Is The Air Force Broken?
Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:27 pm
Along the lines of the earlier topic "What we need: I saw a magazine article that said, "The United States Air Force Is Broken". Anybody got a good idea who wrote that and why? Was it Premier Putin? Or maybe some Navy or Marine guy?
Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:42 pm
bill, you are only the starter of this post for curiosity, so this reply is not directed at you at all, so.... who ever made that dumb 
statement, that has to be the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. the usaf / all branches of the u.s. military / all of our technology is the bi-product of our luxuries today. who is this person to make an ignorant statement like that?? all nations benefit from our research. i'll put our muscle against anybody's in the warbird department or anything else. cell phones, the net, etc, are all due to our foresight, as they all began with origins from our military.
statement, that has to be the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. the usaf / all branches of the u.s. military / all of our technology is the bi-product of our luxuries today. who is this person to make an ignorant statement like that?? all nations benefit from our research. i'll put our muscle against anybody's in the warbird department or anything else. cell phones, the net, etc, are all due to our foresight, as they all began with origins from our military.
PM
Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:48 pm
Tom, check your PM.
Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:17 am
While there are certainly aspects of the AF that aren't as healthy as they should/could be, when you look at this branch of the military on the macro level, the fact is that it is *not* "broken".
The AF is not any better or worse off than any other branch of the US military. More importantly, as an overall fighting force compared to its peers in the world, it is undeniably *as* capable as every one on the planet.
If the balloon goes up, they'll perform their mission well, and that is the bottom line for the American taxpayer.
The AF is not any better or worse off than any other branch of the US military. More importantly, as an overall fighting force compared to its peers in the world, it is undeniably *as* capable as every one on the planet.
If the balloon goes up, they'll perform their mission well, and that is the bottom line for the American taxpayer.
Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:43 am
Randy Haskin wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly. However, one of the things that I have come to believe in my recent study of this subject is that the U.S. (service wide) program procurement process is more detrimental to the Air Force and Navy than perhaps the other services. Because the programs (planes ships, whatever) are so much more costly, the political/career ramifications are so great that decisions are made to engage in programs with the greatest WOW factor. Another book I have been reading about the utilization of stealth assets, suggests that the disproportionate cost of "pure stealth only" may be unjustifiable. That as assets become so costly and high tech, that there is a tendency not to deploy them in any scenario due to "career fear" and the question of the capture of such highly classified technology. A great deal of this stems from the F-117 shoot down in Kosovo. Certainly my post is far too simplistic of an explanation, but it is an interesting concept to contemplate.
In "What We Need" there is a description that I found thought provoking. The B2 weighs 150,000lbs with no ordnance, fly away cost was $2 Billion each. That's $870 an ounce acquisition cost. Gold was @ $400 an ounce when they were built.
While there are certainly aspects of the AF that aren't as healthy as they should/could be, when you look at this branch of the military on the macro level, the fact is that it is *not* "broken".
The AF is not any better or worse off than any other branch of the US military. More importantly, as an overall fighting force compared to its peers in the world, it is undeniably *as* capable as every one on the planet.
If the balloon goes up, they'll perform their mission well, and that is the bottom line for the American taxpayer.
I agree wholeheartedly. However, one of the things that I have come to believe in my recent study of this subject is that the U.S. (service wide) program procurement process is more detrimental to the Air Force and Navy than perhaps the other services. Because the programs (planes ships, whatever) are so much more costly, the political/career ramifications are so great that decisions are made to engage in programs with the greatest WOW factor. Another book I have been reading about the utilization of stealth assets, suggests that the disproportionate cost of "pure stealth only" may be unjustifiable. That as assets become so costly and high tech, that there is a tendency not to deploy them in any scenario due to "career fear" and the question of the capture of such highly classified technology. A great deal of this stems from the F-117 shoot down in Kosovo. Certainly my post is far too simplistic of an explanation, but it is an interesting concept to contemplate.
In "What We Need" there is a description that I found thought provoking. The B2 weighs 150,000lbs with no ordnance, fly away cost was $2 Billion each. That's $870 an ounce acquisition cost. Gold was @ $400 an ounce when they were built.
Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:16 am
Eric, one of the little secrets that somehow didn't get any press is what the 2 Billion per aircraft included.
