|
Psion posted:As for mission capable rates in 1991:  So that's what it looks like to have a fully funded O&M account. Seriously, KC-10 at a 95% MC rate, even taking into account that poo poo is all about how you twist the numbers, my mind is exploding right now. Where are you getting those numbers from? That's probably a source I would find highly interesting. Alaan posted:A-10s and Tornadoes were basically the cause of the no doing poo poo under 10,000 feet rule in Gulf War 1. Being under there vs. a reasonably modern enemy is really not healthy for you. Big thing with the Tornados was low level unguided toss bombing, usually targeting rather heavily defended airfields...although surprisingly no aircraft were lost to enemy fire while employing JP233 (one did go down, but it was more than likely CFIT). Alaan posted:I was poking around a bit and it's actually kind of grey. For some reason A-10s seemed to have significantly worse/less assessment of the strikes they made. There is some giant Government Accounting Office doc( http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-97-134/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-97-134.htm ) that get's into cost:benefit of the various airframes and it kind of has to gloss over the A-10 because of insufficient/bad data. Though it was clear it and the F-16 were the kings of sorty numbers in the air war. That looks like a pretty cool document from a data perspective, but... quote:One of the stated advantages of stealth technology is that it  So I guess we'll ignore that all of those F-117 sorties were over downtown Baghdad while the majority of the other sorties...weren't. In fact, when the F-16s tried to go downtown in numbers, it didn't exactly turn out well.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:So that's what it looks like to have a fully funded O&M account. Seriously, KC-10 at a 95% MC rate, even taking into account that poo poo is all about how you twist the numbers, my mind is exploding right now. quote:So I guess we'll ignore that all of those F-117 sorties were over downtown Baghdad while the majority of the other sorties...weren't. In fact, when the F-16s tried to go downtown in numbers, it didn't exactly turn out well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't want to pretend I can read minds, but: he was never serious about that. At the same time, I think it was even in the same speech/paper, he was talking about sending the entire KC-10 fleet to the boneyard as well (which got significantly less attention because the KC-10 doesn't do fake strafing passes at airshows, despite it having a much larger impact on overall readiness.) He was just playing the game. I dunno...I'm familiar with the Washington Monument approach, and don't get me wrong, there is more than a fair bit of that in all these discussions. But if you look at the numbers and the budget realities we face*, if nothing changes I don't see how we get out of this without axing a MDS or two. Horizontal cuts aren't going to get it done without crippling us across the board and leading to a hollow force, eliminating an entire MDS and the attending logistics backend is the only way I see it working. We're basically using all the money we got on top of the baseline we were expecting in the FY14 budget to start repairing the damage to readiness that the no-fly period did to us last year, so none of that is going into the acquisition pot. Acquisitions is a complete disaster thanks to the F-35 dumpster fire and the KC-X debacle, but we have to, have to recapitalize, we've mortgaged our future for the past 20 years and now we're out of options. And that money has to come from somewhere. I mean, poo poo, people in USAF uniforms with stars are talking very publicly about how we're going down significantly from 65 Pred/Reaper CAPs in the near future, regardless of what the COCOMs say they want. That would get you put up against a wall and shot two years ago. * In a perfect world, where we got to control our own money/budget and there were no restrictions/pots of money, I agree, this would be a spending ploy (just like the fact that we're getting rid of the U-2) because we'd be able to "trim all of those superfluous items." But unfortunately we don't live in that perfect world, so a lot of that isn't possible (even if it makes sense)...so poo poo like canning the U-2 in favor of a more expensive less capable Global Chicken are a reality thanks to Congress, just like how we're going to get rid of an entire MDS instead of closing useless bases, thanks to Congress explicitly forbidding us from even beginning to plan for another round of BRAC, much less executing. Dead Reckoning posted:It's still a pretty good point that it's hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison when you have different types of aircraft doing different mission sets with different tactics/ROE. That's my point, the way I read that GAO report it makes it sound like they're saying that the F-117 was relatively worthless because it cost oodles of money and was supposed to be more survivable compared to the cheaper A-10 but the F-117 flew way less sorties and neither aircraft suffered any losses when flying at medium altitude at night...never mind the fact that the F-117 was flying at medium altitude at night over downtown Baghdad while the A-10 was flying at medium altitude at night over Kuwait/southern Iraq. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but it seems like shades of the old trope about how if the beancounters ran everything we'd have nothing but bayonets because they're the most cost effective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Big thing with the Tornados was low level unguided toss bombing, usually targeting rather heavily defended airfields...although surprisingly no aircraft were lost to enemy fire while employing JP233 (one did go down, but it was more than likely CFIT). Yessssss... JP233s, cool. I know cluster munitions are horrible in their way for spewing dangerous bomblets around that civilians (especially kids) can pick up (why would they be around a military airfield though?) but drat they look nifty. gently caress YO RUNWAYS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAGmDqH4c-8 poo poo rear end quality but some pretty slick low level stuff here. I always thought Tornados were awesome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTPlk70eSLY&t=285s  at around 5:45The MW-1 was even more impressive looking than the JP233 though https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLqCxCLKfGk
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
The KC-10 has a reputation for unreliability? I didn't know that. Seems kind of counterintuitive, being derived from a workaday passenger plane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
To reiterate the thing about the USAF (and the USN for that matter) and CAS, I have some visibility on some absolutely massive efforts to modernize that whole construct. It is a serious effort that goes all the way to the top of the organization. I have no idea how people got the impression that the mission wasn't a priority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
It's from this: http://www.amazon.com/Storm-over-Ir...Storm+over+Iraq In the interests of fairness, I have no reason to doubt his numbers but I don't know exactly where they came from, either. I admit I threw in the KC-10 one knowing it'd get some reaction from you or another AF person. Success! Psion fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
I'm surprised that study didn't lambast Tomahawks for their cost-effectiveness. We lost every loving one we sent over Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I'm surprised that study didn't lambast Tomahawks for their cost-effectiveness. We lost every loving one we sent over Iraq. Not only that, a significant number of their launch platforms sunk, with no evidence of even being fired upon
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Not only that, a significant number of their launch platforms sunk, with no evidence of even being fired upon Not to mention the ones that didn't were 1930s-era technology. Honestly 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Hey not every missile can be like a HARM and be brought back to base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
Flikken posted:Hey not every missile can be like a HARM and be brought back to base. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:The KC-10 has a reputation for unreliability? I didn't know that. Seems kind of counterintuitive, being derived from a workaday passenger plane. A passenger plane that was phased out of service almost as soon as the airlines could replace them. They didn't have a reputation for reliability there, either. But most of the Air Force's heavies are mediocre in that area. The picture came out too blurry to keep, but outside the ECP to the AWACS ramp at Tinker, there's an electronic sign with stupid mottos and poo poo flashing up. Well, one of them was something like "Safe, reliable, ready:" followed by the mission ready rate for the month. I had to laugh when it said something like 65%. Which was about normal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
The only domestic 'airline' that still uses DC-10s is FedEx. They're getting phased out and getting parts for them is a pain in the rear end. The KC-X competition was probably one of the most crooked contracts in a long time, but maintenance on a 767 framed tanker will be a lot cheaper than one based on the A330.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The only domestic 'airline' that still uses DC-10s is FedEx. They're getting phased out and getting parts for them is a pain in the rear end. The KC-X competition was probably one of the most crooked contracts in a long time, but maintenance on a 767 framed tanker will be a lot cheaper than one based on the A330. Why is this? Euro vs. American parts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
And there's a more robust (higher demand) logistics chain in the US for Boeing vs Airbus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Godholio posted:A passenger plane that was phased out of service almost as soon as the airlines could replace them. They didn't have a reputation for reliability there, either. I still find it funny that the civilian side puts up way better dispatch rates for their DC-10s than the military, despite the fact that the civilian aircraft are typically busted-rear end, third- or fourth-hand aircraft flying far more hours per month than the KC-10, in spite of all the KC-10s being a new-built, uniform fleet of aircraft that apart from the refuelling system and a couple black boxes are exactly the same as any DC-10. Godholio posted:And there's a more robust (higher demand) logistics chain in the US for Boeing vs Airbus. Airbus is a huge player in the US; I promise you that's not the issue. The only reason why the A330 might cost more to maintain is that it is a far more complicated aircraft than the 767, and experience from the civilian side shows