PDA

View Full Version : What's the state of the Air Force?



Robert F. Dorr
12-03-2012, 04:05 PM
It's always dangerous to step into this space wearing a straight face but here goes:

For a publication called Year in Defense, I'm writing a report on the current state of the Air Force. I've done this for them every year since 1998 (when my contribution began with the bombings of the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam).

The purpose is to say some things about the state of the Air Force not only as it actually is, but as it ought to be and as its near-term prospects appear to be. The primary focus is on aircraft, weapons and equipment like the bomber, joint strike fighter, and new tanker that Gen. Welsh says are his three top hardware priorities. But there is also room for discussion about the lives of airmen and their families, what they're actually like and how things could be improved. There is a lot of room for comments about current Air Force leaders. If some of the seemingly minor issues like PT, CBT and EPRs are important enough, I can cover them.

Deadline is December 17.

If you'd like to help with this, please contact me and share your insights. I don't need to quote you or use your name in print but for this purpose I need to know who you are. So this request for help goes out to those Forum members who are willing to identify themselves.

Bob D.

Robert F. Dorr
3411 Valewood Drive
Oakton VA 22124
robert.f.dorr@cox.net
(703) 264-8950

Measure Man
12-03-2012, 04:18 PM
Nevada????

Robert F. Dorr
12-03-2012, 04:44 PM
Nevada????

I should have known. Thank you for reminding me.

Measure Man
12-03-2012, 05:23 PM
I should have known. Thank you for reminding me.

Sorry...like the scorpion and the frog.

MACHINE666
12-03-2012, 05:46 PM
Will you also comment on how AAFES needs to be replaced by a better company....say...Target?

Dickie
12-03-2012, 05:56 PM
Will you also comment on how AAFES needs to be replaced by a better company....say...Target?

Or get rid of AFEES except in remote base areas. Or just cut the cord on the whole thing.

sandsjames
12-03-2012, 06:03 PM
I applaud you for trying, Bob. I wish you much luck with keeping this thread on topic and in the direction you'd like.

Airborne
12-03-2012, 06:11 PM
Will you also comment on how AAFES needs to be replaced by a better company....say...Target?

And Air Force Inns should be replaced by a mid priced chain like Holiday Inn or Hampton. Basically if we can franchise Taco Bell and Burger King why cant we franchise a big box store or hotel chain? Congress, JFTR etc...I know, but it still sucks.

Dickie
12-03-2012, 06:32 PM
And Air Force Inns should be replaced by a mid priced chain like Holiday Inn or Hampton. Basically if we can franchise Taco Bell and Burger King why cant we franchise a big box store or hotel chain? Congress, JFTR etc...I know, but it still sucks.

Agreed, Airborne.

Demaskee
12-03-2012, 06:45 PM
The state of the air force is one that is over tasked, under skilled, and unaccountable.

More and more career fields are being eliminated or reduced. As this happends, the responsibilities are passed onto the individual (vmpf, e-finance, DTS, etc...). This does not even include special duties that are are also increasing.

These days, one must strike a balance between actual job expertise and learning all the ancillary tasks that used to be performed by competently trained individuals. Leadership appears to recognize this and as a result it seems nobody gets into real trouble when these extra responsibilities slip.

Same goes for the role we all play in this kabuki theatre AKA computer based training. Leaders and airmen alike know the ridiculousness of this, but we all play along. Everyone knows it's not really meant to train up adequately. It is mearly a boxfiller enabling leadership to wash their hands of us when we screw up without having to worry about their career being tarnished.

As a result, the faith airmen have in leadership has eroded considerably. We know we're not getting any more people. We know special duties, CBTs and outside programs are only going to increase. Most importantly, we know leadership will not have our back when the crap really hits the fan.

SomeRandomGuy
12-03-2012, 06:54 PM
The state of the air force is one that is over tasked, under skilled, and unaccountable.

More and more career fields are being eliminated or reduced. As this happends, the responsibilities are passed onto the individual (vmpf, e-finance, DTS, etc...). This does not even include special duties that are are also increasing.

These days, one must strike a balance between actual job expertise and learning all the ancillary tasks that used to be performed by competently trained individuals. Leadership appears to recognize this and as a result it seems nobody gets into real trouble when these extra responsibilities slip.

Same goes for the role we all play in this kabuki theatre AKA computer based training. Leaders and airmen alike know the ridiculousness of this, but we all play along. Everyone knows it's not really meant to train up adequately. It is mearly a boxfiller enabling leadership to wash their hands of us when we screw up without having to worry about their career being tarnished.

As a result, the faith airmen have in leadership has eroded considerably. We know we're not getting any more people. We know special duties, CBTs and outside programs are only going to increase. Most importantly, we know leadership will not have our back when the crap really hits the fan.

+1

The "I didn't know any better" excuse is becoming more and more common in the Air Force. Now when people get in trouble you not only have to prove they committed a crime you also have to prove they knew it was a crime. In my opinion the Kip Ward fiasco illustrates your point perfectly. The guy uses the AF budget like his personal bank account. When he gets called out on it he gets a slap on the wrist and everyone acts like it is no big deal that he wasted $300K+. Now what happens when an Amn files a voucher and pads his expenses? If a college educated General did not know any better couldn't a high school educated Amn use the same defense?

Measure Man
12-03-2012, 06:57 PM
+1

The "I didn't know any better" excuse is becoming more and more common in the Air Force. Now when people get in trouble you not only have to prove they committed a crime you also have to prove they knew it was a crime. In my opinion the Kip Ward fiasco illustrates your point perfectly. The guy uses the AF budget like his personal bank account. When he gets called out on it he gets a slap on the wrist and everyone acts like it is no big deal that he wasted $300K+. Now what happens when an Amn files a voucher and pads his expenses? If a college educated General did not know any better couldn't a high school educated Amn use the same defense?

Kip Ward was Army...just sayin'

SomeRandomGuy
12-03-2012, 07:00 PM
Kip Ward was Army...just sayin'

Oops you got me there. I guess I will have to find a different senior leader scandal to illustrate my point. SHouldn't be a huge problem there are plenty to go around in all services.

Robert F. Dorr
12-03-2012, 07:50 PM
And Air Force Inns should be replaced by a mid priced chain like Holiday Inn or Hampton. Basically if we can franchise Taco Bell and Burger King why cant we franchise a big box store or hotel chain? Congress, JFTR etc...I know, but it still sucks.

I like these kinds of ideas. I think I can use them.

Dickie
12-03-2012, 07:50 PM
The state of the air force is one that is over tasked, under skilled, and unaccountable.

More and more career fields are being eliminated or reduced. As this happends, the responsibilities are passed onto the individual (vmpf, e-finance, DTS, etc...). This does not even include special duties that are are also increasing.

These days, one must strike a balance between actual job expertise and learning all the ancillary tasks that used to be performed by competently trained individuals. Leadership appears to recognize this and as a result it seems nobody gets into real trouble when these extra responsibilities slip.

Same goes for the role we all play in this kabuki theatre AKA computer based training. Leaders and airmen alike know the ridiculousness of this, but we all play along. Everyone knows it's not really meant to train up adequately. It is mearly a boxfiller enabling leadership to wash their hands of us when we screw up without having to worry about their career being tarnished.

As a result, the faith airmen have in leadership has eroded considerably. We know we're not getting any more people. We know special duties, CBTs and outside programs are only going to increase. Most importantly, we know leadership will not have our back when the crap really hits the fan.

+1
Sums up pretty clearly what has been happening for the last 10-12 years. At least in my time in anyway.

Rainmaker
12-03-2012, 07:51 PM
Resilient!

Capt Alfredo
12-03-2012, 11:03 PM
Resilient!

This reminds me of a point I was thinking about in light of the Kansas City Chiefs player who killed his girlfriend and then himself. No one is blaming the coach, the General Manager, the owner, or his fellow players for this player's action. It was not a failure on their part. Why should it be any different in the Air Force? Why is it the commander's fault if Amn Douchebaggerson offs himself? Why is it a failure of his coworkers? The idea we can "train" someone into not killing himself is laughable. It's just not that simple!

drc100882
12-03-2012, 11:17 PM
This reminds me of a point I was thinking about in light of the Kansas City Chiefs player who killed his girlfriend and then himself. No one is blaming the coach, the General Manager, the owner, or his fellow players for this player's action. It was not a failure on their part. Why should it be any different in the Air Force? Why is it the commander's fault if Amn Douchebaggerson offs himself? Why is it a failure of his coworkers? The idea we can "train" someone into not killing himself is laughable. It's just not that simple!

