M2 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Warning: USAF is "Going Out of Business" September 21, 2007— The Air Force’s attempts to fund replacement of its aged aircraft fleet by cutting personnel is failing, and if Congress and the White House don’t provide an infusion of cash soon, the service will no longer be able to win wars, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne declared. Wynne, speaking at a Washington think tank Sept. 19, said that the service’s stay-within-its-topline bootstrap approach isn’t arresting the aging aircraft problem, and the inventory age is still rising, from 23.9 years today to 26.5 years by 2012. The Air Force’s older fighters aren’t up to defeating a modern air defense system or modern foreign fighters, Wynne said, and in a fight with Venezuela or Iran, such aircraft would probably be shot down. “No [uSAF] fourth-generation fighter would be allowed into war over Tehran or over Caracas, once they buy what the Russians are selling them,” Wynne said. He noted that as far back as 1999, only stealthy B-2s and F-117s were actually allowed to overfly the murderous air defenses around Belgrade in operation Allied Force, and foreign air defense systems have improved dramatically since then. “If you as Americans want to be coerced, we’re starting down that road,” he admonished. A massive aircraft modernization effort was slated to begin in the mid-1990s, but it was sidetracked by the end of the Cold War, and then again by the wars in Southwest Asia. The Air Force can’t wait any longer, Wynne said. If the nation’s adversaries believe the US is losing its ability to dominate the air, “they will kick our butts,” he said flatly. “America’s not funding us to be a large Air Force anymore.” Moreover, if sufficient numbers of fifth-generation F-35s and F-22s aren’t in service in two decades, the US will only be on a par with other countries that are aggressively pursuing their own fifth-generation fighters, Wynne said. “If we’re in a fair fight, you, the American public, are in trouble,” Wynne warned. It was Wynne’s idea, he said, to “voluntarily downsize and restructure the force, just like an industrialist would do, in order to gain the resources to recapitalize his asset base.” The reductions targeted 40,000 full-time equivalent uniformed slots. However, “it isn’t working,” Wynne admitted. “What does that mean to an industrialist?" he asked and answered: "It means you are going out of business. It is simply a matter of time.” All that has been accomplished, he said, is to slow down the pace at which Air Force aircraft race toward their retirement dates. “This can’t go on,” Wynne asserted. “At some time in the future, they will simply rust out, age-out, fall out of the sky. We need, somehow, to recapitalize this force.” The KC-X tanker program is the Air Force’s top priority, Wynne said, because his “biggest fear” is that the Eisenhower-vintage aircraft will simply start to crash. If that happens, they would either have to be kept flying—forcing USAF to “essentially accept the risk”—or grounded, leaving the nation with only a few dozen 1980s-vintage KC-10s to refuel the nation’s air armadas. He chided critics of the F-35, saying the US can’t just—yet again—defer buying the state of the art and wait for the next generation of aircraft to come along. The last time the Air Force did that, it wound up buying only 21 B-2s, Wynne said, which fighter critics tout as the best type of weapon to counter far-away China. “How big do you think China is?” he asked. Wynne also stumped for modernization of the US satellite constellation, pointing out that all of it would need replacement in less than a dozen years. China’s test of an anti-satellite system this year, he said, was “a little message: ‘Don’t think you’re safe up there.’ Space is not a sanctuary anymore.” Wynne said the Air Force has now been at war for 17 years, that its people and equipment are “wearing out,” and that action must be taken at once to make the service well again. He also warned that the nation can’t just wait for the wars in Southwest Asia to end before beginning the process of rebuilding the Air Force. It has to begin now because Wynne expects the current conflicts to continue until 2010 “and perhaps beyond.” —John A. Tirpak (Source) Gotta love politics (and fear tactics) in action... Cheers! M2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest whyme? Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Gotta love politics (and fear tactics) in action... Cheers! M2 Might I recommend more "rusting ariframe" cuts and slashing the pilots and/or crews thereof. That way we can bump the production of the F-22 and F-35. Open up VSP to a few more and perhaps he will get his wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Johann Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The sky is falling, the sky is falling... Said Michael "Henny-Penny" Wynne, Secretary of the Air Farce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest xtndr50boom Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Since the AF is going out of business and everything must go, does anyone know of a decent bank who wouldn't mind financing a strike eagle to someone with good credit and a $20K down payment? USAA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toasty Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 What are you guys talking about? You should be cheering him on! He's trying to make the point