Forum: F-16 News

VarkVet wrote:

MKopack wrote:

National Public Radio (while probably not the best of sources) also mentioned the continuing support of many Air Force officers and commanders for the F-22 Raptor as one of the reasons for today's 'actions'. If this is the case, and based on the SecDef's past statements it is very possible - if not likely, today could mark a death knell for further Raptor production.

Mike

Possible?

When is the last time you were in a unit with a 65.4% FMC rate? http://www.tyndall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123098614

I think it’s a good jet … We just need a lot more to keep the FMC rate up with very few that really need to fly at one time to suppress an enemy threat.

It's not a Viper were you can fly the sh*t out off and come back tomorrow and do the same thing Razz

Correct me if I'm wrong... but USAF could perhaps buy 5 F-22 + 5 MQ-9 Reapers today, for the same cost of 10 F-16 D latest blocks with CFT (not even including a SABR AESA)?

F-16.net Sponsor

I think we need to fire the idiots in the pentagon and in congress who put restrictions on good ideas like Boyd's perfect fighter design so we get all around better jets for a fraction of the 22s cost which, in the "longer" run might save us some money and jobs when there aren't any 22-like jets to argue about.

Just my 2 cents

Brice

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

This goes with the constant policy changes.

The USAF flip-flops faster than the civilians/politions who TRY to run it.

Brigadier General Olds would be appalled by the state of the USAF today; General LeMay would be livid! (If he ever made it past the disbandment of SAC)

I could agree with these statements more.

Resignations in the top USAF positions are becoming more common. Not good. They need to get someone with balls in those ****ing positions and stand up for themselves and their service, even if it means not being on someone's "popular" list. At least you'll earn respect.

So, who wants to be the next CSAF and SecAF?

VarkVet wrote:

MKopack wrote:

National Public Radio (while probably not the best of sources) also mentioned the continuing support of many Air Force officers and commanders for the F-22 Raptor as one of the reasons for today's 'actions'. If this is the case, and based on the SecDef's past statements it is very possible - if not likely, today could mark a death knell for further Raptor production.

Mike

Possible?

When is the last time you were in a unit with a 65.4% FMC rate? http://www.tyndall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123098614

I think it’s a good jet … We just need a lot more to keep the FMC rate up with very few that really need to fly at one time to suppress an enemy threat.

It's not a Viper were you can fly the sh*t out off and come back tomorrow and do the same thing Razz

Wow, only aircraft I've ever heard brag about a 65% FMC rate was a C-5. Someone should be ashamed.

Purple

Don’t forget the slamming they took at Maxwell for not sending more UAV’s to AOR. Seems Gates like robots.
“So yesterday Gates dressed down the Air Force during an address at its war college in Alabama. He said getting the service to deploy enough drones to Iraq and Afghanistan was like "pulling teeth" and he cited the struggle as an example of services refusing to adapt to the new era of warfare.”
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004133.html

What do you think "Rummy" would have done?.......Drawn & Quartered?

Purplehaze wrote:

What do you think "Rummy" would have done?.......Drawn & Quartered?

Not efficient enough for Rummy...Guilitine for sure

Speaking without knowing the whole picture..I hope the $25M for "Thunderbird Publicity" includes a lot of extras like fuel..

Flight demonstartion teams and other marketing do help recruiting and generate outstanding positive publicity, but is that really where that many of our tax dollars should go?

I can think of hundreds of places just in the Air Force that could use some of that money.

/USNR (Ret)
//This merely confirms my long-held belief of how poorly USAF uses tax dollars.

Purplehaze wrote:

VarkVet wrote:

MKopack wrote:

National Public Radio (while probably not the best of sources) also mentioned the continuing support of many Air Force officers and commanders for the F-22 Raptor as one of the reasons for today's 'actions'. If this is the case, and based on the SecDef's past statements it is very possible - if not likely, today could mark a death knell for further Raptor production.

Mike

Possible?

When is the last time you were in a unit with a 65.4% FMC rate? http://www.tyndall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123098614

I think it’s a good jet … We just need a lot more to keep the FMC rate up with very few that really need to fly at one time to suppress an enemy threat.

It's not a Viper were you can fly the sh*t out off and come back tomorrow and do the same thing Razz

Wow, only aircraft I've ever heard brag about a 65% FMC rate was a C-5. Someone should be ashamed.

Purple

Word

depotdog wrote:

I wonder if Mosely is still going to speak at Holloman tomorrow? Like to hear that speech if he is.

Yes he did. Refer to published story F-22 officially welcomed at Holloman

The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, poses in front of an F-22 Raptor at Holloman AFB on June 6th. General Moseley spoke at the official arrival ceremony of Holloman's F-22's along with the governor of New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael T. Moseley shakes hands with 49th FW Commander Colonel Jeff Harrigian upon his arrival at base operations on Holloman AFB on June 6th. The ceremony was the official welcome for Holloman's first two F-22's, and also announced the Air Force Reserve's 301st FS from Luke AFB, will form a classic associate unit with the 7th and 8th FS.

