USAF combat capability planners are useless.
Even if this program was funded properly we could have fought WWII in the time it would take them to put high-off-bore-sight cueing ability on the F-22.
Now? No more.
$140B per year to fund the USAF and...for what? Parked aircraft; low flying hours; faulty replacement of legacy fighters and poor upgrade planning of what we have.
Again: useless.
6 comments:
USAF should be put on a fixed allowance for new-build Combat aviation Procurement, whether in time of War or peace.
If in War time, adjusting Combat aviation budgets most likely wont affect the warfighting capacity anyway, as by the time said 'extra procured' aircraft actually make it into an operational Squadron, the War would most likely be over.
A baseline allowance could be set as the average USAF Combat aviation Procurement budget from say 1975 through 2014, adjusted for inflation.
A supplement for attrition aircraft or specialized combat-ready aircraft available on the market could naturally be added onto the base Procurement budget, as an add-on, during national emergency and open conflict.
But Congress should furthermore mandate to USAF, look... given your declared force structure requirements for US's national strategy, and based on the average service life of current jets and expected retirement dates of existing jets, factoring in surge time for wars, etc, you will further need to procure X number of operational-ready Combat aviation units per year over the next 5 years.
Simply adjust that mandated rate every 5 years based on evolving National Strategy and the required force structure; whether it's 5-10 fewer units per year, or 5-10 additional units per year, based on estimated requirements, etc.
Now if the USAF responds...
but, we can't reach our force structure requirements in terms of numbers and types of the jets we wish we can have, with the budget you are appropriating...
then Congress needs to simply say, true; revise your required force structure and Procurement/acquisition planning accordingly, to maximize the 'optimal' mix of capabilities and numbers of platforms you require -- but with a more sustainable and SUFFICIENT acquisition/recapitalization process!
Oh, OK.
You can't live on a $140 billion budget, just impossible...
The problem with seuqestration is that the Air Force was not allowed to chose where the cuts came from. So its not like they are cutting training hours for ivory back scratchers. Personnel for example are protected, or I am sure the USAF would be more than happen to shrink personnel.
Sequestration also affects the entire US Government, sot its not just a comment on the USAF
... but of course you all knew this already.
An absence of any strong 4-star flag rank to communicate what the USAF should be instead of platitude (along with help by the empty-suit Sec AF) does not help the matter either.
A Curtis LeMay would shape the USAF to what it should be with strong, credible conversations with the DOD boss and Congress. A bureaucrat promoted way beyond their skill level will not.
Very well said, Eric.
I wish that precise commentary you just made the effort to articulate on would get out into the mainstream... and maybe just help prompt such next-in-line destined leaders out there, waiting to step up and cease the moment -- for sake of service to Country!
God speed.
"A Curtis LeMay would shape the USAF to what it should be with strong, credible conversations with the DOD boss and Congress. "
Yes Lemay Jr. would have sat in on the executive/legislative branch budget crises meetings in 2011 and used his pure cigar chomping awesome to dictate policy to civilians dead locked in negotiations, to diffuse the sequestration time bomb due to hit a year and half in the future.
What is it with these panty-waists that take orders from civilian authorities these days?!
Post a Comment