This can be (and has been) said for DUI, drugs, rape, theft and assault. No one can prevent someone from doing something they intend on doing. You can't stop someone from killing themselves when they exhibit no signs that they might be in trouble. Then after it's all said and done, leadership asks what could have been done. The answer is always nothing. Blame for suicides should only be placed on the person who killed themselves. It doesn't mean that the unit or base needs more training. It means that the person wanted to die.

Robert F. Dorr
12-03-2012, 11:17 PM
And Air Force Inns should be replaced by a mid priced chain like Holiday Inn or Hampton. Basically if we can franchise Taco Bell and Burger King why cant we franchise a big box store or hotel chain? Congress, JFTR etc...I know, but it still sucks.

Tell me more. I've stayed at Air Force Inns but I don't know whether they're a public entity or a private company. If they're a private company, why would a different private company be better?

imnohero
12-03-2012, 11:28 PM
Now and future state of AF hardware:
1) We need the new tanker that's on contract, replacing the 135 should be a top priority.
2) The F35 program in way behind schedule and way over budget, it needs to be cancelled for cause and a buy of updated F16/15/18 aircraft needs to be started. When (read: if ever) the F35 is ready, buy some.
3) C17's are aging out, we need to continue a small buy per year to being replacing airframes
4) C27J's have proven themselves in combat and humanitarian aide both overseas and stateside. Keep them in the guard and train up a maintenance contingent. Quite frankly, given the fractured nature of our "enemies", light airlift is more important than ever.
5) Replace all old 130s with J models.
6) 10 year forcast hardware: Start looking for a KC10 replacement, the AF will need it.
7) Go back to the drawing board on the new bomber, figure out what the requirements are for today's campaigns, then buy something that doesn't cost $1 Billion a copy. I have to admit bombers are a weak point for me, but there's gotta be a way to replace B-52s with an updated long range bomber that will do the job without stealth, and all the do-dads, bells, whistles, special paint, special hangers, etc. that the AF seems to like to buy.

Just my opinion of course.

KellyinAvon
12-04-2012, 01:24 AM
Tell me more. I've stayed at Air Force Inns but I don't know whether they're a public entity or a private company. If they're a private company, why would a different private company be better?

AF Inns is an AF entity. I'm not sure if it's all appropriated funds or if it's also non appropriated funded. A Force Support Sq superintendent or someone like that could provide more info.

WillsPowers
12-04-2012, 02:32 AM
The State of the Air Force is that of 2 Air Forces---One that the leadership sells you on as ready to fight, ready to deploy, ready to adapt to specific ever changing and challenging national needs. Then there's the real state of the Air Force--clearly in decline, declining in its capabilities, declining in its roles and missions while reveling in "diversity" along with wasting resources. Sure, today's Air Force is the most diverse, the most tolerant of everything and the most poltically correct---but can it win a war? We have just lost a war and wore down both men and machines on an enemy that doesn't even have an Air Force. What was gained? What was reaffirmed and who's conduct and strategy gets the blame? Are we in denial?---we dont have the national resources anymore to sustain our defenses with failed logistics systems or $500 million dollar airplanes that are broken and mission incapable. Our resources were wasted in a war of attrition that bore no fruit and leadership that couldnt economize or get results.

sgtpotsie
12-04-2012, 11:45 AM
We are in an Air Force that someone thinks it's a good idea to retire the A-10 without a viable replacement. And honestly, what COULD replace the A-10?

We are in an Air Force that is more concerned with the catch-phrase of the day than actually taking care of people. (See: resiliency, Airman's Creed, the ever-changing AF Motto)

We are an Air Force so desperate for tradition, but the problem is we don't let anything stay around long enough to BECOME a tradition, so everything is forced, and fake.

We get told to stop inflating EPRs, and when we do we get questioned on why we marked someone down without documentation.

While I am thinking about it, if anyone can tell me ONCE in the last 50 years we have been attacked by chemical weapons (that were not our own, e.g Agent Orange) I would be happy to wear the ridiculous chem gear while we train for the last war, as is our custom.

Commander's Support Staffs seem to be making a comeback. This is a great thing.

Finance is supposedly de-centralizing and going back to the bases, where they belong. This is good, as long as they are people who know what the eff they are doing.

So far, Gen Welsh seems to be making good, rational decisions. Eliminating mandatory Blues Monday is a good start. Better yet, leaving it up to the MAJCOM was a good start. I expect big things from him.

Chief Roy is on his way out. And nobody will notice.

Bob, if you want to use any of this, PM me and I'll give you my name. These are just a few things that fell out of my brain.

Airborne
12-04-2012, 12:29 PM
The State of the Air Force is that of 2 Air Forces---One that the leadership sells you on as ready to fight, ready to deploy, ready to adapt to specific ever changing and challenging national needs. Then there's the real state of the Air Force--clearly in decline, declining in its capabilities, declining in its roles and missions while reveling in "diversity" along with wasting resources. Sure, today's Air Force is the most diverse, the most tolerant of everything and the most poltically correct---but can it win a war? We have just lost a war and wore down both men and machines on an enemy that doesn't even have an Air Force. What was gained? What was reaffirmed and who's conduct and strategy gets the blame? Are we in denial?---we dont have the national resources anymore to sustain our defenses with failed logistics systems or $500 million dollar airplanes that are broken and mission incapable. Our resources were wasted in a war of attrition that bore no fruit and leadership that couldnt economize or get results.

Well I'll be gotdamned! Willspowers made a comment that was actually well presented and didnt reference Metzger, minorities, or renters. Bravo!

Airborne
12-04-2012, 12:36 PM
Tell me more. I've stayed at Air Force Inns but I don't know whether they're a public entity or a private company. If they're a private company, why would a different private company be better?

There were other threads where the quality of Air Force Inns around the world was discussed. You pay a set price yet the quality varies from super nice, clean and comfortable to mold-ridden, 1950's era buildings where you share a bathroom. Franchises from national or international chains have strict quality control standards which is why when you stay at Hampton in California, the quality is near the same as one in Florida. You come to expect it. When you walk into an Air Force Inn your wondering what youre going to get.
Having a franchise like that on base would alleviate the some of the funding problems that hamper billeting. There is a reason why it isnt done, I just dont recall what it is.

Robert F. Dorr
12-04-2012, 10:37 PM
Now and future state of AF hardware:
1) We need the new tanker that's on contract, replacing the 135 should be a top priority.
2) The F35 program in way behind schedule and way over budget, it needs to be cancelled for cause and a buy of updated F16/15/18 aircraft needs to be started. When (read: if ever) the F35 is ready, buy some.
3) C17's are aging out, we need to continue a small buy per year to being replacing airframes
4) C27J's have proven themselves in combat and humanitarian aide both overseas and stateside. Keep them in the guard and train up a maintenance contingent. Quite frankly, given the fractured nature of our "enemies", light airlift is more important than ever.
5) Replace all old 130s with J models.
6) 10 year forcast hardware: Start looking for a KC10 replacement, the AF will need it.
7) Go back to the drawing board on the new bomber, figure out what the requirements are for today's campaigns, then buy something that doesn't cost $1 Billion a copy. I have to admit bombers are a weak point for me, but there's gotta be a way to replace B-52s with an updated long range bomber that will do the job without stealth, and all the do-dads, bells, whistles, special paint, special hangers, etc. that the AF seems to like to buy.

Just my opinion of course.

These are some of the kinds of things that will be in the first part of the piece I'm writing. By the way, it is not an opinion piece. I disagree on the C-27J but will be writing about it objectively.

jarjar
12-04-2012, 11:30 PM
How about this - get us back to a mission focus.

No one gives a sh!t about Airman's Manuals or needs to take a CBT to know that smuggling children, hookers and blow from Panama is illegal. Return physical training to the surgeon general's jurisdiction. Stop f*ing around with random pay changes, get me a doctor's office that knows which part of my body got broken (when I'm wearing a clearly visible cast), and stop telling me that all this crap should be making me resilient instead of making me want to punch someone in the face.

I see positive changes coming with the new CSAF. I hope they keep coming.

PickYourBattles
12-04-2012, 11:55 PM
The Air Force is ready and willing to kill or imprison any American without charge or trial, in exchange for a credit card payment. But you won't report on that - the Constitution and liberty isn't as sexy as the F-22 or a kid dying in Abilene.

sandsjames
12-05-2012, 01:09 AM
The Air Force is ready and willing to kill or imprison any American without charge or trial, in exchange for a credit card payment. But you won't report on that - the Constitution and liberty isn't as sexy as the F-22 or a kid dying in Abilene.

Probably not relevant since this is completely hypothetical. Didn't the supreme court say something, in the 1940's, that at that time, it was more important to have security than certain liberties??? Pretty sure...positive, as a matter of fact. And it was a constitutional right of the SCOTUS to make that decision. So, the SCOTUS makes a perfectly allowable move based on the constitution, yet you call it unconstitutional...

