Air Force Article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080222/us_time/theairforcereachesforthesky
I'm a little disgruntled at this article. It's basically bashing the Air Force for requesting more for its budget.
A few notes:
We recently downsized our forces by 10%, so we're having to do more with less. That means that we're having to reinvent programs and change equipment to compensate for this loss of manning.
Our aircraft are old. I mean, old. Our B52 bombers are from the 50s and 60s. Our fighters (F15-16) are from the 70s. Our cargo aircraft are ancient. We're spending too much money just with upkeep that could be spent on buying new stuff. And with our wearing items, it takes more people to maintain them, because of how they were built and how much they break.
New equipment means less breakage and less people to maintain. The team to manage an F15 is significantly larger than that to maintain an F22 because of how its built. Less manpower means less money spent on salaries. Doing more with less.
It keeps talking about the ground war. Most people don't realize it, but we ARE in the ground war. We do close air support. We do reconnaissance. Our troops are on the ground with the other branches; our special ops, our medics, our guys.
The Air Force has taken over the Army's convoys to lighten up their taskings so they can get more boots on the ground. We are running their vehicles. We are getting shot at, we are getting IED'd. I think we're justified in requesting new weapons for this purpose.
As far as the experts predicting that all wars will now be 'unconventional wars', that's just a prediction. As long as there are mechanized militaries (especially ones that don't like us), then it would irresponsible to keep not keep the capability to meet them in combat. The Air Force's objectives includes being able to fight in a two-front war and win one of them decisively.
Any thoughts?
-Dr 9
I'm a little disgruntled at this article. It's basically bashing the Air Force for requesting more for its budget.
A few notes:
We recently downsized our forces by 10%, so we're having to do more with less. That means that we're having to reinvent programs and change equipment to compensate for this loss of manning.
Our aircraft are old. I mean, old. Our B52 bombers are from the 50s and 60s. Our fighters (F15-16) are from the 70s. Our cargo aircraft are ancient. We're spending too much money just with upkeep that could be spent on buying new stuff. And with our wearing items, it takes more people to maintain them, because of how they were built and how much they break.
New equipment means less breakage and less people to maintain. The team to manage an F15 is significantly larger than that to maintain an F22 because of how its built. Less manpower means less money spent on salaries. Doing more with less.
It keeps talking about the ground war. Most people don't realize it, but we ARE in the ground war. We do close air support. We do reconnaissance. Our troops are on the ground with the other branches; our special ops, our medics, our guys.
The Air Force has taken over the Army's convoys to lighten up their taskings so they can get more boots on the ground. We are running their vehicles. We are getting shot at, we are getting IED'd. I think we're justified in requesting new weapons for this purpose.
As far as the experts predicting that all wars will now be 'unconventional wars', that's just a prediction. As long as there are mechanized militaries (especially ones that don't like us), then it would irresponsible to keep not keep the capability to meet them in combat. The Air Force's objectives includes being able to fight in a two-front war and win one of them decisively.
Any thoughts?
-Dr 9