Congress Daily (subscription required) reports the following:
As the Air National Guard grapples with an impending fighter jet shortfall that will threaten its ability to protect U.S. airspace, its supporters in Congress and the Pentagon want the Air Force to consider all possible solutions — even buying Navy F-18s to fill the gap.
Lawmakers and other National Guard boosters are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Defense Department and the Air Force, charging that officials have no workable plan to deal with the Guard’s aging fleet.
They argue that 80 percent of the Air Guard’s F-16s, which fly the majority of Air Sovereignty Alert missions, will retire years before their replacements are ready, depleting units of the aircraft they need to secure domestic airspace.
The workhorse F-15 fleet isn’t in much better shape, having been grounded for three months after one broke apart in November 2007 during a training mission over eastern Missouri.
As a result, the Air Force, the service funded to supply airplanes to the Air National Guard, is being told by Congress to explore every option, including buying F/A-18s.
The article goes on to say:
Boeing said it hasn’t had any discussions with the National Guard about the F-18s. But one defense official said it’s an area the Air Force should review.
“I think the taxpayer demands we look at this because it’s an efficient, highly capable aircraft that can sustain our force structure through this risky period,” the official said.
The Air Force is focusing its budgets on the F-35, which eventually will make its way to the Air Guard. But leaders insist they are open to other solutions, if necessary.
Of course the Air Guard has shared type/model/series with the Navy before in the form of A-1s, A-7s, and F-4s.
At the same time, if I’m a Guard pilot, fighter gap or no, I’m hoping the Air Force holds out for the JSF.
Last week, Time Magazine reported that an Israeli airstrike in the Sudan involved “dozens of aircraft.” The raid knocked back a sizable overland arms shipment from Iran to the Gaza Strip, but –more importantly– demonstrated just how far (literally) the Israelis are willing to go to break stuff that makes them nervous.
Here’s an interesting bit of trivia. The distance between Tel Aviv and Khartoum is roughly the same as Tel Aviv and Tehran, with most of Iran’s nuclear facilities located in the western half of the country. Though the IAF’s fleet has boasted KC-130H tankers for some time, whether or not Israel had the lungs for such a distant strike was arguable. Now, the debate is over.
Sure the successful strike doesn’t satisfy the question of Iran’s robust IAD network (Sudan doesn’t have one), nor does it offer any insight into a safe ingress/egress route in and out of Iran. But, it does show the Israelis have the legs –and the stones– to prosecute the fight over long distances, and refuel their strike aircraft in close proximity to their Arab neighbors.
Aside: IAF tankers flew a refueling track over the Red Sea, smack in the middle of Egyptian and Saudi airspace. The Egyptians fly F-16s that are a similar, though inferior, variant of the Israeli F-16i, and the Saudis fly AWACs guided F-15s.
I’ve heard rumors that the IAF was ready to knock back Nataz yesterday, should they hear the trumpet’s blast. Even though these guys have proven time and time again that failure isn’t in their vocabulary, factoring in distance and enemy defenses left me skeptical. Now? Hey, I’m a believer.
And just for fun…
Are you a ham-fisted goon who lacks situational awareness and is just happy to walk away from each hop with all the big pieces still on the jet? Well, if so, the Royal Australian Air Force wants you!
In a world first for an Air Force and an infra-red guided missile, Air Combat Group (ACG) of the Royal Australian Air Force has successfully carried out the first in-service ‘Lock After Launch’ firing of an ASRAAM (Advanced short-range air-to-air missile) at a target located behind the wing-line of the “shooter” aircraft. The firing was conducted from an F/A-18 fighter aircraft, at low level and typical fighter speed, at a target located behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km. The result was a direct hit on the target.
The engagement simulated a “chase down” situation by an enemy fighter and successfully demonstrated the potential for an all-round self protection capability with the ASRAAM. This capability is inherent on all platforms that provide pre-launch ‘over the shoulder’ designation information such as F/A-18, Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 JSF.
So this settles it once and for all. We no longer care about Ps curves and air-to-air performance of the airplane. I don’t want to debate who would win a 1-v-1 between a MiG-37 and a JSF. It just doesn’t matter.
Here’s a new bumper sticker idea (this year’s “My other car is an F-18″): “My ASRAAM missile hides the fact that I’m a grape.”
A pilot struggling to control a crippled Marine Corps jet bypassed a chance to land at a coastal Navy base and instead flew toward an inland base, where minutes later the fighter crashed into a San Diego neighborhood and killed four people, recordings released Tuesday revealed.
Meanwhile, military officials say that four officers at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar have been relieved of duty in connection with the fatal crash and nine other military personnel received lesser reprimands. Officials said the 13 were disciplined for a series of avoidable mechanical and human errors that led to the crash, which killed four members of the same family, including two children.
“It was collectively bad decision-making,” said Col. John Rupp, operations officer for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.
