AF Talking Points get defensive

[Occam's Razor]

Back on topic:

What exactly is wrong with having "talking points"? Am I missing something? If a commander (includes civilian authority over commanders) wants the team on-message, why is a bad thing to provide a reference for the message?

Where's the fire?

The priorities make sense to me.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Back on topic:

What exactly is wrong with having "talking points"? Am I missing something? If a commander (includes civilian authority over commanders) wants the team on-message, why is a bad thing to provide a reference for the message?

Where's the fire?

The priorities make sense to me.

The real question to ask is: Why does the AF thinks it needs to provide Talking Points to keep its team on message that the AF is doing its part?

With the release of the latest COIN Ops manual, the AF has found its role diminished to second tier status. They are also very concerned about losing budget.

The Fighter Jock Zoomie culture that has been running the AF for the past 30 years doesn’t want to lose strategic status or budget to the Army and Marines, the guys doing most of the work. Though they want to remain at the tip of the spear, it looks like a PR campaign, represented by the Taking Points, is the only way they can figure to counter their loss of status.

If they had built more C-17s and funded development of a real replacement for the A-10, maybe the Army and Marines would view the AF as a more valuable player to keep on first string offense.

 

[Mud Eagle]

If they had built more C-17s and funded development of a real replacement for the A-10, maybe the Army and Marines would view the AF as a more valuable player to keep on first string offense.

Man, I don't understand why the AF spends so much time and effort to send their officers to schools to learn about aerospace power. What a waste --

You've obviously got it all figured out when so many others who have spent their entire careers studying airpower have got it so wrong.

You're a serious airpower strategist. Respect!

 

[XShipRider]

My brother served 20 years in the Air Force so I refuse to jump on the put-down bandwagon. He garnered a Purple Heart by being blown up in the Khobar Towers bombing. It only took two surgeries to get his shoulders back to pseudo-normal but he still does not have full range of motion.

That said, I question why they're restructuring the workforce to accommodate the F-22. Who will maintain these birds? Contractors? Or is this a ploy to get what they want now then ask for a personnel increase down the road?

Mud Eagle, in reference to your post above: I freely admit I too am no air power strategist. I'm not denigrating the AF by asking my force level question. I simply don't understand the logic of their proposed personnel cuts.

Yeah, I know.. I'm a bit off topic.

 

[Mud Eagle]

I don't claim to completely understand the ins and outs of the CSAF's decisionmaking process, but I do get his rationale behind cutting manpower to modernize the fleet. It's not about the F-22...it's about the replacement tanker, a replacement CSAR helo, and several other aircraft, too. The overall age of the USAF fleet is unprecedented, and SOMETHING had to be done to throw a stake in the ground toward fixing the problem.

The AF mortgaged modernization of the fleet in the early 90s by counting on a "peace dividend" that would eventually open the flood gates to new money and new airframes. Well...that money never showed up, and here we are 15 years later with nothing significant to show for it.

So, I don't claim to know HOW the shrinking manpower of the force is going to be used as taskings continue to grow, but I do understand the dollars-and-cents rationale for needing to modernize the aircraft fleet across the board.

 

[Scrapdog]

I don't claim to completely understand the ins and outs of the CSAF's decisionmaking process, but I do get his rationale behind cutting manpower to modernize the fleet. It's not about the F-22...it's about the replacement tanker, a replacement CSAR helo, and several other aircraft, too. The overall age of the USAF fleet is unprecedented, and SOMETHING had to be done to throw a stake in the ground toward fixing the problem.

The AF mortgaged modernization of the fleet in the early 90s by counting on a "peace dividend" that would eventually open the flood gates to new money and new airframes. Well...that money never showed up, and here we are 15 years later with nothing significant to show for it.

So, I don't claim to know HOW the shrinking manpower of the force is going to be used as taskings continue to grow, but I do understand the dollars-and-cents rationale for needing to modernize the aircraft fleet across the board.

MudEagle has some great points here and I will mention one thing that people always seem to forget when talking about the F-22. The F-22 is very much needed in today's world, especially if the US is going to have the ability to fight countries with ever increasing technologies and the ability to fund them (i.e. China and India are two that come to mind right away). Will we ever go to war with either of these countries? Probably not, but never say never right? What was that adage about the F-4 not needing a gun in Vietnam because of our "advaned" air-air missles? Oh yeah, that's right - that failed miserably. Again, India will probably never be a real threat to the US, but China has the capability to be a real and credible threat very quickly. And has anyone been keeping up with China's surface to air integrated defense system lately? They're buying every double digit SAM that Russia can get them...and those double digit SAM's are very mean.