an A330 as being about the same cost to maintain overall as a 767 in terms of dollars per flying hour. E: Of course, once everybody and their dog get their fingers into the maintenance contract of a KC-46 vs. the hypothetical KC-45, all bets are off as to which comes out cheapest. MrChips fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Oh hey, what's up. I wasn't even the guy who brought it up this time, sport. My post was regarding the origin of Rutan's ground attack prototype. Ed. Well I briefly mentioned it, but I was just repeating what the National Guard apparently said in the report so I don't think you can really lay that on me. Servicio en Espanol fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Feb 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Servicio en Espanol posted:Ed. Well I briefly mentioned it, but I was just repeating what the National Guard apparently said in the report so I don't think you can really lay that on me. Hm, yes, I can see no reason that the entity who really wishes it was its own separate branch (someone remind me again why they have their own seat on the JCS now) and that does more lobbying with Congress than the other actual branches of the military combined would have to lie or otherwise stretch the truth in a report that was attempting to generate more missions and money for itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Ed. Not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Hm, yes, I can see no reason that the entity who really wishes it was its own separate branch (someone remind me again why they have their own seat on the JCS now) and that does more lobbying with Congress than the other actual branches of the military combined would have to lie or otherwise stretch the truth in a report that was attempting to generate more missions and money for itself. Wait are we talking about the Guard or the Marines?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
I know the Marines flick it to Guadalcanal, but what does the National Guard think of to curl their toes and ask for more independence. . . the Alamo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I know the Marines flick it to Guadalcanal, but what does the National Guard think of to curl their toes and ask for more independence. . . the Alamo? Red Dawn
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I know the Marines flick it to Guadalcanal, but what does the National Guard think of to curl their toes and ask for more independence. . . the Alamo? Hurricane Katrina.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Red Dawn Party Plane Jones posted:Hurricane Katrina. This is why I love this thread! I also would have accepted Kent State.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I still find it funny that the civilian side puts up way better dispatch rates for their DC-10s than the military, despite the fact that the civilian aircraft are typically busted-rear end, third- or fourth-hand aircraft flying far more hours per month than the KC-10, in spite of all the KC-10s being a new-built, uniform fleet of aircraft that apart from the refuelling system and a couple black boxes are exactly the same as any DC-10. I find it hilarious. Military maintenance is bloated and inefficient, regardless of service branch, but USAF maintenance always seemed particularly egregiously fat and fussy. Great to work in that environment, certainly, Charleston AFB was the only time I'd ever seen a functioning mobile O2 cart, but expensive as hell. I've often wondered what USAF mission capable rates would look like in a no-poo poo near-peer shooting war, when all the extraneous bullshit goes out the window to put airplanes in the air.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I know the Marines flick it to Guadalcanal, but what does the National Guard think of to curl their toes and ask for more independence. . . the Alamo? D-Day? The 29th Infantry Division that landed at Omaha Beach was originally a National Guard unit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
It was still a National Guard unit when it landed, wasn't it? Bedford, Virginia had the highest rate of casualties in World War II because one of the lead companies of the 29th on D-Day had its armory nearby IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:It was still a National Guard unit when it landed, wasn't it? Bedford, Virginia had the highest rate of casualties in World War II because one of the lead companies of the 29th on D-Day had its armory nearby IIRC. Yup. 19 men were killed on D-Day, from a town on 3,200.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Also the National Guard relieved / reinforced the Marines on Guadalcanal.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
There were quite a few National Guard units shipped out to reinforce the Philippines in mid-1941, and a few en route when Pearl Harbor happened ended up diverted to Java. No points for guessing how that ended.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
Blistex posted:I know the Marines flick it to Guadalcanal, but what does the National Guard think of to curl their toes and ask for more independence. . . the Alamo? Revolutionary militia. Which is A: bullshit fantasy and B: not something to be proud of anyway. They spent more time running away than fighting and had such a lovely reputation that British commanders were willing to attack into a 4:1 disadvantage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I've often wondered what USAF mission capable rates would look like in a no-poo poo near-peer shooting war, when all the extraneous bullshit goes out the window to put airplanes in the air. For most platforms they'll be sky-high, as there are a lot of minor things you don't want to deal with during a training mission (either for safety concerns or it might negate a training objective) that are acceptable for a real mission. That'll start to take its toll though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
