Warbird Information Exchange

Thread on Flypast forum
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=86840

Pic
http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Sikorsky-MH-53M-Pave/1420165/M/

Film of delivery
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7788872.stm

_________________
Martin
Wide open & turning left.

I'm uneasy that the USAF is getting rid of this very capable resource before the Osprey seems to have been fully integrated. Just saw the new MH-53 display at NMUSAF in Oct and have also noticed another MH-53 sitting without blades on the edge of the ramp at Maxwell AFB, no doubt waiting to join their display as well.

I had some buddys over at HM-14 when I was NAS Norfolk. They told me that the Sea Dragons required 40 maintenance hrs for every 60 hrs of flying. (can't recall exactly it might be the other way round):shock: That's alot of down time. They're sucking parts out all the airframes in AMARC. So it's probalbly time to move on to a newer platform.

Every new military aircraft is gonna have teething problem. The osprey program has been in development longer than most ever are. I'd be willing to bet that due to the previous bad publicity it has received from unfortuantate crashes, will galvanize all the squadrons. Causing them to be extremly attentive to PMS standards and any issues that might come out of a new design. I would be surprised if Bell/Boeing didn't have tech reps on site to trouble shoot and or relay any design related issues.

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

Just remember that the B-26 Marauder had a bad rep until the pilots got it out into service.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Believe it or not I'm not concerned with its checkered past. I was merely referring to the open source target USAF MV-22 airframe number of 50 and I don't believe they've delivered nearly that many to date. Someone knows what they're doing, I'm sure.

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

Like everything. Funding is the problem. Can't run the CV-22 and MH-53J programs at the same time. Aircrew training, simulators ran by civilians, MX programs, still have to upgrade software and the Special Projects Office had to be doubled manned for both to have a seamless transition. Just like other programs the AF has run, you kill one to fund the other. It also keeps a lingering death from happening and partial funding. Yep, there is a low spot between both airframes coming and going but that is life in the AF right now.

Let's discuss the F-16/F-35 and F-15 and F-22 in a war where we need RQ-1's, C-130's and lots of airlift. While the higher ups are fighting a war 25 or 50 years from now.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong. Kel

Unfortunately, the concern is that if we go down the path that "ground warriors" want the USAF to go on, we will be fighting that war 20 years from now with the MQ-9s that we "have" and not the Raptors/Lightnings that we need.

This is why Army and Marine leaders are experts in infantry doctrine and not airpower.

The problem is that the same people who are crying 'foul' that the USAF is apparently not doing enough for the current war effort, will be the same ones who will be saying "why wasn't the USAF looking past the end of their own nose and seeing what was going to happen beyond next year?!"

I think the people who are crying that we need more UAVs have a horribly distorted view of what airpower is. To the ground force leaders, all they CARE about right now is eyes in the sky. They want to have a video feed from above of what is happening right in front of them, and that's about it.

In 25 or 50 years from now when we need that stuff what are we supposed to do when we don't have them and are we using fighters that are 50-75 years old?

Mike

Ha,
Saw it at Brize a few days ago while doing some touch and go's, wondered what it was doing!

Randy, I'm a Herk guy, so I admit the ignorance of my question, but let's say we could wave a magic wand and plan the USAF fleet ourselves. Is it plausible to minimze the number of Raptors and Lightnings and save funds by building brand new F-15s, F-16s, (and possibly A-10s)? We've had over 20 years to learn the weak points of all these airplanes; let's incorporate some smart improvements and build another batch. I'm not an advocate of stopping progress nor do I want our AF to be second to any other, but as another poster said, we're hurting in so many arenas (personal knowledge of the C-130) that I wonder about our budget priorities. By the same token, the AF is hot on the C-27J because someone thinks it's great - and they probably also don't care for the escalated price tag of the C-130J. IMHO, we should be building more C-130H3 tails with improved props as already proven on the E-2, but I digress.

It's been debated that Germany faltered in WWII by putting technological excellence ahead of rugged quantity. Is there a chance we're, in some ways, repeating this mistake?

Ken

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

The AF is becoming more and more guilty of this. Is it (ideally) great to have real-time control of your assets? Yes. Can the number of last-minute changes and keeping up those lines of communication hamper that asset when it's busy trying to do its job? Yes as well.

In the early 90's you could go out in S. America and fly for 1-3 days without talking to anyone in the chain. We were empowered to accomplish the mission and it was typically done well. Today they want you answering the chat line from someone hundreds of miles away while you're low-level inbound to a combat drop. Can a last-minute abort or coordinate change be handy? You bet. Is that how our systems are being used? I get the feeling they're more concerned with watching our blip and ensuring we're not doing anything that will cause them to be called on the carpet more than they're concerned with the successful accomplishment of the mission. The same type of leader devotes the bulk of a meeting to the patches we're wearing and glosses over a shortfall in our combat tactics and nixes that conversation in the same meeting.

Every situation is unique so I hesitate to make a blanket statement, just one man's impression.

_________________
"Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves."

Where are the manufactures located? The politcal end will be addressed before any pragmatic issues are.

.

I always get a kick of when I say that the AF needs to invest in Airlift, a fighter pilot will say "Cripes kid, I don't wanna fly old planes in combat! I want the latest and greatest toy!" and I don't blame them one bit.

I want the same for myself or anyone who puts on the suit. I ponder this question many times sitting in my old a$$ 1974 (and sometimes as old as 1962) C-130 with 25,000 hours on the airframe, that looks so pimped out with all the add-ons over the years, on final approach to Baghdad, hoping the MWS does its job before that 18 year old who has been up for 16 hours can see something trying to reach out and touch us.

The best 130 we could have made at a much cheaper price was the C-130H3 fitted with the NP2000 props. That plane could have lasted another 30 years with little upgrades needed. But Lockheed was pushing the J so hard and the AF couldn’t get the funds for more airframes.

That 22 and 35 are so freaking expensive, something has to give. The first place I saw it was no orderly rooms in the Squadron then no orderly rooms in the group. Life support being cut back and augmented with Guard or Reserve backfilling, etc.

I do want our pointy nose pilots to have the best so I will not have to check 6 in my Four Fan Trash Can. That is for sure. But the Herc world will tell you they suck hind tit to every program out there and bear the brunt of TAC airlift. We were left out in the cold when we were ACC. And take a back seat to the new sexy C-17. Try being a trash hauler group on a B-1 bomber base. Redheaded step child isn't even the name for it.

Ah, I am just bitter because my allowance got taken away. Oh, and talk to Brad Pilgrim if you want both sides of the coin. He has lived in both worlds. I truly hope that our government gives our fighter pilots the best aircraft in the world but not at the expense of me hanging from my parachute straps. Oh, who am I fooling, we don't even have ejection seats.

I guess the grass is always greener on the other side of the runway. I bet the C-47 pilots had the same complaints when they saw that new fangled F-80 Shooting Star fly by.
My opinion, I could be wrong. Kel