Oh...probably just have some Raisin Bran in the morning...keeps me regular...

Robert F. Dorr
12-05-2012, 01:38 AM
We are in an Air Force that someone thinks it's a good idea to retire the A-10 without a viable replacement. And honestly, what COULD replace the A-10?

We are in an Air Force that is more concerned with the catch-phrase of the day than actually taking care of people. (See: resiliency, Airman's Creed, the ever-changing AF Motto)

We are an Air Force so desperate for tradition, but the problem is we don't let anything stay around long enough to BECOME a tradition, so everything is forced, and fake.

We get told to stop inflating EPRs, and when we do we get questioned on why we marked someone down without documentation.

While I am thinking about it, if anyone can tell me ONCE in the last 50 years we have been attacked by chemical weapons (that were not our own, e.g Agent Orange) I would be happy to wear the ridiculous chem gear while we train for the last war, as is our custom.

Commander's Support Staffs seem to be making a comeback. This is a great thing.

Finance is supposedly de-centralizing and going back to the bases, where they belong. This is good, as long as they are people who know what the eff they are doing.

So far, Gen Welsh seems to be making good, rational decisions. Eliminating mandatory Blues Monday is a good start. Better yet, leaving it up to the MAJCOM was a good start. I expect big things from him.

Chief Roy is on his way out. And nobody will notice.

Bob, if you want to use any of this, PM me and I'll give you my name. These are just a few things that fell out of my brain.

This is excellent stuff. Very, very helpful. Even people who put two spaces between sentences have very useful stuff to say.

I would like to use some of this and will try to use the "Private Message" function if necessary but it would be far easier to communicate if you'd send me an e-mail or contact "Robert F. Dorr" on Facebook.

Bob

Robert F. Dorr
3411 Valewood Drive
Oakton VA 22124
robert.f.dorr@cox.net
(703) 264-8950

GoatDriver57
12-05-2012, 02:23 AM
These are some of the kinds of things that will be in the first part of the piece I'm writing. By the way, it is not an opinion piece. I disagree on the C-27J but will be writing about it objectively.

Bob, during the Nam war, the C-27J sorties were filled by C-47, C-7, C-123... 24/7/52, it was Goldy-locks platform, anything else would have been too large or too small. Today's field needs have not changed.
It will be interesting to hear what you suggest should fit that slot in your writing.

imnohero
12-05-2012, 04:48 AM
Bob, given that not only has the world changed, but both the nation defense strategy and implementation of that strategy have as well, and those last two seem to naturally result in the need for more airlift, tankers, and ISR resources. Not to say that we don't need to new bomber to replace the B52, but I'm not certain that it should be a priority over building a top notch airlift fleet including air-refueling capabilities.

I know, airlift is not "sexy" like the F22 or bombers. There will never be books written about the "daring and heroic" airlift crews. But I think that with the overseas base closures over the last decades and the success of both strategic and tactical airlift in Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and Iraq this decade, airlift should be a top priority for the AF both now and in the future.

Robert F. Dorr
12-05-2012, 09:32 AM
Bob, during the Nam war, the C-27J sorties were filled by C-47, C-7, C-123... 24/7/52, it was Goldy-locks platform, anything else would have been too large or too small. Today's field needs have not changed.
It will be interesting to hear what you suggest should fit that slot in your writing.

The C-47 may have been used as a transport by the Vietnamese but not by U.S. forces in the Vietnam war. The moment the CV-2A/B/C-7A/B Caribou was transferred from the Army to the Air Force, its effectiveness at short-range, small-cargo tactical airlift went way down. The C-27J began as an Army-only program and should have stayed that way. Do you really think that it's less economical to use a half-full C-130 than to introduce a new aircraft type and operate AN ENTIRE AIRLIFT WING with just FOUR aircraft? In the past, a wing had 75 to 100 aircraft.

The C-123 was useful in Vietnam because it was already available, having been acquired to service the DEW Line among other functions. The Air Force did its best with the C-7A/B and there were some very good people involved but it could not match the Army's performance with the aircraft.

There is not now, and never has been, the remotest need for the C-27J. It started its life in the Air Force for the sole purpose of being taken away from the Army. It continues in order to fill spaces at unneeded Air National Guard bases in a system that has at least twice as many bases as it needs.

Robert F. Dorr
12-05-2012, 09:46 AM
Bob, given that not only has the world changed, but both the nation defense strategy and implementation of that strategy have as well, and those last two seem to naturally result in the need for more airlift, tankers, and ISR resources. Not to say that we don't need to new bomber to replace the B52, but I'm not certain that it should be a priority over building a top notch airlift fleet including air-refueling capabilities.

I know, airlift is not "sexy" like the F22 or bombers. There will never be books written about the "daring and heroic" airlift crews. But I think that with the overseas base closures over the last decades and the success of both strategic and tactical airlift in Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and Iraq this decade, airlift should be a top priority for the AF both now and in the future.

No disagreement on any of the need for airlift. And, yes, there have been books written about airlift. Also articles, like the the three I wrote about the C-17 for the current Air International.

We might need less airlift if we'd stop mucking around in little, distant wars that have no connection to defending the United States.

Yes, we need airlift. And especially tankers. But when you don't have bombers you might as well not have armed forces.

Robert F. Dorr
12-05-2012, 09:55 AM
And, yes, for this project I do want to learn more of your ideas for airlift.

Would you consolidate the C-27J fleet? The entire fleet would fit easily into one wing. What unit(s) would you close?

How many C-5Bs would you upgrade to C-5M status and how many C-5A/Bs would you retire?

What's the minimum "buy" that would keep the C-17 production line open?

imnohero
12-05-2012, 03:08 PM
And, yes, for this project I do want to learn more of your ideas for airlift.

Would you consolidate the C-27J fleet? The entire fleet would fit easily into one wing. What unit(s) would you close?

How many C-5Bs would you upgrade to C-5M status and how many C-5A/Bs would you retire?

What's the minimum "buy" that would keep the C-17 production line open?


Regarding the C27J, I would do a "buy" of 36. 2 guard wings of 12 aircraft, and 12 aircraft to Special Forces. I would put the guard wings one east and one west of the Mississippi. Mansfield makes sense because it's already operating. I would suggest putting the other at the 140th in Colorado. Let SpecOps figure out the best places for theirs.

I would upgrade one wing of C-5M...36 aircraft, stationed at Dover, retire the rest of the A/B models.

The last figure I saw on C17 production line was 4 aircraft per year to keep it open and profitable. Though I think that the actual production rate should be based on the aging rate of the aircraft, the AF might have to replace the oldest aircraft (89-99 model years) at a higher rate than 4 per year.

Personally, I think the AF needs to also do a limited buy of 130J's per year to start replacing the older models. But I don't have a handle on what those numbers would be.

The KC10 provides bulk airlift that's pretty significant, but that aircraft is also getting long in the tooth (if you'll forgive my mixing metaphors). That's why I say that a replacement is going to be needed in 10 years to maintain that same capability for the fleet.

The question that arises, of course, is does the AF have enough money (especially in the shrinking future budget climate) to do all of this, plus a bomber, plus the F35? I don't know the answer to that because I don't have the budget numbers and program costs available. But given that the 135, 27J, and C5M are already going, it doesn't make a lot of sense to cancel those in favor of continued funding for the failed (in my opinion) F35. That F35 money would be better spent on the airlift fleet and starting up the new bomber procurement.

GoatDriver57
12-05-2012, 08:57 PM
The C-47 may have been used as a transport by the Vietnamese but not by U.S. forces in the Vietnam war. The moment the CV-2A/B/C-7A/B Caribou was transferred from the Army to the Air Force, its effectiveness at short-range, small-cargo tactical airlift went way down. The C-27J began as an Army-only program and should have stayed that way. Do you really think that it's less economical to use a half-full C-130 than to introduce a new aircraft type and operate AN ENTIRE AIRLIFT WING with just FOUR aircraft? In the past, a wing had 75 to 100 aircraft.

The C-123 was useful in Vietnam because it was already available, having been acquired to service the DEW Line among other functions. The Air Force did its best with the C-7A/B and there were some very good people involved but it could not match the Army's performance with the aircraft.

There is not now, and never has been, the remotest need for the C-27J. It started its life in the Air Force for the sole purpose of being taken away from the Army. It continues in order to fill spaces at unneeded Air National Guard bases in a system that has at least twice as many bases as it needs.

Bob, not going to hi-jack the thread but with all due respect, you are weak in some places when making firm statements as you do at times. Incorrect, weak, on point,

I don't give a rats who fly the C-27, but the gap needs to be bridged, the fact was proved in Nam the 130 couldn't make the fit where the 47, C7a, 123, 119 got the job done.