When you say "minor things" do you mean things like the warning light on the auxiliary cigarette lighter APU, or things like, "I have to flick the switch 2-3 times to jettison the external fuel tank"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I find it hilarious. Military maintenance is bloated and inefficient, regardless of service branch, but USAF maintenance always seemed particularly egregiously fat and fussy. The doubly hilarious part is that from the inside it seems anything but bloated...but that's because at any one given time somewhere along the lines of 20-25% of my workforce that is nominally "at work" (so not sick, on leave, deployed, whatever) is tasked out doing poo poo other than maintenance. And that's not counting the 10% or so that aren't capable of working on their own and are still being trained at our operational base because despite having flown this aircraft in combat for almost a decade the USAF still doesn't have a fully established formal training pipeline for maintainers. So inefficient? Absolutely. The triply hilarious part is that even in a combat zone it is still almost that bad. In a no poo poo near-peer shooting war, I'd like to think that MC rates and the like would actually go up, but I dunno...I've had discussions with some of the old school dudes I've worked with who were around in Desert Storm, the amount of aircraft we put in the air once every couple of years as a publicity stunt today is what they were doing on a daily basis for the duration of the war. So I think I'd agree with Godholio that initially they'd be sky high because a lot of extraneous bullshit would go away but I don't think it would be sustainable, not with our current manning and supply chain. Godholio posted:Revolutionary militia. Which is A: bullshit fantasy and B: not something to be proud of anyway. They spent more time running away than fighting and had such a lovely reputation that British commanders were willing to attack into a 4:1 disadvantage. Uh, excuse me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgV6VUinDEA lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Godholio posted:For most platforms they'll be sky-high, as there are a lot of minor things you don't want to deal with during a training mission (either for safety concerns or it might negate a training objective) that are acceptable for a real mission. That'll start to take its toll though. I think the assumption is that in a near-peer shooting war your ratio of maintainers and spare parts to suriviving airframes keeps going up, which counterbalances all the extra work
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Uh, excuse me: lmao how did i remember the marines fighting the one lava demon and not this??
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
right arm posted:lmao how did i remember the marines fighting the one lava demon and not this?? They played them more in movie theaters during the commercials before the previews. I want to say that you mostly saw them sometime between 2007 and 2010 or so? I remember there was also a god awful Kid Rock one that featured both the US Army and NASCAR. edit: ahahaha, found it. It's called "Warrior" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQXXpUK49U4
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
right arm posted:lmao how did i remember the marines fighting the one lava demon and not this?? 2:50 is the best part..."GONNA GO KICK THIS DOO--whoops never mind, gonna just run in a circle right in front of the now open door" Cyrano4747 posted:They played them more in movie theaters during the commercials before the previews. I want to say that you mostly saw them sometime between 2007 and 2010 or so? I remember there was also a god awful Kid Rock one that featured both the US Army and NASCAR. Yeah, both of those were on almost non-stop rotation in movie theaters during the mid to late 2000s "we'll take anyone with a pulse" phase of recruiting. Also lol at the kid with a soccer ball at 1:28 that doesn't get run over or smoked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Blistex posted:When you say "minor things" do you mean things like the warning light on the auxiliary cigarette lighter APU, or things like, "I have to flick the switch 2-3 times to jettison the external fuel tank"? For a fighter, it might be the UHF radios that they use to communicate with wingmen and AWACS. For a wingman, he can get by with just one which will probably be tuned to the flight's frequency and his lead will relay anything from AWACS he needs to know. On a training mission, that might keep that jet on the ground depending on what the student's objectives are. For AWACS, it could be the loving radar...depending on the mission (is radio and datalink relay important enough to launch a radarless AWACS? Maybe. For training purposes, can some of the crew still get meaningful training? Again, maybe.). I've been on jets that were launched with no radar and I've been on jets that had the flight cancelled because of no radar. It all depends.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 23:52
|
|