hit home that way too many of us are flying airframes from the pre-Vietnam era. Its unfortunate that flyers will have to start dying to get any real attention paid to this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JorryFright21 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 He's trying to make the point hit home that way too many of us are flying airframes from the pre-Vietnam era. Yeah, just like the CSAR-X (I realize the 60 isn't Vietnam era, but helicopters beat themselves up a little quicker than a fixed wing bird). Oh yeah, that has been neatly swept under a rug. Top priority my . It will be pushed to the backburner until it is completely forgotten about, and we will continue to fly birds that are a few thousand #'s heavier than they were meant to be. That's alot when you're talking only 22k #'s. Who needs lots of power at 5-9,000' in 120 degree temperature. Not me, I love doing underpowered approaches to scary places in scary conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 That's alot when you're talking only 22k #'s. Who needs lots of power at 5-9,000' in 120 degree temperature. Not me, I love doing underpowered approaches to scary places in scary conditions. The 305th found that out the hard way in Hells Canyon, AZ in '94........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The sky is falling, the sky is falling... Said Michael "Henny-Penny" Wynne, Secretary of the Air Farce It is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Good on them, they're finally asking for more money instead of being yes men...it's about time. Interesting article in a recent Aviation Week (I think the one with the C-27J on the cover), about contractors, the GAO, and how contractors are building program decision appeals/protests into their business plans...such as Boeing and Northrop Grumman, who are already planning on filing a protest no matter which way the contract goes, in an effort to bleed their competitors. Interesting in that the CSAR-X was the #1 priority, and is now completely sidelined by contractor shenanigans. Thanks guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NoleMet Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 It's okay, the Democrats will be in power soon - then we'll definitely get the money we need to rebuild the AF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 It's okay, the Democrats will be in power soon - then we'll definitely get the money we need to rebuild the AF That is what is so disturbing about Johann's "Farce" comment. He must have him skull buried in the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Johann Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 That is what is so disturbing about Johann's "Farce" comment. He must have him skull buried in the sand. LOL! I could care less either way. I'm Retired... I just think it's funny that the AF is still looking for a legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkDerka Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 (edited) Wynne, speaking at a Washington think tank Sept. 19, said that the service’s stay-within-its-topline bootstrap approach isn’t arresting the aging aircraft problem, It was Wynne’s idea, he said, to “voluntarily downsize and restructure the force, just like an industrialist would do, in order to gain the resources to recapitalize his asset base.” The reductions targeted 40,000 full-time equivalent uniformed slots. So the solution isn't working, but he says it was his idea? HD Edited September 26, 2007 by HerkDerka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 LOL! I could care less either way. I'm Retired... Great, glad you are here to contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awalkertx Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 looking forward to flying a 1957 model chevy - errr Boeing myself. New engines, new dashboard... enough history probably to know how/when they'll break. screw replacing them... glad to bring the mean age of the air force up. sounds like a new A/C would be a good addition though - shit at least the windows open! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest xtndr50boom Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Some history puts perspective on the argument: In the 50s hordes of soviet bombers were ready to cross the DEW line.... thankfully we bought a shitload of F-101s, 102s, 104s, 106s, NIKE missiles, and almost bought MACH 3 YF-12s to counteract the "threat" Or the F-15, which was so desperately needed because the MIG-25 was such a cutthroat dogfighter, had excellent range, and would eat a squadron of F-4s for breakfast. Historical perspective helps dull the rhetoric. Especially in times of a budget fight with the army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 Today's news from Washington... Drawdown Continues, But: Even though the plan to fund recapitalization of the Air Force by cutting 40,000 personnel "isn't working," there's no plan to either stop the drawdown or go even deeper, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said yesterday afternoon. Wynne, at a press conference held during AFA's Air & Space Conference in Washington, said it's clear that 316,000 active duty personnel is the rock bottom number the service needs to function. Wynne said he'll be making a "forceful" argument to Congress to add funds for modernization in future supplemental spending bills, but he said he doesn't see any help coming in the Administration's