User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:37:37 PM EDT
[#1]
In all fairness, the Navy jets aren't equal in comparison to the air force makeup. The LRBs for example have a huge cost associated with them, comparing a B2 to an F18 is ludicrous.
This is obviously just one example, but one could go on with others quite easily, as the AF has a lot of costly airframes. And you are doing just that by making the argument of number of aircraft and budgets associated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:40:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USNS support missions ashore by moving equipment in the maritime domain i.e. on ships The Navy has a 200 year history of moving naval infantry by sea. It has a 100 year history of moving the army by sea. The Navy has no history of moving the Army by air. Before there was an Air Force, the Army had a history of moving the Army by air. See "The Hump" for WWII history. I don't believe that you have the expertise to judge what the impact of putting USAF ICBMers on ships would be relative to women. The women will follow the same rotational path as men with an established rotation between SSN, SSBN, and shore duty assignments. You say that you don't want to get rid of the USAF, but you want to "give" the functions that consume most of the USAF manpower to the Navy and call the remainder something else. If you want to take missions/functions/tasks away from the USAF, those that were once in the Army should go back to the Army. The Navy will stick to doing what it does better than any other Navy on the planet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:what % of USNS missions support army operations or operations in support of land operations.
the navy has a 200 year history of moving the army to the fight across the seas. how they do so should be irrelevant. stop asking for a frame already. The impact of putting missileers on a ship will be less than the impact of putting women on a ship. yet, here we are. I don't want to get rid of the USAF. Reading must not be your strong suit. I want the air force to do the mission it was created to do. as a pilot, i don't expect you to understand airpower. but as a commissioned officer I know you have the requisite intelligence to get there with proper guidance. USNS support missions ashore by moving equipment in the maritime domain i.e. on ships The Navy has a 200 year history of moving naval infantry by sea. It has a 100 year history of moving the army by sea. The Navy has no history of moving the Army by air. Before there was an Air Force, the Army had a history of moving the Army by air. See "The Hump" for WWII history. I don't believe that you have the expertise to judge what the impact of putting USAF ICBMers on ships would be relative to women. The women will follow the same rotational path as men with an established rotation between SSN, SSBN, and shore duty assignments. You say that you don't want to get rid of the USAF, but you want to "give" the functions that consume most of the USAF manpower to the Navy and call the remainder something else. If you want to take missions/functions/tasks away from the USAF, those that were once in the Army should go back to the Army. The Navy will stick to doing what it does better than any other Navy on the planet. I'd argue neither do you, in bold. You are completely missing the point. the functions that consume the USAF manpower do not help the strategic airpower mission and, in fact, hurt it. 
so how you cross the sea matters. effects based is a lie. I guess the army should take maritime patrol as well. because if airplanes cross the sea with supplies, navy shouldn't do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:40:38 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Our European Reassurance Initiative is about trying to sneak out the backdoor while loudly proclaiming we're moving in. Exactly what an F-22 assures or reassures anyone of is a much harder task to quantify. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does Lockheed Martin use a standard OPORD format? The European Reassurance Initiative was an LM scheme? Damn that military-industrial complex. So how does a deployment fix walking away from the Budapest Memo? How does that have to do with this deployment being an LM money making opportunity? Our European Reassurance Initiative is about trying to sneak out the backdoor while loudly proclaiming we're moving in. Exactly what an F-22 assures or reassures anyone of is a much harder task to quantify. F-22 assure air dominance over Europe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:41:23 PM EDT
[#4]
The Hump was an air logistics bridge to forces already in theater. It was tremendously resource intensive, designed to flank Chaing politically as it was to fight the Japanese. Additionally, the vast majority of the institutional knowledge to conduct the operation was civilian, not military.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:41:29 PM EDT
[#5]
183 F-22's
6 Major Regional Theater Commands, to include USNORTHCOM (includes US, Canada, Mexico, Alaska Air Defense) 183 / 6 = 30 birds per Theater Command if we wanted to long-term, no consideration for attrition and depot maintenance. The initial requirement was one Squadron of 24 per each of the 10 USAF Expeditionary Forces, with plenty of spares for training and attrition, and fillers for depot-level maintenance in a worst-case scenario where we would be patrolling on multiple fronts globally. That would have been 240 + 141, or 381 aircraft. We could literally run 3 Squadrons in Europe, with 1 based on the northeast front out of Poland, and 1 based out of the Southeast front, and one out of CENTCOM. That would be 72 birds. We could do that, while basing 2 out of Japan or ROK for Asian stability operations in PACOM (48 birds), and still have 2 squadrons for US Air Defense, to include Alaska, although this would be spread very thin. This is why we really needed more F-22's than we got. The logistics footprint to sustain them during air dominance and stability operations can't just be thrown around on a whim, and with the Russians practicing hybrid warfare, they know these strengths, and don't want Raptors flying around in any potentially contested airspace. We have to watch out that we don't flaunt our technology around like it's magic, and keep cards close to the vest, understanding that Eastern thinkers