Author
|
Topic: Another prediction comes home to roost. (Read 449 times) |
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
 
|
 |
Another prediction comes home to roost.
« on: 2008-03-11 09:54:37 » |
 |
Air Force argues for more money
It says it needs billions of dollars more than the other services to stay competitive globally.
[ Hermit : Of course, this is only the beginning - and not part of the 5 trillion dollar war debt that is going to be GW Bush's longest lasting legacy to what he has left of the USA. In addition, the 20 billion estimate is - in my estimation - a lot like the GW Bush maladministration's prewar estimate of the cost of the Bushwar in Iraq. In other words, many times less than is really needed - particularly given the disastrous rate of inflation, the collapsing value of the dollar - and the lamentable state of the US Airforce. ] .
Source: The Christian Science Monitor
Authors: Gordon Lubold (Staff Writer)
Dated: 2008-03-11
In the Pentagon's emerging budget wars, the military service perceived to be playing one of the smallest roles in the war on terrorism now says it's in danger of breaking and needs billions of dollars more than the other services to stay whole.
The Air Force, after years of maintaining older airplanes without buying new ones, says it must be allowed to modernize or America risks losing air dominance around the world.
Five years of war in Iraq has worn down the ground forces and focused attention on the need to rebuild the Army and Marine Corps for those kinds of counterinsurgency operations. But the Air Force's campaign to publicize its own budgetary woes – and the military's drive to stay competitive against conventional enemies, such as China, which requires air power – are forcing Pentagon planners to make tough choices.
Although the Air Force's recent decision to award a contract to an American and French partnership for its next-generation air tanker has diverted attention, the bigger challenge for the service remains: convincing an American public and a wary Congress that it needs as much as $20 billion in additional funding each year over five years.
This year, for example, the Air Force is asking for $18 billion in "unfunded requirements." That's money the service seeks for new airplanes like the stealthy F-22 Raptor, which lists for about $143 million each. These are replacing the stock of F-15 Eagles, one of which broke apart over Missouri last fall.
"We've got an extraordinarily old fleet, the oldest we've had in the Air Force," says Col. Richard Forester, a deputy chief at Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va.
At the same time, peer competitors such as China – though Air Force officers never speak that word publicly – are designing top-of-the-line airplanes with new capabilities.
"We used to enjoy a pretty decided advantage over anybody else on the planet, but not so much anymore," Colonel Forester says. [ Hermit : Actually, as the Cope India and CONUS Luftwaffe exercises proved to any competent observer, the previous generation of Russian Sukhoi and Mikoyan-Gurevich - including even the bantam-weight 29 airframes - made everything short of the F22 Raptor look like junk - and the current generations of Su - which can fly 12/14 AAMs, are more agile and have better climb rates combined with much greater fuel loads than the F22 are going to result in multiple billion dollar upgrade programs and still leave even the JSF paper tiger looking outdated before it ever hits the showroom floor. At this point. certain aspects of the situation the US has injected itself into is horribly reminiscent of the last days of the USSR. This might be seen by some as ironic. ]
(Earlier this month, the Pentagon released its annual assessment on China's military, with officials noting the country's "lack of transparency" as it buys high-tech weaponry and fighters and invests in submarines. Critics believe, however, that such reports amount to mere saber rattling and that some in the military are trying to create a false perception of China's military ambitions.)
The Air Force agreed to draw down its number of airmen in the hope that the savings would be returned to it in the form of funding for upgrades and new airplanes. But senior Air Force officials say they instead watched as the money was diverted to the Army and the Marine Corps as those two services grew larger. While they don't begrudge the increases of the other two, they say they're left trying to bandage their service as aircraft platforms age and the number of personnel decrease – at the same time that their missions worldwide have increased and fuel costs skyrocket. [ Hermit : Blowback is such a bitch. ]
It doesn't make sense, senior officials say, to fix old planes like the F-15 and not buy new ones like the F-22.
