Schwartz has been at the helm during a number of questionable actions.
Some claim he saw the USAF through increasing drone capability in the wars. The problem is that there are few supporting metrics to make this seem like a wise thing to do.
He (along with an empty suit of a Secretary of the USAF) helped kill the F-22 program. And, 380-some F-22s to support 10 AEFs was not a theory. It was a solid plan. By the way; this also killed the hope of a theater bomber we really needed in the Pacific, the FB-22.
He states that the F-35 is the way forward for tac-air but there isn't much to make this a great idea. The jet is late, has huge problems, is overly expensive (to the point of where USAF will never see 1763 F-35s let alone a few hundred) and is obsolete. Interesting, whether he knew it or not, he stated the aircraft was obsolete the other day:
Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, told members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee Tuesday that reducing the combat radius of the F-35A by five miles is more cost-effective than modifying the fighter to meet performance goals set a decade ago.
Over a decade actually. The JSF JORD is for an aircraft that will not be able to take on modern threats. It also assumed we would have enough F-22s to do the work needed.
Long term deterrence in the Pacific is now problematic.
Schwartz also ruined a promising C-27 capability for the Army and USAF by killing the program. He stated that there were not any airfields in Afghanistan that couldn't be serviced by a C-130. Where was all this great analysis some years ago when all the brainiacs thought the C-27 was a good idea? In any event, a sensible replacement for the Army's C-23 (of which I think is an uninspired POS) is now gone. Not very helpful. As long as we will only fight in Afghanistan, Schwartz is our guy. Oh wait. We are pulling out.
Over 10 years into a COIN warfare environment, USAF can't field a simple prop-driven CAS aircraft without screwing up the contract. There is also the KC-46 tanker contract which was almost Nunn-McCurdy material before the ink was dry.
The USAF future is in trouble. I don't know where we'll be then, but we won't smell too good thats for sure. General Schwartz IS an air power problem.
26 comments:
First rate assessments, Eric, on every point. Highly relevant. Somebody has to say it as sensibly as this, as critical as it is.
An Air Force Chief that is not traditionally a fighter or bomber pilot. Put in place by Gates to mend AF/Army relations after the AF ripped it from the Army.
What has been done in that time? The AF has proposed cancelling the C27. So much for mending the rift. The F22 has been cancelled (via Gates I might add).
Imagine if the Army had a Chief that had only ever served in Supply? Wonder how well that would go?
Schwartz is a Gates sock puppet still still driving the boat but with no defective master guiding his actions anymore.
Any bets on how long it will take the USAF to screw up the new bomber program with this brainwave at the helm?
“Schwartz also ruined a promising C-27 capability for the Army and USAF by killing the program.”
The U.S. Air Force announced it would end the program earlier this month after spending $1.6 billion for 21 aircraft, 12 of which have been delivered, four in final assembly and testing, and five in production...Officials simply concluded they could meet mission requirements with their fleet of C-130 and C-17 transports.
Lockheed Martin first partnered with Alenia on the C-27J, only to abandon the program when it concluded it would compete with Lockheed’s four-engine C-130J - the Spartan is comparatively a little Herc with 3 times Caribou payload capacity but not the same STOL performance.
I disagree that the Spartan is a worthwhile capability. Both US and Australian defence planners are in denial regarding the necessity for STOL airlift. Consider this extract from a comprehensive US Army analysis of Vietnam War operations:
“It (the Caribou) did perform a logistics role in a gross weight and performance category that was unique. The next plane in size was the C-123B which had a gross weight of 55,700 pounds compared to the Caribou's 28,500 pounds, and the single wheel load of the C-123 was almost double that of the Caribou. Consequently, the Caribou could operate repeatedly and routinely into airfields that were denied to the C-123 and later the C-130. For example, in 1963, the Caribou could operate into 77 percent of all airstrips in Vietnam while the C-123 was limited to just 11 percent of these airfields...During my visit to Vietnam in August 1964 (LTGEN John J. Tolson), the only complaint I heard about the Caribou was that there weren't enough of them.”
World geography does not change and there will always be airfield adequacy limitations in remote areas of the world, as for the rugged regional wet tropics archipelago adjacent to Australia.
The C-27 would not be an adequate replacement for the STOL Caribou (or a BT-67 turbo-Dakota), no matter who operates them.
The Caribou transfer decision from US Army to USAF was a joint decision enabling the Army to move into the heavier lift helo field. Post-Vietnam, their emphasis has been on winding down their fixed wing assets and focusing more on a rotary wing structure.
Bushranger, I see in the august(ie grand) journal AA, that several ex RAAF Caribous (a herd) will be converted to PT6 powered beasts for commercial use.
Two as is go to Hars. Is it not amazing that after Angus said they were asbestos riddled and the airframe are wrecks, that they can actually fly again.
Me thinks he tells fibbies.
Re: The Caribou.
Seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbbLrIfA_sU
If your Air Force can't do the job, pay some contractors with a 50 yr old plane to do it instead.
- mike j
Steady Mike J. The RAAF operators of the Caribou did an outstanding job over 8 years in Vietnam and subsequently throughout the rugged wet tropics archipelago near Australia. It was DoD planners, including some Service Chiefs, who shed the capability.