will find asymmetric solutions to typical Western dominance of the kinetic aspects of quality and quantity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:42:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In all fairness, the Navy jets aren't equal in comparison to the air force makeup. The LRBs for example have a huge cost associated with them, comparing a B2 to an F18 is ludicrous. This is obviously just one example, but one could go on with others quite easily, as the AF has a lot of costly airframes. And you are doing just that by making the argument of number of aircraft and budgets associated. unquestionably. whether they need to or not would be a very fair debate. F22, B2, F35 would indicate the extremely high cost of the USAF fleet is a function of branch of service parachialism rather than an essential mechanism. Ironic considering the AF was sold as a cost saving mechanism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:42:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: so killing a system that sucks is bad, but buying it anyway and forcing it into a role it sucks at is good? gee, you think the ridiculous cost of the war had anything to do with that failure? you think using B-1s to fly million dollar sorties had nothing to do with it? You think soldiers driving around in armored cars instead of using helicopters to move around had something to do with it (since many blade hours were wasted flying from one c130 capable airstrip to another because the AF couldn't be bothered to fly one of their 400 c-130s.)? oh, we can't fly that mission. we need c27s. Oh, got C27s. lulz jk we could always do that mission with c130s. we were just kidding. thanks for the cash. now, we will kill the program. I wouldn't mind losing the wars as much if we actually learned the lessons involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:43:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
America - World Police. America: Inherited the security of the British Empire post WWII, but never asked for, planned for, or anticipated this dynamic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:44:10 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AF is lead, and it shows. Kinda like the other article that thinks this is awesome and we need more of it when it comes to drones. That's BS and you know it. AF has the PEO slot now, but it continually rotates. Both Navy and USMC leaders have had the stick. Breaking down the JPO leadership since program start: 5 AF Generals (including current one) - 138 months in the lead 3 Navy Admirals - 80 months in the lead 2 USMC Generals - 39 months in the lead The Department of the Navy, since they are responsible for two of the three variants of the F-35 decided to break up their leadership periods amongst the Navy and the Corps. Overall Department of the Navy time in the lead of F-35 is 119 months. Bogdan (current lead) is probably short on his time in the position based on time. Next person will be a Navy/Corps person who will have the lead for anywhere between 24-36 months. http://www.jsf.mil/leadership/lead_former.htm You want a good example of massive acquisition failure...go look at the Navy's A-12. The only thing good out of that fiasco was the Navy's decision to pursue the Super Bug. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:47:47 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We're spending less as a % of GDP than during the Cold War. Money had little to do with anything other than as a Democrat talking point. The issue was we couldn't make progress because of structural cultural problems in that part of the world. The lesson to be learned is that instead of nation building, next time we put in our own strongman like we used to, and the CIA guy slaps him on the ass on the way out the door and says "remember the last guy." There is no change to the structure, equipment, or doctrine of the military that would have done much different. There is restructuring that needs to be done, but that involves dismantling our PC culture that has taken root in institutions such as the State Department. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
so killing a system that sucks is bad, but buying it anyway and forcing it into a role it sucks at is good? gee, you think the ridiculous cost of the war had anything to do with that failure? you think using B-1s to fly million dollar sorties had nothing to do with it? You think soldiers driving around in armored cars instead of using helicopters to move around had something to do with it (since many blade hours were wasted flying from one c130 capable airstrip to another because the AF couldn't be bothered to fly one of their 400 c-130s.)? oh, we can't fly that mission. we need c27s. Oh, got C27s. lulz jk we could always do that mission with c130s. we were just kidding. thanks for the cash. now, we will kill the program. I wouldn't mind losing the wars as much if we actually learned the lessons involved. it was a very valid talking point, we spent a trillion dollars to lose two wars. when wars are cheap (in both blood and treasure) you will find them easier to sustain in the realm of public opinion. you know those dirty little wars like central america we used to do? we did them with cheap effective aircraft (see also: columbia.) So what you are saying is DoD is so worthless and expensive that for real war fighting we need the CIA. well, thats an endorsement for the status quo if I ever heard one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:52:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-22 assure air dominance over Europe. From whom, zee Germans? Are we bombing Schweinfurt? Are the Russians going to give back the Crimea now we've got six sorties a day over Europe? Are their claims to Moldova or the Baltic states going to disappear? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:54:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's BS and you know it. AF has the PEO slot now, but it continually rotates. Both Navy and USMC leaders have had the stick. Breaking down the JPO leadership since program start: 5 AF Generals (including current one) - 138 months in the lead 3 Navy Admirals - 80 months in the lead 2 USMC Generals - 39 months in the lead The Department of the Navy, since they are responsible for two of the three variants of the F-35 decided to break up their leadership periods amongst the Navy and the Corps. Overall Department of the Navy time in the lead of F-35 is 119 months. Bogdan (current lead) is probably short on his time in the position based on time. Next person will be a Navy/Corps person who will have the lead for anywhere between 24-36 months. http://www.jsf.mil/leadership/lead_former.htm You want a good example of massive acquisition failure...go look at the Navy's A-12. The only thing good out of that fiasco was the Navy's decision to pursue the Super Bug. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
