Originally Posted by navigatro

It never ceases to amaze me how at lots of AF bases, the support groups act like the flyers are there to support them, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by c17heavy

You're right, that goes on way too much. I had to turn in a gov vehicle last month at the Trans Squadron and they made me gas it up and wash it. I obliged their request, but the last time I flew a bunch of Space-A's and space-blocked pax, I didn't make them clean the jet, gas it up, or return the cargo floor centerline seating.

Originally Posted by c17heavy

T38, you bring up a good point. If I had to bet, I would agree with you that we aren't gonna get anywhere near the amount of F-35's the AF wants. For awhile, we've have politicians who worry more about the bottom line instead of national security. We will be in for a huge surprise when we face off against another conventional super power.

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer

MEM:

Exactly. Consider that, for any given fleet, roughly one-third of the jets are "down" for either mechanical problems that day, or Phase Inspections (Planned periodic inspections, typically around 100 hours, 300 hours, 600 hours, and 900 hours). The 600 and 900 hour inspections on the T-38 take about a month or so. I would assume more sophisticated airplanes take longer.

Which means you have about 120 F-22s to save the world.

Read a very interesting editorial in AW&ST about a year ago. The guy was an aerospace engineer, and he argued the "quantity' argument you cited.

His example was: Mainland China threatens Taiwan. We position US Naval vessels in the Straits to call their bluff, and position F-22s on Taiwan.

China calls our bluff and attacks.

The F-22s get superior BVR shots with no fratricide, with ratios of 6 or 8 kills per no losses---but now out of AMRAAMs, there are still hordes of low-tech fighters armed with anti-shipping missiles headed towards the boats.

So, the F-22s staunchly and bravely keep going, and get superior Heater and gun-kill ratios before being overwhelmed by superior numbers and a lucky shot.

The West has proven their point of view that superior technology gives superior kill-ratios.

The East has proven their point that superior numbers of slightly inferior weapons can still prevail.

Navigatro:

On the other hand, after World War II, Bomber guys ran the Air Force, and bought airplanes that could go fast, but couldn't maneuver. Read "John Boyd: the Figher Pilot Who Changed the Art of War." Excellent book. They didn't know what made a good fighter--they thought "fast" meant "Good."

I think the real problem is the top levels of Brass are more about politics than combat. Think about the games these guys play to get promoted beyond LtCol...to make it to the 4-star level means they've honed this skill to a fine-edge. That's the internal politics of the USAF--then there are the external politics, either with Congress, Sec Def, or inter-service rivalries. Also addressed in the book, above.

Finally, by the time they get that far up the food-chain, they've been out of the front-line cockpit so long that they are relying on what worked when they were Captains, or the advice of aides, Staff Summary Sheets, and Think-tanks. They won't know the pressing issues the guys on the line complain about, nor will they know the simple and elegant solutions guys have come up with. The USAF isn't very good at soliciting internal recommendations--they usually come from the Scientific Advisory Panel. That means by the time a problem is identified, it has been a problem for a long time. And a solution--if there is one--takes even longer.

Solution? I don't have one.