PDA

View Full Version : USAF Under attack


Tarnished
18th Apr 2005, 19:43
Sorry no link to this so cut and paste. Ralph Peters is clearly no longer on the USAF Christmas Card List - might actually be on their target list now!


The New York Post
13 April 2005
Clashing Military Cultures
By Ralph Peters
LAST month, I sat in the office of Col. Jon "Dog" Davis, a veteran Marine aviator. While
at war, the Corps' pilots had seen a rise in their accident rate. Davis was determined to do
something about it.
I wanted to be sympathetic, so I said, "Well, you're flying some very old aircraft." Davis,
a taut, no-nonsense Marine, looked me in the eye and said, "They may be old, but they're
good. That's no excuse."
As commander of the Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1 out in
Yuma, Ariz., Davis could have nodded and gone along, blaming the jets and helicopters.
But he's a Marine. And Marines don't make excuses. They do their best with what
the taxpayers give them. And their best is pretty damn good.
Contrast that with a recent conversation I had with two Air Force generals. I
had written columns critical of the platinum-plated F/A-22, the most expensive fighter
in history and an aircraft without a mission. So the Air Force decided to lobby me.
Those two generals spun the numbers until the stone-cold truth was buried under a
mantra of "air dominance," imaginary combat roles and financial slight-of-hand. Still, I
wanted to be fair. I took them seriously and investigated their claims.
Not one thing they said held up under scrutiny.
Morally bankrupt, the Air Force is willing to turn a blind eye to the pressing needs of
soldiers and Marines at war in order to get more of its $300-million-apiece junk fighters.
With newer, far more costly aircraft than the Marines possess, the Air Force pleads that it
just can't defend our country without devouring the nation's defense budget.
Meanwhile, Marine aviators fly combat missions in aging jets and ancient helicopters,
doing their best for America - and refusing to beg, lie, cheat or blame their gear.
I had gone out to Yuma to speak to Dog Davis' Marines about future war. The truth is
they should have been lecturing to me. There is nothing more inspiring than being around
United States Marines (yes, a retired Army officer wrote that). The Corps does more with
its limited resources than any other branch of government. The Marines are a bargain
rivaled only by our under-funded Coast Guard.
Even the military installations are different. A Marine base is well-maintained and
perfectly groomed, but utterly without frills. Guest quarters are Motel 6, not the St. Regis.
Air Force bases are the country clubs of la vie militaire.
Meanwhile, the Air Force twiddles its thumbs and dreams of war with China. Its leaders
would even revive the Soviet Union, if they could. Just to have something to do.
If you go into the Pentagon these days, you'll find only half of the building is at war. The
Army and Marine staffs (the latter in the Navy Annex) put in brutal hours and barely see
their families. The Navy, at least, is grappling with the changed strategic environment.
Meanwhile, the Air Force staff haunts the Pentagon espresso bar and lobbies for more
money.
The Air Force hasn't forgotten how to fight. But it only wants to fight the other services.
Recently, the blue-suiters have been floating one of the most disgraceful propositions I've
ever encountered in Washington (and that's saying something).
I heard the con directly from one of the Air Force generals who tried to sell me on the
worthless F/A-22. The poison goes like this: "The Air Force and Navy can dominate their
battle space. Why can't the Army and Marines?"
Let me translate that: At a time when soldiers and Marines are fighting and dying in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Air Force shamefully implies that our ground forces are
incompetent, hinting that, if the Air Force ran the world, we'd get better results.
How low can a service go? Not a single Air Force fighter pilot has lost his life in combat
in Iraq. But the Air Force is willing to slander those who do our nation's fighting and
dying.
As for the vile proposition itself, well, it's easy to "dominate your battle space" if you
don't have anyone to battle. Our fighter-jock Air Force doesn't have an enemy (Air Force
special-ops and transport crews, as well as ground-liaison personnel, serve magnificently
- but the generals regard them as second-class citizens).
While courage is certainly required, Air Force and Navy combat challenges are
engineering problems, matters of physics and geometry. Our Army and Marines, by
contrast, face brutally human, knife-fight conflicts that require human solutions.
The Air Force is about metal. The Marines and Army deal in flesh and blood - in
problems that don't have clear or easy solutions.
Hey, if the Air Force knows of a simple, by-the-numbers way to win the War on Terror,
combat insurgents in urban terrain and help battered populations rebuild their countries,
the generals in blue ought to share the wisdom. (They've certainly been paid enough for
it.)
But the Air Force doesn't have any solutions. Just institutional greed. Their strategy?
Trash our troops. Lie about capabilities and costs. Belittle the genuine dangers facing our
country, while creating imaginary threats. Keep the F/A-22 buy alive, no matter what it
takes.
A little while ago I wrote that our Air Force needed to be saved from itself. Now I'm no
longer sure salvation's possible.
If you want to see how to fly and fight, call in the Marines.

Safeware
18th Apr 2005, 20:47
A world of opposites...

IMHO, we don't have the money that the US has to through at procurement projects, but, at the sharp end we make up for it it the way the kit is used to best advantage by our operators.

Does JSF mean that we'll have the benefit of both?

sw

opso
18th Apr 2005, 20:56
Or a world of similarities?Our fighter-jock Air Force doesn't have an enemy (Air Force special-ops and transport crews, as well as ground-liaison personnel, serve magnificently - but the generals regard them as second-class citizens).