AF is lead, and it shows. Kinda like the other article that thinks this is awesome and we need more of it when it comes to drones. That's BS and you know it. AF has the PEO slot now, but it continually rotates. Both Navy and USMC leaders have had the stick. Breaking down the JPO leadership since program start: 5 AF Generals (including current one) - 138 months in the lead 3 Navy Admirals - 80 months in the lead 2 USMC Generals - 39 months in the lead The Department of the Navy, since they are responsible for two of the three variants of the F-35 decided to break up their leadership periods amongst the Navy and the Corps. Overall Department of the Navy time in the lead of F-35 is 119 months. Bogdan (current lead) is probably short on his time in the position based on time. Next person will be a Navy/Corps person who will have the lead for anywhere between 24-36 months. http://www.jsf.mil/leadership/lead_former.htm You want a good example of massive acquisition failure...go look at the Navy's A-12. The only thing good out of that fiasco was the Navy's decision to pursue the Super Bug. I believe you buy shit for the AF for a living so I bow to your institutional knowledge. But, as I understand it (and wiki seems to support) joint programs have a lead service and the AF was it for JSF. the RONbot claimed the marines were doing their own thing for harrier replacement and the AF lobbied SECDEF to force them into JSF. The navy's ambivalence to the program is palpable. The A-12 was at least killed. the JSF hasn't failed to fail every legislative check against shitty procurement programs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:55:25 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: it was a very valid talking point, we spent a trillion dollars to lose two wars. when wars are cheap (in both blood and treasure) you will find them easier to sustain in the realm of public opinion. you know those dirty little wars like central america we used to do? we did them with cheap effective aircraft (see also: columbia.) So what you are saying is DoD is so worthless and expensive that for real war fighting we need the CIA. well, thats an endorsement for the status quo if I ever heard one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:57:07 PM EDT
[#14]
So.. you're just going to ignore Kudzu's question, aren't you... Nope, answered him on the first page. Read much ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:58:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, what I'm saying is that the issue in Iraq and Afghanistan is a culture where the locals are more than happy to watch their societies burn for decades in order to ensure that the fucking Sunnis/Shia/Kurds/Pashtuns/Borats aren't in charge. We could have sent nothing but Tucos and the public would have still demanded to know why we were wasting lives over a decade later in the vain hopes that a bunch of third worlders would let women vote. You change what doesn't work, not what does. The whole Iraq thing up to the "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing was excellent. The part that was fucked up came after and was a political failure, not a failure of doctrine. Rome didn't abandon the Legionary because Varus was dumb enough to march into an ambush in Germania because it wasn't a doctrinal failure, it was a leadership failure. The Legionary continued to dominate military tactics for the next 300 years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
it was a very valid talking point, we spent a trillion dollars to lose two wars. when wars are cheap (in both blood and treasure) you will find them easier to sustain in the realm of public opinion. you know those dirty little wars like central america we used to do? we did them with cheap effective aircraft (see also: columbia.) So what you are saying is DoD is so worthless and expensive that for real war fighting we need the CIA. well, thats an endorsement for the status quo if I ever heard one. so at least we could have saved a few billion dollars and some lives. I am still not seeing the institutional knowledge that is so precious. a generation of losing wars doesn't seem to be so precious. unless you are advocating for the institutional knowlege of spending a shit load of money on equipment we don't use designed for wars we don't fight. in which case I agree with you that we would lose that institutional knowledge. I would just argue it would be a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:59:19 PM EDT
[#16]
You were too bust looking at the jets to see that they are in a clearly marked entry controlled point. Nothing and nobody can cross that line without prior authorization. Satisfied? I saw the controlled entry point AND the deadly red rope ! I put that in the same class as a gun free zone ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:00:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I saw the controlled entry point AND the deadly red rope ! I put that in the same class as a gun free zone ! Quote HistoryQuoted:
You were too bust looking at the jets to see that they are in a clearly marked entry controlled point. Nothing and nobody can cross that line without prior authorization. Satisfied? I saw the controlled entry point AND the deadly red rope ! I put that in the same class as a gun free zone ! Cross the red line and it won't be gun free for long. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:06:21 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: so at least we could have saved a few billion dollars and some lives. I am still not seeing the institutional knowledge that is so precious. a generation of losing wars doesn't seem to be so precious. unless you are advocating for the institutional knowlege of spending a shit load of money on equipment we don't use designed for wars we don't fight. in which case I agree with you that we would lose that institutional knowledge. I would just argue it would be a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:07:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Can we steer the conversation back into the implications for the European theater, the War in Ukraine, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, etc.?