"If we focus solely on sustaining the Army and the Marine Corps, and constrain the Navy and Air Force to primarily extending the life of existing systems, we will find ourselves in a fight we can't win, and the Army and Marine Corps will lack the throw-weight to win without the Navy and Air Force at their side," says one senior officer who asked not to be named due to the political nature of the debate.
In fact, the Air Force was nearing a breaking point in 2001, but back then, those issues could have been addressed without major modernization, says Tom Ehrhard, a former Air Force officer who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a policy group in Washington. It's different now, he says.
"They are now to the point where they truly are breaking," Mr. Ehrhard says. [ Hermit : Nice to have what I said back then confirmed. ]
But that's a tougher sell these days, as Congress attempts to ask broad questions about defense spending. Last week, the House Armed Services Committee released its "Roles and Missions" study, a preview of a broader initiative that the Pentagon has already begun. Some believe this will threaten the Air Force's traditional role. Now that it's making larger budgetary requests, the Air Force is, as Rep. Ike Skelton (D) of Missouri said last month, at "ground zero" for such a debate.
Meanwhile, the Air Force performs what all agree is a vital role, albeit as a "silent partner," carrying more than 600 tons of cargo each day and ferrying service members across combat zones and to and from the war theater. It also performs tens of thousands of other airlift, refueling, and close-air support and precision-strike missions. Air Force officials like to point out that its aircraft have also been flying continuously over Iraq since 1990, when President Clinton began Operations Northern and Southern Watch. Officers worry that much of this gets forgotten in the current debate.
"We have learned from history that the first thing we have to do is secure the air," says Lt. Col. Robert Garland, an F-15 squadron commander at Langley. "Once you've secured that, then the ground or sea commander can do anything they want."
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.83
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Another prediction comes home to roost.
« Reply #1 on: 2008-03-11 22:20:16 » |
|
[Fritz]And I had thought just Canada had let its Air Force go to hell in a hand basket ! So much for watching the science porn on the Dish for the latest and greatest technology that the Air Force could have had.
[ Hermit : <snip>At this point. certain aspects of the situation the US has injected itself into is horribly reminiscent of the last days of the USSR. This might be seen by some as ironic<snip>. ]
[Fritz] Will the Western Oligargs take their slice of North America as happened in the USSR and will the Neocons reemerge victorious (like Putin), assuming a minor setback in the up coming election ?
(It is worth noting that in Alberta Canada last week, flying in the face of the pollsters, the Conservative Government was reelected with 72 out of 83 seats, dramatically increased their majority. This after reducing health care, education and social services, but the Oil business is booming.)
[Hermit]<snip>(Earlier this month, the Pentagon released its annual assessment on China's military, with officials noting the country's "lack of transparency" as it buys high-tech weaponry and fighters and invests in submarines. Critics believe, however, that such reports amount to mere saber rattling and that some in the military are trying to create a false perception of China's military ambitions.)<snip>
[Fritz] Once again we are chasing 'boogie men' (aka terrorists) and we are going to miss the turn in the road ahead.
Thx
Fritz
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Another prediction comes home to roost.
« Reply #2 on: 2008-03-14 00:56:41 » |
|
Jet Fighter Costs to Hit $1 Trillion
Sources: Associated Press
Authors: Richard Lardner (Associated Press Writer)
Dated: 2008-03-11
The cost of buying and operating a new fleet of jet fighters for the U.S. military is nearing $1 trillion, according to a congressional audit that found the program dogged by delays, manufacturing inefficiencies and price increases.
Released Tuesday, the report from the Government Accountability Office offers a sobering assessment of the ambitious effort to deliver a modern series of aircraft known as the F-35 Lightning II to the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
Tasked by Congress to conduct an annual assessment of the program, the GAO said costs have gone up by $23 billion since last year alone.
Close to $300 billion is needed to acquire 2,458 aircraft for the three services and another $650 billion will be needed to operate and maintain the fighters that are expected to be flying well into the 21st century, the report says.
Operating costs, projected at $346 billion just a few years ago, have been driven upward by changes in repair plans, revised costs for depot maintenance, higher fuel costs and increased fuel consumption.