Recordings of conversations between federal air controllers and the pilot of the F/A-18D Hornet show the pilot repeatedly was offered a chance to land the plane at the Naval Air Station North Island in Coronado. The base sits at the tip of a peninsula with a flight path over water.
Instead, the Federal Aviation Administration tapes disclose, the pilot decided to fly the jet, which had lost one engine and was showing signs of trouble with the second, to the inland Miramar base, which is about 10 miles north of Coronado.
That route took him over the University City neighborhood, where the Dec. 8 crash incinerated two homes and damaged three others.
“This was a tragic incident that could have been prevented,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who was among the lawmakers who received a closed-door briefing Tuesday on the results of the Marine Corps’ investigation into the crash, said in a statement.
The pilot and senior officers “did not consult their checklists and follow appropriate procedure,” Hunter said. Had those rules been followed, “the crash would not have occurred.”
Okay, folks, something’s gotta give, money-wise. As we dicussed in a recent post and podcast, the VH-71 is in the crosshairs for severe reductions if not outright cancellation. These are bad times to be a program 100 percent over budget and a couple of years behind schedule.
Moreover, these are bad times PERIOD. Now I understand that the JSF and F-22 are designed to meet separate Air Force requirements. The JSF meets the LOW requirement and replaces the F-16; the F-22 meets the HIGH requirement and replaces the F-15. But the fiscal situtation now and in the FYDP might not support both.
We had a similar situation back in the day when carrier aviation, due to budget concerns primarily, was forced to choose between the A-6 and the F-14. Long story short, the Intruder went away and the Navy enhanced the Tomcat’s resident bombing capability. (The rest is OEF and OIF history, of course.)
So with Christian on the road for the next few days and me minding the store, I wanted to open up the discussion to you guys, the awesome and erudite in defense matters DT readers. What do you think? If the USAF decison-makers are made to choose one or the other, which should they pick?
Wikipedia (the source of all modern knowledge) “apples-to-apples” unit flyaway price comparison: F-22 - $137.5 million; JSF - $83 million. And I know the Raptor does things the JSF doesn’t, but does that capability validate the additional cost considering the current (and projected) threat and budgetary situation?
Faced with a shortfall of about 1,600 flight-rated officers, the Air Force is reaching out to pilots, air battle managers and navigators who have left active duty, service officials said Wednesday.
Under a program authorized for this calendar year, retirees and reservists — most from the Inactive Ready Reserve — can come back to active duty for up to four years, officials said. The program is also open to current or former members of all services.
“We are not soliciting O-6s; we are primarily expecting majors and lieutenant colonels to come back,” said Lt. Col. Dewey Duhadway, chief of rated force policy.
The Air Force has received interest from about 1,000 retirees and reservists about the program, Duhadway said on Wednesday.
Those interested in returning to active duty would have go before an aeronautical review board to determine their ratings qualifications, and returnees from the IRR will have to undergo a physical examination, he said.
I think we should all encourage Ward to get back in the cockpit! (that’s him, second from the left)…
The Blue Angels will fly the balance of their 2008 season with five jets instead of six because of pending administrative action against one of the team’s pilots. Marine Corps Capt. Tyson Dunkelberger, the Blue Angel’s spokesman, allowed that the pilot had been removed from flying duties for an “inappropriate relationship” with a female member of the demonstration team. Dunkelberger would not, however, identify the rank or squadron billet of either party involved, citing legal reasons.
The five-plane demonstration will employ a diamond formation without the “slot” position, but Dunkelberger was quick to point out that the loss of Blue Angel No. 4 in the show did not necessarily mean that the pilot has flown in that position during this season is involved in the inappropriate relationship. The mystery will be short-lived, however, as the Blue’s are scheduled to perform a practice show today in San Antonio minus the flyer in question and his absence will be obvious to anyone in attendance holding a show program.
The Blue Angels have dealt with other personnel issues in recent years. In 2000 Blue Angel No. 2, a Marine Corps officer, was removed from the team for having another “inappropriate relationship” with the team’s female public affairs officer. And last year, Lcdr. Kevin Davis, Blue Angel No. 6, flew his F/A-18 into the ground and was killed during a show near Beaufort, South Carolina. In each of these cases a pilot who had been on the team the year prior was pulled out of a fleet squadron and returned to the Blue Angels so that the team could fly the balance of the season with a full six-jet complement. Dunkelberger stated that there weren’t enough shows left to justify that sort of effort in the current case. After the San Antonio shows this weekend, the Blue Angels will perform at the Kennedy Space Center and then close their season with two shows at their home base in Pensacola, Florida.