Thud Ridge
18th Apr 2005, 22:29
Got to agree with Opso.............

soddim
18th Apr 2005, 22:59
If our fighter crews have no enemies for the time being why are they spending so many hours sitting QRA in UK and Mount Pleasant?

Do away with fighters at your peril - one day the bad guys will get their act together and shoot back.

wishtobflying
19th Apr 2005, 04:09
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/44415.htm

ChristopherRobin
19th Apr 2005, 08:26
Deliverance said:
Pathetic! It's pure envy from those that couldn't get there and have no understanding of the fundementals of airpower.

...what would they be then, Deliverance?

BootFlap
19th Apr 2005, 08:41
When will the RAF realise that the time is now to follow NZ's lead and disband the FJ force? Well, if we can't achieve that we can still get in the thin end of the wedge and lobby for the removal of AD assets. After all, when was the last time they were needed?

Falklands 1982 (Sea Harrier and Harrier GR3)

Iraq 1991 (Tornado, Jaguar, Buccaneer)

Kosovo 1999 (Harrier GR7, Tornado (GR4))

Sierra Leone 2001 (Harrier GR7)

Iraq 2003 (Tornado, Harrier GR7)

Not to mention 'peace-keeping.........

BiH (Tornado, Harrier, Jaguar)

Iraq (Tornado, Harrier, Jaguar)

I think if you were able to ask some troops on the ground, they would certainly appreciate the fact that when a Brit jet turns up in the CAS role, we provide an excellent service. In the same way that the Brit tankers are acclaimed for the way they provide a service, the way our helos/hercs/C-17s/Regt etc all provide an excellent service. Take note of my phraseology, I see our role as providing a service. Yes, I may be in my single-seat jet (alone apart from my ego), but my job is to provide support for some one on the ground. This may be direct support (CAS) or by removing the infrastructure of the enemy (AI), but I know I can not hold ground. Neither can a helo or a transport. So Deliverance, dry yours eyes mate. We all have a job to do, each with his time and place. If you can not see this, you need to open your eyes!

Bootflap.

soddim
19th Apr 2005, 15:49
I think since air power began the emphasis was on bombing and recce; however, when these roles became a threat, air-to-air fighting became fundamentally necessary in order to defend the ground troops. Lose control of the airspace and carnage results.

We are lucky that recent conflicts have been more or less all-offensive but, unless one can guarantee the future enemy will not have an air force, it is a good idea to maintain a strong fighter force, even if it is part of a multi-role capability.

ChristopherRobin
19th Apr 2005, 18:49
...oh fundementals! I thought you meant fundamentals.

Pontius Navigator
19th Apr 2005, 20:51
Bootflap you forgot one:

Fortress UK - F3 - about 2001 -

We hear the sound of freedom quite often as the Q goes off to check on some errant airliner.

True a GR4 could do some of the job carrying a mauser and 9Ls but the F3 is trained for the mission.

Ignition Override
20th Apr 2005, 05:47
Find out how many of our taxpayer dollars are required to buy just ONE B-2 so-called "Stealth" bomber! Over half a billion dollars! I just flew a trip with a flight attendant whose husband, although now a civilian (former B-52 EWO etc), helps with certain aspects of the B-2 mission.

Some of our Pentagon senior officers have been so far removed from operational decisions and realities, that it is a wonder that Desert Storm did so well back in '91. Read about Grenada. I once talked with a guy, while on a FEDEX jumpseat years ago, who was an MC-130 (Special Ops) Aircraft Commander over Grenada.

Never mind using the modern Humvees as unarmored tanks-where some armor is often the only difference between life or death.

Many US Army Blackhawk helicopter pilots apparently consider Donald Rumsfeld to be a modern version of Robert McNamara. I flew several short trips with a part-time Blackhawk IP.

R.M. meddled with , maybe screwed up so much of the Southeast Asia 'experience', as written by soldiers who were in combat, later command positions.

This various topics may seem totally unrelated, but what do our various military bureaucrats learn from mistakes of the past? And can they adapt those lessons to modern problems, and commit the required funding, whether for adding armor to all Humvees in Iraq, or whatever the operational need? At least they are shipping more cargo by air in Iraq.

Pontius Navigator
20th Apr 2005, 06:52
Ignition Override, contray to the view of what floats to the top, you are fortunate enough to have enough good people who care and who get the job done when the need arises.

I was looking back at the Vietam War. It didn't impinge on my 'radar' until 1964/5 when we were operating nearby but I dscovered that the first US person to be killed was in 1957.

I had been aware of French Indo-China but again Dien Bien Phu was below my radar at that time.

Maybe the problem there was that the conflict lasted for almost 30 years which gave ample scope for 2 or more generations (French and US) to have a meddle with running the war.

In that case, thankfully, our PM kept us out.

ORAC
20th Apr 2005, 07:23
The cost quoted for a B-2 includes all the R&D costs divided amongst the number of aircraft actually purchased. IIRC Northrop offered to build more at about $280m each. Not extortionate when you compare the price and production run to something like a 747.

The same hype is happening over the F/A-22 production run. The press do not see to understand the concept of spent money, or deliberately ignore it.