F-22 Raptor info

[Majestik Møøse]

The Allied Air Component Commander is Lt Gen Jodice who flew F-111s and F-15Es. Who was the MAF guy?

[BigE]

OOD v OUP

There's a difference...

[SurelySerious]

The Allied Air Component Commander is Lt Gen Jodice who flew F-111s and F-15Es. Who was the MAF guy?

For OOD: This guy.

[Guest]

For OOD: This guy.

In every interview I read the first and primary thing she talks about is tankers and making sure everyone could get enough gas.

She would refer to the MAAP as "the so-called master air attack plan" and strike assessments as "damages from the previous day."

She has spent most of her career chugging in DC.

Things will sort themselves out even if the boss doesn't have a clue.

[Festivius]

First, I had nothing to do with these ops so I have no inside dope. Question, though: was there some point in calling the MAAP "the so-called master air attack plan?" Did it seem like this was just unfamiliarity with the product (which seems kind of hard to believe) or were there competing/complimentary air plans she was trying to poke at (STS)?

[Jughead]

First, I had nothing to do with these ops so I have no inside dope. Question, though: was there some point in calling the MAAP "the so-called master air attack plan?" Did it seem like this was just unfamiliarity with the product (which seems kind of hard to believe) or were there competing/complimentary air plans she was trying to poke at (STS)?

Or, was she speaking to reporters et al for whom the term may have been unfamiliar (at least in her assumption)...? I have no opinion on the general one way or another, but I don't know how damning this language is by itself....

[Majestik Møøse]

You guys obviously don't realize how well the 89th prepares you for an air war!

[Guest]

Or, was she speaking to reporters et al for whom the term may have been unfamiliar (at least in her assumption)...?

Yah, you betcha.

She had the herbivore appropriate command and a fight broke out.

[Guest]

We can't fix the jets so we'll just train the pilots...

[Daredevileng1]

The ROBD has been an integral player in maintaining local training requirements for F-22 Raptor pilots, who are put through a gradual onset hypoxia profile along with a night demo...scenarios help enhance pilots' situational awareness of how their bodies experience hypoxia, which helps them recognize potential problems and initiate the proper safety procedures.

UFB.

[Guest]

Roger.

[gmwalk]

We can't fix the jets so we'll just train the pilots...

Good thing your not in the Navy. They would be giving you training on how to breathe water.

[Beaver]

I thought I read that the jets were perfect and nobody was hypoxic and it's all pilot error.

[Guest]

In other words, standard.

[TheGuardGuy]

UFB- and to think that someone in a 'leadership' position signed off on this expenditure thinking "wow, what a great training tool !" I thought that was what the chamber was for? Another bullet for an OPR I suppose...

Edited February 29, 2012 by TheGuardGuy

[backseatdriver]

UFB- and to think that someone in a 'leadership' position signed off on this expenditure thinking "wow, what a great training tool !" I thought that was what the chamber was for? Another bullet for an OPR I suppose...

Missing the point....

[TheGuardGuy]

Missing the point....

The point of our fallen brother or the point of the uselessness of this 'advancement in training'?

Enlighten me. This was the point I gathered -

"The ROBD exposes aviators to lower concentrations of oxygen, mimicking atmospheric gaseous concentrations at various altitudes."

"objective of the ROBD is the same as the chamber...benefit of the HFT is it is more realistic"

"What's in store for the future? A new training device, the Reduced Oxygen Breathing Environment may be the next great thing here"

Edited February 29, 2012 by TheGuardGuy

[herkbum]

From today's Early Bird. I thought the highlighted section was a bad choice of words by Schwartz.

http://ebird.osd.mil/ebfiles/e20120306873845.html

Oklahoma City Oklahoman

March 6, 2012

Top Air Force Commander, Oklahoma Senator Defend Views On U.S. Defense Cuts

By Steve Lackmeyer

Oklahoma's military installations are well-positioned to survive upcoming defense cuts, though pain is almost inevitable, Oklahoma City and state civic leaders were advised Monday.

