The same offensive missions could be accomplished cheaper, and without human exposure, by air-to-surface standoff missiles (JASSM) -- BUT that would be an attack on the Air Force budget and on its fighter pilots, both of which are sacred to the Air Force. Therefore: "F-35. We have no other choice." —Gen Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff, US Air Force
I was wondering why this Air Force Colonel was sounding a lot like some of the SF Officers I know when they talk about "the key to tactical victory is the right mix of capabilities" until I read COL Pietrucha's bio blurb. "An irregular warfare operations officer, Colonel Pietrucha has two additional combat deployments in the company of US Army infantry, combat engineer, and military police units in Iraq and Afghanistan."
He knows that the end user on the ground needs bombs and strafing runs, and we don't need stealth to do that.
“We'll likely have to cancel or delay several critical recapitalization programs,” he continued. “Among those probably impacted would be the combat rescue helicopter and the TX trainer. Abandoning the TX program would mean that future pilots will then continue to train in the 50-year-old T-38.
“None of these options are good ones, but we are simply out of good options,” he said. “It's time for courageous leadership. We simply can't continue to defer every tough decision in the near term, at the expense of military readiness and capability over time.”
"Courageous leadership" these days involves the Air Force wasting big money procuring over seventy faulty F-35 prototypes in the last few years, and possibly procuring 45 more next fiscal year, still at least four years before the plane is approved for production. There are other words for that behavior besides leadership.
This guy need to learn his history, F-15G "Strike Weasel" was cancelled by Bill Clinton. Because the F-16CJ (AKA Block 50/52) could do it cheaper. Of course it also takes an RC-135 Rivet Joint to do the mission.... The USAF and Navy made an agreement in the 90's that the USN would provide all EW in the future. http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/September%202012/0912whidbey.aspx
"Part of the issue with the RAH-66 was the ever-expanding list of requirements, leading to increased cost and weight." That was not part of the issue it was the issue. The same thing would have happened to the Abrams if we did not have a Sec of the Army with a set of balls. He had to force the Army to freeze the design and any further changes would be the M1A1. It worked! The M1A1 went into production 6 years after the M1.
You may notice that we did not have any of those when Clinton was in office.
Col Pietrucha knows what he's proposing, and like your Abrams analogy, an F-15 based electronic attack platform is a evolutionary development of an existing in production aircraft mated with an existing avionics capability. ALQ-218 system, ALQ-99 pods, F-15E aircraft. That's the same formula that produced the Growler. The Air Force has chosen not to pursue that option over several decades choosing instead to rely on LO and Joint support.
The Air Force cannot eliminate its Service responsibilities and Mission Essential Task to provide EA by saying there is an agreement in place with the Navy. USAF conducts EA. just not with a tactical jet (EC-130). The F-16CJ is a HARM shooter with a passive detection system, not an electric attack aircraft.
The Navy, and formerly the USMC, have chosen to put their EA capabilities into a similar airframe as the primary strike aircraft for a number of reasons, tactical performance is only one.
Also, talk to the ground guys, EA isn't just used for strike/SEAD. Land power advocates should want as many EA assets in the inventory as possible.
Problem with the Iron Triangle (AWACS, RIVET JOINT and JSTARS) is that their work assumes no S400, S500 or high-end red-air threats coming down the pike. Their missions may become more limited in the future.
Well, you will be glad to know that the chinese still havnt figured out a way to fully duplicate in performance the russian powerpack thats going on the existing sukhois and will form the basis for their 5th gen. It looks like they will have to be reliant on a foreign jet engine for the foreseable future unless something drastic/revolutionary happens like industrial espionage of the highest order.
I'd entirely forgotten about the trashed flying hours in the Air Farce due to buying hardware. Chalk it up among the many things sacrificed upon the altar of 5th Gen Stealth.
I like his idea of a heterogeneous force that can be deployed to face a broad spectrum of threats, not just potential 'peer' threats.
When the Navy passed on the Prowler to Marine Air, everyone knew it would only be a matter of time before the USMC cut the Prowler as a matter of "budgeting priorities" and the Navy/USMC Air EA platforms became Growler pure.
Having served as JCA for a number of AEA platforms, I'm very happy to see the Navy continue to support the Growler. My only complaint was lower loiter times than other platforms, but they got to where I needed them to be faster than any other platform (for supporting TICs). The Army is exploring the CEASAR and NERO options for our "long loiter time" organic AEA platforms and they work really well for preplanned missions, but neither of them are really much help for the SEAD mission. You'll need Growlers for that, although the Prowlers are still a highly functional system against the bulk of the worlds Air Defense systems.
The same offensive missions could be accomplished cheaper, and without human exposure, by air-to-surface standoff missiles (JASSM) -- BUT that would be an attack on the Air Force budget and on its fighter pilots, both of which are sacred to the Air Force.