The press led everyone to believe that the 2 billion was for the cost each airframe copy only, when in fact that number encompassed all of the expected costs of the weapon system for the expected operational life of the aircraft.
The press led everyone to believe that the 2 billion was for the cost each airframe copy only, when in fact that number encompassed all of the expected costs of the weapon system for the expected operational life of the aircraft.
The story
Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:35 am
Ok, here's the story. The quote is verbatim, " The United States Air Force is broken". It is from COMBAT AIRCRAFT magazine, and was said/written by Michael Wynne. So who's Mike, and what does he know? He is a West Point graduate, and the Secretary of the Air Force. I don't know his background otherwise, but his brother was an F-4 crew lost in Vietnam. He is command wise the top of the air force chain, though actually a civilian appointed by Bush.
The gist of the story was that the air force equipment is getting old and more spending is needed to replace a lot of planes. It did not focus on any particular type of plane needed, but did say the problems with the C-130s and F-15s were an indicator. I think it was the same article that pointed out that the manpower(and ladypower) of the A F was half what it was during Vietnam.
I didn't buy the magazine, it is $7.25, but it was interesting. No older vintage prop planes, but lot's of guys in girdles next to fast pointed things.
And Eric's valuation of a B-2 in gold terms is thought provoking. If they built them out of gold it sure would lessen corrosion problems, might be a little high on wing loading though.
The gist of the story was that the air force equipment is getting old and more spending is needed to replace a lot of planes. It did not focus on any particular type of plane needed, but did say the problems with the C-130s and F-15s were an indicator. I think it was the same article that pointed out that the manpower(and ladypower) of the A F was half what it was during Vietnam.
I didn't buy the magazine, it is $7.25, but it was interesting. No older vintage prop planes, but lot's of guys in girdles next to fast pointed things.
And Eric's valuation of a B-2 in gold terms is thought provoking. If they built them out of gold it sure would lessen corrosion problems, might be a little high on wing loading though.
Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:38 am
b-52's c-130's........ the recently retired f-14's, intruders, (even though their navy) all came from the same technical pool, & endure or endured due to recent upgrades from recent years back. the military has gotten bang for the buck with many systems, & john q. average slob taxpayer owes a thanks to the military for stretching the buck in operating decades old hardware. technology has maxed out $$$$ wise in many ways. billions for 1 plane?? we have to split costs with multiple nations now, i think that speaks for itself, & the buff & the c-130 are proof that newer introduced systems can endure for decades as well.
Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:25 am
Tom, splitting costs with other govts isn't a new thing. Every additional unit of product, whether it be F-4, F-16, F-15, or F-35, that is allowed to be bought by a friendly country helps in lowering the per unit cost to our forces. That was the other thing about the B-2 that seemed to escape the media. When the B-2 acquisition was cut back to 20 airframes, the unit cost suddenly doubled ! Never let the details get in the way of a good headline ! B-2 Bomber to Cost 2 Billion !
Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:38 am
And the tag line on the B-2 wasn't new. It was the same tactic used by the media and "naysayers" on the B-70 program. When the F-108 was killed, all those development costs that were being split between the two programs were now sole responsibility of the B-70 program. Cost doubled overnight. When the Nuclear B-70 and the High Energy Fuel programs were killed, the cost doubled again. Then, when we discovered that the Soviets were "developing" a missile capable of intercepting the B-70, changes were ordered to the system that guaranteed that it'd never be viable weapons system.
Sound Familiar?
It should. The media and McNamara's Whiz Kids did it again with the B-1A program. The DoD canceled ancillary programs that were to share the development burden of the program, changed the mission in mid stream and demanded unnecessary additional systems that caused more problems than they solved. Then they killed it because "it cost too much" and the media followed along with that line like dumb little sheep.
The big projects, the ones that will revolutionize the military take people with real fortitude to see to fruition because it will always be the target of the most scrutiny and sabotage (even if it's not in the traditional sense). The problem was that the Project Leaders for many programs allowed the changes to be made instead of fighting for them. Their career was more important than their job - delivering the best product to the front line possible. Sadly, it continues to this day and our men suffer from weapon systems that are half what they could have been because some guy in a back office think it'd be a "good idea" to add some new gadget or capability to the aircraft deep into the process.
