이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
종료
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..
종료
Back to Squawk list
  • 29

Inside the geriatric unit: US Air Force struggles to keep aging aircraft flying

제출됨
 
For decades, the U.S. Air Force has grown accustomed to such superlatives as unrivaled and unbeatable. These days, some of its key combat aircraft are being described with terms like geriatric, or decrepit... (www.foxnews.com) 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Twincom1
The writer knows so little about a modern Air Force that I really did not want to take the time to respond, but the fundamental gauge of the effectiveness of an Air Force is not the numbers of aircraft in the inventory. The fundamental measure of an Air Force's efectiveness is it's lethality, and that includes:

1. The ability to deliver ordnance on target, be it on the ground or in the air.

2. The ability to survive the attack mission, be it air intercept or ground attack.

3. The ability to rapidly deploy it's forces to the most critical areas of battle, be it in the air or on the ground.

4. The ability to sustain those objectives until the battle has been won.

In WW II we sent 300 B-17's against the ball bearing works at Schweinfurt, 100 were shot down, 1000 men were lost and ball bearing production resumed not too long after the bombing.

In Korea B-29 bombers became so vulnerable to air attack by MIG-15's that daylight bombing was halted and the B-29's were relegated to night bombing only, and heaven only knows what they were hitting at night.

In the Vietnam War we sent wave after wave of 105's carrying 2000 lb "dumb bombs" against the Than Hoa bridge in N Vietnam and the Thuds were never able to destroy that bridge, but we did lose about 20 of them trying to take out the bridge.

Then one day we sent two F-4's, repeat TWO lonely F-4's against that bridge, one carrying Laser Guided Bombs (LGB's) and one carrying a Laser Designator. Those two F-4's dropped that bridge that we had been trying to take out for two years with ease and without any losses.

Today we have 500 lb and 2000 lb LGB's, GPS guided bombs with 5 meter accuracy that can be dropped from 10 miles away and 40,000 ft, 30,000 lb GPS guided bombs that can penetrate just about anything, Maverick Missiles that can optically lock onto a target and guide themselves right to the target, airborne radars in our fighters that can lock onto a target 75 miles away, and kill it from 40 miles away with an AMRAM missile, Attack aircraft that can kill a tank with 3 or 4 rounds from a 30mm cannon, and radars in our AWACS that scan huge swaths of the sky and can vector our forces where they are most needed.

It is the lethality that correctly measures an Air Force's capability, not the numbers.

The numbers game is a stupid game for armchair generals.

Col. Gene Cirillo, USAF (Ret)
A Vietnam Combat veteran (F-105)
Derg
And of course there is a bunch of stuff that is not on record too. They need to keep the back office stuff flying to make logistics work. And when that fails we just use FedEx.
rad2
Electioneering gobble-de-gook. No real point to this article, just a rehash of common knowledge. Congress needs to decide how much to spend and the flyboys need to specify a reasonable stable of next generation aircraft. In my opinion, we do not need a one box fits all, which grow to be too expensive and don't get the job done.
linbb
linbb 5
Very good comment its too bad that it is posted at all as keeping aging AC flying sometimes is easier than getting a new one due to the learning curve it takes to bring it on line let alone the cost. Most dont think of the cost before one even is in service let alone the ones who didnt even make the grade and program had to be shut down.
xmacfly
FOX - say no more!
JCMIA
I could use the same words to describe the people on Fox News. It is a simple matter of money. Do we have it or not? And do we want to run up more debt, or raise revenues to pay for it all now? We can give the USAF billions more, but that will mean cuts to other programs and/or tax increases. Or more debt.
galatei
In my opinion, US should stop continuously re-arming, racing to be first all the time, stick to what it already has, and what's proven effective, stop wasting money on war, and start feeding people instead, especially now, in the aftermath of the hurricane.
WALLACE24
Sir, we have no food shortage in the US. Even the stricken people hit by Sandy can get food. We even feed those too damn lazy to work.
boughbw
It is amusing that they say "General Accounting Office" in an article discussing how out of date the Air Force is. But then, it is Fox "News."
boughbw
Fact: The article discusses how the planes of the Air Force are out of date.
Fact: The article calls the GAO the "General Accounting Office."
Fact: The GAO was renamed the "Government Accountability Office" in 2004.
Fact: The article was written by Fox News.
Irony: Fox News is calling the Air Force's planes out-of-date while it refers to the GAO by a name that is out-of-date.
Thumbs down? You have to be a conservative to have such a disdain for the facts and their well-known, liberal bias.
WALLACE24
Semantics on the GAO. Where is the article so far off base. Most of it looks right to me.

로그인

계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!