gen aircraft so there's no reason we can't keep flying them.

JSTARS- we can reengine them and make incremental upgrades and they'll be fine.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You're probably right. But I can dream, right?

I know if I were on the Armed Services Committee, those Generals and Colonels would loathe me.

Not just the Air Force, either.

a reply to: seagull

They've been getting away with crap like this for decades. They know exactly what arguments to use. Go look at the threads I wrote 8 damn years ago about crap just like this going on. There were years when they procured 0 aircraft because they were saving money for the initial Raptor run.

That makes me want to hit something...

It rarely works to start something up after stopping it.. usually works out for the worse...

Didnt the idiot and chief (USAF side) just talk about manning issues, and that they couldnt take from other places to fix manning problems... now they want to start this crap back up... idiots..

a reply to: Irishhaf

Ah, but it's smart. This way, when HASC tells them to restart it, the leadership can say, "we didn't want to, because we have to kill all these programs we really need. But when our civilian oversight tells us we have to do this, what choice do we have?"

a reply to: Zaphod58

I love the older planes ive worked on, but the facts are plain.... it takes a butt ton of work to keep em flying..

Heck I tried explaining to people what the 85% manned bit really was... you know probably 5% down for sick/school... another 10% for SNCO positions... next remove TDY personnel, and those spinning up to deploy and the numbers hit I hate my life really fast.

But they dont get it... if the USAF keeps on this course we are on... I wouldnt give us good odds to beat a paper airplane from the school yard, unless its just off shore of America.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought US air superiority was being built on f22/f35 as an open the way/burn the house type of thing. Along with all those unmanned things they have flying around just for sh*** and giggles.

Can't run something without fuel though, at least not according to the physics I understand.

Not being a thorough airplane maniac though, I have to say, the f22 is ...(place adjective here). I think it's brilliant.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Oh I agree completely, you have seen that. But you almost have to respect the bastards for the political games they play so well. Hate them, curse them, would gladly see every one of them having to fly in combat with what they've shafted the war fighters with, but at some level respect them for this crap.

a reply to: Jonjonj

It's an incredible plane, I agree. But crap like this has had me ripping my hair out for decades. They knew thirty years ago we needed new tankers. And it took four tries to get as far as we are now, which is four demonstration aircraft, that can't even transfer fuel to large aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I do.. its one of the few reasons I would love to get elected to congress... and beg borrow or steal a spot on the committee that deal with the generals... just call BS... I could happily make a career out of hanging the political SOB's out to dry... heck I might even do it for room and board alone.

But you almost have to respect the bastards for the political games they play so well.

Wonder if this a knee jerk reaction to Baltic intercepts by Russia at the moment.

a reply to: Irishhaf

God that would be something. It would make dealing with the rest of those idiots in Washington worthwhile.

a reply to: Blackfinger

Among other things. Russia has made jumps in areas the Pentagon has largely ignored, and closed the gap significantly. Between that, the events in the Baltic, and the fact that our aircraft are ancient by aeronautical standards, they have to be seen to be doing something.

I think that the US has missed the boat on missile systems, particularly defensive land based missile systems, because the US has never really had to defend itself from aerial attack.

I wonder what other countries have been doing regarding defensive/offensive missile system defense?

a reply to: Zaphod58


Not trying to piss you off.....but....LOL. there's no need for tankers and trainers if there's no damn fighters and bombers.

The combined total of new 'fighters' F-22s and F-35s is under what? 300? The rest are approaching social security levels and the B-52 already is
.


Fighters and bombers are the backbone of the air force. If THEY can't get what they want....and they sure didn't with the Raptor, should you expect anything different for the secondary stuff....?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Yeah, you're right. It's SO much more important to have the newest and coolest fighters and screw the rest of the Air Force.

So how exactly do you plan on getting your latest and greatest fighters to the fight when you don't have tankers or Airlift to move them or their parts where they're needed? What are you going to do when you're reduced to tactical air for bombing and they can stay on station an hour or two, because your tankers are so old and maintenance intensive they can only fly some missions, and your heavy bombers aren't much better?

You honestly think that ONLY the programs mentioned are going to get cut? They built less than 200 bombers in 25 years. What the hell makes you think the B-21 is immune?

Manning isn't going to be an issue. Given the amount of time and money this is going to cost the Airforce will have had to downsize anyway so they'll have enough people of the posts. What would worry me is how long it's taken to integrate what you would think are basic fundamental systems into the F22. How long has it taken them to give it an off boresight capability with the aim9-x? 10 years? What's that, 20-25 years behind what the Russians were doing when they first fielded the Mig-29/Archer combination. How long is it going to take to give them a HMCS too?

I know the argument is that it'll not be as necessary as the F22 will not need to get into a dogfight or it can run away from an unfavorable position if needed but you'd still expect those capabilities to be present and have been for a long time.