I guess what I'm saying is that what's broken isn't just the equipment that's 20+ years old, it's the way we get it. We take a great weapon and make it good because we burden it with excess requirements. I think that is why our best systems are deployed during war. They need to deploy the systems NOW so there's no time anymore to screw up the systems and they get to the front line doing what they were designed to do and not do what they were designed plus cook your dinner. The M-16 was a great weapon when it was designed. What happened? The Army (and the Whiz Kids) had time to look at it because we weren't at war and changed it - to the detriment of our soldiers in Vietnam several years later. Vietnam changed it back to a good weapon again, but never was it the great weapon it was originally. Time is the key. The more time the politicos have, the more screwed up the system becomes unfortunately.
Sound Familiar?
It should. The media and McNamara's Whiz Kids did it again with the B-1A program. The DoD canceled ancillary programs that were to share the development burden of the program, changed the mission in mid stream and demanded unnecessary additional systems that caused more problems than they solved. Then they killed it because "it cost too much" and the media followed along with that line like dumb little sheep.
The big projects, the ones that will revolutionize the military take people with real fortitude to see to fruition because it will always be the target of the most scrutiny and sabotage (even if it's not in the traditional sense). The problem was that the Project Leaders for many programs allowed the changes to be made instead of fighting for them. Their career was more important than their job - delivering the best product to the front line possible. Sadly, it continues to this day and our men suffer from weapon systems that are half what they could have been because some guy in a back office think it'd be a "good idea" to add some new gadget or capability to the aircraft deep into the process.
I guess what I'm saying is that what's broken isn't just the equipment that's 20+ years old, it's the way we get it. We take a great weapon and make it good because we burden it with excess requirements. I think that is why our best systems are deployed during war. They need to deploy the systems NOW so there's no time anymore to screw up the systems and they get to the front line doing what they were designed to do and not do what they were designed plus cook your dinner. The M-16 was a great weapon when it was designed. What happened? The Army (and the Whiz Kids) had time to look at it because we weren't at war and changed it - to the detriment of our soldiers in Vietnam several years later. Vietnam changed it back to a good weapon again, but never was it the great weapon it was originally. Time is the key. The more time the politicos have, the more screwed up the system becomes unfortunately.
mag
Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:06 pm
Rick, I am surprised you and some of the other jet owner/enthusiasts don't have or follow this magazine.
Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:15 pm
Bill, what magazine are you referring to ?
I read pretty much whatever comes out from multiple sources. I have read Secretary Wynne's comments before, just not sure in which publication I saw them.
I read pretty much whatever comes out from multiple sources. I have read Secretary Wynne's comments before, just not sure in which publication I saw them.
Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:35 pm
http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/produ ... ctid=57100
Combat aircraft magazine is a second rate european rag that probably refrences the the Villiage Voice for information. They don't even have a web site nor mention information related to their current cover....If the atricle does exist it was probably borne from a dire need to produce sensationalism to generate sales. Aviation week is one of the few creditable publication in the aviation world that all others aviation magazines refrence.
However if the information is indeed true maybe as a country we should revaulate spending on social programs to rebuild our armed forces.
Combat aircraft magazine is a second rate european rag that probably refrences the the Villiage Voice for information. They don't even have a web site nor mention information related to their current cover....If the atricle does exist it was probably borne from a dire need to produce sensationalism to generate sales. Aviation week is one of the few creditable publication in the aviation world that all others aviation magazines refrence.
However if the information is indeed true maybe as a country we should revaulate spending on social programs to rebuild our armed forces.
Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:07 pm
International Defence Review and Janes are both good sources for the kind information I am referring to.
Rick
Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:12 pm
Rick, as I said in my 2nd post, (7th in line) the story I saw was in "COMBAT AIRCRAFT" magazine. The quote was from Sec. Wynne, as was the gist of the story. I am not sure who the author was. There are about 8 aviation mags at a local newstand. I usually glance through most of them, even if I don't buy it. This article caught my eye, in light of recent F-15 topics and Randy's post on What we Need.
There is another story today on CNN about the flaw or weak spot in the F-15 fuselage as in the recent breakup. It took a long time to develop it seems, but may ground 40% of them?
There is another story today on CNN about the flaw or weak spot in the F-15 fuselage as in the recent breakup. It took a long time to develop it seems, but may ground 40% of them?