Our USAF is now unable to do their jobs.

[marcusluvsvols]

Divesting Fighters Now Undermines USAF's Capacity to 'Fight and Win' Later

The Pentagon must invest in the USAF, specifically the Air National Guard, to defend the homeland, writes retired Maj. Gen. Philip Killey.

www.airandspaceforces.com

As an AF brat* (never actually lived with my Dad full time nor on base so in name only) whose Dad retired a Colonel and Pappaw a Master Sergeant each with 26 years of service....this article makes me want to throw up honestly.

Couple facts that jump off the page:

- all our fixed wing fighters really except the F35s are very old airframes. I dont mean the designs...some like the F15 F16 etc were so far ahead of their times that they still can dominate 99% of what the rest of the world is flying. I mean the actual planes themselves. All are overworked and high hours, therefore need way more maintenance to stay in the air.

- we now have only 2176 fighters TOTAL as a country versus 4500+ we had in 1990!?!

- the primary mission of our military...to secure the homeland 24/7....is performed 94%(!?!) Of the time by the Air Natl Guard and not the USAF. Which means these planes are even older, usually much older than what the active duty pilots are flying.


Oh...and while i am morally with the Ukraine people since Russia is the belligerent invading them....lets say a new run of F16s were necessary (gotta do something soon) and we could procure those with updated radars/tech/ total domain networking suite for about $50 million each (Russia reportedly builds their most advanced, and much larger SU35s for about $48M each for domestic use) Do you guys understand HOW MANY fighters we could buy with JUST the $50Billion we sent Ukraine in the last gift????

1000 of them.

Yes, we could basically increase by HALF the amount of fighters we now have from 2176 to about 3176 with just the very last huge gift of taxpayers hard earned wages that our elected Congress gave to Ukraine just in our most recent payment of which I am aware.

Chew on that for a few. It doesn't sit well with me at all. Also, while all the services are really struggling in recruiting except for the Marines recently there is never a shortage of guys who want to be pilots. Ever. Its easier to get into Harvard or Yale than to get accepted at Colorado Springs and THEN beat out 95% or more of the other best and brightest in your class to be 1 of the handful that actually get to put their butts in a supersonic jet fighter. The rest fly tankers and cargo. We have the most wasteful, ridiculous clownshow of a government in our nations entire history overrunning their budgets for Trillions of $ every year now....and yet our military is rotting on the vine?

 

[AM64]

Divesting Fighters Now Undermines USAF's Capacity to 'Fight and Win' Later

The Pentagon must invest in the USAF, specifically the Air National Guard, to defend the homeland, writes retired Maj. Gen. Philip Killey.

www.airandspaceforces.com

As an AF brat* (never actually lived with my Dad full time nor on base so in name only) whose Dad retired a Colonel and Pappaw a Master Sergeant each with 26 years of service....this article makes me want to throw up honestly.

Couple facts that jump off the page:

- all our fixed wing fighters really except the F35s are very old airframes. I dont mean the designs...some like the F15 F16 etc were so far ahead of their times that they still can dominate 99% of what the rest of the world is flying. I mean the actual planes themselves. All are overworked and high hours, therefore need way more maintenance to stay in the air.

- we now have only 2176 fighters TOTAL as a country versus 4500+ we had in 1990!?!

- the primary mission of our military...to secure the homeland 24/7....is performed 94%(!?!) Of the time by the Air Natl Guard and not the USAF. Which means these planes are even older, usually much older than what the active duty pilots are flying.


Oh...and while i am morally with the Ukraine people since Russia is the belligerent invading them....lets say a new run of F16s were necessary (gotta do something soon) and we could procure those with updated radars/tech/ total domain networking suite for about $50 million each (Russia reportedly builds their most advanced, and much larger SU35s for about $48M each for domestic use) Do you guys understand HOW MANY fighters we could buy with JUST the $50Billion we sent Ukraine in the last gift????

1000 of them.

Yes, we could basically increase by HALF the amount of fighters we now have from 2176 to about 3176 with just the very last huge gift of taxpayers hard earned wages that our elected Congress gave to Ukraine just in our most recent payment of which I am aware.