I think that what Gates has done is outrageous. Purely a political move by a lame duck administration. Basically, Wynne and Moseley were guilty of insubordination because they, god forbid, spoke up about what they felt the USAF really needed in order to meet its commitments (not the least of which includes an increasingly potent China), which ran counter to what civilian pencil pushers at the Pentagon say the USAF needs, not to mention Gates, who comes from ACADEMIA, for godssakes! Not unlike what happened to Adm. William Fallon, because he had the temerity to suggest attacking Iran at this time may not be the best idea. The only thing this administration can think about is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, the future of the US armed forces be damned. We are squandering our military, our brave sailors, soldiers and airmen for the sake of refusing to admit we f*cked up, cutting our losses, and putting an end to Operation Useless Dirt once and for all. And this guy Gates has the temerity to suggest the Raptor is useless because it can't do anything about an IED. As Loren Thompson recently wrote, if that was our mindset back when we were dealing with a Phillipine insurgency back in the early 1900s, we would have never bought a single battleship or carrier. Hey, WW I was the war to end all wars, right? We expect all our future conflicts to consist of counter-insurgency ops, right? Thank god these buffoons will be out by January 20 of next year. Either McCain or Obama will be better than these bunch of bozos.

Riiiiight....the junior Senator from Illinois seems particularly well versed in what the military needs to conduct operations against China and Iran....which, BTW, we're already tangled with in case the NYT hasn't mentioned it to you.

I'm wondering what the junior senator from Illinois' response would be to the 500,000th Iraqi death around the same time the IRG rolled into Baghdad?

That'd be a hoot, I tell ya!

BTW, Gates isn't from ACADEMIA, he's from Texas A&M.....and was CIA director after having served in the CIA and NSA for 26 years after having been an Air Force officer in SACs intelligence branch.

Hardly a Harvard academic type amigo.

AfterburnerDecalsScott wrote:

Riiiiight....the junior Senator from Illinois seems particularly well versed in what the military needs to conduct operations against China and Iran....which, BTW, we're already tangled with in case the NYT hasn't mentioned it to you.

I'm wondering what the junior senator from Illinois' response would be to the 500,000th Iraqi death around the same time the IRG rolled into Baghdad?

That'd be a hoot, I tell ya!

BTW, Gates isn't from ACADEMIA, he's from Texas A&M.....and was CIA director after having served in the CIA and NSA for 26 years after having been an Air Force officer in SACs intelligence branch.

Hardly a Harvard academic type amigo.

I think both you and I know that what's most important in terms of the ability of a president to make the right decisions when it comes to national security is who he surrounds himself with from defense secretary and national security advisor on down. Needless to say, you would be hard pressed today to find anyone but the most partisan hack say that Rumsfeld was a great defense secretary. Seems to me, by the way he's run his campaign, that Obama has the chops necessary to assemble a winning team. And lest you think he's some lefty dove, you should read a column Loren Thompson recently wrote about him, indicating his national security policy will look more like the first Bush's or Reagan's than anything else. He is, more than anything, a pragmatist. And it is that pragmatist aspect I am confident will begin to resolve the problems that have been caused by an ideology of "regime change" and "coercive democracy" run riot. And I think your assessment of what would happen in Iraq if we were to withdraw is apocalyptic, to say the least. We would make it very clear to Iran that if they ever thought of outright "attacking" Iraq - which they wouldn't - we would repel any such invasion, which is a fight we can easily win (bring it on). There would, obviously, be security arrangements. And if thousands of Iraqis perish as a result of civil war? Well, hate to say it, but that's their problem. We have let many a civil war go on without lifting a finger (Rwanda comes most obviously to mind). It is not the US's responsibility to hang around and baby-sit Iraq any longer than we have to. But back on topic, the US armed forces will be better off with either Obama or McCain. If you have anything else to add to this exchange, I suggest you send me a personal message as we are dangerously close to engaging in a discussion that would be prohibited by moderators. As it is, I don't see what the point would be in engaging in any such putative discussion as I'm sure we would merely talk past each other and not see eye-to-eye in any issue. Suffice it to say that I am content to shut up and merely let the election play out to my expected satisfaction.

Please....if I've learned anything in 40 odd years here, its NOTHING you say about the middle east is apocolyptic.

There is 0, as in NO chance we'd be able to do squat about Iran once we're gone from the AOR, even with Harry Truman at the helm, short of nuking them.

Iran has ALWAYS been the target....surely that's apparent even to the most casual world events observer. You think it was accidental that we swapped the front against AQ out of Afghanistan where its impossible to beat them to Iraq where its just merely very hard? We were fighting them in Afghanistan, we're fighting them in Iraq, the Israelis are fighting them in Lebanon, and one fine day...hopefully when somebody besides the guy who gave a great speech at the D convention in 2004 and managed to squeek by the most flawed presidential candidate since McGovern...that whackjob in charge of that place is going to posess nuk-u-lar fire. That ain't apocolyptic brother, that's just facts.

What's going to give him any....and mind you I don't think he's got a full deck....pause at all.....us thousands of miles away, or right next door?

I seem to recall....though I was very very young, a similar "threat" of not allowing an invasion of S. Vietnam....which lasted how long, and cost how many millions of lives?

The first thing the new president of this country should do is solve the money problem. Once the government solves the deficit, and the dollar-vs-all other currency woes, things will get better, we might be able to buy more F-22s and Reapers at the same time, and everyone will be happy. There is this erroneous sense that those chosen to lead a country only need to know a lot about lawmaking. And that my friends, is a whole lotta bull$#!^. Economy is and always has been the name of the game, and until the voters realize it, we will choose the wrong people more often than not. Clinton was probably the best president in the last 30 yrs, because he had a handle on the fiscal aspects of running the U.S.

Forum: F-16 News

Top Two Quiting?