• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

USAF getting smaller still

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Ken Stallings

Guest
I guess sometime in the future the continuous cuts to the size of the USAF will ebb. I remember after the last drawdown in personnel the then Secretary of the AF said, "Another two cuts like this one and there won't be a USAF any longer!"

Well, further cuts are coming. This time they are coming to the fighter force. Before the end of 2010 the USAF will reduce its F-15, F-16 and A-10 fleet by 250 aircraft. The 4,000 people assigned to maintain and support them will find work elsewhere.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/02/airforce_retirement_021410w/

Personally, I would like to see the new rubber on the ramp before taking the current rubber and moving it to the boneyard. Essentially this move is made purely for money reasons -- to free up funds for the F-35 program.

Ken
 
Ken Stallings said:
Essentially this move is made purely for money reasons -- to free up funds for the F-35 program.
Click to expand...
Over the last few years I'm been unhappy with the AF and Lockheed. We spent years with Lockheed and the F-22 alway geting cost overruns and than the AF again give Lockheed ANOTHER plane to make that is also got cost overruns.

I know that the F-35 was the best of the JSF but some times the company that make the plane need to be looked at just as much as the plane maybe more.

Now Lockheed 0 and 2 for planes that come in on budget and on time. The next time the AF needs a new plane they need to think back to what company can keep there project on budget and on time.

I like to keep jobs in the USA but Lockheed has me thing that Airbus could do better now. I don't like to think that but it dose not look good with Lockheed running things.

If Boeing gets the tanker deal they better get the thing done on budget and on time or I'm joining the Airbus fan club...
 
Are you posting this just to get a reaction, or do you actually believe Airbus has a flawless track record on being as you say "on time and on budget?"

I'm going to guess you've never managed a defense acquisition program nor managed a design team fielding a new aircraft. A timeline and a cost analysis are estimates. They are not intended to be a lockstep receipe. Based upon your holier-than-thou prescription, the USAF would be flying surplus P-51D's from World War II. Because other than a handful of cases, no fighter jet has come in under budget and on time.

But hey, if you want to destroy your nation's defense industry because they aren't good enough for you, then be my guest. Perhaps you, your children, and grandchildren can get jobs at Wal-Mart selling foreign made goods.

In the meantime, those who are responsible for our nation's defense will hold those accountable when they make bad decisions in a manner that does not destroy the domestic industry. When you are elected or appointed to a position to make those decisions, I suppose you can get on with destroying whatever you like. But before you do, you might want to check a few facts, such as the F-35 is a joint program, not merely Air Force and that the program manager just fired was a US Marine.

Cheers, and good luck!

Ken
 
I agree that the Air Force is free up funds for the F-35 program by cutting funding to others. The fact is that Lockheed has caused this to happen with cost overruns in the F-22 and F-35. I know that not all programs come in on budget and on time.

However Lockheed is now 0 and 2 for big public projects that come in on budget and on time. The US tax pay has a right to question is the Air Force right to keep give Lockheed contracts if they can not live up to what they say. You may not agree with that but the fact is that we do. We elect people to represents us and we voted to end the F-22 program.

The day may come and soon if every US defense contractors continues to run there contracts OVER budget and OVER time. That we buy a foreign defense contractors product. I again don’t like that idea as a hole but give it now seems every US defense contractor can run a OVER budget and OVER time on any contract. I’m willing to look any were that produce a product that can compete with US made product and can produce with in the time and cost in the contract. Something that the US defense contractors have failed to do in the past few years.

I’ve set on my hands the last two times you have personally attacked me. Now I won’t. You take what I say and put it where ever the hell you want it. You take every thing too do damm seriously. You think every thing that dose not agree with you is a personal attack on you. In fact it is not a personal attack on you.

Since you came back, you have seemed to take time to attack every one that has not agreed with you. Even going back 8 months in threads to do so. I don’t come here to be attacked every time I disagree with some one. I don’t attack those I disagree with either. I use to come here for the CFS2 forum, but my PC crashed and I have what left of it on the drive set up a slave drive so I can recover it.

So for the last 8 month I’ve came here because I like it here. However I don’t like you pissing in my Cheerios® or any one else’s for disagreeing with you. I don’t like your personal attacks on me or others.