upcoming formal budget proposals. And there is the issue of the growing ground force-a total of 92,000 soldiers and marines-that could require USAF to add up to 2,000 more forward air controllers and other battlefield airmen to embed with them, Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley told reporters at the joint press session. Moseley had previously quoted an Air Combat Command estimate of 1,000. However, the Army and Marine Corps have yet to firm up whether the new troops will all be combat oriented, so he said the number of airmen is still in play. Moseley said he's in discussions with both services to try to keep the number of extra USAF troops required as low as possible. Cheers! M2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted September 25, 2007 Author Share Posted September 25, 2007 Good on them, they're finally asking for more money instead of being yes men...it's about time. Interesting article in a recent Aviation Week (I think the one with the C-27J on the cover), about contractors, the GAO, and how contractors are building program decision appeals/protests into their business plans...such as Boeing and Northrop Grumman, who are already planning on filing a protest no matter which way the contract goes, in an effort to bleed their competitors. Interesting in that the CSAR-X was the #1 priority, and is now completely sidelined by contractor shenanigans. Thanks guys! Speaking of which...(and your use of the word 'shenanigans' is duly noted!)... The Air Force will not simply "start over" with the snake-bit combat search and rescue helicopter replacement program, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said yesterday afternoon at AFA's Air & Space Conference. The program was won by Boeing's HH-47 last year, but the Government Accountability Office has upheld two successive protests by losing bidders-Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky. Wynne said the service would release "amendment five" to the request for proposals in late October, again holding the competition to just the original bidders. "May the best company win," he said. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley said he's trying to hold onto the originally planned in-service date. If the schedule is broken, he'll have to find money to extend the service lives of the HH-60 Pave Hawks, and he doesn't have any money for that. Cheers! M2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 FWIW...when I was in the building, the man was absolutely committed to the new tanker and CSARX. His new exec, a 60 dude, will give him an earful everyday if he does not honor his word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JorryFright21 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 FWIW...when I was in the building, the man was absolutely committed to the new tanker and CSARX. His new exec, a 60 dude, will give him an earful everyday if he does not honor his word. Hey, you won't get any complaints from us, but it's just turning into one of those have-to-see-it-to-believe-it things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Hey, you won't get any complaints from us, but it's just turning into one of those have-to-see-it-to-believe-it things. Thank the contractors and lawyers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eeyore Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 I believe Pres. Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex creating weapon systems with more capabilities but costing more, thus we will purchase fewer numbers. So leadership is faced with a crisis started in the late '50s. Reducing personnel end strength is a shell game replacing AD with contractors will not fix the problem. Air Staff is very slow to change and therefore looking at short term solutions and not long term fixes. Why?? Politics of our elected officials. Looks like a solution is the Old Army Air Force. Oh we tried that once. JorryFright21 I feel your pain as retired helo bubba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DDerrick51 Posted September 26, 2007 Share Posted September 26, 2007 I remember in a reading of Chuck Yeagers autobiography where he was discussing seeing all the new aircraft that would show up on the flight line. I think we missed the hay day of aviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amcflyboy Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I remember in a reading of Chuck Yeagers autobiography where he was discussing seeing all the new aircraft that would show up on the flight line. I think we missed the hay day of aviation. Without a doubt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted September 27, 2007 Share Posted September 27, 2007 I believe Pres. Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex creating weapon systems with more capabilities but costing more, thus we will purchase fewer numbers. So leadership is faced with a crisis started in the late '50s. Reducing personnel end strength is a shell game replacing AD with contractors will not fix the problem. Air Staff is very slow to change and therefore looking at short term solutions and not long term fixes. Why?? Politics of our elected officials. Looks like a solution is the Old Army Air Force. Oh we tried that once. JorryFright21 I feel your pain as retired helo bubba Indeed. Technology is great, but at some point, you have to by more than a handful of aircraft to make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now