The GAO's auditors said they expect development and procurement costs "to increase substantially and schedule pressures to worsen based on performance to date."
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. of Fort Worth, Texas, is the prime contractor for the Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter.
The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, also sees many of the problems as self-inflicted.
"The contractor has extended manufacturing schedules several times, but test aircraft delivery dates continue to slip," the report states. "The flight test program has barely begun, but faces substantial risks with reduced assets as design and manufacturing problems continue to cause delays that further compress the time available to complete development."
Auditors criticized both the military and the contractor for pressing into the jet's development's phase before key technologies were mature, started manufacturing test aircraft before designs were stable, and moved to production before flight tests showed the aircraft was ready.
"We do not know the basis for the GAO estimates and until we receive and analyze their data we will be unable to comment on them," Lockheed spokesman John Smith said in an e-mailed statement.
Smith, however, said the company has been careful stewards of U.S. tax dollars by trimming costs wherever possible.
"We continue to apply the same kind of oversight, budget alignment and lean thinking to the program," he said.
Production of the Lightning II has begun and the Defense Department is scheduled to buy the aircraft through 2034. U.S. allies are also buying hundreds of the jets and are contributing $4.8 billion in development costs.
The Lightning II is being produced in several different models tailored to the needs of each service. The new jet will replace the Air Forces F-16 Falcon and the A-10 Warthog aircraft. A short takeoff and vertical landing version will replace the Marine Corps F/A-18C/D and AV-8B Harrier aircraft. And the Navy is buying a model designed for taking off and landing on aircraft carriers. [ Hermit : In short, a perfect camel. ]
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.83
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:Another prediction comes home to roost.
« Reply #3 on: 2008-03-27 11:41:01 » |
|
[Fritz] So looks like the Ally is meeting the same fate as the US ... a trend maybe.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/27/defence_report_nimrod_chop_maybe/
MPs: axe Nimrod subhunters to balance MoD budget
Rogue dinosaur project for the chop?
By Lewis Page
Published Thursday 27th March 2008 13:07 GMT
As the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) confronts yet another looming annual budget shortfall, Parliament's Defence Committee has issued its 2008 report into British military kit procurement. The oversight MPs say bluntly that it is time for the MoD to start axing major equipment programmes, rather than spreading its cash ever-thinner across too many projects. They give a strong hint that the troubled Nimrod MRA4 subhunter plane should go.
In particular, the report considers several of the big headline purchases underway now, and those planned for the immediate future. The MPs examined the Nimrod MRA4 subhunter plane, the A400M turboprop transport, the Type 45 destroyer and the F-35 stealth jumpjet, all of which are under construction now. They also reported on the plans to build two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy (Future Carrier) and to replace much of the Army's current combat vehicle fleet (Future Rapid Effects System).
Overall, the Nimrod MRA4 seemed to come out worst in the MPs' view. This is not surprising, as the Nimrod project is now running more than seven years late and has ballooned in cost from £2.2bn to £3.5bn (for now) - while the number of planes has simultaneously dropped from 21 to 12. Thus the per-plane price has almost tripled, to a horrifying £292m apiece. Even worse, there are a lot of people asking whether the British forces genuinely need a fleet of huge expensive submarine-hunting aeroplanes right now.
According to the MPs:
The Ministry of Defence ... states that the “major programme showing cost growth at present continues to be Nimrod [MRA4]” ...
Since the [MoD purchasing bureau] Chief Operating Officer, Mr Gould, told us that the problems being experienced on the Nimrod MRA4 programme were not considered unusual ... and that “it was predictable”, we are deeply concerned that they nevertheless seem to have come as such a surprise to the MoD ...
The Nimrod programme has experienced further slippage in 2007-08 of 3 months.
We hope that the new Minister for Defence Equipment and Support will look closely at this programme and consider whether it is ever likely to deliver the capability our Armed Forces require in the timescale needed. If it is not the MoD should withdraw from the programme.
In other words, just bin it. Much of the acquisition cost has already been paid, but huge sums would be saved down the road in running and support costs. It would probably be possible to close down a large RAF base, for example.