I’m sadden by the fact that personal attacks are becoming more common at SOH. I find my self now thinking this is not a place I want to be. I’m finding it more and more of a place were a disagreement of opinion is an open invite to be personally attacked.

I always thought of SOH as nice place. As of late the Negative and Personally Attacks have me thing other wise. I find that CFS2 forum "The basement" is more my home than theses upper forums. After this post I will began recover my CFS2 and move back to my "home" forum since there have been lots of thing I missed in the last 8 months and the upper forums are no place I want to be apart of any more.
 
Allen,

Great points here and I appreciate you making them. Fiscal responsibiity appears to be a weakness expecially with these programs. As a taxpayer, it irks me no end.

As for personal attacks, I will not tolerate them from anyone. They make my "ban" finger twitch.

One person does NOT define SOH, nor does two or three. If adults can play well as family members, we are happy to keep them around.

"Nuff" said.
 
keeping things civil while allowing everyone to freely express themselves is a difficult trick.
when many of our members feel so passionately about an issue one way or another it can make it hard to express yourself without adopting a tone that some folks find abrasive. i dance on that line all the time. i often find myself on either side of it depending on the issue and who i am conversing with. it's why i don't hang out at oso's anymore. because i have a difficult time controlling my tounge when it comes to certain issues. it's my own shortcoming and not anyone's there.

that said, one thing that i do find a bit un nerving. it seems that here lately, some moderators are quick to threaten others with banning. while i certainly understand how hard and frustrating your job is, banning someone should be a last resort. it should not be something done quickly and without consulting the rest of the staff, imo. i have had a couple of short lived forums myself in the past. i'm not saying it's an easy thing. i only caution the staff here about being quick to threaten people in this manner because it causes you to appear ogre-ish, and gives you a reputation for being heavy handed. it's only a short hop from there when people start using the word nazi. no one wants to see things degenerate like that, but i have seen it happen with surprising speed in other forums. in winter people get tense. i only post this to remind people that we all really do think of each other as family in a way, and sometimes families fight.
 
cheezyflier said:
that said, one thing that i do find a bit un nerving. it seems that here lately, some moderators are quick to threaten others with banning. while i certainly understand how hard and frustrating your job is, banning someone should be a last resort. it should not be something done quickly and without consulting the rest of the staff, imo. i have had a couple of short lived forums myself in the past. i'm not saying it's an easy thing. i only caution the staff here about being quick to threaten people in this manner because it causes you to appear ogre-ish, and gives you a reputation for being heavy handed. it's only a short hop from there when people start using the word nazi. no one wants to see things degenerate like that, but i have seen it happen with surprising speed in other forums. in winter people get tense. i only post this to remind people that we all really do think of each other as family in a way, and sometimes families fight.
Click to expand...
yes families do fight
but fyi the rest of the staff does discuss all
sometimes when members start acting like Children
we have to remind them of there behavior
its like time out or a warning or just reminding everyone of the household rules
plain and simple
H
 
Peaceful deliberation.

:wavey:



Some humble advice to the industry that provide for our Defense departments. Maybe if they made things affordable, lowered prices, and were able to over-produce defense lines, such as jet fighters, etc, we could afford more of them and they would make 'more' money, instead of their present way of not following through with promises and raising their prices exponentially, which 'we' have to pay for. We should have 'late fees'..

:d


Just humble advice. Thats all.
 
Milton Shupe said:
Allen,

Great points here and I appreciate you making them. Fiscal responsibiity appears to be a weakness expecially with these programs. As a taxpayer, it irks me no end.
Click to expand...

I just want the companys to live up what the say. They tell us XX amount of money YY amount of time and you have plane for you. This is not what we got. At this point I want what the companys to live up to there personal responsibiity. Why are they being rewarded with new contracts for not live up to whatbthe say the can do?

Milton Shupe said:
As for personal attacks, I will not tolerate them from anyone. They make my "ban" finger twitch.

One person does NOT define SOH, nor does two or three. If adults can play well as family members, we are happy to keep them around.

"Nuff" said.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I was personaly attacked but I sure as hell feel like it.

END QUOTE

I know people can feel passionately about somthing. I've found it best to say on point no matterwhat. I'm not going to make point so important that it will get me banned. If you can't find somthing nice and has a point in the thread, its time to leave it. I found this works best.