Same reason the A-10 is still with us. done. ;) .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibMYRq8Htw

GoatDriver57
12-05-2012, 08:59 PM
Bob, AF drivers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibMYRq8Htw

VOLZZZMAN
12-06-2012, 04:32 AM
AETC officials coming to base in SW corner of US to “watch” how said base reacts to Active Shooter exercise—given 1.5 months notice.
Said base over prepares through 50+ emails on said subject
First responders told where exercise location will be (reaction plan no doubt pre-built)
Personnel told to cancel appointments or take leave to go to off base appointments
Casualty notification teams put on standby and all accounted for in workcenter
Vehicles for said casualty notification put on standby and at the ready
Security Forces, Fire Dept, Med Grp at the ready (including off base support)
Base streets virtual ghost town on morning of event (huddled in offices)
Only folks in gym are those placed there for exercise
Exercise kicks off – first computer based alert message that goes out:
EXERCISE EXERCISE EXERCISE: ALL CLEAR ALL CLEAR ALL CLEAR

The state of the Air Force -- Facepalm

Bunch
12-06-2012, 05:51 AM
I would like to address the State of the Air Force in the terms of morale. There is a few things that pop very rapidly into my head when I think into the current morale from AF members:

1. The additional duties and additional expectations got to stop: People join the AF very motivated. As a recruiter I have follow the career of many airmen that I placed in the AF. Anyone who has work in recruiting and truly worked in learning and developing a relationship with their applicants can tell you that no matter what the majority of them keep in contact with you. The communication I get back from the airmen I have placed in the AF is that additional duties and expectations are just to much. We got to seriously move to do less with less and to expect airmen to be proficient at their jobs and keep themselves in shape. Evreything else should be dump to the garbage can. The list is long but CBT's, college education, DV visits, booster club, volunteer work and a host of other things wear on our airmen who just want to learn their job and pass their PT test.

2. Hypocrisy from leadership: Leadership is always pressing the "core values" but those in my opinion have become meaningless. We get preached core values but then we see scandal after scandal from Senior leaders from the Pentagon down to our units and we can see that "core values" it's something leadership just throw around without no particular ownership. The proverbial "do as I say not as I do" applies here.

3. Identity crisis: Courageous officers fought and put their careers on the line to make of the AF an independent branch. Then all of the sudden an officer core full of cowards fight non stop to make us more like the Army. We want to be more Army than the Army. We even take Army jobs to show that we can be Army. We are one officer screw up away to try to become the Marines. That wears on people overtime.

4. The "leave my mark syndrome": Every leader wants to leave a mark. It doesn't matter if it is on the backs of the personnel, on the backs of the taxpayer or else, they want to be the story in the next book, the leader who people would refer to when the next crisis comes along. The great General Norman Schwarzkopf once was quoted as saying “You learn far more from negative leadership than from positive leadership. Because you learn how not to do it. And, therefore, you learn how to do it" . AF leadership through the last decade had fail to do just that and it has brought a culture of incompetence.

5. Stop chasing that 5th star: The 5th star is that cushy job the retired Gen gets once they leave AD so they can becomes lobbyist for the MIC. Senior leader are more worried on getting that 5th star than actually doing their jobs and take care of the troops. Jr leaders and enlisted airmen can see that too. So why have loyalty to an organization in which their Senior leaders as seen as taken advantage of their position for personal gain? That just breeds a culture of "ME first!!", that leads to corruption, moral lapses, and it causes serious morale issues.

Thats just some of the aspects I can come up with. Im pretty sure others can expand on them.

Dickie
12-06-2012, 04:46 PM
I would like to address the State of the Air Force in the terms of morale. There is a few things that pop very rapidly into my head when I think into the current morale from AF members:

1. The additional duties and additional expectations got to stop: People join the AF very motivated. As a recruiter I have follow the career of many airmen that I placed in the AF. Anyone who has work in recruiting and truly worked in learning and developing a relationship with their applicants can tell you that no matter what the majority of them keep in contact with you. The communication I get back from the airmen I have placed in the AF is that additional duties and expectations are just to much. We got to seriously move to do less with less and to expect airmen to be proficient at their jobs and keep themselves in shape. Evreything else should be dump to the garbage can. The list is long but CBT's, college education, DV visits, booster club, volunteer work and a host of other things wear on our airmen who just want to learn their job and pass their PT test.

2. Hypocrisy from leadership: Leadership is always pressing the "core values" but those in my opinion have become meaningless. We get preached core values but then we see scandal after scandal from Senior leaders from the Pentagon down to our units and we can see that "core values" it's something leadership just throw around without no particular ownership. The proverbial "do as I say not as I do" applies here.

3. Identity crisis: Courageous officers fought and put their careers on the line to make of the AF an independent branch. Then all of the sudden an officer core full of cowards fight non stop to make us more like the Army. We want to be more Army than the Army. We even take Army jobs to show that we can be Army. We are one officer screw up away to try to become the Marines. That wears on people overtime.

4. The "leave my mark syndrome": Every leader wants to leave a mark. It doesn't matter if it is on the backs of the personnel, on the backs of the taxpayer or else, they want to be the story in the next book, the leader who people would refer to when the next crisis comes along. The great General Norman Schwarzkopf once was quoted as saying “You learn far more from negative leadership than from positive leadership. Because you learn how not to do it. And, therefore, you learn how to do it" . AF leadership through the last decade had fail to do just that and it has brought a culture of incompetence.

5. Stop chasing that 5th star: The 5th star is that cushy job the retired Gen gets once they leave AD so they can becomes lobbyist for the MIC. Senior leader are more worried on getting that 5th star than actually doing their jobs and take care of the troops. Jr leaders and enlisted airmen can see that too. So why have loyalty to an organization in which their Senior leaders as seen as taken advantage of their position for personal gain? That just breeds a culture of "ME first!!", that leads to corruption, moral lapses, and it causes serious morale issues.

Thats just some of the aspects I can come up with. Im pretty sure others can expand on them.

Some very good points Bunch.

Robert F. Dorr
12-06-2012, 05:48 PM
Bob, not going to hi-jack the thread but with all due respect, you are weak in some places when making firm statements as you do at times. Incorrect, weak, on point,

I don't give a rats who fly the C-27, but the gap needs to be bridged, the fact was proved in Nam the 130 couldn't make the fit where the 47, C7a, 123, 119 got the job done.

Same reason the A-10 is still with us. done. ;) .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibMYRq8Htw

Let me say again that U.S. forces did not use the C-47 for airlift in the Vietnam war. They did not use the C-119 either. Both aircraft performed other duty, including gunship duty, in Vietnam but were not used for airlift. GoatDriver57's color coding is very pretty but quite confusing. Unfortunately, most of what GoatDriver57 writes is inaccurate. Perhaps it's time to consult one of the ten or so books I've written about the Vietnam air war. Unfortunately, they're all out of print.

Robert F. Dorr
12-06-2012, 05:50 PM
Regarding the C27J, I would do a "buy" of 36. 2 guard wings of 12 aircraft, and 12 aircraft to Special Forces. I would put the guard wings one east and one west of the Mississippi. Mansfield makes sense because it's already operating. I would suggest putting the other at the 140th in Colorado. Let SpecOps figure out the best places for theirs.

I would upgrade one wing of C-5M...36 aircraft, stationed at Dover, retire the rest of the A/B models.

The last figure I saw on C17 production line was 4 aircraft per year to keep it open and profitable. Though I think that the actual production rate should be based on the aging rate of the aircraft, the AF might have to replace the oldest aircraft (89-99 model years) at a higher rate than 4 per year.

Personally, I think the AF needs to also do a limited buy of 130J's per year to start replacing the older models. But I don't have a handle on what those numbers would be.

The KC10 provides bulk airlift that's pretty significant, but that aircraft is also getting long in the tooth (if you'll forgive my mixing metaphors). That's why I say that a replacement is going to be needed in 10 years to maintain that same capability for the fleet.

The question that arises, of course, is does the AF have enough money (especially in the shrinking future budget climate) to do all of this, plus a bomber, plus the F35? I don't know the answer to that because I don't have the budget numbers and program costs available. But given that the 135, 27J, and C5M are already going, it doesn't make a lot of sense to cancel those in favor of continued funding for the failed (in my opinion) F35. That F35 money would be better spent on the airlift fleet and starting up the new bomber procurement.

This is all excellent stuff. Very impressive and very helpful.

Robert F. Dorr
12-06-2012, 05:52 PM
Bob, AF drivers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibMYRq8Htw

Senator, I knew John Levitow.

Senator, John Levitow was a friend of mine.

