vagabond

From Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - Air Force officials are warning that unless their budget is increased dramatically, and soon, the military's high-flying branch won't dominate the skies as it has for decades.

After more than seven years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Air Force's aging jet fighters, bombers, cargo aircraft and gunships are at the breaking point, they say, and expensive, ultramodern replacements are needed fast.

"What we've done is put the requirement on the table that says, 'If we're going to do the missions you're going to ask us to do, it will require this kind of investment,'" Maj. Gen. Paul Selva, the Air Force's director of strategic planning, said in an interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23223286/

dtfl

" "We are literally flying the wings off these two airplanes," said Brig. Gen. Brad Heithold, director of the command's plans, programs, requirements and assessments office at Hurlburt Field, Fla.

There are only 20 Combat Talons and 17 AC-130Us. This small fleet is in heavy demand by special operations forces around the globe. In 2001, the AC-130Us flew just over 5,200 hours. The gunships logged more than 9,000 hours in 2007. It's comparable, Heithold said, to putting 70,000 miles on a car in a single year instead of a more normal 12,000 miles.

At any given time, several of the Combat Talons or AC-130Us could be in the depot being fixed. That means there are fewer available to fly critical missions. Training flights are also curtailed.

Heithold called the situation a "manageable crisis," but said serious problems could emerge if more money isn't provided for extended improvements and new aircraft over the next few years.

"Any time you have a small number of airplanes that the appetite for continually increases, it's hard to meet the demand," Heithold said. "If we don't wrestle with this now, it's a looming problem out there."
"



Gen Heithold is my old CC....he is right about the planes. They forgot to mention the Talon Is and AC130Hs they are flying also. I guess he figured they are just too old to mention.

This article's title should be changed to "AF domination of the battlespace at risk" since the Air to ground role and SOF role could start to suffer....although, of course, the article is about F22s and F35s. Thats the AF PA at work.

AZFlyer

1,800 F-35s? Holy smokes.

rickair7777

Yup, people take that for granted. Same with heavy armor and submarines. I'm particularly annoyed at military officers who do that...it's called losing sight of the big picture.

rickair7777

How many F-16's do we have? I think it's in that ballpark?

GunnF16

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article23.html

F-16.net puts it at 2230.

Deuce130

In addition to the equipment, it's high time the AF took a long, hard look at how we manage our people. Like many have said on these boards, the typical career path of our pilots doesn't lead to excellence in the cockpit. The typical AF pilot has his/her best years at around the 6-8 year mark, that's when they're flying the most, talking shop the most, and focusing on the mission. Then, they get taken out of that role for career broadening crap. Imagine if those guys could stay where they're at, in the cockpit, throughout their 30's and 40's? They'd be awesome.

I remember being at a RF with some Brit -130 crews. The copilot was the youngest guy and he looked to be around 35. The pilot and nav were both old, fat, and gray haired. And they were awesome! Probably because they were professional officers AND pilots.

Tanker-driver

Duce, I have said the same thing on these forums a few times, and there are plenty of others who agree with us. In fact, it seems that the CGOs and younger Majors have a better grasp than the so called leadership of the train-wreck that's coming. Wonder why that is? My theory is that there is some sort of cool-aid induced chemical labotomy that takes place at ACSC (actually they start at SOS). Why does career broadening come before the mission? I've heard so many CCs state "if you take care of your people, the mission will take care of itself. Not true. We've got to start focusing more on the mission and less on the careers. Newsflash: we can't all be chiefs!

130flyer

I've got 2 words for you all: Warrant Officers! That is their sole job, to be the experts in the cockpit. They make up the majority of the pilots. They are the MTPs, IPs, safety, standardization... If you want to be a commander, go commissioned. If you want to fly, be a warrant. It's really not that difficult to solve. Cheap labor, maybe but if you only want to fly... and not go to year long schools only to realize you don't want a command, then it's simple.

BDGERJMN

The CWO flying program the Navy started does nothing more than take flight time away from Junior Officers and Department Heads alike in an environment already consumed with 'costwise readiness' and 'Naval Aviation Enterprise' blah blah blah. While it does give a handful of individuals the chance to fly when they might not have been able to otherwise, its a bad idea IMHO. Given the construct of Naval Aviation, to change it midstream is counter productive. The average JO leaving his/her first tour now has much less flight time accrued than their counterparts of 5-10 years ago yet are still expected to perform at the highest possible standards. The only way to keep those standards high is to fly. Enjoy those precious hours you get as a CWO and remember that for every hour you fly, you are making your fellow aviator who may have aspirations of command that much less qualified to lead in the cockpit from sheer lack of experience. Not to mention that several buddies teaching in the training command have indicated the CWO's are having a very hard time. Not sure if that's the case or not, but the cheap labor you mention is quickly negated by the cost of extra training sims/flights to 'get the CWOs' through the program.