Lionheart said:
Peaceful deliberation.

:wavey:



Some humble advice to the industry that provide for our Defense departments. Maybe if they made things affordable, lowered prices, and were able to over-produce defense lines, such as jet fighters, etc, we could afford more of them and they would make 'more' money, instead of their present way of not following through with promises and raising their prices exponentially, which 'we' have to pay for. We should have 'late fees'..

:d


Just humble advice. Thats all.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Some out under stand what I'm thinkng.

Allen
 
The USAF has got a long way to go before it gets to the point where the Army and Navy break it up again.

Unfortunately the way things keep going here in the UK I am beginning to wonder if the Royal Air Force will remain an independant entity much beyond it's 100th Birthday. As it stands now I'm sure Trenchard is making a lot of noise going round in his coffin.
 
We need to figure out ways to make these new fighters affordable. Thats the bottom line. Perhaps they did run into snags and have to retool parts or redo electronics and software, but hey, thats their issue, not ours. We shouldnt pay for their mistakes, and I dont think we should pay astronomical prices for just one fighter. We arent 'that' filled with money.

Why not make some fighters that can be updated as we can afford it. Then we have them flying, affordably, and install the update packages (computer systems and software) later down the road, have a small force armed, and a huge force 'ready' and flying.

Yes, its great to be at the top, but our funding right now isnt there and the companies 'arent' providing what they promised.

oops.. that makes it 3 humble cents.. but always with advice.
 
Allen said:
I just want the companys to live up what the say. They tell us XX amount of money YY amount of time and you have plane for you. This is not what we got. At this point I want what the companys to live up to there personal responsibiity. Why are they being rewarded with new contracts for not live up to whatbthe say the can do? ....
Click to expand...

First, I think, Allen that you'll find as you get more and more into the actual workings of how companies do business, you'll see that what you're complaining about is pretty much an every day common occurance. So not in defense of those who you defame, but rather in fairness to actual inter company business transactions, (and being in the engineering business myself,) I'm sure that Lockheed came in with a budgetary price for X ... the government accepted it at X but then also made "revisions" or changes to the original quote for purchase, which in turn, caused Lockheed to revert back to a clause in their proposal wherein if the orignal concept/design/needs/wants were changed by the client, then Lockheed would be entitled to charging Y to the government for all alterations over above and beyond the original scope of the deal.

Works the same with in any business you're involved in. In my particular case, bio-fuel energy production. We can quote a facility for X ... during the course of negotiation and construction, our client requests that "Oh! we'd like for it to be able to do this also ..." comes at a cost to the client. As this "request" forces us to go back and sometimes perform major design changes and alterations to the original concept to incorporate their wishes.

Its not like someone says, "Okay we can sell it to you for this price, ... but we'll be sure to have cost over-runs and schedule delays and etc."

Time and unforeseen occurrance plays into all of this.

Its like buying a car. You go in and negotiate a price for it, then you say you want this option or that option ... sorry bud, but the price of the car is going to change, and so will delivery time as each of these options have to make your car detour though the assembly plant to get the options installed.

Its just standard business.

No, I'm not justifying it and saying its right, I'm just tellin ya this is the way business is done.


----

Sorry for the Highjack Ken, but I think once we get a different mindset at the helm, things will change again.

But let me ask, don't you think that with all these "technilogical" advances, unmanned aircraft, drones, etc etc that logically, reduction should be in the process? Just askin. I mean you're taking certain folks of out the equation, ultimately the force gets smaller despite having a better grasp of its function with newer toys!
 
Lionheart said:
Why not make some fighters that can be updated as we can afford it. Then we have them flying, affordably, and install the update packages (computer systems and software) later down the road, have a small force armed, and a huge force 'ready' and flying.
Click to expand...

The T-50 PAK FA at this point seem to be just that. It is a new airframe but is now using part from the Su's and MiG's by best gesses. Later on it will be upgraded by help of "foreign partners".

Maybe if the AF had used a "Bridge" aicraft. IE a F-15, F-16 or even F-18 as a base for a test stealth. Basically the guts out of one of the F-15 or F-16 put into a "stealther" airframe for testing so we know what bug we would have to fix to made a true stealth fighter.

