More planes have crashed on Golf Courses. Today an Air force Thunderbird pilot who ejected safely and a Blue Angels pilot who unfortunately appears to have died in the crash of his F/A-18, had their planes come down on golf courses.
"(CNN)A U.S. Navy Blue Angels jet and an Air Force Thunderbirds F-16 crashed Thursday in separate incidents in Tennessee and Colorado, officials said.
The F-16 crashed south of Colorado Springs, Colorado, after a U.S. Air Force Academy commencement ceremony attended by President Barack Obama.
A spokesman for the academy said the plane went down far from the stadium, and the pilot, a member of the Air Force's Thunderbirds demonstration team, safely ejected."
Does anyone remember when Harrison Ford crashed his WWII Trainer on a golf course last year?
I think aircraft should be banned from flying near golf courses as they appear to have some mystical quality causing air craft crashes.
My prayers for the family of the Navy Blue Angels Team Member.
The Replica Prop Forum
Very cool site I am also a member of
Showing posts with label US Air Force. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Air Force. Show all posts
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
This is why the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10
and other Aircraft and their associated systems.
"From what I have gathered over the years on the topic via talking to pilots directly and seeing mentions of the decision in publications from time to time, the USAF justifies not procuring CFTs because it already has so many tanker aircraft. Additionally, in a major air battle they don’t need the extra weapons stations freed up by the inclusion of CFTs as a great advantage because they can simply assign more F-16s to target set. For longer-range strike missions they can use the F-15E or even a bomber."
That article is about why the US Air Force does not use Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) on the F-16 Viper. Can you read between the lines and figure out the reason?
It's simple. They have all these OTHER aircraft, that they "Need" to have in inventory, to do the job.
Those Aircraft, are jobs in Congressional districts. Those Aircraft are kick backs and jobs after retirement for Procurement Officers and Generals who make recommendations.
They don't WANT to buy the less expensive option which allows the mission to get completed with fewer aircraft.
And it is not just the Air Force. It is also the Army, the Marine Corps, the Navy, and there have even been a few cases of the Coast Guard only getting a system because of certain deal sweeteners.
The US Military, heck the US Government's entire Procurement apparatus, is broken.
Needed materials unless under certain conditions can ONLY be procured under bidding conditions that stretch out and add additional costs to the total cost. Keeping hundreds if not thousands of unnecessary Government employees on the payroll, jacking up the expenditures.
The whole Procurement process needs an enema.
MISSION FIRST should be the mantra, NOT whatever it currently is.
For more on the boondoggle that is the US Air Force Procurement programs read this article about the KC 46.
Broken Booms: Why Is It So Hard To Develop & Procure A New USAF Tanker?
"From what I have gathered over the years on the topic via talking to pilots directly and seeing mentions of the decision in publications from time to time, the USAF justifies not procuring CFTs because it already has so many tanker aircraft. Additionally, in a major air battle they don’t need the extra weapons stations freed up by the inclusion of CFTs as a great advantage because they can simply assign more F-16s to target set. For longer-range strike missions they can use the F-15E or even a bomber."
That article is about why the US Air Force does not use Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) on the F-16 Viper. Can you read between the lines and figure out the reason?
It's simple. They have all these OTHER aircraft, that they "Need" to have in inventory, to do the job.
Those Aircraft, are jobs in Congressional districts. Those Aircraft are kick backs and jobs after retirement for Procurement Officers and Generals who make recommendations.
They don't WANT to buy the less expensive option which allows the mission to get completed with fewer aircraft.
And it is not just the Air Force. It is also the Army, the Marine Corps, the Navy, and there have even been a few cases of the Coast Guard only getting a system because of certain deal sweeteners.
The US Military, heck the US Government's entire Procurement apparatus, is broken.
Needed materials unless under certain conditions can ONLY be procured under bidding conditions that stretch out and add additional costs to the total cost. Keeping hundreds if not thousands of unnecessary Government employees on the payroll, jacking up the expenditures.
The whole Procurement process needs an enema.
MISSION FIRST should be the mantra, NOT whatever it currently is.
For more on the boondoggle that is the US Air Force Procurement programs read this article about the KC 46.
Broken Booms: Why Is It So Hard To Develop & Procure A New USAF Tanker?
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Air Force still trying to kill the A-10
An update to THIS post thanks to a link from XBRADTC.
