It occurred to me we've not been keeping up our USAF bona fides… so, herewith some newsy notes as supplied by my friends who send me the Air Force Association's Daily Report. First, an item with semi-local interest (click the pic to see just how beautiful the landscape is to the south of us a ways, and my tongue is only half in my cheek):
Which all goes to prove that not every USAF acquisition program is in the weeds, contrary to what one might think. Speaking of which:
fairness, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has called on Defense Secretary Robert Gates to clarify how the Air Force intends to select a tanker aircraft in the KC-X competition, the Mobile Press-Register reported Wednesday. According to the newspaper, McCain wants Gates to justify the Air Force's proposed method for determining the total proposed price of each bidder and how it came up with the requirements that will drive the selection of the winning aircraft. It cites an Oct. 29 letter from McCain to Gates that, among its points, questions whether the method for determining price would favor smaller airframes—seemingly giving Boeing's 767-based tanker an advantage over Northrop Grumman's offering. McCain said in October he would like the Government Accountability Office—or some independent watchdog overseeing the contest. (See also Reuters news wire service's Nov. 10 report.)
Is there anyone naïve enough to believe this clusterfuck… which has been in progress since September of 2001… will proceed smoothly? I mean, even the damned WTO could get involved here! In the meantime our warriors are flying tankers that were bought back when Eisenhower was president. In other words, the average age of the aircraft in the tanker fleet is 47 years old.
Apropos of my last post… wherein I went off on the Ditherer-In-Chief… compare and contrast:
Pay particular attention to the weekly Close Air Support/Armed Recon numbers for OEF.
This is an admittedly anecdotal piece of information, but I think it serves to illustrate the gravity of the situation in The Af. What other conclusions could one draw when our weekly CAS sorties increase by a factor of (nearly) FIVE in the space of one year? We don't fly those sorties just so fighter jocks can get the hours to justify their flight pay. That said, I have some reservations about the "year to date" totals as reported. While I don't keep an eagle-eye on this data, I do read it every day as a matter of interest. The incremental sortie numbers have been increasing significantly, yet the YTD data for 2008 and 2009 are suspiciously close.
(Data courtesy of the aforementioned Daily Report, who obtain it from CENTAF. Also note we're PC these days... the "war on terrorism" verbiage has been dropped. I never noticed that until today.)
This is an admittedly anecdotal piece of information, but I think it serves to illustrate the gravity of the situation in The Af. What other conclusions could one draw when our weekly CAS sorties increase by a factor of (nearly) FIVE in the space of one year? We don't fly those sorties just so fighter jocks can get the hours to justify their flight pay. That said, I have some reservations about the "year to date" totals as reported. While I don't keep an eagle-eye on this data, I do read it every day as a matter of interest. The incremental sortie numbers have been increasing significantly, yet the YTD data for 2008 and 2009 are suspiciously close.
(Data courtesy of the aforementioned Daily Report, who obtain it from CENTAF. Also note we're PC these days... the "war on terrorism" verbiage has been dropped. I never noticed that until today.)
Buck, calling this a Clusterfuck is an understatement. I am working on something for my place with some of the back and forth that don't make the front page. Look for that later today and what did Boeing do to John McCain anyway? Boy that guy steps in and messes things up all the time. You'd think he would simply retire and pass the job of being a Senator on to someone else.
ReplyDeleteOn those numbers, I think a lot of the Predator/Reaper and of course the Navy flights kind of throw the total numbers off. Since the Navy puts F-18's overhead a lot they would need to be refueled a minimum of two times by the Air Force Big Wing Tanker and I understand that they actually go as many as five in a single trip to the AF with two of those being off other F-18's.
BT: Jimmy T sends.
O/T but fantastic photos
ReplyDeleteJimmy sez: ...I think a lot of the Predator/Reaper...
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure those sorties go under the ISR category. As for the Navy and the Plastic Bugs, well... point taken. That would explain the increase in air refueling missions, as you noted.
Alison: Thanks!
Geez, just buy a freakin' tanker, okay? Give half the contract to Boeing and half to the other guys. Or buy up all the DC-10's that are still flying and convert them.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Falklands war the Brits managed to convert their VC-10 into a tanker inside of two months. You can do a lot if you're properly motivated.
While I agree that not every acquisition program is in the weeds, dunno if the JASSM is the best example to use of this, seeing as how it is (or at least was) a complete pig. The JASSM-ER hasn't sucked as much by comparison, true, but that's not saying much. Given how much the JASSM blew, you would hope that a derivative of it wouldn't do too bad seeing as how they should've gotten the bugs out by now.
ReplyDeleteDevelopment of the JASSM started in 1995, flight test started in 1999, production/operational flight test started in 2001/2002 and that's where the wheels fell off. There was a whole spate of problems across the entire weapons system...JASSM-ER may have passed 6 out of 6 tests but there was a period where JASSM failed just about as many in a row. Propulsion, guidance, launcher; the only thing that was consistent was its inconsistency. By 2007 the missile still didn't work and was still in operational test (over a decade after initial development began)...the only reasons the AF didn't torpedo the program was that a) it got its start because the TSSAM was canceled, so the hole in AF capability that both missiles were supposed to fill had existed for some time and, more importantly, b) LockMart agreed to pay for most of the costs involved in fixing the missiles out of its own pocket.
So in short, if the JASSM-ER reaches actual IOC in 2013, it will be the end of almost two decades of development.
A suggestion for a more successful munition...the SDB as well as the JDAM family. SDB is ridiculously cheap and was developed fairly quickly...5 years from conception to IOC (and use in combat). JDAM should go without saying.
One last comment about the JASSM...I was the "current events guy" for my class when I was down at Sheppard (AF officer gayness). It basically meant I had to brief the class for a few minutes each morning about the news, especially anything to do with munitions. The JASSM (not the -ER, the original) was going through its most recent round of testing (yes, its still in testing) and was failing miserably. It got to be a running joke that at least once or twice a week I would detail the most recent failure of the JASSM and/or the most recent amount of money that was being dumped into the program.
ReplyDeleteI like the pics, too, Alison.
ReplyDeleteAnd the PC nonsense pisses me off to the Nth degree. Just wait til the Gitmo Gang arrives in NYC for "Circus Trial of the Century" -- I dread the consequences of that brilliant decision.
Gordon: You make too much sense, m'friend, which means you'd never cut it as a politico! I like your DC-10 idea... USAF already operates a fleet of KC-10s, so the support infrastructure for that airframe is in place.
ReplyDeleteMike: Thanks for the backfill on the JASSM. There's nothing quite like an insiders view!
Moggie: You and me BOTH where the PC-BS is concerned! And I hear ya about the latest frickin' Obama-Outrage...