Updated Nov. 1: This from a discussion thread at the Blue Angel’s hometown paper, The Pensacola News Journal:
“calfan wrote: It was two officers…#4 Maj. Clint Harris and Lt. Gretchen Doan. They are both officers…they both know better. Clint flew back Sunday in his jet, minus the #4. Didn’t fly in the airshow or practice. He’s married with kids. She’s not. Bottom line is these are two adults who made a huge mistake/decision, broke a major rule, ruined their careers, humiliated their families, got kicked off the team…they will have this hanging over their heads and following them around forever. Boss did the right thing…”
The allegations in this post are unconfirmed but the tenor of it makes me think this person knows what he or she is talking about, including the use of the term “Boss” to refer to the Blue Angel’s commanding officer. And if the IDs are correct, then in fact (and in spite of Capt. Dunkelberger’s insistence to the contrary) it was the slot pilot who’s been removed, which makes things much easier in terms of working the five-plane show in that all the remaining pilots are flying in the same positions they’ve flown all year.
And making Maj. Harris fly back from his final show without the number on his jet his something right out of King Arthur’s Court or a Hollywood scriptwriter’s fantasy. (Remember the opening of the TV series “Branded” back in the day?) Who said the spirit of Naval Aviation is dead?
It could just be that the Air Force is entering an era that, in part, will be defined by what will not be a hot-button issue: uniforms.
“First things first,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz responded Sept. 17 when asked by Military.com whether uniforms — new ones or modifications to current dress — will be relegated to the back burner during his tenure.
Schwartz, who had just listened as his major command chiefs offered up a list of things the Air Force needs today-right-now-thank-you-very much — including new tankers, more manpower, new tankers, upgrades and maintenance to mobility and fighter planes and, oh yeah, new tankers — said the Air Force has any number of critical programs it must tackle.
Maybe, at some point down the road, when these other things have been taken care of, he said, uniforms may again be on the agenda.
For now, Schwartz does have to deal with proposed uniform changes that he inherited, including the adoption of a new service dress uniform modeled after one worn by legendary airman Hap Arnold.
The Air Force has a long record of changing or tweaking its uniforms. Acting Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley made a humorous reference to this fact on Monday, the opening day of the Air Force Association’s Air and Space Symposium in Washington, D.C. The Air Force dress uniform only recently underwent a change, with the addition of a belt to the jacket, and Donley noted that the last time he worked for the Air Force, as an assistant secretary and then acting secretary in 1993, the uniform went through major changes under then Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak.
He said he would answer questions today about uniforms the same way he answered them back then: “Ask the chief.”
Schwartz last month decided to defer until sometime next year a decision on a Hap Arnold-esque service coat. The proposed jacket came out of a 2006 uniform board under Schwartz’s predecessor, Gen. T. Michael Moseley.
Some uniform changes have been greeted critically by airmen — including a proposed blue cammie BDU several years ago — who argue that the Air Force has more important issues facing it than whether it should have a belt on a service dress jacket or whether BDUs should come with a permanent crease.
The proposed new dress jacket will cost about $125 million to manufacture if it’s approved, the Air Force estimated.
I’m always reluctant to post these stories and I always get a lot of flak from them, but I think it’s important for folks who might not have access to them that are involved in some way with aviation to see what happened and get some “lessons learned” data that can maybe help them down the road.
A Harrier crash on Feb. 13 near Cherry Point (the second in a series of four so far this fiscal year) was initially thought to have been caused by engine failure. But according to the Judge Advocate General Manual investigation I got my hand on through FOIA the cause was a far simpler — and more correctable one.
According to an official investigation report released after a Freedom of Information Act Request from Military.com, the pilot, Capt. Ian Stevens, failed to move the jet nozzles of his Harrier to the position required for conventional flight during a Feb. 13 mission to practice aerial refueling and ground attack runs near Cherry Point Marine Air Station, causing the plane to drop from the sky.
That’s from a story we’re posting today on Military.com (there’ve been some technical snags so publishing is delayed). Here’s a bit more:
“This mishap was caused by the mishap pilot not positioning the nozzles back to the aft position after positioning them … to the hoverstop position in order to … stabilize in a proper formation position with is lead,” the investigating officer stated in the report. “The thrust remained vectored below the aircraft until the aircraft impacted the ground.” …
Stevens executed several successful aerial refueling runs on a KC-10 Extender tanker, the report said, before peeling away with the other two Harriers to practice using his targeting pod during mock ground attacks. As he was trying to slow down and join up with the lead pilot of the flight, whose name is redacted from the report, things started to go wrong.
“The engine sounded like it was spooling up … but the lead [pilot] continued to pull away from me,” Stevens — whose name was removed from the report but released to local media at the time of the crash — told investigators in a statement. “I … increased power to ‘mil’ but did not feel a corresponding acceleration. I decided that I had a problem.”
Recent Comments
There is a non lethat weapon put out by laser energitics name daser...
red
These guys seem to have had the right idea for a while,...
TheBoogyMan
Hey jack ass (fart) at any time durring that triade did you watch the video?...
Valcan
This episode is another demonstration that there aren't good...
Westerner
The Department of Homeland Security
Kevin
something about stacking 40mm grenades behind each other...
DC2 Jennings
I think the point is that we're not currently in a global war against...
Philo
That's a bet I don't mind losing sammy boy.
Philo
Looks like you lost that bet.
Sam
I discussed it with one of the MetalStorm's armorers. It is a...
Steve