Chew on that for a few. It doesn't sit well with me at all. Also, while all the services are really struggling in recruiting except for the Marines recently there is never a shortage of guys who want to be pilots. Ever. Its easier to get into Harvard or Yale than to get accepted at Colorado Springs and THEN beat out 95% or more of the other best and brightest in your class to be 1 of the handful that actually get to put their butts in a supersonic jet fighter. The rest fly tankers and cargo. We have the most wasteful, ridiculous clownshow of a government in our nations entire history overrunning their budgets for Trillions of $ every year now....and yet our military is rotting on the vine?

We've successfully made it too expensive to fight a war by removing common sense and oversight from weapons development and procurement. The even more frightening thing is that the smaller numbers of newer planes aren't reliable and maintainable ... and that's before they even see action in battle while flying routinely from remote bases requiring long logistic lines.

I'm an AF brat, too, and grew up thinking the ANG was very much second string; but when it comes to air defense, I'm no longer of that opinion. I read a bit in a book not too long ago when an AF pilot was going to fly an ANG plane at an exercise. The pilot commented on the pristine state of the plane and being told by the crew chief not to put his boots on the seat. He asked the crew chief how much time he had maintaining the plane. The crew chief answered something like "You mean how much time maintaining this airplane, or this type?" That pretty much said it all. I've seen ex-Navy nuke types come into nuclear plants and try changing maintenance to something like the way the Navy does it rather than recognizing the plant guys have been there a long time and know damn well what they are doing, and an ex-Navy puke should keep his mouth shut. There's just something to be said for the same people doing the same work on the same equipment day in and day out; you get to know the quirks pretty well.

 

[TNVOLNAVY]

Divesting Fighters Now Undermines USAF's Capacity to 'Fight and Win' Later

The Pentagon must invest in the USAF, specifically the Air National Guard, to defend the homeland, writes retired Maj. Gen. Philip Killey.

www.airandspaceforces.com

As an AF brat* (never actually lived with my Dad full time nor on base so in name only) whose Dad retired a Colonel and Pappaw a Master Sergeant each with 26 years of service....this article makes me want to throw up honestly.

Couple facts that jump off the page:

- all our fixed wing fighters really except the F35s are very old airframes. I dont mean the designs...some like the F15 F16 etc were so far ahead of their times that they still can dominate 99% of what the rest of the world is flying. I mean the actual planes themselves. All are overworked and high hours, therefore need way more maintenance to stay in the air.

- we now have only 2176 fighters TOTAL as a country versus 4500+ we had in 1990!?!

- the primary mission of our military...to secure the homeland 24/7....is performed 94%(!?!) Of the time by the Air Natl Guard and not the USAF. Which means these planes are even older, usually much older than what the active duty pilots are flying.


Oh...and while i am morally with the Ukraine people since Russia is the belligerent invading them....lets say a new run of F16s were necessary (gotta do something soon) and we could procure those with updated radars/tech/ total domain networking suite for about $50 million each (Russia reportedly builds their most advanced, and much larger SU35s for about $48M each for domestic use) Do you guys understand HOW MANY fighters we could buy with JUST the $50Billion we sent Ukraine in the last gift????

1000 of them.

Yes, we could basically increase by HALF the amount of fighters we now have from 2176 to about 3176 with just the very last huge gift of taxpayers hard earned wages that our elected Congress gave to Ukraine just in our most recent payment of which I am aware.

Chew on that for a few. It doesn't sit well with me at all. Also, while all the services are really struggling in recruiting except for the Marines recently there is never a shortage of guys who want to be pilots. Ever. Its easier to get into Harvard or Yale than to get accepted at Colorado Springs and THEN beat out 95% or more of the other best and brightest in your class to be 1 of the handful that actually get to put their butts in a supersonic jet fighter. The rest fly tankers and cargo. We have the most wasteful, ridiculous clownshow of a government in our nations entire history overrunning their budgets for Trillions of $ every year now....and yet our military is rotting on the vine?

The AF’s priority is diversity, equity, inclusion, electric vehicles, and making sure the that mentally ill are transitioning successfully. Not fighter jets. Hell, the recent appointment of the chairman of the joint chief of staff is a leftist racist lunatic.

​

​

 

[FLVOL_79]

In regards to the old airframes, they exist because the USAF has a really good maintenance program for them. Most aircraft get a full tear down to the the frame every few years. I used to work on birds from Vietnam, and that was still happening in 2004.