The political decision to deploy F-22's to Europe had to have come with WH authorization. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:07:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fire Foggy Bottom, not the Air Force. The Air Force didn't lose anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
so at least we could have saved a few billion dollars and some lives. I am still not seeing the institutional knowledge that is so precious. a generation of losing wars doesn't seem to be so precious. unless you are advocating for the institutional knowlege of spending a shit load of money on equipment we don't use designed for wars we don't fight. in which case I agree with you that we would lose that institutional knowledge. I would just argue it would be a good thing. But didn't win anything, either. so why are we still spending so much money on them? institutional knowledge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:08:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can we steer the conversation back into the implications for the European theater, the War in Ukraine, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, etc.? The political decision to deploy F-22's to Europe had to have come with WH authorization. sure. there are zero implications. it means absolutely nothing and Putin knows it. This is domestic showboating and nothing more. call me when we start bombing russians in ukraine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:09:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can we steer the conversation back into the implications for the European theater, the War in Ukraine, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, etc.? The political decision to deploy F-22's to Europe had to have come with WH authorization. They did the same thing a few years back with Iran, deployed some a raptors to 5th Fleet as a message. I guess the Stennis wasn't enough. Seems like Raptors are used a lot as strategic messaging, much as our bomber force is used. I would assume SECDEF and SecState would be all the authorization needed, but with as controlling as this admin is, I'm assuming Obama gave his blessing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:10:34 PM EDT
[#23]
The F-4 drones are done. They flew the last one later in the summer. The F-4s are done at Tyndall. They're expected to fly at Holloman until Dec 2017. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:14:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
sure. there are zero implications. it means absolutely nothing and Putin knows it. This is domestic showboating and nothing more. call me when we start bombing russians in ukraine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can we steer the conversation back into the implications for the European theater, the War in Ukraine, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, etc.? The political decision to deploy F-22's to Europe had to have come with WH authorization. sure. there are zero implications. it means absolutely nothing and Putin knows it. This is domestic showboating and nothing more. call me when we start bombing russians in ukraine. Why showboat for the domestic (presumably US when you say that) crowd? Does a significant portion of the population know much less care what's going on in Eastern Europe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:14:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: America: Inherited the security of the British Empire post WWII, but never asked for, planned for, or anticipated this dynamic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: America - World Police. America: Inherited the security of the British Empire post WWII, but never asked for, planned for, or anticipated this dynamic. Agreed. ....But it still means that you are literally 'World Police' right now.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:16:54 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why showboat for the domestic (presumably US when you say that) crowd? Does a significant portion of the population know much less care what's going on in Eastern Europe? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can we steer the conversation back into the implications for the European theater, the War in Ukraine, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, etc.? The political decision to deploy F-22's to Europe had to have come with WH authorization. sure. there are zero implications. it means absolutely nothing and Putin knows it. This is domestic showboating and nothing more. call me when we start bombing russians in ukraine. Why showboat for the domestic (presumably US when you say that) crowd? Does a significant portion of the population know much less care what's going on in Eastern Europe? I was being generous and not stating the ACC EUR was doing it for fuck off publicity and TDY for pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:17:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would take many years to get production back up and running. You wouldn't see the first jet for a long time, and it'd cost a small fortune. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like Pearl Harbor, have we learned nothing in 60 years about how to disperse our aircraft ? It's not like we can build more ! Why not? It would take many years to get production back up and running. You wouldn't see the first jet for a long time, and it'd cost a small fortune. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:17:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd argue neither do you, in bold. You are completely missing the point. the functions that consume the USAF manpower do not help the strategic airpower mission and, in fact, hurt it. https://i.imgflip.com/q261z.jpg so how you cross the sea matters. effects based is a lie. I guess the army should take maritime patrol as well. because if airplanes cross the sea with supplies, navy shouldn't do it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:what % of USNS missions support army operations or operations in support of land operations.