The F-22 with it's stealth, supercruise, extremely long precision guided bomb dropping ranges, and superior air-air avionics is a nasty customer when it's full up. It kicks all our 4th gen fighters a$$es with experienced pilots behind it's proverbial wheel, even when we take the cuffs off our "red air." Scenarios of 4 F-22's taking out 16 F-15/F-16's at range in not unheard of. In the long run, the F-22 will save us money as opposed to deplete us. We will be able to operate much more effeciently with less airplanes doing the job. The maintenance alone on some of our older F-15's is getting atrocious. And not to mention the most important point - the F-22 is the fighter we need to combat the increasingly sophisticated equipment our "potential" enemies are buying in droves.

I know Dave Griffin is a naysayer who has a personal grudge against AF fighter guys. That's fine though, reading his posts you'll learn quickly he is a buffoon that thinks CAS is the only mission that should ever be flown (which he isn't even a pilot by the way). But I will tell you, reading the latest intel on these countries and their equipment and developing tactics is a real eye opener.

 

[JimNtexas]

We need the F-22, but the present buy of ~180 airframes is plenty. We certainly don't need more F-22s than we have F-15E's now.

I can't see how any rational allocation could justify the ~380 Raptors the USAF has on its wish list.

The Soviet Horde is no more, the F-22 is 15 years late, it's crazy to underfund the F-35 to buy unneeded F-22s.

 

[Occam's Razor]

How many more F-15's over there due to the "surge"?

 

[Deuce130]

How many more F-15's over there due to the "surge"?

What's your point? No need to replace the F-15 due to the fact we haven't needed it lately? Pretty shortsighted view, IF that's your point. Besides the F-22 will end up having an air to ground role. If the F-15C sticks around, I'll bet it ends up having some kind of air to ground role also. Yep, the "B-word," will be unavoidable for Eagle Drivers!

As far as numbers of F-22's go, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's about the number of tails on the ramp. Any competent general will tell you the same thing. Just b/c one F-22 can do the work of 2 or 4 F-16s or F-15s doesn't mean you can do a 1 for 4 swap. Unless of course, we're going to reject the time honored doctrine of sending fighters into war in two ships or four ships and start sending single F-22s to fight off the hordes. I'm sure Magnum!! would be up to it, but I'm not sure that would be the best idea. But, by all means, let's make sure we fight the last war over and over. I mean, if it's not releveant in the GWOT then it would NEVER be relevant in the future, would it?

 

[dtfl]

What's your point? No need to replace the F-15 due to the fact we haven't needed it lately? Pretty shortsighted view, IF that's your point. Besides the F-22 will end up having an air to ground role. If the F-15C sticks around, I'll bet it ends up having some kind of air to ground role also. Yep, the "B-word," will be unavoidable for Eagle Drivers!

As far as numbers of F-22's go, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's about the number of tails on the ramp. Any competent general will tell you the same thing. Just b/c one F-22 can do the work of 2 or 4 F-16s or F-15s doesn't mean you can do a 1 for 4 swap. Unless of course, we're going to reject the time honored doctrine of sending fighters into war in two ships or four ships and start sending single F-22s to fight off the hordes. I'm sure Magnum!! would be up to it, but I'm not sure that would be the best idea. But, by all means, let's make sure we fight the last war over and over. I mean, if it's not releveant in the GWOT then it would NEVER be relevant in the future, would it?

You need to send your post to the present administration!!!
Also - read Cobra II and American Soldier, if you havent yet.The "new" idea is more with less - and reliance on technology..leveraging our strengths...attacking their COGs with precision weapons and relying on stealth so we need fewer fighters...
I am not so sure we WILL fight China.....heck they just passed a law to increase private ownership ..they are trying to become a new economic power.
Now Iran? Yep. Korea? Maybe. I think we need some F22s. However, I think we need to concentrate on the F35 like someone said earlier....and stop buying that piece of crap CV22 also. Wait on the Quad tilt rotor that can carry something. Sometimes I wonder how money gets spent and why.........

 

[JimNtexas]

I don't see the F-22 brings anything to the GWOT that cheaper airplanes can't do better. The GWOT is today's war, but its not the only war that's possible.

Four or five operational 24 UE squadrons of F-22s are enough for any foreseeable conflict.

 

[Scrapdog]

Four or five operational 24 UE squadrons of F-22s are enough for any foreseeable conflict.

As usual a very shortsighted comment from a man with a very shortsighted air to air/new technology precision guided weapon background. You are always beating your anti F-22 drum Jim...take my comment however you'd like.

 

[Birdstrike]

As usual a very shortsighted comment from a man with a very shortsighted air to air/new technology precision guided weapon background. You are always beating your anti F-22 drum Jim...take my comment however you'd like.