"The A-10 Thunderbolt II — better known as the Warthog — was the darling of the first Gulf War, destroying some 4,000 military vehicles and artillery pieces in that conflict.Today, it remains one of the most requested aircraft by ground commanders in Afghanistan, according to one Air National Guard representative.But its day may be coming to an end."
The Air Force is trying to replace the A-10 with the F-35, you know the plane that might be CANCELED, instead of letting the tech geeks go ahead and design workarounds for the upgraded sensors for the A-10. In my first post I noted how the Air Force seems to forget one of their main missions is to "Support the ground force elements" You know, the Grunts and Jarheads who get down in the dirt take and hold an objective against any and all opponents.
The Air Force has for years been blowing smoke up the nether regions of Congress and the White House with their talk about "Strategic Bombing and Precise Munitions". Yes those do have a place in the power structure of our County's offensive armament, however to hear the Air Force say it, that is ALL we need. They'll just bomb everything until they surrender then send a few Airman in to hold it for the paperwork to be signed.
This whole brouhaha is because the Air Force is all about their "Strategic" fleet of planes. Strategic Bombers, Strategic Fighters, Strategic Transports. Strategic, Strategic, Strategic.
They forget that without "Tactical" control of the ground there can be no Strategic Plan.
The Air Force brass doesn't want to support the ground pounders, they feel that mission is beneath them. Read my first posting on this and you will see my proposed solution.
Split the Air Force up, make it subordinate to the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. The Army and the Marine Corps need Tactical and Strategic Transport and Tactical Close Air Support, the Navy needs Force Protection for it's fleets and resupply.
And yes the Air Force does have what could be seen as a mission of Strategic Force Projection ie: President Reagan's Bombing of Libya, seriously just how often is that actually required? Look at the Vietnam War, with the Strategic Bombing Campaign Operation Linebacker I and II. Just how effective were they for the situation on the ground? In the jungles of Vietnam what was there to actually bomb? Then as now, the ground force elements NEED Close Air Support and Tactical Air Support. They don't need billion dollar bombers, or hundred million dollar fighters that don't have the loiter time nor the ordnance supply to stay on station to support the troops on the ground. And yet the Air Force STILL Refuses to listen to it's primary Customers. The Ground Forces.
"The A-10 Thunderbolt II — better known as the Warthog — was the darling of the first Gulf War, destroying some 4,000 military vehicles and artillery pieces in that conflict.Today, it remains one of the most requested aircraft by ground commanders in Afghanistan, according to one Air National Guard representative.But its day may be coming to an end."
The Air Force is trying to replace the A-10 with the F-35, you know the plane that might be CANCELED, instead of letting the tech geeks go ahead and design workarounds for the upgraded sensors for the A-10. In my first post I noted how the Air Force seems to forget one of their main missions is to "Support the ground force elements" You know, the Grunts and Jarheads who get down in the dirt take and hold an objective against any and all opponents.
The Air Force has for years been blowing smoke up the nether regions of Congress and the White House with their talk about "Strategic Bombing and Precise Munitions". Yes those do have a place in the power structure of our County's offensive armament, however to hear the Air Force say it, that is ALL we need. They'll just bomb everything until they surrender then send a few Airman in to hold it for the paperwork to be signed.
This whole brouhaha is because the Air Force is all about their "Strategic" fleet of planes. Strategic Bombers, Strategic Fighters, Strategic Transports. Strategic, Strategic, Strategic.
They forget that without "Tactical" control of the ground there can be no Strategic Plan.
The Air Force brass doesn't want to support the ground pounders, they feel that mission is beneath them. Read my first posting on this and you will see my proposed solution.
Split the Air Force up, make it subordinate to the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. The Army and the Marine Corps need Tactical and Strategic Transport and Tactical Close Air Support, the Navy needs Force Protection for it's fleets and resupply.
And yes the Air Force does have what could be seen as a mission of Strategic Force Projection ie: President Reagan's Bombing of Libya, seriously just how often is that actually required? Look at the Vietnam War, with the Strategic Bombing Campaign Operation Linebacker I and II. Just how effective were they for the situation on the ground? In the jungles of Vietnam what was there to actually bomb? Then as now, the ground force elements NEED Close Air Support and Tactical Air Support. They don't need billion dollar bombers, or hundred million dollar fighters that don't have the loiter time nor the ordnance supply to stay on station to support the troops on the ground. And yet the Air Force STILL Refuses to listen to it's primary Customers. The Ground Forces.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Does America need the Air Force anymore?