The number of planes being down is correlated to the use of unmanned vehicles and advances in technology. We don't need to swarm an enemy with F-15's when an F-22 can shoot them down from 250 miles away. We don't need a lot of pilots in the seat, unless that seat is a gaming chair with an xbox controller connected to a globalhawk.

Now equity and inclusion, thats most likely happening with what we called "noners".. the people who don't deploy..in the rear with the gear, etc.

No comment on ANG or Reserves.............

 

[Orangeburst]

In regards to the old airframes, they exist because the USAF has a really good maintenance program for them. Most aircraft get a full tear down to the the frame every few years. I used to work on birds from Vietnam, and that was still happening in 2004.

The number of planes being down is correlated to the use of unmanned vehicles and advances in technology. We don't need to swarm an enemy with F-15's when an F-22 can shoot them down from 250 miles away. We don't need a lot of pilots in the seat, unless that seat is a gaming chair with an xbox controller connected to a globalhawk.

Now equity and inclusion, thats most likely happening with what we called "noners".. the people who don't deploy..in the rear with the gear, etc.

No comment on ANG or Reserves.............

We would like to hear your thought on ANG. I hold them in high esteem, but you would know more than me.

 

[FLVOL_79]

We would like to hear your thought on ANG. I hold them in high esteem, but you would know more than me.

I was active duty for 8 years. Every ANG or reservist I worked with, even if they were "full time", never had the training or experience that I had. So when they were incorporated into an active duty unit, the rest of us usually had to pull their weight for them.

Same goes for pilots. The ANG/Reserve guys are just part timers, usually flying shuttles from Sheboygan to Milwaukee during the week.

On their own doing their own thing, probably things are fine. The difference in training and mission execution was night and day when I served. One could blame senior USAF leadership for trying to mix the "Webelos" with the "Eagle Scouts" and expecting a mutually beneficial outcome for all involved..

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Oh...and while i am morally with the Ukraine people since Russia is the belligerent invading them....lets say a new run of F16s were necessary (gotta do something soon) and we could procure those with updated radars/tech/ total domain networking suite for about $50 million each (Russia reportedly builds their most advanced, and much larger SU35s for about $48M each for domestic use) Do you guys understand HOW MANY fighters we could buy with JUST the $50Billion we sent Ukraine in the last gift????

1000 of them.

Yes, we could basically increase by HALF the amount of fighters we now have from 2176 to about 3176 with just the very last huge gift of taxpayers hard earned wages that our elected Congress gave to Ukraine just in our most recent payment of which I am aware.

And who is going to fly those 1000 extra planes? Who is going to maintain them? And how long will it take to build 1000 planes in 2023?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

And who is going to fly those 1000 extra planes? Who is going to maintain them? And how long will it take to build 1000 planes in 2023?

I addressed the pilot issue in my post. As to maintenance and procurement, I am sure we can handle both. Those are high skill, good paying jobs for defense contractors, and high skill positions in the USAF that can readily land jobs with airlines should those folks want to leave the military. Both ways add lots of good paying jobs to our economy and increase the skill level of our national workforce. I dont see a downside anywhere in that....at all...except having to pay for it with taxpayer funds. With the amount of $ our government pizzes away and gives away (often to countries that actually arent our allies) we could completely overhaul several different branches if not all of them, in order to prepare our military for the new challenges emerging in the 21st century like hypersonic cruise missiles and mass drone attacks.

Dont even get me started about the Billions we waste on entitlement programs and "studies" to determine if the western farting fieldmouse gets cancer from drinking 1000 gallons a day of aspartame. Gimme a break. The military is one of the VERY few things our federal government spends money on that actually IS necessary and IS IN the Constitution.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I addressed the pilot issue in my post. As to maintenance and procurement, I am sure we can handle both. Those are high skill, good paying jobs for defense contractors, and high skill positions in the USAF that can readily land jobs with airlines should those folks want to leave the military.

Boom... and there you go.

 

[AM64]

I was active duty for 8 years. Every ANG or reservist I worked with, even if they were "full time", never had the training or experience that I had. So when they were incorporated into an active duty unit, the rest of us usually had to pull their weight for them.