At the same time, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, warned that cuts proposed by President Barack Obama go too far and are crippling the nation's ability to fend off potential future threats.

Inhofe was joined by Gen. Norton Schwartz, U.S. Air Force chief of staff, along with Gov. Mary Fallin and Maj. Gen. Bruce Litchfield, commander at Tinker Air Force Base, in providing a report about changes faced by the aerospace defense industry.

The sold-out luncheon, hosted by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, follows an Air Force budget proposal released last month that proposes cutting $487 billion in spending in the next decade.

The cuts, if approved by Congress, would include elimination of the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program, which in turn would jeopardize about half of 550 jobs being transferred to Oklahoma City from Boeing's operation in Long Beach, Calif.

Schwartz said the C-130 is an example of weapons systems that must be cut if the Air Force is to become more efficient moving forward.

The presentation began with an attack by Inhofe on the budget proposal and military spending under Obama's watch. Inhofe argued Obama's cuts have left the United States in a weakened position against its enemies, specifically Iran.

"We have a real serious problem," Inhofe said. "I know the military can't talk about this, but what's happening to the military right now is unconscionable."

Inhofe added he is for cutting federal spending -- except for infrastructure and defense.

"That's what we're supposed to be doing," Inhofe said. He added the federal debt has more than doubled under Obama's watch.

"Where is it going? Everywhere but defense and infrastructure," he said. "We can't sit around and be nice and act like it's not going on. It is going on."

Schwartz called out the C-130 program as an example of aircraft that need to be phased out because they are either less capable than other aircraft for the intended mission or more expensive to maintain.

"We favored multi-role systems over those that are more specialized," Schwartz said. "We emphasized more common configurations among assets we retained. We sought to retire aircraft types where possible."

Schwartz also dismissed a complaint by an audience member over the planned phasing out of the F-22 fighters.

"The U.S. Air Force invested an enormous amount of capital to keep that weapons system going," Schwartz said. "It sucked up all the oxygen for other things the Air Force needed to do."

Schwartz called Tinker Air Force Base a critical component to the nation's defense and said he believes the military can meet its objective of maintaining preparedness with a "smaller force."

"We hold no illusions -- the road ahead will be in no way easy," Schwartz said. "This is a period for best efforts. This is a period for heavy lifting. This is a period for all of us to work together."

[ExBoneOSO]

[Guest]

From today's Early Bird. I thought the highlighted section was a bad choice of words by Schwartz.

No surpise, trending normal for him.

[ClearedHot]

[herkbum]

Looks like Schwartz has been taking Arthur Murray lessons

[TrainerModel]

Those Rand studies are like Doctorial Thesis, they're formulated off of data, then presented by writers to make a conclusion. They aren't absolutes, i mean, would you trust a computer that ran the simulated air war blindly and said "yep, thats exactly what will happen". The rand studies are basically that. Remember the whole "we will lose X number of Tankers in the Gulf War"

I'm just saying, just because one report says one thing, and one says another, it doesn't mean either is true.

We have less fighters than we did 10 years ago (does not equal) we will absolutely lose an air war to China

Schwartz quibbling of "I can't really see what report that is from this distance...blah blah blah" was super embarrassing to watch though

[Majestik Møøse]

Here's the actual report. Pretty much the gist of things is that SRBMs will kick our asses and break our jets before they take off.

It's too bad that Schwartz didn't read the report, because the congressman missed some key points himself, such as "Substituting F-22s for the F-15s doesn’t change the situation very much, either."

"As China’s ability to deliver accurate fire across the strait grows, it is becoming increasingly difficult and soon may be impossible for the United States and Taiwan to protect the island’s military and civilian infrastructures from serious damage. This is hardly surprising, and is rooted in thebasic physical and operational reality that, given foreseeable technologies, it is and will remain cheaper and easier to build rockets able to deliver payloads accurately onto a relatively large and stationary target like a runway than it will be to build rockets able to reliably intercept fast-moving miniscule targets, like other rockets."

[Guest]

I like the sound of surrender in his comments.

Taiwan, you're cleared off.