"The United States military is all about redundancy; in addition to two armies, it also fields two navies — the Navy and the Coast Guard — and five or six air forces, depending on how you count the aerial arms of the various branches.
The real problem isn’t that the Army is marginally more or less useful that it was 10 years ago, but rather that the institutions that were designed in 1947, when the Army and Air Force split, are insufficiently flexible to negotiate the modern security landscape.
The fault for this lies not primarily with the Army, but with the United States Air Force, an institution built on the optimistic vision that ordnance delivered from the air could, cheaply and cleanly, bring about a peaceful, American-dominated world."
Read that. It is a very interesting premise. Then take into consideration the C-27 Program. It started off as an US Army program, and was going rather well in the development. UNTIL The Air Force stuck it's nose in. They took over the program and quickly canceled it.
Why? You ask.
Simple the US Air Force will do WHATEVER it can to keep the US Army Subordinate to itself. It comes from being the step child of the Army originally. It is an institutional fear of the Army being able to do it's job without the help of the US Air Force.
What the Air Force has forgotten in it vendetta against it's parent, is that the AIR FORCE is actually the subordinate service. Yes it has a use as strategic air strikes, however it has forgotten that it is the tactical situation on the ground that defines the combat envelope.
The ground pounders who kick in doors take an objective and hold it against all comers.
Those are the guys who the Air Force should be catering to.
Not their multi-billion dollars airfleet of planes that go too fast to provide proper ground support or transportation.
That is one of the reasons for the C-27. To allow the Army to have the means to effect tactical resupply and movement of troops. And what did the Air Force do? They felt threatened, came in took over the program and killed just so it wouldn't affect their budget, so they could buy MORE big dollar airplanes that are for the Strategic battle and not the Tactical battle.
Look at how the Air Force has been trying to retire the A-10. The ground troops LOVE the A-10. It can get right down in the dirt and deliver hell on earth to the enemy. It can take tremendous amounts of damage and abuse and still keep flying. During the second gulf war there was an A-10 that lost a good chunk of it's wing in addition to other major damage and still flew back to base.
And the Air Force wants to replace it with the F-35 which the Pentagon has serious doubts about and have considered canceling it several times.
It can't fly as slow as an A-10, it can't fly as far as an A-10, it doesn't carry as much ammo or weapons as an A-10, and it costs several times as much as an A-10.
And the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10.
You tell me, is the Air Force Bi-Polar or what?
So seriously.
Does America still need an Air Force, when it could be folded back into the Army where it would be properly subordinated to the needs of the ground pounders?
Let's look at the Drone War.
The army has it's own drones. Who controls those drones? Usually an enlisted man or woman who loves to play video games.
In the Air Force? ONLY Commissioned Pilots act as Drone operators.
Can you see the disconnect?
I looked for the story about how Air Force Drone "Pilots" couldn't land their drones and had to set them down on automatic, whereas the Army drone operators just went and landed theirs but I couldn't find any documentation to back it up. So I'll just leave it as an amusing anecdote.
But the entire MINDSET is actually true between the two services.
Remember the "Drone Operator Medal" hoopla?
That wasn't Leon Panetta speaking through his buttcheeks. That was desk bound Air Force weenines who saw Army and Marine Ground Pounders and pilots receiving Bronze and Silver Stars and they wanted in on the medal action to pad their chances for promotion.
I'm not saying drone pilots/operator don't need some form of recognition, but trying to make that award above ACTUAL medals of valor, was solely for the Air Force REMF's who fly a desk. So they could go downstairs hop in the chair and operate, oh I'm sorry "Fly" a drone for a while and then submit their paperwork for a medal to hang on their dress uniform.
Sorry Charlie. You may be good but you ain't THAT good.
SO after reading all the drivel I wrote up above plus looking at a link or two, I ask you.
Does the United States still NEED the US Air Force? Or should it be folded back into the US Army.
The real problem isn’t that the Army is marginally more or less useful that it was 10 years ago, but rather that the institutions that were designed in 1947, when the Army and Air Force split, are insufficiently flexible to negotiate the modern security landscape.
The fault for this lies not primarily with the Army, but with the United States Air Force, an institution built on the optimistic vision that ordnance delivered from the air could, cheaply and cleanly, bring about a peaceful, American-dominated world."
Read that. It is a very interesting premise. Then take into consideration the C-27 Program. It started off as an US Army program, and was going rather well in the development. UNTIL The Air Force stuck it's nose in. They took over the program and quickly canceled it.
Why? You ask.