Same goes for pilots. The ANG/Reserve guys are just part timers, usually flying shuttles from Sheboygan to Milwaukee during the week.

On their own doing their own thing, probably things are fine. The difference in training and mission execution was night and day when I served. One could blame senior USAF leadership for trying to mix the "Webelos" with the "Eagle Scouts" and expecting a mutually beneficial outcome for all involved..

That makes sense. Most guard and reserve units could be no where near the level of proficiency as full time military, and that's to be expected. Some ANG units appear to be full time operational - such as the ones standing alert like the old AF ADC units used to do; those you would expect to be comparable. Another aspect is how guard and reserve units are employed. Whether they are deployed as units or whether the people are used as backfill to replace active duty personnel who are deployed to combat zones. My wife is a retired Navy Reserve nurse with three active duty tours - none to a hospital ship or war zone; those all go to active duty people which doesn't improve the qualification of reserve and guard components. She was initially accepted and then orders cancelled to the Army hospital at Landstuhl, Germany. The Army didn't want senior Navy officers - she was a Commander or Captain at the time and willing to work as a staff nurse or in a command position - rank to her was immaterial - experience was far more important.

A lot of unit readiness comes down to flying hours and aircraft availability, and that's getting problematic as aircraft complexity and maintenance (including cost) increase and flying hours decrease. Getting the most out of any high performance vehicle takes skill and familiarity which doesn't work well when cost is skyrocketing and availably decreasing. Your earlier comment on drones and beyond visual range weapons is going to be highly influenced by rules of engagement ... whether politicians are going to allow it, whether the systems will word as planned, and whether the guy pulling the trigger will or won't be hung out to dry if the missile hits something that's not actually an enemy combatant. That's also assuming enough F-35s aren't grounded for maintenance and their whopping four missile load does their thing. We're banking a whole lot on untested principles and equipment.

 

[AM64]

And who is going to fly those 1000 extra planes? Who is going to maintain them? And how long will it take to build 1000 planes in 2023?

You know the AF has a new trainer in the wings being held up for a few issues but much needed to train new pilots. The biggest issue right now seems to be the ejection seat. It works well for bigger and heavier pilots but is a safety issue for lighter pilots. That wasn't much of a problem when fighter pilots were male. If the decision could be made to exclude women for the time being, it would ignite the war of the sexes big time. So we just have to watch pilot training founder for a while until the seat can be made female friendly.

 

[hog88]

That makes sense. Most guard and reserve units could be no where near the level of proficiency as full time military, and that's to be expected. Some ANG units appear to be full time operational - such as the ones standing alert like the old AF ADC units used to do; those you would expect to be comparable. Another aspect is how guard and reserve units are employed. Whether they are deployed as units or whether the people are used as backfill to replace active duty personnel who are deployed to combat zones. My wife is a retired Navy Reserve nurse with three active duty tours - none to a hospital ship or war zone; those all go to active duty people which doesn't improve the qualification of reserve and guard components. She was initially accepted and then orders cancelled to the Army hospital at Landstuhl, Germany. The Army didn't want senior Navy officers - she was a Commander or Captain at the time and willing to work as a staff nurse or in a command position - rank to her was immaterial - experience was far more important.

A lot of unit readiness comes down to flying hours and aircraft availability, and that's getting problematic as aircraft complexity and maintenance (including cost) increase and flying hours decrease. Getting the most out of any high performance vehicle takes skill and familiarity which doesn't work well when cost is skyrocketing and availably decreasing. Your earlier comment on drones and beyond visual range weapons is going to be highly influenced by rules of engagement ... whether politicians are going to allow it, whether the systems will word as planned, and whether the guy pulling the trigger will or won't be hung out to dry if the missile hits something that's not actually an enemy combatant. That's also assuming enough F-35s aren't grounded for maintenance and their whopping four missile load does their thing. We're banking a whole lot on untested principles and equipment.

I worked under (as a subcontractor) a TN Air Guard pilot, I think he flew C-130s or 141s. But anyway we always did the same BS AF v Army schtick and once I brought up that they weren’t even real AF. He explained to me that most ANG pilots had far more hours than active duty pilots.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

America is now paying more in interest on its record $33 trillion debt than on national defense — here's who holds the IOUs

The Treasury has spent over $807 billion in interest on debt securities.

finance.yahoo.com

We now spend more money paying just the interest on our ridiculous $33Trillion debt than we spend on national defense.