Senator, you're no John Levitow.

The C-47 was raised here as an airlifter predecessor to the C-27J which it was, but not with U.S. forces in Vietnam.

MACHINE666
12-06-2012, 06:08 PM
I am being completely serious when I say this:

Nap time. The Air Force needs to give its people extended lunches, so we can get nap time. It's bad enough they consume most of our day with frivilous bureaucracy, but I think if people were able to take power naps on their lunch breaks, the Air Force might be less grouchy and more productive.

imported_CLSE
12-06-2012, 09:54 PM
And Air Force Inns should be replaced by a mid priced chain like Holiday Inn or Hampton. Basically if we can franchise Taco Bell and Burger King why cant we franchise a big box store or hotel chain? Congress, JFTR etc...I know, but it still sucks.

Personally, I'm a fan of Air Force Inns...Not always the newest, but always been clean and well maintained and the price is really good.

Fort MacArthur in San Pedro is $53.00 a night. You're going to be hard-pressed to find a civilian hotel in that area that is as clean and secure for that price.

Measure Man
12-06-2012, 10:11 PM
Personally, I'm a fan of Air Force Inns...Not always the newest, but always been clean and well maintained and the price is really good.

Fort MacArthur in San Pedro is $53.00 a night. You're going to be hard-pressed to find a civilian hotel in that area that is as clean and secure for that price.

Maybe, but Travel Lodge comes with hookers.

Robert F. Dorr
12-06-2012, 10:21 PM
Maybe, but Travel Lodge comes with hookers.

That's definitely one disadvantage to staying on base.

tiredretiredE7
12-06-2012, 11:24 PM
That's definitely one disadvantage to staying on base.

RFD,

Those hookers are of the homosapien species.

crwchf16
12-06-2012, 11:32 PM
I would like to address the State of the Air Force in the terms of morale. There is a few things that pop very rapidly into my head when I think into the current morale from AF members:

1. The additional duties and additional expectations got to stop: People join the AF very motivated. As a recruiter I have follow the career of many airmen that I placed in the AF. Anyone who has work in recruiting and truly worked in learning and developing a relationship with their applicants can tell you that no matter what the majority of them keep in contact with you. The communication I get back from the airmen I have placed in the AF is that additional duties and expectations are just to much. We got to seriously move to do less with less and to expect airmen to be proficient at their jobs and keep themselves in shape. Evreything else should be dump to the garbage can. The list is long but CBT's, college education, DV visits, booster club, volunteer work and a host of other things wear on our airmen who just want to learn their job and pass their PT test.

2. Hypocrisy from leadership: Leadership is always pressing the "core values" but those in my opinion have become meaningless. We get preached core values but then we see scandal after scandal from Senior leaders from the Pentagon down to our units and we can see that "core values" it's something leadership just throw around without no particular ownership. The proverbial "do as I say not as I do" applies here.

3. Identity crisis: Courageous officers fought and put their careers on the line to make of the AF an independent branch. Then all of the sudden an officer core full of cowards fight non stop to make us more like the Army. We want to be more Army than the Army. We even take Army jobs to show that we can be Army. We are one officer screw up away to try to become the Marines. That wears on people overtime.

4. The "leave my mark syndrome": Every leader wants to leave a mark. It doesn't matter if it is on the backs of the personnel, on the backs of the taxpayer or else, they want to be the story in the next book, the leader who people would refer to when the next crisis comes along. The great General Norman Schwarzkopf once was quoted as saying “You learn far more from negative leadership than from positive leadership. Because you learn how not to do it. And, therefore, you learn how to do it" . AF leadership through the last decade had fail to do just that and it has brought a culture of incompetence.

5. Stop chasing that 5th star: The 5th star is that cushy job the retired Gen gets once they leave AD so they can becomes lobbyist for the MIC. Senior leader are more worried on getting that 5th star than actually doing their jobs and take care of the troops. Jr leaders and enlisted airmen can see that too. So why have loyalty to an organization in which their Senior leaders as seen as taken advantage of their position for personal gain? That just breeds a culture of "ME first!!", that leads to corruption, moral lapses, and it causes serious morale issues.

Thats just some of the aspects I can come up with. Im pretty sure others can expand on them.

It would be extremely difficult for me to expand on this since I think Bunch hit the bulk of our major problems squarely on the head.
About whether or not we need to recapitalize out equipment, the answer is a resounding Hell-yes! But we need to be smarter about aquiring it and holding contractors to their deadlines both in cost and time. This alone will save us billions and should circumvent a signifigant portion of the budgets cuts we are forced to deal with. New equipment aqusition is not our biggest concern though.
What is infinitely more pressing is to take care of our people who over the past ten years have been run into the ground with extra deployments, never ending CBTs and non-stop emphasis on things that have little nothing to do with the primary missions for which we all originally volunteered.
We are constantly told that the mission comes first and I don't argue with that for a minute. However, our people are the ones who take care of our mission. If we take care of our people, they will ensure the mission is accomplished. That should be always our primary focus.

imnohero
12-07-2012, 01:03 AM
The latest figure I can find for the F35 program is $1 Trillion lifetime cost (50 years).

100 billion per year, give or take. Now this is not all AF money, but let's just assume that 50% of it is.

50 billion/year can either be cut from the budget, or redirected to other acquisitions.

C27J acquisition cost - $ 6 billion
C130J - $80 million per aircraft
KC46 acquisition cost - $6 billion
F15S (proposed cost) - $200 million per aircraft
F18S (proposed cost) - $240 million per aircraft
C17A - $214 million per aircraft

Let's throw in a KC10 replacement at a conservative estimate of $10 Billion staring 10 years from now.

We can buy multiples of each aircraft every year AND fully fund O&M for 50 years for the cost of the F35. This should be a NO BRAINER for the AF leadership.

Put another way: We can either 1) buy the F35 or 2) acquire, field and maintain the entire rest of the AF fleet.

Robert F. Dorr
12-07-2012, 01:21 AM
Which user(s) of the F-35 are covered by your $1 trillion cost?

imnohero
12-07-2012, 02:23 AM
$1 Trillion is the lifetime cost of the entire program for all users.

However, going by the latest numbers in the press, the AF is buying 1700 of the 2400 forecast to be built. That's about 70% of them. Realistically, the AF will probably end up with 70% of that lifetime cost, but I went with 50% just to demonstrate the point.

Robert F. Dorr
12-07-2012, 11:58 AM
$1 Trillion is the lifetime cost of the entire program for all users.

However, going by the latest numbers in the press, the AF is buying 1700 of the 2400 forecast to be built. That's about 70% of them. Realistically, the AF will probably end up with 70% of that lifetime cost, but I went with 50% just to demonstrate the point.

They've stuck with the figure 1,763 for at least several years. The 2,400 covered that plus the partner nations in the program,minus other countries that drop out, but does not include other potential buyers like Israel. It's impossible to be certain of many things but one thing you can take to the bank: at the end of the day when the total number of Air Force F-35s is added up, it won't be 1,763.

imnohero
12-07-2012, 01:25 PM
They've stuck with the figure 1,763 for at least several years. The 2,400 covered that plus the partner nations in the program,minus other countries that drop out, but does not include other potential buyers like Israel. It's impossible to be certain of many things but one thing you can take to the bank: at the end of the day when the total number of Air Force F-35s is added up, it won't be 1,763.

Here's another thing you can take to the bank, the program cost is only going to go up.

My point isn't about the numbers of aircraft. My point is that this one program could fund 5 others and dropping it virtually solves the AF acquisition budget problems for the next 50 years.

Robert F. Dorr
12-24-2012, 02:41 AM
DR. Dorr, you are so incorrect, refresh your history of the time. For starters, try MOA recipient John H. Levitow.

Didn't we cover this already? I wrote that the C-47 MAY HAVE BEEN USED AS A TRANSPORT by the Vietnamese but not by U.S. forces in the Vietnam war. That's 100% accurate and if MOH recipient John Levitow were still with us he would be able to confirm it but he probably wouldn't know what an MOA might be.

GoatDriver57
12-24-2012, 04:33 AM
The C-47 may have been used as a transport by the Vietnamese but not by U.S. forces in the Vietnam war. ------------------snip ------- snip --------------------------.


Yes, MOH recipient John H. Levitow was on gun-ships and there were a few around but also there were straight AF driven xports too, w/o any yellow/red banded tails in the area. Not to mention the AF driven SC-47s doing utility work.

