| Submit your comments on this article |
| --Tech & Moderator Notes |
| Air Force Will Lose Hundreds of Planes in New Pentagon Plan |
| 2012-01-04 |
| The article discusses the cuts planned by the Air Force and being pushed onto the Army. My two favorite quotes are, "Irony: the Pentagon waits to cut the Air Force after fighting a decade of land wars; and the Army’s reward for surviving them is major shrinkage." “Plans with Iran would rely predominantly on air and naval power. Libya was mostly air power, and the Pacific is clearly a naval and air arena,” says Dunn. “I would note that my naval friends say the Pacific is 75 percent covered by water — but it’s 100 percent covered by air.” |
| Posted by:Mike Ramsey |
| #11 Yeah, and for way sub-standard and out of spec steel. We didn't make those deals; but we know it's been happening 24/7. That said, "So, NOW what?" OY! We are so screwed!! |
| Posted by: Slomp Oppressor of the Faeries1490 2012-01-04 23:55 |
| #10 I'd like to point out... more F-22's and 35's would at least be built here... at least defense spending would actually have a multiplier effect, unlike a whole lot of other government spending. (I'm thinking of a bridge in CA that got subcontracted to China, in particular). |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-01-04 23:22 |
| #9 Shrinking the Army? Not smart. It always comes down to boots on the ground. If not ours, then the THREAT of ours needs to still be there and be credible. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2012-01-04 20:51 |
| #8 All of this will be moot soon. Perhaps as early as 5 years from now we may well have the technology for unmanned combat air vehicles of significant autonomous capability against opponents more sophisticated than Iran or Libya. In addition to not putting crew lives in danger, UCAVs will be unhindered by ergonomic factors, allowing air performance that significantly outdoes manned craft. The question is, how to maintain air superiority between now and when such capabilities come on line. That will probably mean some degree of expense for 22s/35s, but with much of the projected production quantities actually not every ordered. |
| Posted by: lotp 2012-01-04 20:29 |
| #7 You could go low tech and cheap, but they would be contracted to Brazil. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2012-01-04 19:39 |
| #6 No profit for defense contractors for Honest Al's idea. They like gold-plated equipment that requires lots of repairs and spare parts. |
| Posted by: gromky 2012-01-04 19:19 |
| #5 Pappy. Lock-mart needs to produce excellence. At $153 million a copy (double that if you include development and maintenance costs) the grounded F-22's are currently very expensive paperweights. The F-35 is not shaping up any better. |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2012-01-04 17:00 |
| #4 Hopefully opponent air defenses remain smaller and cheaper as well. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-01-04 16:13 |
| #3 Given the problems with the F-22's OBOGS and cracks in the F-35's airframe, smaller and cheaper may not be a bad idea. |
| Posted by: Mike Ramsey 2012-01-04 15:57 |
| #2 Absolutely moose. The complexity of every system out there is mindboggling. The Pentagon is going to have to learn the hard way how to control spending. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2012-01-04 15:48 |
| #1 I think the eventual winner here will be cheaper non-combat planes, that are not modern battlefield players, but work fine in support roles in lower intensity conflicts. For example, B-52s have been used extensively in Afghanistan as CAS, which sounds ridiculous except that they are the most available aircraft for that mission. In many cases, we could have even used prop aircraft for all sorts of things. We desperately need cheap aircraft with efficient engines that can stay aloft for a long time. If they carry a few bombs it would be great, but put the high tech in the bombs, not the planes. All they should have to do is "Fly around and drop your bombs on request in the right grid square. The bombs will find their targets by GPS. Otherwise just fly in a big circle until somebody calls you." The AF needs to hunt up "Honest Al's Used Planes". |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2012-01-04 15:32 |