ReplyDeleteTherefore:
"F-35. We have no other choice." —Gen Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff, US Air Force
I was wondering why this Air Force Colonel was sounding a lot like some of the SF Officers I know when they talk about "the key to tactical victory is the right mix of capabilities" until I read COL Pietrucha's bio blurb. "An irregular warfare operations officer, Colonel Pietrucha has two additional combat deployments in the company of US Army infantry, combat engineer, and military police units in Iraq and Afghanistan."
ReplyDeleteHe knows that the end user on the ground needs bombs and strafing runs, and we don't need stealth to do that.
“We'll likely have to cancel or delay several critical recapitalization programs,” he continued. “Among those probably impacted would be the combat rescue helicopter and the TX trainer. Abandoning the TX program would mean that future pilots will then continue to train in the 50-year-old T-38.
ReplyDelete“None of these options are good ones, but we are simply out of good options,” he said. “It's time for courageous leadership. We simply can't continue to defer every tough decision in the near term, at the expense of military readiness and capability over time.”
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122199
====================
The USAF has no money for T-X, apparantly.
"Courageous leadership" these days involves the Air Force wasting big money procuring over seventy faulty F-35 prototypes in the last few years, and possibly procuring 45 more next fiscal year, still at least four years before the plane is approved for production. There are other words for that behavior besides leadership.
ReplyDeleteThis guy need to learn his history, F-15G "Strike Weasel" was cancelled by Bill Clinton. Because the F-16CJ (AKA Block 50/52) could do it cheaper. Of course it also takes an RC-135 Rivet Joint to do the mission.... The USAF and Navy made an agreement in the 90's that the USN would provide all EW in the future. http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/September%202012/0912whidbey.aspx
ReplyDelete"Part of the issue with the RAH-66 was the ever-expanding list of requirements, leading to increased cost and weight." That was not part of the issue it was the issue. The same thing would have happened to the Abrams if we did not have a Sec of the Army with a set of balls. He had to force the Army to freeze the design and any further changes would be the M1A1. It worked! The M1A1 went into production 6 years after the M1.
You may notice that we did not have any of those when Clinton was in office.
Col Pietrucha knows what he's proposing, and like your Abrams analogy, an F-15 based electronic attack platform is a evolutionary development of an existing in production aircraft mated with an existing avionics capability. ALQ-218 system, ALQ-99 pods, F-15E aircraft. That's the same formula that produced the Growler. The Air Force has chosen not to pursue that option over several decades choosing instead to rely on LO and Joint support.
ReplyDeleteThe Air Force cannot eliminate its Service responsibilities and Mission Essential Task to provide EA by saying there is an agreement in place with the Navy. USAF conducts EA. just not with a tactical jet (EC-130). The F-16CJ is a HARM shooter with a passive detection system, not an electric attack aircraft.
The Navy, and formerly the USMC, have chosen to put their EA capabilities into a similar airframe as the primary strike aircraft for a number of reasons, tactical performance is only one.
Also, talk to the ground guys, EA isn't just used for strike/SEAD. Land power advocates should want as many EA assets in the inventory as possible.
Problem with the Iron Triangle (AWACS, RIVET JOINT and JSTARS) is that their work assumes no S400, S500 or high-end red-air threats coming down the pike. Their missions may become more limited in the future.
ReplyDeleteWell, you will be glad to know that the chinese still havnt figured out a way to fully duplicate in performance the russian powerpack thats going on the existing sukhois and will form the basis for their 5th gen. It looks like they will have to be reliant on a foreign jet engine for the foreseable future unless something drastic/revolutionary happens like industrial espionage of the highest order.
ReplyDeleteI'd entirely forgotten about the trashed flying hours in the Air Farce due to buying hardware. Chalk it up among the many things sacrificed upon the altar of 5th Gen Stealth.
ReplyDeleteI like his idea of a heterogeneous force that can be deployed to face a broad spectrum of threats, not just potential 'peer' threats.
When the Navy passed on the Prowler to Marine Air, everyone knew it would only be a matter of time before the USMC cut the Prowler as a matter of "budgeting priorities" and the Navy/USMC Air EA platforms became Growler pure.
ReplyDeleteHaving served as JCA for a number of AEA platforms, I'm very happy to see the Navy continue to support the Growler. My only complaint was lower loiter times than other platforms, but they got to where I needed them to be faster than any other platform (for supporting TICs). The Army is exploring the CEASAR and NERO options for our "long loiter time" organic AEA platforms and they work really well for preplanned missions, but neither of them are really much help for the SEAD mission. You'll need Growlers for that, although the Prowlers are still a highly functional system against the bulk of the worlds Air Defense systems.