I'm searching the Texas Tech archives for any of your work that you say has been out of pub, if you would have any of your ISBNs handy? It'll be interesting to read some of your/partners factuals.
-----------------------------
( "Senator, I knew John Levitow.
Senator, John Levitow was a friend of mine
Senator, you're no John Levitow.; quote from Dr. Dorr. )
Dorr, Did you truly know John? Where is this coming from? Your third line is correct and there isn't a poster on this forum can come near the brass John held.
----------------------

(" The C-47 was raised here as an airlifter predecessor to the C-27J which it was, but not with U.S. forces in Vietnam".; quote from Dr. Dorr ) This is incorrect unless Dr. Dorr presents a reliable source for his stating fact.
-------------
Dorr, keep snowing them. -----

imnohero
12-24-2012, 05:14 AM
there isn't a poster on this forum can come near the brass John held.

Presumably you mean the MOH. Pretty safe to say that no one here has one, since no Airman have gotten a MOH since Vietnam.

He also had an air medal and a purple heart, which I suspect some people here have.

If you mean "brass" in the vernacular, as in fortitude of character...I suspect you are underestimating your fellow airman. Awards are not the only measure of character. (as an aside, I take exception to the use of the word "brass" as a positive descriptor, since "having brass" is arogant self-confidence or effrontory. If you don't know what effrontory is, it means insolency and impudence.)

Robert F. Dorr
12-24-2012, 10:55 AM
Yes, MOH recipient John H. Levitow was on gun-ships and there were a few around but also there were straight AF driven xports too, w/o any yellow/red banded tails in the area. Not to mention the AF driven SC-47s doing utility work.

I'm searching the Texas Tech archives for any of your work that you say has been out of pub, if you would have any of your ISBNs handy? It'll be interesting to read some of your/partners factuals.
-----------------------------
( "Senator, I knew John Levitow.
Senator, John Levitow was a friend of mine
Senator, you're no John Levitow.; quote from Dr. Dorr. )
Dorr, Did you truly know John? Where is this coming from? Your third line is correct and there isn't a poster on this forum can come near the brass John held.
----------------------

(" The C-47 was raised here as an airlifter predecessor to the C-27J which it was, but not with U.S. forces in Vietnam".; quote from Dr. Dorr ) This is incorrect unless Dr. Dorr presents a reliable source for his stating fact.
-------------
Dorr, keep snowing them. -----

I'm going to write it again. The C-47 was not used as a transport by U.S. forces in Vietnam. I have presented a reliable source -- me. If you can name a time, place or unit where American operated C-47s were used as airlifters in Vietnam, do so and I'll eat my hat. Or I would if I owned a hat. But I'm not even getting out the salt and pepper.

By the way, one of the EC-47s in Vietnam (43-16254) was the same aircraft I flew in Korea in the 1950s.

TVANSCOT
12-24-2012, 12:38 PM
Is there a real fear of the RPA? For years the AF leadership tried to deny the usefulness of this tool in front line combat roles and only stepped up to the plate after they were threatened that they would lose the role (and all the funding and people) to the army.

What is the state of this new technology and our pilot leaning leadership? We will continue to invest? We will continue to throw money at manned aircraft programs like the F35 instead of investing in R&D for much easier to design and build RPA’s?

The state of the AF is confusion. Traditions are useless and technology is moving forward. The AF tries to look back but needs to be much more forward thinking.

KellyinAvon
12-24-2012, 03:31 PM
Is there a real fear of the RPA? For years the AF leadership tried to deny the usefulness of this tool in front line combat roles and only stepped up to the plate after they were threatened that they would lose the role (and all the funding and people) to the army.

What is the state of this new technology and our pilot leaning leadership? We will continue to invest? We will continue to throw money at manned aircraft programs like the F35 instead of investing in R&D for much easier to design and build RPA’s?

The state of the AF is confusion. Traditions are useless and technology is moving forward. The AF tries to look back but needs to be much more forward thinking.

You bring up some excellent points TVAN. I think we've seen the last generation of manned fighters. In 50 years will we be comparing filled cockpits with horse cavalry (which the Army had until 1957 according to globalsecurity.org)? The aircraft can pull more G's than the human, unless the human is in a trailer in Nevada.

+1 for "state of confusion" to describe today's AF. Technology moving forward is a no-doubt situation. I would caveat traditions being useless when they are changed at the whim of the individual in charge. At that point they aren't traditions, they are fads.

Robert F. Dorr
12-24-2012, 04:20 PM
You bring up some excellent points TVAN. I think we've seen the last generation of manned fighters. In 50 years will we be comparing filled cockpits with horse cavalry (which the Army had until 1957 according to globalsecurity.org)? The aircraft can pull more G's than the human, unless the human is in a trailer in Nevada.

+1 for "state of confusion" to describe today's AF. Technology moving forward is a no-doubt situation. I would caveat traditions being useless when they are changed at the whim of the individual in charge. At that point they aren't traditions, they are fads.

On the contrary, now that Gates is gone our impossibly stupid infatuation with unmanned aircraft systems -- which the Air Force wanted to be called remotely piloted aircraft, though no one paid any attention -- has already begun to wane. If we have something resembling a linear future 50 years from now and if this country is still here (both doubtful), we will have manned, long-range, land-based air power as our primary tool and we will ditch the preposterous notion of jointness which implies, somehow, that the other service branches are equal. There will always be some use for unmanned vehicles but right now I'd like to have a manned bomber and an air-to-air fighter than can defeat the Sukhoi Su-27. One way to pay for those things would be to get rid of all ground forces except for a tiny number of special operations forces. No war will ever again be won with boots on the ground.

imnohero
12-24-2012, 04:29 PM
On the contrary, now that Gates is gone our impossibly stupid infatuation with unmanned aircraft systems -- which the Air Force wanted to be called remotely piloted aircraft, though no one paid any attention -- has already begun to wane. If we have something resembling a linear future 50 years from now and if this country is still here (both doubtful), we will have manned, long-range, land-based air power as our primary tool and we will ditch the preposterous notion of jointness which implies, somehow, that the other service branches are equal. There will always be some use for unmanned vehicles but right now I'd like to have a manned bomber and an air-to-air fighter than can defeat the Sukhoi Su-27. One way to pay for those things would be to get rid of all ground forces except for a tiny number of special operations forces. No war will ever again be won with boots on the ground.

As somewhat of a student of the history of war (in a broad sense), "boots on the ground" hasn't ever won wars. They win battles, just as air power wins battles. What wins wars is having logistics and resources and denying the same to the enemy. That's why we use sea/air/manpower to blow up bridges and railroads, hold key strategic sea/air ports, blockade food and weapons shipments, etc. You defeat the enemy by stopping their ability to wage war.

One may make the argument that land forces occupying and controlling large land areas is less relevant today and in the future, just as sea power has become less relevant. However, that is an argument about the tools of war, not war itself.

Robert F. Dorr
12-24-2012, 04:49 PM
As somewhat of a student of the history of war (in a broad sense), "boots on the ground" hasn't ever won wars. They win battles, just as air power wins battles. What wins wars is having logistics and resources and denying the same to the enemy. That's why we use sea/air/manpower to blow up bridges and railroads, hold key strategic sea/air ports, blockade food and weapons shipments, etc. You defeat the enemy by stopping their ability to wage war.

One may make the argument that land forces occupying and controlling large land areas is less relevant today and in the future, just as sea power has become less relevant. However, that is an argument about the tools of war, not war itself.

I don't agree on every detail but this is very well said.

Robert F. Dorr
12-24-2012, 06:21 PM
Finished this project. Thank you, everyone.

sandsjames
12-24-2012, 06:56 PM
Hope you enjoy the $$$

Greedy bastard. And on Christmas Eve even.

TVANSCOT
12-24-2012, 07:31 PM
On the contrary, now that Gates is gone our impossibly stupid infatuation with unmanned aircraft systems -- which the Air Force wanted to be called remotely piloted aircraft, though no one paid any attention -- has already begun to wane. If we have something resembling a linear future 50 years from now and if this country is still here (both doubtful), we will have manned, long-range, land-based air power as our primary tool and we will ditch the preposterous notion of jointness which implies, somehow, that the other service branches are equal. There will always be some use for unmanned vehicles but right now I'd like to have a manned bomber and an air-to-air fighter than can defeat the Sukhoi Su-27. One way to pay for those things would be to get rid of all ground forces except for a tiny number of special operations forces. No war will ever again be won with boots on the ground.

