USAF in trouble?

Yossarian

Forum Resistance Leader
I don't know, but maybe it is a bad year for the USAF, (literally) Their have been small number of acidents, one involving a Stealth aircraft, and a B 52 that went down with all hands Ive heard.

Also I have heard a F 15 nose popping off last year with a Air Guard unit. Also I have heard rumors of Air Force Missile Command staff sleeping in the silo launch room. Now the also media overated missing nuclear missiles on the B 52 incident.

I dont know what's up, at first with the accidents I thought it might be underfunding. I know that USAF maintanece would not just let a plane that is not fit to fly get airborne. But, then I also thought that is also may be just inactivity.

Let's face it, although the USAF is involved in TWAT, their just hasn't been a air war, or (thank goodness) a nuclear war. Which is what propelled USAF to be one the best through the cold war. Keeping up with the Soviets kept the USAF at a constant rate of work, and even two wars involving major air combat and aerial operations. Plus the constant patrols of Statregic bombers, satelites and fighter planes, I suppose (more of less guestimate)kept aiforce staff, from top brass to one or two stripers on their toes.

TWAT just doen't offer a Airmen's ideal fighting conditions and types of warfare. USAF can go anywhere, and give ground support, but it just doen't fit USAF's capabilites perfectly. Like a 1st world enemy would (like the Soveits were.)

So that's my theory, inactivity caused by ground pounder warfare in TWAT and the untapped capabilities of the USAF,which let's face, half not been fully delpoyed or utilized in actual fighting since the first Gulf War. ( which for strategic missile Air Force staff, that's a good thing, and I hope it stays that way!)

Any USAF persons here, or just anyone familiar with military airpower have something comment, then please feel free to post your thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Lack of discipline and hardware getting old it seems.

I think that's correct on both counts. Look at the USAF, they have only 1 modern Airframe the F-22 thats actually in limited service.

A-10 (1970s)
C-17 (1970s)
C-130 (Vietnam War)
B-52 (post Korean War)
B-1 (1980s)
B-2 (1980s)
F-15 (1970)
F-16 (1980)
E-3 (1970s)
E-4 (Upgraded Boeing 747 -1970s)
E-8 JSTARS (Upgraded Boeing 707 - 1950s)
HH-53 (Vietnam War)
UH-1N (Vietnam War)

Now in fairness, they have many new designs such as the F-35 and the CV-22 in various states of devolpment, but as it stands now the reliability problems are not a surprise.
 
They really should think about stamping out the same planes from existing factories. Most of these aircraft designs are going to be effective for another twenty or thirty years at the least.

How difficult could that be? It'd be cheaper than coming up with some super futuristic crap that doesn't work half the time.
 
They really should think about stamping out the same planes from existing factories. Most of these aircraft designs are going to be effective for another twenty or thirty years at the least.

How difficult could that be? It'd be cheaper than coming up with some super futuristic crap that doesn't work half the time.


Like the countless projects of the 50s and 60s.
 
I think that, in our lifetimes, the Air Force will begin to see the end of its usefulness as a global fighting force. I'm not saying this because I'm Navy, I'm saying it because it's true. Unless we hit a large-scale conflict with an air power, the Air Force as we know it is going to go the way of the dodo.
 
They really should think about stamping out the same planes from existing factories. Most of these aircraft designs are going to be effective for another twenty or thirty years at the least.

How difficult could that be? It'd be cheaper than coming up with some super futuristic crap that doesn't work half the time.

But the problem is that there are better airplanes out there coming from both Europe and Russia, and that the US older designs could be at a serious disadvantage in a military confict.

The problem of the USAF is getting remedied, but I think they were alittle slow in implimented these remedies.
 
I think that, in our lifetimes, the Air Force will begin to see the end of its usefulness as a global fighting force. I'm not saying this because I'm Navy, I'm saying it because it's true. Unless we hit a large-scale conflict with an air power, the Air Force as we know it is going to go the way of the dodo.

Perhaps. When we say "the end of its usefulness" in regards to the USAF, are we referring to their practical utility or their strategic? Practically, I would agree, USAF had/has no equal and generally will be unchallenged without a large opposing force with a similar sized Airforce. Thus their utility is minimal and is relegated to CAS for "ground pounder warfare".

