PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Not all sweetness and light in USAF
View Single Post
Old 7th Dec 2015, 16:22
  #39 (permalink)  
Lonewolf_50
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,103
Received 295 Likes on 186 Posts
Originally Posted by Bing
. Or at least everyone lied about how big things were...
Then we're back to talking about fighter pilots again, are we?

As a USN sort I originally chose not to comment on the USAF's perceived problems and injustices at this time. But, there's some nonsense afoot. The numbers cited in the article are disingenuous, to say the least.
In 1990, for example, the Air Force had more than 535,000 active-duty airmen. A quarter-century later, the Air Force had an end strength of 312,980, a roughly 41 percent decline.
The Cold War levels, at the Height of the Cold War, are not a valid basis of comparison, since we have reduced the base force since then, twice and are in the middle of the third such reduction. Those numbers were from a quarter of a century ago, and we have closed no few bases.

We've also changed, during the Roles and Missions debated of the early 90's, the two wars at a time capability based, and reverted to one major and one minor, and even less than that. In comparison, our Navy, at that time, had 13 active carriers and about 580 ships. We now have two hundred something ships and 11 active carriers (and reduced air wings, etc). We've had an over 50% reduction, but then, It Is No Longer The Cold War!

pr00ne
Really? The US Marines have cruise missile armed nuclear submarines and thermonuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles?
They may not, but they have a few close associates who do, and who work for the same service chief. (PS: Your point is taken, but it would be more germane if we'd gone back to the kvetching being about aircraft numbers and capability ... )

Dear RAF friends: on the bright side, with a smaller force you can be pickier in the quality of your recruits. (Silver linings to every cloud, yes?)
Lonewolf_50 is offline