the navy has a 200 year history of moving the army to the fight across the seas. how they do so should be irrelevant. stop asking for a frame already. The impact of putting missileers on a ship will be less than the impact of putting women on a ship. yet, here we are. I don't want to get rid of the USAF. Reading must not be your strong suit. I want the air force to do the mission it was created to do. as a pilot, i don't expect you to understand airpower. but as a commissioned officer I know you have the requisite intelligence to get there with proper guidance. USNS support missions ashore by moving equipment in the maritime domain i.e. on ships The Navy has a 200 year history of moving naval infantry by sea. It has a 100 year history of moving the army by sea. The Navy has no history of moving the Army by air. Before there was an Air Force, the Army had a history of moving the Army by air. See "The Hump" for WWII history. I don't believe that you have the expertise to judge what the impact of putting USAF ICBMers on ships would be relative to women. The women will follow the same rotational path as men with an established rotation between SSN, SSBN, and shore duty assignments. You say that you don't want to get rid of the USAF, but you want to "give" the functions that consume most of the USAF manpower to the Navy and call the remainder something else. If you want to take missions/functions/tasks away from the USAF, those that were once in the Army should go back to the Army. The Navy will stick to doing what it does better than any other Navy on the planet. I'd argue neither do you, in bold. You are completely missing the point. the functions that consume the USAF manpower do not help the strategic airpower mission and, in fact, hurt it. https://i.imgflip.com/q261z.jpg so how you cross the sea matters. effects based is a lie. I guess the army should take maritime patrol as well. because if airplanes cross the sea with supplies, navy shouldn't do it. Hate to tell you this, but the mission of MPRA is not "crossing the sea with supplies". If you understood that, you might understand what missions are inherently Naval and which aren't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:18:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But didn't win anything, either. so why are we still spending so much money on them? institutional knowledge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:19:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Hump was an air logistics bridge to forces already in theater. It was tremendously resource intensive, designed to flank Chaing politically as it was to fight the Japanese. Additionally, the vast majority of the institutional knowledge to conduct the operation was civilian, not military. And yet, Sylvan wants to had that airlift mission to the Navy... Makes perfect sense |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:22:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
America - World Police. Fuck yeah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:22:59 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like Pearl Harbor, have we learned nothing in 60 years about how to disperse our aircraft ? It's not like we can build more ! Why not? It would take many years to get production back up and running. You wouldn't see the first jet for a long time, and it'd cost a small fortune. He's correct? What's the face for? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:24:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe you buy shit for the AF for a living so I bow to your institutional knowledge. But, as I understand it (and wiki seems to support) joint programs have a lead service and the AF was it for JSF. the RONbot claimed the marines were doing their own thing for harrier replacement and the AF lobbied SECDEF to force them into JSF. The navy's ambivalence to the program is palpable. The A-12 was at least killed. the JSF hasn't failed to fail every legislative check against shitty procurement programs. Joint programs do normally have a lead service. You are correct that the AF was the initial lead. However, after the flyoff was complete the program was rightly seen as too big with too many services involved, so the Joint Program Office (JPO) construct was formally created, which has ran the program. F-35 is the only program that uses the JPO structure, which stands alone and largely outside the mainstream AF and Navy procurement offices. The service procurement shops have some say, but they defer to the JPO, which is jointly staffed with people. Think of the JPO as Taco Bell corporate HQ back in the day. They control and run things, while the services are individual franchises operating in their respective locations. They all have to answer to the JPO Corporate guys, have control of their franchise, but that's about it. JPO Corporate makes the decisions on which tacos to put on sale, which nachos to use, etc. etc. JPO Corporate in turn answer to PepsiCo who owned Taco Bell at the time (Pepsi is USG). During the flyoff the services jointly did their testing down at the CA ranges. Prior to that in the 90's the services were all off looking for individual solutions. Throw in DARPA, multiple programs cancelled/renamed/renovated and you have an acquisition mess. Much of the 90's was an acquisition mess for all the services. The Cold War drawdown and the Clinton administrations ambivalence to military funding made it so. Lots of programs got stuck in development hell or had delays in fielding. For what is actually a good read of JSF/F-15 history this is a good link: http://www.jsf.mil/history/index.htm Plenty of programs for all the services have shitty acquisition. Every service has had Nunn-McCurdy breaches (a good indicator). However, as programs transition from R&D to production things usually stabilize, costs drop, readiness increases, etc. etc. The Magic 8 Ball seems to say F-35 is headed down that path. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:24:57 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are completely missing the point. the functions that consume the USAF manpower do not help the strategic airpower mission and, in fact, hurt it. You are completely missing the point. The functions you want to "give" to the Navy do not help the missions of the Navy and would in fact, hurt them. That airlift mission, from APOD to APOD, hauling the Army helps the landpower mission. The Navy has the sealift mission because there is shared expertise in operating ships and those vessels in war time may need to integrate with Navy escorts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:24:59 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was being generous and not stating the ACC EUR was doing it for fuck off publicity and TDY for pilots. It has nothing to do with our allies over there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:27:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's BS and you know it. AF has the PEO slot now, but it continually rotates. Both Navy and USMC leaders have had the stick. Breaking down the JPO leadership since program start: 5 AF Generals (including current one) - 138 months in the lead 3 Navy Admirals - 80 months in the lead 2 USMC Generals - 39 months in the lead The Department of the Navy, since they are responsible for two of the three variants of the F-35 decided to break up their leadership periods amongst the Navy and the Corps. Overall Department of the Navy time in the lead of F-35 is 119 months. Bogdan (current lead) is probably short on his time in the position based on time. Next person will be a Navy/Corps person who will have the lead for anywhere between 24-36 months. http://www.jsf.mil/leadership/lead_former.htm You want a good example of massive acquisition failure...go look at the Navy's A-12. The only thing good out of that fiasco was the Navy's decision to pursue the Super Bug. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
AF is lead, and it shows. Kinda like the other article that thinks this is awesome and we need more of it when it comes to drones. That's BS and you know it. AF has the PEO slot now, but it continually rotates. Both Navy and USMC leaders have had the stick. Breaking down the JPO leadership since program start: 5 AF Generals (including current one) - 138 months in the lead 3 Navy Admirals - 80 months in the lead 2 USMC Generals - 39 months in the lead The Department of the Navy, since they are responsible for two of the three variants of the F-35 decided to break up their leadership periods amongst the Navy and the Corps. Overall Department of the Navy time in the lead of F-35 is 119 months. Bogdan (current lead) is probably short on his time in the position based on time. Next person will be a Navy/Corps person who will have the lead for anywhere between 24-36 months. http://www.jsf.mil/leadership/lead_former.htm You want a good example of massive acquisition failure...go look at the Navy's A-12. The only thing good out of that fiasco was the Navy's decision to pursue the Super Bug. AFOTEC is also the lead Operational Test Agency |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:28:27 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's correct? What's the face for? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like Pearl Harbor, have we learned nothing in 60 years about how to disperse our aircraft ? It's not like we can build more ! Why not? It would take many years to get production back up and running. You wouldn't see the first jet for a long time, and it'd cost a small fortune. He's correct? What's the face for? Because he is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:29:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But didn't win anything, either. so why are we still spending so much money on them? institutional knowledge? those who neglect their nuclear mission will plow for those who don't. you fail to think strategically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:30:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Joint programs do normally have a lead service. You are correct that the AF was the initial lead. However, after the flyoff was complete the program was rightly seen as too big with too many services involved, so the Joint Program Office (JPO) construct was formally created, which has ran the program. F-35 is the only program that uses the JPO structure, which stands alone and largely outside the mainstream AF and Navy procurement offices. The service procurement shops have some say, but they defer to the JPO, which is jointly staffed with people. Think of the JPO as Taco Bell corporate HQ back in the day. They control and run things, while the services are individual franchises operating in their respective locations. They all have to answer to the JPO Corporate guys, have control of their franchise, but that's about it. JPO Corporate makes the decisions on which tacos to put on sale, which nachos to use, etc. etc. JPO Corporate in turn answer to PepsiCo who owned Taco Bell at the time (Pepsi is USG). During the flyoff the services jointly did their testing down at the CA ranges. Prior to that in the 90's the services were all off looking for individual solutions. Throw in DARPA, multiple programs cancelled/renamed/renovated and you have an acquisition mess. Much of the 90's was an acquisition mess for all the services. The Cold War drawdown and the Clinton administrations ambivalence to military funding made it so. Lots of programs got stuck in development hell or had delays in fielding. For what is actually a good read of JSF/F-15 history this is a good link: http://www.jsf.mil/history/index.htm Plenty of programs for all the services have shitty acquisition. Every service has had Nunn-McCurdy breaches (a good indicator). However, as programs transition from R&D to production things usually stabilize, costs drop, readiness increases, etc. etc. The Magic 8 Ball seems to say F-35 is headed down that path. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I believe you buy shit for the AF for a living so I bow to your institutional knowledge. But, as I understand it (and wiki seems to support) joint programs have a lead service and the AF was it for JSF. the RONbot claimed the marines were doing their own thing for harrier replacement and the AF lobbied SECDEF to force them into JSF. The navy's ambivalence to the program is palpable. The A-12 was at least killed. the JSF hasn't failed to fail every legislative check against shitty procurement programs. Joint programs do normally have a lead service. You are correct that the AF was the initial lead. However, after the flyoff was complete the program was rightly seen as too big with too many services involved, so the Joint Program Office (JPO) construct was formally created, which has ran the program. F-35 is the only program that uses the JPO structure, which stands alone and largely outside the mainstream AF and Navy procurement offices. The service procurement shops have some say, but they defer to the JPO, which is jointly staffed with people. Think of the JPO as Taco Bell corporate HQ back in the day. They control and run things, while the services are individual franchises operating in their respective locations. They all have to answer to the JPO Corporate guys, have control of their franchise, but that's about it. JPO Corporate makes the decisions on which tacos to put on sale, which nachos to use, etc. etc. JPO Corporate in turn answer to PepsiCo who owned Taco Bell at the time (Pepsi is USG). During the flyoff the services jointly did their testing down at the CA ranges. Prior to that in the 90's the services were all off looking for individual solutions. Throw in DARPA, multiple programs cancelled/renamed/renovated and you have an acquisition mess. Much of the 90's was an acquisition mess for all the services. The Cold War drawdown and the Clinton administrations ambivalence to military funding made it so. Lots of programs got stuck in development hell or had delays in fielding. For what is actually a good read of JSF/F-15 history this is a good link: http://www.jsf.mil/history/index.htm Plenty of programs for all the services have shitty acquisition. Every service has had Nunn-McCurdy breaches (a good indicator). However, as programs transition from R&D to production things usually stabilize, costs drop, readiness increases, etc. etc. The Magic 8 Ball seems to say F-35 is headed down that path. so once the disastrous decision was made by the AF, the other services own responsibility for it. sure, the F35 is headed down that path. spending money!!! everyone can get behind that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:31:30 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But didn't win anything, either. so why are we still spending so much money on them? institutional knowledge? That's ridiculous. I sold everything but my deer rifle because there's no point owning a gun I didn't know for sure I was gonna need. ARs are just a huge waste of money and a drain on the economy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:31:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are completely missing the point. The functions you want to "give" to the Navy do not help the missions of the Navy and would in fact, hurt them. That airlift mission, from APOD to APOD, hauling the Army helps the landpower mission. The Navy has the sealift mission because there is shared expertise in operating ships and those vessels in war time may need to integrate with Navy escorts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are completely missing the point. the functions that consume the USAF manpower do not help the strategic airpower mission and, in fact, hurt it. You are completely missing the point. The functions you want to "give" to the Navy do not help the missions of the Navy and would in fact, hurt them. That airlift mission, from APOD to APOD, hauling the Army helps the landpower mission. The Navy has the sealift mission because there is shared expertise in operating ships and those vessels in war time may need to integrate with Navy escorts. gee. its almost like services make decisions based upon whats good for them and not the mission. shocking. I don't care about helping the navy (or the AF or the army) thats why I just can't compete with guys like you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:31:51 PM EDT
[#42]
Cross the red line and it won't be gun free for long. You're right, but will it be before some Snackbar reduces them to this ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teHsjwXTrcUhttp:// |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:32:55 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because he is not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not? It would take many years to get production back up and running. You wouldn't see the first jet for a long time, and it'd cost a small fortune. He's correct? What's the face for? Because he is not. Have we been misled the last few years? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:37:32 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
