AF Stuck on Denial?

[Lawman]

Preach brother. Just wrote a brief paper on this for CGSC, albeit SOF focused, and even a dummy like me can see the benifits. If only we could convince those above that flying a $100M+ aircraft at $30K+ an hour to kill two dudes in a $20K Hilux is not the best way to do business. Cheaper, persistent, flexible and responsive...not sure where the rub is (check sarcasm detector)

Cooter

Yup - the main thing I can't understand is why the fact that it will not need AR support to do an operationally relevant sortie (ISR, CAS, Surgical Strike, or all of them on one mission) is not breaking thru and getting more traction towards acquisition and this coming from a former tanker bubba. 

Even way back when I was a tanker co I knew that having a two ship of 16's on station with the huge tanker commitment to pass gas to them (and all the other two ships) did not make sense when you had cheaper options given the threats you actually faced, the amount of times we were going kinetic after major combat ops ended and the cost of keeping x number of tankers on station 24-7-365. 

This is a perfect plane / mission for Guard / Reserve, but like the C-27J and two brothers, if I can't have one he can't have one.

Because as I alluded to in my earlier post it isn't as simple as the cost of X airplane vs Y airplane.

Hell look at the billion dollar stack put up over every single Swoopy HVI take down. Or the days worth of data collection to build pattern of life before we even do that. Yeah it would probably be cheaper to go in with 1/5 the Intel and an AWT and a predator 95% of the time and get away with it. The problem is that time it doesn't and you lose a bunch of tier 1 asset guys who cost millions each individually in training not to mention a pair or more of 160th crews which cost tens of millions in training dollars. The view is we can stand to absorb the cost of being way way overly conservative better than we can both financially, emotionally, and all too important polotically absorb the cost of a failure to be ready and it's really true. A situation like what happened in Mogadishu where we tried to do something that invested on the cheap resulted in a failure so spectacularly bad it stopped an entire special ops campaign as well as our peace keeping op participation, organized tens of millions of dollars of forces to respond to the 2nd and 3rd level effects, and became the reason we don't do it that way for the next twenty years.

[Clark Griswold]

9 hours ago, Lawman said:

Because as I alluded to in my earlier post it isn't as simple as the cost of X airplane vs Y airplane.

Hell look at the billion dollar stack put up over every single Swoopy HVI take down. Or the days worth of data collection to build pattern of life before we even do that. Yeah it would probably be cheaper to go in with 1/5 the Intel and an AWT and a predator 95% of the time and get away with it. The problem is that time it doesn't and you lose a bunch of tier 1 asset guys who cost millions each individually in training not to mention a pair or more of 160th crews which cost tens of millions in training dollars. The view is we can stand to absorb the cost of being way way overly conservative better than we can both financially, emotionally, and all too important polotically absorb the cost of a failure to be ready and it's really true. A situation like what happened in Mogadishu where we tried to do something that invested on the cheap resulted in a failure so spectacularly bad it stopped an entire special ops campaign as well as our peace keeping op participation, organized tens of millions of dollars of forces to respond to the 2nd and 3rd level effects, and became the reason we don't do it that way for the next twenty years.

Not arguing with you that in these AORs / long term operations that we don't need some major capabilities (heavy CAS in A-10s for example) on tap for certain missions or when the threat level increases (F-15s for DCA if Su-35s begin to encroach for example) but for the day to day and typical mission we need something WAY cheaper to operate.

I'm arguing for a Scorpion Jet (or the equivalent) as some of the capabilities that a 4th/5th Gen fighter brings are not necessary:  supersonic, air to air capable, low observable, etc... and come at such a cost with no operational benefit vice a much less expensive to operate asset.  Keeping OPSEC in mind, delivering a PGM(s) prior to the door being kicked, wall breeched or other support to the type of guys you referenced happens at 1G and quite a distance for a variety of reasons from the target as the self-guided weapon is doing all the hard work now not the fixed-wing platform for the most part. 

Now there are times when Hogs, Vipers, Hornets, etc... are called to strafe but overall in a limited kinetic, CAS with high CDE and precise targeting criteria environment, fixed-wing support in these cases is mostly of a stable PGM delivery / ISR platform.  This can be done way cheaper allowing for the high end force of the future to be built by not having the money it needs to be used in the ops of today, making that argument to Congress is another fight...

Seriously, I am not arguing doing things on the cheap that leaves the warfighter without what he needs to win the fight, I am arguing for doing things smarter, tailored and efficiently.

[Fuzz]

On March 27, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Clark Griswold said:

F-16 (keeping it single ship apples to apples comparison) and assuming a $10K per hour cost (very conservative)....5 hour tanker mission to cover that at $15K (again conservative)

Open source the F-16 costs about $22K/hour and the KC-135 is about $20-25K.

In my view, the reality is the most likely threat is going to be these low end wars in shitholes all over the Middle East and next Africa. The China/Russia/Iran threat is always there and we must continue to expand our high end capabilities to exceed theirs. We are an extension of the political arm of the government but it's only as good as the person on the other end taking us seriously. The ability to kick in a near peer countries IADs before they even see us coming is part of that leverage. However, we also can't bankrupt ourselves by only buying the most expensive, highest tech toys. The fight today and in the near future is going to be ISR, CAS and Strike focused against an adversary with limited anti-air capabilities. We should be investing in a cheaper way (I.e. A-10 replacement, A-29, Scorpion) to free up budget space for the F-35, 22 etc. I despise the F-35 because of the acquisitions nightmare our leadership has turned it into and the depths they have gone to manipulate data, spin narratives and pit fellow airman against each other in an MWS hunger games fight. It is a needed asset and could bring a lot to the battlefield, if we don't go bankrupt and it ever gets flying.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Fuzz

[Clark Griswold]

3 minutes ago, Fuzz said:

Open source the F-16 costs about $22K/hour and the KC-135 is about $20-25K..

Yep - I found this source one time and referenced it before.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

Just keeping my numbers very conservative for a quick comparison, in the AOR who the hell knows how expensive it is. 

[Clark Griswold]

Second article in the series. 

http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/rediscovering-low-altitude-getting-past-the-air-forces-overcommitment-to-stealth/