This is old school thinking, just like when the army and navy said aricraft could never be used for anything but recon. This isn't even considered thinking outside the box, is just common sense. All that you ask can be done with an RPA, and it can be done cheaper. We spend billions trying to protect pilots and making sure they can breath and be comfortable. Redouble efforts on RPA's and move technology foward because it is not going to wait for the Air Force. Just like Banyan Vines (for those who remeber) and the Blackberry, both technology choices of the AF and both were bad choices. Long range and manned equal bad technology choices.

akruse
12-24-2012, 09:58 PM
This is old school thinking, just like when the army and navy said aricraft could never be used for anything but recon. This isn't even considered thinking outside the box, is just common sense. All that you ask can be done with an RPA, and it can be done cheaper. We spend billions trying to protect pilots and making sure they can breath and be comfortable. Redouble efforts on RPA's and move technology foward because it is not going to wait for the Air Force. Just like Banyan Vines (for those who remeber) and the Blackberry, both technology choices of the AF and both were bad choices. Long range and manned equal bad technology choices.


So what happens when we don't have satellite links? There isn't a situation where a manned aircraft can't get into currently. There are however many many situations where a UAV can't go.

akruse
12-24-2012, 09:59 PM
This is old school thinking, just like when the army and navy said aricraft could never be used for anything but recon. This isn't even considered thinking outside the box, is just common sense. All that you ask can be done with an RPA, and it can be done cheaper. We spend billions trying to protect pilots and making sure they can breath and be comfortable. Redouble efforts on RPA's and move technology foward because it is not going to wait for the Air Force. Just like Banyan Vines (for those who remeber) and the Blackberry, both technology choices of the AF and both were bad choices. Long range and manned equal bad technology choices.


So what happens when we don't have satellite links? There isn't a situation where a manned aircraft can't get into currently. There are however many many situations where a UAV can't go.

Robert F. Dorr
12-24-2012, 10:55 PM
This is old school thinking, just like when the army and navy said aricraft could never be used for anything but recon. This isn't even considered thinking outside the box, is just common sense. All that you ask can be done with an RPA, and it can be done cheaper. We spend billions trying to protect pilots and making sure they can breath and be comfortable. Redouble efforts on RPA's and move technology foward because it is not going to wait for the Air Force. Just like Banyan Vines (for those who remeber) and the Blackberry, both technology choices of the AF and both were bad choices. Long range and manned equal bad technology choices.

Rather than compare it to about 1917 when the Army said aircraft could never be used for anything but recon, compare it to 1959 when everybody knew that a fighter would never again need a gun.

Those pesky UAS's, which some in the Air Force are still calling RPA's, cost far more per item or per flight hour than any manned aircraft, by a magnitude of several times over. The argument that they save money is always made without measuring the costs of the cumbersome infrastructure needed to keep them aloft.

Perhaps some day they will become reliable. They are not today. But even if they can be made reliable, and that is not a sure thing, every penny we spend on one is a penny we could spend on a new bomber or fighter. In any peer war with a modern nation-state UAS's -- RPV's, to you and almost no one else -- will be proven for exactly what they are, a costly waste of money incapable of performing any useful function.

tiredretiredE7
12-24-2012, 11:39 PM
Rather than compare it to about 1917 when the Army said aircraft could never be used for anything but recon, compare it to 1959 when everybody knew that a fighter would never again need a gun.

Those pesky UAS's, which some in the Air Force are still calling RPA's, cost far more per item or per flight hour than any manned aircraft, by a magnitude of several times over. The argument that they save money is always made without measuring the costs of the cumbersome infrastructure needed to keep them aloft.

Perhaps some day they will become reliable. They are not today. But even if they can be made reliable, and that is not a sure thing, every penny we spend on one is a penny we could spend on a new bomber or fighter. In any peer war with a modern nation-state UAS's -- RPV's, to you and almost no one else -- will be proven for exactly what they are, a costly waste of money incapable of performing any useful function.

RFD,

All of your points are valid but miss the bigger problem. UAV/S were pushed by the last SECDEF because he believed future conflicts would be with terrorists and not massed Armies or Air Forces. This is obviously wrong since China and Iran still exist and are potential adversaries in future battles. UAV/UAS are a pipe dream of a SECDEF who apparently did not see the bigger future of Iran, China and North Korea military progress especially with some of our "friends" providing assistance to countries. Individually these countries are no match for the US but with successful technological long-range missiles and nuclear warhead development, the SECEF could be very wrong. Only time will tell.

Robert F. Dorr
12-24-2012, 11:59 PM
RFD,

All of your points are valid but miss the bigger problem. UAV/S were pushed by the last SECDEF because he believed future conflicts would be with terrorists and not massed Armies or Air Forces. This is obviously wrong since China and Iran still exist and are potential adversaries in future battles. UAV/UAS are a pipe dream of a SECDEF who apparently did not see the bigger future of Iran, China and North Korea military progress especially with some of our "friends" providing assistance to countries. Individually these countries are no match for the US but with successful technological long-range missiles and nuclear warhead development, the SECEF could be very wrong. Only time will tell.

You're right. I've made the same points often. And we don't need time. We know now,.

BENDER56
12-25-2012, 04:43 PM
The state of the Air Force is Florida.

Robert F. Dorr
03-08-2013, 01:38 AM
The state of the Air Force is Florida.

Not as much as Colorado (Colorado Springs), Ohio (Dayton), and Texas (San Antonio).

Here is a link to the "state of the Air Force" article that was the inspiration for this Forum thread:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-air-force-year-in-review/

Any comment or reaction to this look at the Air Force will be much appreciated. If you want, you can leave a comment at the site.

RobotChicken
03-08-2013, 02:08 AM
:lol The Italians were always fine a/c design/builders;no surprise they built their own platform for it. Next up...putting bomb racks (internal stores/external) on the 'new tanker' since the 'more with less' leadership doesn't buy one purpose air-frame anymore...then the tanker can refuel itself...cut down manning of another a/c!! WIN-WIN!! :plane:focus

JD2780
03-08-2013, 02:39 PM
Not as much as Colorado (Colorado Springs), Ohio (Dayton), and Texas (San Antonio).

Here is a link to the "state of the Air Force" article that was the inspiration for this Forum thread:

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-air-force-year-in-review/

Any comment or reaction to this look at the Air Force will be much appreciated. If you want, you can leave a comment at the site.

Florida has HQAFSOC. BOOOYAAA

Robert F. Dorr
03-08-2013, 02:43 PM
Florida has HQAFSOC. BOOOYAAA

The Air Force population in and around Eglin and Hurlburt, counting retirees, probably compares with those in Colorado Springs, Dayton and San Antonio. I haven't seen numbers but have the impression the others have larger populations.

JD2780
03-08-2013, 03:24 PM
Quality vs quantity

Robert F. Dorr
03-08-2013, 03:31 PM
Quality vs quantity

Okay. I'm convinced. Florida it is.

Robert F. Dorr
03-16-2013, 09:47 AM
I have two separate, one-hour Internet radio interviews coming up today (March 16) and Monday (March 18). Looking for input, especially on how the Air Force may have changed in the past five to ten years, the current state of leadership in the post-Gates era, big programs like F-35, etc.

KellyinAvon
03-16-2013, 10:21 AM
I retired almost 6 years ago, I wouldn't recognize it. From no patches on bad uniforms overemphasis on PT to force shaping to pay for aircraft then retiring aircraft to pay for the force.

Shrike
03-18-2013, 07:05 PM
I have two separate, one-hour Internet radio interviews coming up today (March 16) and Monday (March 18). Looking for input, especially on how the Air Force may have changed in the past five to ten years, the current state of leadership in the post-Gates era, big programs like F-35, etc.

Quite simply, it's FUBAR.

MACHINE666
03-18-2013, 07:20 PM
Tell whoever is interviewing you that the best thing the Air Force can do now is to cut the shit, now that sequestration is taking place. Ain't nobody got no time for that.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/20322722.jpg

imnohero
03-18-2013, 11:37 PM
Re: Gates and UAVs...part of the reason that he ordered the AF to increase ISR assets was because the were only filling 30% of the requests for them, with no inclination to provide more. In fact, if you recall around the same time, that was when the whole F22, nuclear incidents, CSAF/SAF firing took place.

Gates may not have been the greatest SecDef, but the AF leadership was just plain awful.

Robert F. Dorr
03-19-2013, 01:54 AM
Re: Gates and UAVs...part of the reason that he ordered the AF to increase ISR assets was because the were only filling 30% of the requests for them, with no inclination to provide more. In fact, if you recall around the same time, that was when the whole F22, nuclear incidents, CSAF/SAF firing took place.

Gates may not have been the greatest SecDef, but the AF leadership was just plain awful.

If the measure of success is being a strong leader and getting what you want, Gates succeeded. The problem: everything he wanted was wrong.

Gates was enamored of drones, a fad that will have its day and cease. He liked counter-insurgency, not aware that the only way to win a war of insurgency is to be the insurgent, a lesson we should have learned at Lexington and Concord. He liked flimsy, defenseless systems like the MQ-1B Predator, C-27J Spartan and MC-12W Liberty, none of which would be of the slightest use in a near-peer war. Gates did nothing to give us a new bomber. He did nothing to give us long-range, land-based air power, which is the decisive force in war.