The current, ancient Nimrod MR2s wouldn't be much missed. They are working hard above Afghanistan right now - despite the fact that they aren't the safest planes around - but the jobs being done aren't such as to call for quarter-billion-pound airliners full of specialist submarine tracking gear. Comms relay, electronic intercept and surveillance can be done by cheaper planes - or even by hugely cheaper unmanned jobs, without risking flyboys' lives.
The only other project which the MPs see as a possible candidate for the chopper is the plan to build two big new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. These, however, have top-level political protection - they are to be built in a yard within sight of Gordon Brown's constituency seat - so their axing would appear unlikely.®
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Another prediction comes home to roost.
« Reply #4 on: 2008-03-27 15:41:46 » |
|
The predictions referred to were first made here in the late 1990s, well prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. At that point the US Airforce was already in deep trouble with airframe aging due to the extended use of its combat and transport assets for long periods of time in conflict and enforcement operations, without having budgeted for replacements. Basically the problem arises because when planning a military airframe life cycle one takes into account training and logistical flight hours and cycles, but not deployment, because deployment, while usually much harder on airframes, cannot be predicted and so cannot be taken into account when budgeting.
Instead, when airframes are committed to operations, the cost in lifetime and maintenance should be budgeted to that particular operation. Naturally politicians would prefer not to do this, and in fact generally have not, if only because it allows a much more accurate cost to be placed on their escapades. Prior to the late-nineteen-eighties, the fact that the US government did not do this could be buried in the insane allocations made as part of the very expensive (the sacrifice of an estimated annual 4% of GDP growth) "Cold War." By the mid -nineteen-nineties, this was beginning to become apparent in a massive decrease in airframe availability and in the ever more expensive refurbishment cycles introduced to extend airframe lifespans rather than scheduling early replacements. Since then, the Republican Congress has consistently failed to budget the unpalatable costs for airframe replacements, despite the fact that today more of the supposedly ready reserve and committed airframes are either hangar queens (stripped for parts to maintain the serviceability of other airframes to the extent that reassembly is uneconomic) or in the terminal throes of structural fatigue as shown by the increasing incidence, at ever decreasing intervals, of in-flight breakups due to structural fatigue, followed by fleet groundings.
Meanwhile, the ongoing deferments and cancellation of unfordable upgrade programs, the inexorable increase in inflation and the decline in American production capacity, and indeed extinction or sale of North American resources to foreign competitors, has guaranteed that when the equipment finally is replaced that it will be at a far higher prices, and with much greater contributions to the trade deficit (This can be seen in e.g. the difference between the Boeing and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company/Northrup Grumman tanker contracts - where despite the hyperbole about Boeing being an American company, the Boeing offer would have the result of more of the components and value other than profit of the airframes being produced outside the US than the EADS/Northrup Grumman contract.).
Courtesy of trying to play with the US, the British now have exactly the same problem with airframes even though their economy is in a somewhat better shape..
At this point the US would do far better to couple its own avionics and missile capabilities with the superior (and much cheaper to purchase and maintain) Russian airframes and engines. The (slight) US edge in Air to Air missiles would outweigh the equivalence in airframes, the much lower cost of Russian aircraft will help the balance of payments and budget, while if the US and Russians ever go nose-to-nose we are all screwed anyway.
Meanwhile, aside from submarines and transports, the navy is largely obsolete as it is barred from littoral waters in all but impoverished nations by inflatable dingies to say nothing of Russian and Chinese missile and mine technology; and the challenges of fuel availability is going to change conceptions of power projection within the lifespans of any replacements. So too, shaped charges have altered the economies of tanks and the need to interact with the populations to be effective has condemned super armored and fuel inefficient troop transport to obsolescence even before they are delivered.
As usual, the militaries of the world are wasting vast amounts of money and effort tooling up for the last war. What is unusual is that society is beginning to comprehend that the cost of this foolishness is not bearable at the end of the age of cheap resources and energy. The greatest threats to us now are consequences of our abuse of the environment and our excessive numbers.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