Simple the US Air Force will do WHATEVER it can to keep the US Army Subordinate to itself. It comes from being the step child of the Army originally. It is an institutional fear of the Army being able to do it's job without the help of the US Air Force.
What the Air Force has forgotten in it vendetta against it's parent, is that the AIR FORCE is actually the subordinate service. Yes it has a use as strategic air strikes, however it has forgotten that it is the tactical situation on the ground that defines the combat envelope.
The ground pounders who kick in doors take an objective and hold it against all comers.
Those are the guys who the Air Force should be catering to.
Not their multi-billion dollars airfleet of planes that go too fast to provide proper ground support or transportation.
That is one of the reasons for the C-27. To allow the Army to have the means to effect tactical resupply and movement of troops. And what did the Air Force do? They felt threatened, came in took over the program and killed just so it wouldn't affect their budget, so they could buy MORE big dollar airplanes that are for the Strategic battle and not the Tactical battle.
Look at how the Air Force has been trying to retire the A-10. The ground troops LOVE the A-10. It can get right down in the dirt and deliver hell on earth to the enemy. It can take tremendous amounts of damage and abuse and still keep flying. During the second gulf war there was an A-10 that lost a good chunk of it's wing in addition to other major damage and still flew back to base.
And the Air Force wants to replace it with the F-35 which the Pentagon has serious doubts about and have considered canceling it several times.
It can't fly as slow as an A-10, it can't fly as far as an A-10, it doesn't carry as much ammo or weapons as an A-10, and it costs several times as much as an A-10.
And the Air Force wants to get rid of the A-10.
You tell me, is the Air Force Bi-Polar or what?
So seriously.
Does America still need an Air Force, when it could be folded back into the Army where it would be properly subordinated to the needs of the ground pounders?
Let's look at the Drone War.
The army has it's own drones. Who controls those drones? Usually an enlisted man or woman who loves to play video games.
In the Air Force? ONLY Commissioned Pilots act as Drone operators.
Can you see the disconnect?
I looked for the story about how Air Force Drone "Pilots" couldn't land their drones and had to set them down on automatic, whereas the Army drone operators just went and landed theirs but I couldn't find any documentation to back it up. So I'll just leave it as an amusing anecdote.
But the entire MINDSET is actually true between the two services.
Remember the "Drone Operator Medal" hoopla?
That wasn't Leon Panetta speaking through his buttcheeks. That was desk bound Air Force weenines who saw Army and Marine Ground Pounders and pilots receiving Bronze and Silver Stars and they wanted in on the medal action to pad their chances for promotion.
I'm not saying drone pilots/operator don't need some form of recognition, but trying to make that award above ACTUAL medals of valor, was solely for the Air Force REMF's who fly a desk. So they could go downstairs hop in the chair and operate, oh I'm sorry "Fly" a drone for a while and then submit their paperwork for a medal to hang on their dress uniform.
Sorry Charlie. You may be good but you ain't THAT good.
SO after reading all the drivel I wrote up above plus looking at a link or two, I ask you.
Does the United States still NEED the US Air Force? Or should it be folded back into the US Army.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Cuban Missile Crisis- War Avoided - Backstory
From Old NFO we find about a US Air Force B-52 Crew doing their job.
"On that breezy, sunny October day, I was one of the pilots in the lead B-52 of the two aircraft formation which had received the command message while on alert to launch our aircraft, proceed to our airborne orbit points off the boundary of the Soviet Union, and wait for the execution message to strike the heartland of Russia. We were not the only strike aircraft launching. Alert aircraft in pairs from almost every SAC combat base in the United States were scrambling to get airborne and to precede to their strike orbit points. Our mission was somewhat different because our course would take us in the vicinity of Cuba. We were directed to vector our course so as to fly over the Russian ships off the coast of Cuba and to report our sightings to SAC headquarters."
"On that breezy, sunny October day, I was one of the pilots in the lead B-52 of the two aircraft formation which had received the command message while on alert to launch our aircraft, proceed to our airborne orbit points off the boundary of the Soviet Union, and wait for the execution message to strike the heartland of Russia. We were not the only strike aircraft launching. Alert aircraft in pairs from almost every SAC combat base in the United States were scrambling to get airborne and to precede to their strike orbit points. Our mission was somewhat different because our course would take us in the vicinity of Cuba. We were directed to vector our course so as to fly over the Russian ships off the coast of Cuba and to report our sightings to SAC headquarters."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)