Gates decapitated the Air Force. And then he pretended that the reason was a silly and quite harmless mistake with some live AGM-129s.

The Air Force was already strained from too many deployments, too little dwell time, too much ancient equipment, too many irrelevant distractions. The Air Force was close to breaking.

Gates broke it.

Give me a weak, unsuccessful Defense Secretary like Louis Johnson or Bill Cohen any time.

JD2780
03-19-2013, 01:58 AM
If the measure of success is being a strong leader and getting what you want, Gates succeeded. The problem: everything he wanted was wrong.

Gates was enamored of drones, a fad that will have its day and cease. He liked counter-insurgency, not aware that the only way to win a war of insurgency is to be the insurgent, a lesson we should have learned at Lexington and Concord. He liked flimsy, defenseless systems like the MQ-1B Predator, C-27J Spartan and MC-12W Liberty, none of which would be of the slightest use in a near-peer war. Gates did nothing to give us a new bomber. He did nothing to give us long-range, land-based air power, which is the decisive force in war.

Gates decapitated the Air Force. And then he pretended that the reason was a silly and quite harmless mistake with some live AGM-129s.

The Air Force was already strained from too many deployments, too little dwell time, too much ancient equipment, too many irrelevant distractions. The Air Force was close to breaking.

Gates broke it.

Give me a weak, unsuccessful Defense Secretary like Louis Johnson or Bill Cohen any time.

Says you. I completely disagree.

imnohero
03-19-2013, 02:24 AM
If the measure of success is being a strong leader and getting what you want, Gates succeeded. The problem: everything he wanted was wrong.

Gates was enamored of drones, a fad that will have its day and cease. He liked counter-insurgency, not aware that the only way to win a war of insurgency is to be the insurgent, a lesson we should have learned at Lexington and Concord. He liked flimsy, defenseless systems like the MQ-1B Predator, C-27J Spartan and MC-12W Liberty, none of which would be of the slightest use in a near-peer war. Gates did nothing to give us a new bomber. He did nothing to give us long-range, land-based air power, which is the decisive force in war.

Gates decapitated the Air Force. And then he pretended that the reason was a silly and quite harmless mistake with some live AGM-129s.

The Air Force was already strained from too many deployments, too little dwell time, too much ancient equipment, too many irrelevant distractions. The Air Force was close to breaking.

Gates broke it.

Give me a weak, unsuccessful Defense Secretary like Louis Johnson or Bill Cohen any time.

That all may be, and borne out by history as it passes us by, though I disagree somewhat with your assessment. None-the-less, it remains a fact the AF leadership, at the time was so focused on "winning the next war" that they were all but ignoring the one we were in.

It remains a fact the AF was long on it's way to being broken long before Gates, thanks in part to the Rumsfeld "downsizing" plan and it's disastrous implementation by Cohen in the 90's. The corpratization, commercial-off-the-shelf, contract-it-out AF constructed by McPeak and the politicization of GO promotions virtually ensured an incapable and unresponsive AF regardless of what war we ended up in.

Gates may have been "enamored of drones" but at least he was paying attention to the war that was actually happening. I actually don't think it's too much to ask that the AF actually meet the needs of the war-fighter. The AF past leaders are the ones that politically lobbied for and got control of unmanned aircraft (mostly because of territorial and budgetary nonsense). The AF past leaders are the ones that once they got it, realized they might actually have to respond to the needs of the other services, which they are loathe to do, for petty prideful reasons. It was AF leaders that got all butt-hurt when they realized this war wasn't all about pilot glory and opted out while declaring they were "all in."

imported_chipotleboy
03-19-2013, 04:03 PM
A big part of it is the return to the 'ticket-punching' philosophy we have towards choosing our leaders--exactly the same thing our leaders in the 90s complained about happening when they were junior officers in Vietnam. When I was a Lt Col participating in the rack-n-stack of our unit officers, our Colonel developed this excel spreadsheet that assigned so many points for being CGO of the Quarter, so many points for a master's degree, so many points for weapons school, etc... Nowhere was there any input for how good of a job the person was doing. And we were not allowed to deviate from the spreadsheet in determining our rack-n-stack of our people. That system is still used today in our unit 3 Colonels later. And this type of ticket punching thinking is pervasive in the officer corps. Now, it seems that if you haven't distinguished yourself as a springbutt by the time you pin on 1st Lt, you have no hope of making Colonel.

mindurian
03-19-2013, 11:57 PM
I retired two years ago but know a lot about the AF medical service and acquisition and PT test and I doubt there have been any real changes.

Air Force medical service (AFMS) is a mess and has been for a long time but its gotten worse. There is primarily one reason...consistently bad leadership. The purpose of the AFMS is to treat patients...that is should be. However the main purpose is to employ physicians that don't like to treat patients. To avoid this they have created an unbelievable burearcy of staff jobs. However they continue to get their specialy pay and professional pay, when they do nothing but desk work than a non health care provider could easily do...and they are not under DOPMA so they make rank easily and can have a lot of predominantly high ranking people.

AFMS still uses general medical officers (your average doctor) who do not have any speciality training. This is not the current standard in the civilian community,,,there you need to have a family practice residency to have a viable practice. What happens is you get recent med school graduates who are totally over their heads and make a lot of unnecessary mistakes. I have a friend who worked as a contract physician and she said she saw stuff everyday...people's medical problems ignorned because the physicians just didn't know enough to treat their conditions and they had nobody to go to for help. Also the medical facilities are run for themselves...had a friend working at the air staff where they had done a study and about 70% of appointments were for clinic staff and family etc. Somebody came to the conclusion if you did away with the AFMS you would eliminate most of the problem as most of the medical work is self generated. This can be monitored and the old buddy system can be gotten rid of. You shouldn't need a friend to make an appointment. I have been to zillions of clinic and hospital staff meetings and people don't want to work other than 8 to 4. Make the clinics have urgent care clinics after hours for people and their family to be seen...and don't allow the medics to kill this by making people wait forever.

Having good readily available med care is the best morale booster and the best retention/recruitment tool the AF could have. People will stay in the AF just to get good medical care...but they don't have it now (exceptions of course, its not the current providers fault but the leadership.

Give the providers some incentive to say in by not rotating them...no reason to move a medic that doesn't want to...that will give you better happier medics.

I have known the people who came up with the old and new PT test...some of the ideas were bad or badly implemented, but some of the intentions were good. The original idea in the late 80's was to absolutely not set a standard...develop tests and support to help people develop their own fitness program...pass/fail tests were susposed to be unsuccessful and self-defeating...people want to be fit and healthy--help them. Situps crunches and pullups make no sense...they are bad exercises for the most...can play a role in a fitness program if done right, but how many you can do means nothing. And currently the way they are done goes against current exercise science...and don't tell me I am wrong, I taught graduate course in exercise physiology. Waist cirumference is a good test if the right standard is used. All medical evidence says below 40 inches for males and below 34 for females...as long as you are under this you are OK medically, maybe less is better but 40 inches is what the evidence says, not what somebody wants.

Assignment rotations are idiotic in todays world...consider moving people when they need to...people's spouses have jobs and children have schools and friends they like. its hard to find people who can do the job, but if you move every three years you spend one year learning a new place and one year getting the new assigment and getting ready for it.

Too much email watching by everybody...somebody needs to look at how much time people need at the computer. Reading email and internet surfing accomplish little as much as its done.

Consider civilianizing nondeployable jobs...but don't make it a battle...have a voluntary transition program. There is so much turnover you don't get the experience you need and the training costs are legion.

Get rid of the play warrior mentality...the AF is primarily about technically superior people who know their job and do a great job at it...the other stuff is unimportant.

mindurian
03-20-2013, 01:06 AM
I appreciate your elaboration of med culture.
I personally liked the change to tricare, but
With clinics on base, usually I had to fight
For downtown referrals to get adequate care.
Seems af med care reflects civilian Care,
In that they both are an unsustainable mess.
As for the pt test, these same jokers pushed
The amazing bike test backed by science.

Thanks, the bike test was never meant by the guy that promoted it to be a "test", it was susposed to be a way to help people improve their fitness, so they could see progress, there was to be no good or bad score, just improvement or not...in fact the guy that developed the program said it would be a failure if you used a standard (I guess the military mindset just can't imagine something where you don't have a mark you have to pass and everything is OK if you make the mark). However the science of it is that you can only increase your vO2 max by 15% by training, its primarily a genetic trait, as is running ability, we have only a limited ability to improve our performance by training. Heaven knows the AF and civilian community both need help with fitness and exercise and obesity. Don't punish people, help them.