Posted on 06/24/2006 4:32:47 PM PDT by strategofr
The U.S. Army and Navy are both experiencing a backlash against the expense of running their respective air forces. For example, the navy has some 3,800 aircraft making it, all by itself, one of the top ten air forces in the world. It's an expensive operation to run, with each aircraft costing about $1.1 million a year to operate. About half of the 352,000 personnel in the navy are devoted to running naval aviation. The rising price of oil and spare parts has increased the cost of operating aircraft. The principal carrier aircraft, the F-18, costs over $5,000 an hour to fly. Carrier aircraft have expenses land based aircraft do not, mainly the added maintenance required because of the stress put on the airframe from carrier landings, and the corrosion from all that salt sea air. The rest of the navy is not happy about these financial arrangements.
The army has an even larger air force than the navy, although nearly all of them are helicopters. But these are expensive beasts to operate. A CH-47 costs more to operate, per flight hour, than F-18. The largest bone of contention is that half the army's training budget is consumed by the aviation community. The ground troops point out that less than one percent of the casualties in Iraq have been aviators. The helicopter loss rate in Iraq is less than a tenth of what it was in Vietnam. As a result, even the aviators are admitting that the ground troops should get more of that training money.
Neither service has been able to get more money from Congress for aviation, so it has had to cut flying hours and maintenance costs. Flight simulators take up some of the slack, but otherwise, pilots have to get more done for every hour they are in the air. Same with people on the ground, where time-honored procedures have been revised and performed more quickly and efficiently. The accident rate has not gone up, nor has the proficiency of the pilots noticeably declined. But, then, American naval aviation has not had to face a formidable opponent in a long, long time.
Aviators, especially in the army, use flight simulators a lot more, even though the pilots would prefer to be flying the actual aircraft. But the simulators cost less than a tenth as much, per flight hour, to operate. The current simulators are of recent design, and quite realistic. Simulators can also do things flying real aircraft cannot. For example, the simulators can recreate the sand storms, and other nasty weather native to Iraq, but not found in U.S. Army aviation training centers. The Simulators can realistically recreate a wide range of emergencies, many of which you would not want to play with in a real aircraft while in the air.
While the pilots are correct in pointing out that flight hours have historically produced the best pilots, it's also true that American pilots fly more than any others on the planet. It's all relative. Everyone has to deal with the rising cost of fuel, spare parts and other expenses incurred when you take flight. U.S. pilots also have the best flight simulators, and, finally, the lowest accident and combat loss rates in history. The non-aviators in the navy and army are simply asking for a fair share of the limited money available, and insisting that the aviators recognize that the there are limits.
Though our art of war has advanced beyond both maneuver warfare and attrition warfare it has not supplanted them. Our art of war has expanded upon the older concepts.
Ignore this and we will truly get our butts kicked. And then we will be slaves. The light of freedom, of which America is the last torchbearer, will be extinguished on this planet forever.
"Our art of war has expanded upon the older concepts."
Expanded, I like that, and I'm impressed with how flexible, innovative, and willing to reexamine fundamental traditions and territorial prerogatives the military is recently.
It would be my guess that simulation is a nice, cheap adjunct to practicing traps on a carrier, but...it is no substitute for the real thing by any means.
"Or get the old B52s over the cities and win this thing with minimal additional American casualties."
Well said! A wing or two of BUF's loaded with 500 lb. slum truncheons would go along way towards winning some islamist hearts and minds.
Fire for Effect then Semper Fi,
Yes. What we are seeing is the fruition of decades of thinking, planning, testing, equipping, and training coupled with brilliant departure from orthodoxy brought about by eager minds focused on winning a war.
In chaos there is opportunity. And we are living in interesting times ;-)
Mr Ramsbotham wrote:
"Free people who are interested in maintaining their freedom need to ensure that their militaries have lots of money. Much of it will be wasted, but there's no help for that."
----Soo sad that even when i was a junior high school boy (i'm 32 now) I knew exactly that, even now still believe that.
I'd rather give that money to our military than some welfare slut (male or female).
those that dont believe in superior airpower need to listen to interviews of former NVA that were lucky enough to survive BUFF strikes. scared them to no end.
Damn bean counters. They count beans and do not put their ass on the line for us.
"In chaos there is opportunity. And we are living in interesting times "
Is this chaos a better opportunity because of Rumsfield and his boss?
To me this seems the most innovative and free thinking period of military thinking (and action) of modern history.
That's the trend. I anticipate aircraft pilots will reduce in relative and absolute numbers with those remaining filling ever more specialized roles.
I'm not willing to send ground fighters or airpersons into
harms way without the very best and most effective stuff.
We made that mistake in the past, with the Sherman (Ronson), the M60 MG (a piece of junk), the M114 APC (a piece of junk) or the F-111 (a really expensive piece of junk).
"I will admit that the the aviation casualty rate has been low in this conflict, but we need the training dollars to deal with the ever present Patriot threat."
OUCH!!!! From the top rope... you're not playing well with others tonight. The sad part is your sarcasm (and the story behind your vicious and accurate Patriot snipe) is wasted here. Very, very funny in a very morbid way. Yes, I've been there, no the Patriots didn't target me. I guess I wouldn't have known it if they did considering our RWR sucks, and I'm here to write to Freeperland. Did you fly with the Figthing Omars? They were with us at Key West a few weeks ago, superb guys, and I think they ran Sloppy Joes out of alcohol.
umm, I guess I should have included a /s tag when I posted. ;^)
We are in total agreement.
This chaos was caused by the rag-headed anarchists who sucked us into their dysfunctional tribal world through repeatedly attacking us. The opportunity to eliminate the threat to our self-determination was seized by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfield. The Commander-In-Chief chose to do so with armed might and charged his Secretary of Defense with the dual missions of the War On Terror while rapidly evolving our armed forces.
The President wisely realized that the solution to the Gordian Knot of Islamic/Arab Terrorism was beyond diplomacy. So he donned his battle-gear as Commander-In-Chief and called his war-dogs. These "dogs of war" have not been truly let loose nor has havoc been cried. They are on a long leash held by the Secretary of Defense who is both prosecuting the war and simultaneously embracing its inherent opportunity to improve the dogs and their kennel.
That's the long answer.
The short answer is; "Yes!"
"The military of the future will be based upon Special Forces in control of UAVs."
Very nice turn of phrase. Hopefully, the military of the future---unlike the US military of the present---will also be working hand in glove with an effective State Department and CIA effectively supporting the policy of the president at the United States---and providing significant guidance to these military forces.
"One of the reasons I'm against the almost total acceptance of women and married privates with 2 or 3 kids into the military,"
Well, women in the military is a political problem. The left has made this incursion, and its resolution has to do with politics, not anyone's understanding of combat.
As far as bringing married privates with two or three kids into the military, I read that the army had stopped doing this.
"Yes. What we are seeing is the fruition of decades of thinking, planning, testing, equipping, and training coupled with brilliant departure from orthodoxy brought about by eager minds focused on winning a war.
In chaos there is opportunity. And we are living in interesting times ;-)"
Yes. The Marine Corps bought into the ideas of John Boyd, the Air Force colonel who designed the F-15 and F-16. That was one element.
I love the "Aviators have low casualty rates" argument. In 1998 ("peacetime") I lost six friends in training mishaps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.