Interestingly, both the Federal Government and Opposition very recently declined to institute tighter controls on the 4,000 registered lobbyists in Canberra, many of whom are involved with defence industry on staggering financial rewards. Among this crowd are numerous high ranking military Officers whose loyalties have changed. It is pretty easy to connect the dots regarding what big multi-national corporation is pushing the C-27 for Australia and who represents them.
Bushranger 71-
My bitterness leaked out sideways, there. No offense intended to those crews, it's plain to see how competent they are, and the 50 yr old crate is still perfect for the mission.
"Loyalties have changed" sums it up well. That's why we have to hire out the mission.
- mike j
Absolutely spot-on analysis of the problem, whether people really GET IT or not... The big contractors being able to manipulate International buyers, contracts, and the American public via political "pull" is unthinkable... When that pull comes from people who don't know jack about a defense strategy and have their eye on making a buck and adding a line on their resume, well that's just immoral and pathetic. Unbelievable that we've gone from producing the greatest air dominance platform in history to the realization that WHEN the Pak Fa and S-400 and SU-35 and Eurofighter and Rafale are spread across the Pac Rim in huge numbers, we're gunna have 130 Raptors and whatever's left of the F-15 fleet supporting a bunch of crippled -35s... I suppose the F-35 fan club in WA will be sitting there going "OK, Raptor, let's see what you can do, go get us air dominance so we can drop some bombs at night"... Sickening!
Can the F35 actually fly at night?
Not now, but maybe someday........
That utube video shows something else. Flys faster, flys further,completes simple missions, and costs a fraction of the Chinook.
OUCH!!! But as usual your analysis is spot on.
F-35 flew at night a while ago now.
Yep, took off st 6.15 pm and landed half an hour later in the twilight.
That is night flying.
It's not moving backwards....
It's how any aircraft flies at night for the first time.
IOC 2012?
It flew at night after 7 years in testing.My goodness Lord.
Also when can it fly in the rain, the heat and in a storm?
2020?
No, obviously no IOC 2012. IOC is now 2018 and it may slip to 2020! But flying in rain, heat and storms will happen as the program continues to move forward.
Good news is there are already way more F-35s than SU-34s and SU-35s :).
One problem with that Lord.
The Su35 and Su34 actually work as advertised, and will be breeding in numbers in the near future.
They can also fly at night, in the rain and through storms.
One problem with that Lord.
The Su35 and Su34 actually work as advertised, and will be breeding in numbers in the near future.
They can also fly at night, in the rain and through storms.
Lord Flasheart said...
"It's how any aircraft flies at night for the first time."
It took 11 years for the F-35 to fly at night for the first time? How many years did it take the F-15 or F-16 to fly at night for the first time?
Also, by 2020 there will likely be similar if not more operational Su-34 + Su-35 in service than operational F-35A in USAF service.
Think... then post, is usually how it works best.
Everyone seems to have missed the Chinese interest and orders so far for the Su35.
Imagine what happens when they clone it.
Sorry Lord.
Yeah, I'm the one who posted the blasting of the F-35 and the night flying, etc. hehe
Yes, the SU-35 will likely go to China soon (provided they'll actually sign a "non-disclosure" agreement (good luck with that, Russia)
Frustrating as hell when you look at what the F-22 pogram actually produced (greatest air superiority platform), under the conditions they produced it (required milestones before LRIP was granted - What has the F-35 been frced to produce, the damn thing can't even fly), in the timeframe they produced it (first prototype accepted in 1991 with NO weapons/avionics to speak of ; 6 years later first production-rep airframe rolled out; 5 years later combat-coded airframes; 3 years later IOC) So 14 years total from prototype to IOC, and since then, it's capabilities has increased to include ground attack against IADS, etc.) Compare that to the F-35; 11 years into the program after 1st prototype, when the F-22 was coming off the line for delivery/operational testing, the F-35 can't even get off (and stay off) the ground and fire a weapon, something the -22 did VERY early on. After all that, the -22 was deemed too expensive (hell, it can drop bombs and take on ANY IADS components, and do it for about the same we're paying for a broken -35), was accused of being LATE (That's what happens when you have a near-complete design and decide to mandate additional milestones so that the -35 doesn't have competition), and then snow-balled for not being "flexible" like the F-35 and not having been used in any wars (you want to talk about flexibility Gates, really? How flexible is an F-35 that can't get off the ground? And how many bombs has the -35 dropped in our current war-itis?) Really quite pathetic. The -35 around 2020 will just be reaching legitimate IOC, and that's assuming we forget about real DAS and HMDS integrtation everyone was so gung-ho about... What kind of fool do you have to be to buy the argument that we and our allies need a plane so bad RIGHT NOW that we should wait another 10 years for it while we insist there are no other options, all the while buying unproven, non-combat coded airframes because that's how you drive costs down? Unbelievable!
Why do we need it right now?
Legacy platforms are doing just fine. I can't see the time imperative.
My dear lord(where have I heard that from)
They have run out of airframe hours, have legacy avionics etc.
Recently Gen Schwartz testified before Congress that there were no AIRFIELDS in Afghanistan where the C-27J flew that the C-130 could not also use. In USAF parlance if you changed the word "airfield" to "landing zone" you might get an entirely different answer. That is if he were to be honest.
Post a Comment