Strategically, however, I would say that they are essential to maintain and ensure proper training and discipline standards. A large and capable Airforce with the ability to destroy enemy threats before they ever reach US soil is a MUST in terms of both employment and the ever-present idea of deterrance.

Back to the concept of the USAF getting themselve in trouble, absolutely. The AF has had a series of problems and accidents recently that are bringing them under intense amounts of scrutiny. I would say yes, the AF keeps finding ways to get caught with their pants down. I would say yes, their is surely going to be some shaking up in their leadership and hopefully their standards and discipline.

Having lived on joint bases, I will say from my non-USAF experience, that there is a distinct difference in the levels of discipline, training, physical fitness, and work standards from Army to Airforce. I am sure there are variations from command to command and job to job, but the differences I see in everyday encounters with our sister service give me pause.

I am sure someone will take this to heart and think I am picking on the USAF, and that is certainly not my intention. My point is this: the break downs in procedure and protocol that have been occuring recently sound like they derive from a common source: waning discipline. A group of officers carrying nuclear launch codes fall asleep before even arranging trans to their drop off point? Unacceptable. That is the stuff privates are made of. Certainly not one I would trust with such a delicate job.
 
well, i wouldent say its going to go the way of the dodo. even with no opposing air force striking a large country takes alot of aircraft, manned or unmanned.
 
The face of the Air Force may change but it won't go away. That'd be stupid.
I remember when I stood guard and stuff or had duty. All the things I did to keep myself from falling asleep. And I didn't even have live ammo at that time. And these guys fall asleep with codes for nukes...
 
Cost of a single Tomahawk Cruise Missile = $900,000 per missile.

Cost of a F-16C Block 52 = $18 Million but that excludes the ordinance, fuel and the cost to train the pilot (about another $1 Million).

Cruise Missiles are more difficult to intercept, are expendable and easy to replace, have a range of 2500KM (thats roughly 1/2 across the Atlantic Ocean), offers zero risk to the operator, and cost about fraction of a conventional aircraft.

So it isnt hard to see why the USAF might look away from manned aircraft.
 
And I'd say the unmanned vehicle is the future as well.
First off, when you take out an enemy's ability to sustain a war effort (i.e. take out factories, radar stations, supply lines, bridges etc.) it's pretty much a set piece game that UAVs would probably do a better job of.
UAVs also can be smaller and can be made stealth a lot easier than manned aircraft as well.
Air to air issues? Like mmarsh said, you can field a heck of a lot more UAVs in the place of one F-16. Even if the F-16 (or F-22 or whatever) is far better than a UAV head to head, the sheer number of UAVs will probably prevail since a lot of the fight now has to do with missile and radar technology. It won't be like a F-15 vs MiG-23 sort of lop sided fight.
Truth is, I can see how a UAV cockpit can have more visibility than a regular fighter. You can have the "pilot" sit in a sphere that is linked to the cameras on board the UAV that show a full spherical view around the UAV. Have some backward shooting sidewinders if you want to do some really wild stuff I guess.
Also it means that you won't be losing many pilots at all.
 
Well, maybe a gradual reformation of the USAF's goals and duties defending our nation.

As for the present, like I said earlier , their is no superpower that challenges the skies. I mean, most world air powers, are our allies, so that only leaves very few nations with the capability to field and support a large air combat group, and a even smaller number to want to use it to challenge the U.S.

Even if the U.S. went toe to toe with them in combat, it's common procedure for a attacking country to destroy enemy airfields and cut off all hope of intercepts later on in the fighting. Let's face it, not many nations have aircraft carriers to fill the gap, but taking care of them is the Navy's responsiblitity.

Ok, I will go a head and say it, I am straying a bit:eek:fftopic:
 
Still, for transport and heavy bombing, the Air Force can't be beat. As long as they don't crash another bomber that costs enough that I could almost buy a new aircraft carrier instead of replacing it...
 
Well, maybe a gradual reformation of the USAF's goals and duties defending our nation.

As for the present, like I said earlier , their is no superpower that challenges the skies. I mean, most world air powers, are our allies, so that only leaves very few nations with the capability to field and support a large air combat group, and a even smaller number to want to use it to challenge the U.S.