gee. its almost like services make decisions based upon whats good for them and not the mission. shocking. I don't care about helping the navy (or the AF or the army) thats why I just can't compete with guys like you. So, giving the Army control over its own airlift is bad for "the mission". Gee, who knew? Strategic sealift is a Navy mission. Strategic airlift is not a Navy mission. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:41:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, giving the Army control over its own airlift is bad for "the mission". Gee, who knew? Strategic sealift is a Navy mission. Strategic airlift is not a Navy mission. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
gee. its almost like services make decisions based upon whats good for them and not the mission. shocking. I don't care about helping the navy (or the AF or the army) thats why I just can't compete with guys like you. So, giving the Army control over its own airlift is bad for "the mission". Gee, who knew? Strategic sealift is a Navy mission. Strategic airlift is not a Navy mission. I think the transition to strategic lift would be an easier one for a service that already flies 4 engine planes than having a service whose max lift is a 47F to do so. regardless, both the navy and the army would be better at it. I think the USNS is a good model prima facie. The army doesn't really have an equivalent (unless you want to count USACE). the model and the mindset are more important than the actual mechanism in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:47:10 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can we steer the conversation back into the implications for the European theater, the War in Ukraine, the Baltics, Eastern Europe, etc.? The political decision to deploy F-22's to Europe had to have come with WH authorization. Apparently not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:47:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the transition to strategic lift would be an easier one for a service that already flies 4 engine planes Only for another year or two. Then the only aircraft with >2 engines in the Navy inventory will be the MH-53E. It's not like 4 engines is that different from 2 and I've flown on a twin engine Army jet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:50:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the transition to strategic lift would be an easier one for a service that already flies 4 engine planes than having a service whose max lift is a 47F to do so. regardless, both the navy and the army would be better at it. I think the USNS is a good model prima facie. The army doesn't really have an equivalent (unless you want to count USACE). the model and the mindset are more important than the actual mechanism in my opinion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
gee. its almost like services make decisions based upon whats good for them and not the mission. shocking. I don't care about helping the navy (or the AF or the army) thats why I just can't compete with guys like you. So, giving the Army control over its own airlift is bad for "the mission". Gee, who knew? Strategic sealift is a Navy mission. Strategic airlift is not a Navy mission. I think the transition to strategic lift would be an easier one for a service that already flies 4 engine planes than having a service whose max lift is a 47F to do so. regardless, both the navy and the army would be better at it. I think the USNS is a good model prima facie. The army doesn't really have an equivalent (unless you want to count USACE). the model and the mindset are more important than the actual mechanism in my opinion. Who would be better at prioritizing Army lift requirements and support than the Army? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:51:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only for another year or two. Then the only aircraft with >2 engines in the Navy inventory will be the MH-53E. It's not like 4 engines is that different from 2 and I've flown on a twin engine Army jet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think the transition to strategic lift would be an easier one for a service that already flies 4 engine planes Only for another year or two. Then the only aircraft with >2 engines in the Navy inventory will be the MH-53E. It's not like 4 engines is that different from 2 and I've flown on a twin engine Army jet. its not like the army has any real knowledge of fixed wing at all. when it comes to flying fixed wing, navy has us beat. when it comes to strategic lift, navy has us beat. when it comes to getting civilians to do strategic missions, navy has us beat. If its a question of the army owning everything that supports land operations, well, that would be an interesting rabbit hole to run through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:52:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who would be better at prioritizing Army lift requirements and support than the Army? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
gee. its almost like services make decisions based upon whats good for them and not the mission. shocking. I don't care about helping the navy (or the AF or the army) thats why I just can't compete with guys like you. So, giving the Army control over its own airlift is bad for "the mission". Gee, who knew? Strategic sealift is a Navy mission. Strategic airlift is not a Navy mission. I think the transition to strategic lift would be an easier one for a service that already flies 4 engine planes than having a service whose max lift is a 47F to do so. regardless, both the navy and the army would be better at it. I think the USNS is a good model prima facie. The army doesn't really have an equivalent (unless you want to count USACE). the model and the mindset are more important than the actual mechanism in my opinion. Who would be better at prioritizing Army lift requirements and support than the Army? I would trust to the professionalism of the naval officer to do well by his country |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