Snuffy said:
First, I think, Allen that you'll find as you get more and more into the actual workings of how companies do business, you'll see that what you're complaining about is pretty much an every day common occurance. So not in defense of those who you defame, but rather in fairness to actual inter company business transactions, (and being in the engineering business myself,) I'm sure that Lockheed came in with a budgetary price for X ... the government accepted it at X but then also made "revisions" or changes to the original quote for purchase, which in turn, caused Lockheed to revert back to a clause in their proposal wherein if the orignal concept/design/needs/wants were changed by the client, then Lockheed would be entitled to charging Y to the government for all alterations over above and beyond the original scope of the deal.

Works the same with in any business you're involved in. In my particular case, bio-fuel energy production. We can quote a facility for X ... during the course of negotiation and construction, our client requests that "Oh! we'd like for it to be able to do this also ..." comes at a cost to the client. As this "request" forces us to go back and sometimes perform major design changes and alterations to the original concept to incorporate their wishes.

Its not like someone says, "Okay we can sell it to you for this price, ... but we'll be sure to have cost over-runs and schedule delays and etc."
Click to expand...

Well I know that but the Airforces "Negotiator" sucks! If he was a hostage negotiator, The hostages would be dead and the criminal long gone in there private jet the hostage negotiator gave them and the money too.

Every one involved in the F-22 and F-35 program cost over run needs to get there balls busted. I don't care were the are on the totem pole. These programs are only now weaking the Airforce by taking money from front line planes and crews
 
A good viewpoint there Allen.


Good point Snuffy on the car purchase.. I was just going to post that.

A family has a budget. They choose the Pontiac 4 door, with air and electric door locks. Due date is 5 months, cost $25K.

They get a call 2 months before delivery. Seats not working right, need an upgrade, setbacks in assembly line, now not delivered until next year, (tack on 7 months), and we had to raise the price to $35K.

9 months later, they get a call. Because of production costs and rise of vacation fares for executives in the car company, and due to price of metal and car paint, we have to raise the fee again to $49K for your car and it will not be ready for another 6 months, (now making it 1 year, six months). But.... It will have this new paint now, and this cool dashboard plastic is a better gray color, and the AC knobs are more hightech, and the engine will have 5 more HP.

At what point should the humble family throw in the towel on this car and get one from someone else that will come through with the bid proposal..?



Bill
 
Henry said:
yes families do fight
but fyi the rest of the staff does discuss all
sometimes when members start acting like Children
we have to remind them of there behavior
its like time out or a warning or just reminding everyone of the household rules
plain and simple
H
Click to expand...

Well said H, spot on!:applause::applause:
 
Allen said:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Snuffy
Yada Yada Yada...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ah! well I'm glad I made sense to you then.

As you get older and live longer in life you'll find that I was right, and that your rose colored glasses view of life will need to be adjusted as well.

Have a nice life and promise me you won't go too balistic on the bumps you encounter.

---
On another note:
Sorry Bill didn't mean to steal your thunder. :bump:
 
JSF

I think history repeats itself, there cost overruns during WWII, but before WWII Boeing put its own money to build the Boeing 299A and even after the crash of the Boeing 299A Oct 30 1935 the board found the plane not at fault, if the Army had not bought 13 Y1B-17s Boeing would have gone under, even then production of new airplanes was costly and a financial risks, today the technology has become very expensive, I guess I would have kept the Grumman F-14 in production and would have had the USAF use it, it was a great multi-role airplane, the F-18 is still a good airplane, I would have improved on the A-10 attack plane and made it also as a two seater. This is just my thinking I hope I have not offened anyone, I am not a pilot or engineer, I just love the military and airplanes.

Casey:salute:
 
Snuffy said:
Ah! well I'm glad I made sense to you then.

As you get older and live longer in life you'll find that I was right, and that your rose colored glasses view of life will need to be adjusted as well.

Have a nice life and promise me you won't go too balistic on the bumps you encounter.

---
On another note:
Sorry Bill didn't mean to steal your thunder. :bump:
Click to expand...

I put the "yada, yada, yada" in you quote so I did not quote up the hole page. but from now on I will quote you all the way. Even it it dose not aply to what I'm saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top