Even if the U.S. went toe to toe with them in combat, it's common procedure for a attacking country to destroy enemy airfields and cut off all hope of intercepts later on in the fighting. Let's face it, not many nations have aircraft carriers to fill the gap, but taking care of them is the Navy's responsiblitity.

Ok, I will go a head and say it, I am straying a bit:eek:fftopic:
I dont agree with that. In 2005 we flew wargames against Indian MiG-30 and Mirages-2000 and got totally trounced. The fact is that the US has not fought an enemy with a Modern Air Force since the Korean War. And when I say modern I am talking about the pilots as well as the aircraft. The only oppenents we have fought against are Arabs which have consistantly lost every battle they fought.

Might be a different story against someone more competant.
 
It's got to be a discipline thing - it's certainly not a general lack of training. Aviators have always been more lax than personnel with other designators, maybe that culture in the Air Force has been taken a little too far.
 
I don't think so, even in the Air Force I bet their are some still hardliner indivuals (seasoned NCOs, Experianced Officers). Those individuals will shed some disicpline on their subordinates and maybe their collegues.

But, you are right on one thing, I am noticing more and more that the Air Force, seems more businesslike than the other branches. Between all the protoype projects, and all the private industry involvement, the USAF tends to have a less military , and more corporation type feel. But, the fact reamains, they are still a uniformed service, and must act acordingly.

I don't think that the Air Force should tighten up and mimick for say the U.S. Army, or Marines disciplinary procedures. Thier bit laxed regs, make them unique among the branches, just, there are some jobs that using common sense require a tightened bit of conduct and awareness. And there is a right time and a right place for everything.

(just got news of a F 15 D going down at Red Flag. This seems to be a sign of a trend for the Eagle's aging airframe. I did'nt want to double post so....)
 
Last edited:
It's got to be a discipline thing - it's certainly not a general lack of training. Aviators have always been more lax than personnel with other designators, maybe that culture in the Air Force has been taken a little too far.

Have you served with Air Force personnell? I just finished 3 weeks of fairly advanced training with them they know thier business and are a good bunch of kids.

I do have issues with the senior NCOs leadership but not the troops I had the pleasure serving with I might ad that this was the first time I spend time with AF personnel.

A point you may also want to consider as you nail the lid close on the USAF is that many Senior NCOs in the AF feel that the lines between the ARMY, MARINES, and AIR FORCE are begining to blur and those services will begin to be melded into one military service.
 
Last edited:
Have you served with Air Force personnell? I just finished 3 weeks of fairly advanced training with them they know thier business and are a good bunch of kids.

I do have issues with the senior NCOs leadership but not the troops I had the pleasure serving with I might ad that this was the first time I spend time with AF personnel.

A point you may also want to consider as you nail the lid close on the USAF is that many Senior NCOs in the AF feel that the lines between the ARMY, MARINES, and AIR FORCE are begining to blur and those services will begin to be melded into one military service.

I have. I also have a brother a daughter and apparently a future son in law that are zoomies. So I'll give you my opinion on this.

The Air Force is a different culture than any of the other armed services. Their NCO's are trained not to be hard liners but more like consulers. My daughter was a Marine Corps Brat for the first 5 years of her life and lived with me until she shipped for Lackland. She said she was expecting the worst and it never came. So NCO's in the Air Force ain't like NCO's or PO's they are just different.

They probably do have some hard corps NCO'S in certain fields like CCT, PJ and maybe Security Forces (they like to say SF and I think we all know why>) but as a whole they are just different.

I'd say the NCO's and officers in the AF that are predicting a melding of the Army, Marines and AF need to stop going to services at the Chapel of Curtis LeMay and get into the real world....again. They have been preaching this antiqueted BS since 49. They want control of all land based air assets. They screwed the Army out of most of their fixed wing assets then and now they want the Marine Fixed and Rotary wing as well as the Army rotary wing.

They are not melding. The USAF can conduct limited ground operations with their Security Forces but they are no where near the caliber of the Army, Marine counterparts.

The USAF still is struggling with the air ground combat team concept. They have gotten better, but only because the present war's have made them accept that Strategic and Tactical air also have to take into account CAS & CIFS. Concepts the Army, Marines and Navy have understood since at least Vietnam

So in short the USAF is long on techie culture and short on warrior culture.

As far as them thinking they will meld into the USA or USMC I'll DX that .
 
Back
Top