This is the era of the "Evil Clown" running America and nearly all the West honestly. It is patently absurd what is on folks minds these days, and our woke leadership is more inept and corrupt than any administration since Nero. We are Rome. We are the bastard child of Babylon. Those in power refuse to learn from the lessons of the past. Others just want to watch the world burn.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I worked under (as a subcontractor) a TN Air Guard pilot, I think he flew C-130s or 141s. But anyway we always did the same BS AF v Army schtick and once I brought up that they weren’t even real AF. He explained to me that most ANG pilots had far more hours than active duty pilots.

More pilot hours probably, since these dudes are commercial airline pilots. More hours on the airframe? Not possible.

 

[Firebirdparts]

It's "The Peace Dividend". For the most part, we've gotten away with it. Lots of people will reform here and there over the next 500 years, but the USA is only about 4% of the world's people, and so really, you need to out-produce everybody first and foremost. Then you have to behave with character. You have to have more adult behavior than we have had to stay on top.

Vote for somebody adult, if anybody runs. Not sure anybody like will run for president, but there are a lot of other slots you can vote for.

America is a nation of children and it has been for a long time.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Oh...and the Army too. The Marine Corps is busy getting rid of nearly all of their tanks and simple artillery. Many retired and current Marine Generals etc have been screaming against this "transformation " of our expeditionary forces since the idea was 1st proposed. Nobody is willing to listen to those with wisdom and experience though.

US Army shrinks to smallest size since WW2 as it struggles to find recruits

Army officials said the service recruited almost 55,000 recruits in the 2023 fiscal year, falling short of the publicly stated goal of 65,000.

www.newsweek.com

 

[85SugarVol]

Oh...and the Army too. The Marine Corps is busy getting rid of nearly all of their tanks and simple artillery. Many retired and current Marine Generals etc have been screaming against this "transformation " of our expeditionary forces since the idea was 1st proposed. Nobody is willing to listen to those with wisdom and experience though.

US Army shrinks to smallest size since WW2 as it struggles to find recruits

Army officials said the service recruited almost 55,000 recruits in the 2023 fiscal year, falling short of the publicly stated goal of 65,000.

www.newsweek.com

The Marines are returning to the Sea.

The Big fight is with China - in the Pacific.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

The Marines are returning to the Sea.

The Big fight is with China - in the Pacific.

On its face that sounds like a good idea. The current and retired generals that are so against it say that its because the new plan is to make smaller groups of soldiers...think squad level...use new and emerging technology like drones etc to try and "out tech" china versus much larger combined infantry and mechanized forces in landing ships with close air support from choppers and the VTOL variant F35s, A10s etc. The generals point out that a force needs tanks, artillery, and large infantry to take and especially HOLD any territory whatsoever. Especially when facing a country with 5x as many men as ours that showed us in Korea that they can and will muster 100s of thousands to half a million soldiers to overrun us in asia. Marines have always been an expeditionary force...the "sledgehammer" that kicks the damn door in to even hardened targets and reinforcements on foreign soil...who can then hold that occupied territory until the Army can take it over, or sometimes just dig in and hold that hard fought ground themselves. None of the above activities are suited to extremely small forces swarming with high tech weapons (usually means fragile and unproven at least in battle) and small vehicles with light or no real armor. Marines are a bunch of crayon eaters and deserve the crap about it...but they have also always deserved the utmost respect bc when the sheit hits the fan those guys are going in 1st and fearless. They are also like the Boogey Man...when a terrorist or dictator gets the US Marines sent after his butt, you know hes already dead. As are all who stand with him. I am not sure the new design can do what Marines are made to do. Neither are the Marines from what I have read. We need to let the Navy handle the Navy mission and let the Marines stack bodies like only they can IMO.

 

[NEO]

Marines aren’t made they are born. Normal guys don’t enlist as marines. Guys on want to see actual action and get their hands dirty enlist as marines. My grandfather was a marine in WW2. Guy felt like walking death to me as a kid. Never knew he was a marine or in the war until I was older but even as a kid I could sense he’d killed people. Every friend I have who is a marine is wired the same way. They just have this nutso vibe.