Congress is full of men and women with "very shortsighted air to air/new technology precision guided weapon backgrounds." And you'd better be able to make your case to laymen better than that. Jim's comments make sense to me and to the people like me, taxpayers, who holds Congress responsible for spending our money. $180 MILLION per airplane. That isn't chump change. Something like 83 are on hand and the Pentagon says it's willing to buy 183. Sec Wynne says the magic number is 381. Then they want to buy 1700+ JSFs. And we're building and selling F-16s to the UAE. How smart that is is another issue but Ma Kettle isn't going to understand why we need 381 airplanes at 180M each when Cousin Jethro's Guard unit can't get the next generation body armor for everyone in the unit. Maybe we do need 381, who knows. I'd just like to read a rational case for 381 other than "someday we may need it against China." We have things that ground units need today as well...have you seen the Army's bill for refitting it's rolling stock?

 

[Occam's Razor]

What's your point? No need to replace the F-15 due to the fact we haven't needed it lately? Pretty shortsighted view, IF that's your point.

Not exactly my point, but I agree it would be shortsighted if it was.

The Boo Boo du jour is the civil war we're refereeing in Iraq. Our Commander-In-Chief indicates we need more boots on the ground to be "victorious". Vast, potentially too vast, expenditures on an uber-Fighter will NOT put more boots on the ground. The last two manpower presentations to the Congress by the DoD indicated that troop levels, particularly ground troops, are a concern.

My point is that the focus should be on fixing a KNOWN problem before we focus on a potential future problem.

That's all.

I mean, if it's not releveant in the GWOT then it would NEVER be relevant in the future, would it?

Nah, you're reading too much into my comment. I say we shoot the bandit that's closest to us...the one with the highest Vc. Buy a few uber-Fighters, but focus on getting more grunts first.

Tangent: In a previous post, it was mentioned that a "Mirage Killer" posted here frequently. I also happen to know that a MiG killer from GWI has a few dozen posts here. A USNR 2-star does a fair bit of posting, as does a newly-nonimated USMCR BGen.

I think you'd be surprised by the "tone" of some of their posts if you knew what they did when they were away from this Forum.

 

[Scrapdog]

Congress is full of men and women with "very shortsighted air to air/new technology precision guided weapon backgrounds." And you'd better be able to make your case to laymen better than that. Jim's comments make sense to me and to the people like me, taxpayers, who holds Congress responsible for spending our money. $180 MILLION per airplane. That isn't chump change. Something like 83 are on hand and the Pentagon says it's willing to buy 183. Sec Wynne says the magic number is 381. Then they want to buy 1700+ JSFs. And we're building and selling F-16s to the UAE. How smart that is is another issue but Ma Kettle isn't going to understand why we need 381 airplanes at 180M each when Cousin Jethro's Guard unit can't get the next generation body armor for everyone in the unit. Maybe we do need 381, who knows. I'd just like to read a rational case for 381 other than "someday we may need it against China." We have things that ground units need today as well...have you seen the Army's bill for refitting it's rolling stock?

Wow Iceman, slow down.

First, I'm not sure on the correct number of F-22's either. I will tell you that once the F-22 gets all its bugs worked out (as always every new piece of equipment has issues initially), it'll be well worth the pricetag and more. I have fought the jet on multiple occasions and the thing is ridiculously impressive, BOTH in the air to air arena and on precision strike capabilities. Once the SDB comes on line for it (it already is full up on the F-15E), the capability for long range tactical strike from the F-22 is going to be gross (and I mean gross in a good way). And trying to fight that jet in the air to air arena (India, China, N. Korea are all very potential future adversaries) is like trying to fight with both arms behind your back (and that's letting us "bad" guys fight full up).

Second, I understand the need to face our current problems. I'm all about "near rocks/far rocks." However, we can't lollygag and think CAS all day because that's the flavor du jour. We need to think 10, 20 years down the road as well, and the jet to do the job is F-22, plain and simple.

Third, if you go back and read Jim's prior posts, his anti-F-22 propoganda is like a broken record. It's always the same garbage.."we're buying too many, it's not worth it, yada, yada..." this from a guy that has no clue on what the current tactics and intel are in today's military - nor did he ever have any serious background in the new precision strike technologies or the air to air arena. If you're going to talk the talk, then walk the walk - that's my mantra there.

And trust me, congress has been briefed on the F-22's capes many times...they've had plenty of "layman's terms" talks on it already. In the end, it comes down to money, bottom line. Who knows, with this new liberal congress (Nancy "stop funding for our troops" Pelosi and John "cut and run" Murtha), maybe they'll cut funding for all our military hardware altogether. Then we can go run up to the terrorits and try to hug them. Or better yet, let's fund another liberal social program to try and help the terrorists become better, more loving people.