Replacing the Eagle with Vipers?

[tac airlifter]

10 minutes ago, Danny Noonin said:

Falling on a sword only makes sense if it will actually accomplish something. It would be absolutely futile in this case.

 

That is an unproven assumption you are treating as fact. 

[Danny Noonin]

That is an unproven assumption you are treating as fact. 

 

 

 

Of course it's unproven. The only way to prove it would be for it to actually happen.

 

Again, who are they supposed to get the money from? Each service is way short. Each service chief has equal grounds to fall on a sword. But the AF already demanded more. A lot more. And we lost. So is anyone seriously saying Goldfein should quit in protest?? How exactly do you think Mattis would respond? Do you really think he'd cave to that and give us more money? Gimme a break.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

17 minutes ago, Danny Noonin said:

Who are they supposed to get the money from? So is anyone seriously saying Goldfein should quit in protest?? How exactly do you think Mattis would respond, by caving and giving us more money? 

That's not this discussion, I didn't say that, and no idea how he'd respond but SECDEF can't give money he doesn't have.

I'm simply pointing out that if you want to solve problems, one of the first steps is separating facts from assumptions.  Is it a fact that "falling on their sword" would accomplish nothing and be futile?  How do you know that if it hasn't been done?

as to your first question above: if I were a service chief looking for money and willing to be fired for speaking truth, I would "fall on my sword" over the issue of BRAC.  There's your wasted billions.

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, Danny Noonin said:

Just because management isn't announcing everything they do publicly doesn't mean they aren't doing all they possibly can. Falling on a sword only makes sense if it will actually accomplish something. It would be absolutely futile in this case.

Sorry Danny the world needs ditch diggers too and I completely disagree with your comments. 

First, who said we have to take other peoples money, this is a question of choices and priorities.  Maybe just maybe we say "NO SIR, we can't do that mission without completely breaking the force."  Living within your means doesn't mean live on this budget but continue to operate your people and equipment like a drunken whore driving a rental car in Vegas.  How many hundred thousand hours did we burn flying pointless "No-Fly Zone" missions?  Do we stay in Afghanistan, Syria, South Korea, Europe, South America, and continue to project power into the South China Sea?  80% of the USMC Hornets are hard fucking broke, 80% of their heavy vertical lift as well, 50% of the Navy F-18's are down for the count, 50% of our B-1's...it goes on and on.  You are correct, everyone has the same problem so how about we think outside the box and say no for once.  Most aviators are type A and we don't like to admit defeat, most of the folks I know and flew with are hard charging mission hacking mother fuckers who will find a way to get it done...but we have been doing that for too long and it is now at risk of major parts of the enterprise.  So if are going to live within our means then lets operate within out limitations.  If a Service Chief fell on his sword and said I need more money or less mission period dot, I think it would make a difference, if more than one did it I think we would have change.

Now, GET OFF MY LAWN.

[Danny Noonin]

Sorry Danny the world needs ditch diggers too and I completely disagree with your comments. 
First, who said we have to take other peoples money, this is a question of choices and priorities.  Maybe just maybe we say "NO SIR, we can't do that mission without completely breaking the force."  Living within your means doesn't mean live on this budget but continue to operate your people and equipment like a drunken whore driving a rental car in Vegas.  How many hundred thousand hours did we burn flying pointless "No-Fly Zone" missions?  Do we stay in Afghanistan, Syria, South Korea, Europe, South America, and continue to project power into the South China Sea?  80% of the USMC Hornets are hard ing broke, 80% of their heavy vertical lift as well, 50% of the Navy F-18's are down for the count, 50% of our B-1's...it goes on and on.  You are correct, everyone has the same problem so how about we think outside the box and say no for once.  Most aviators are type A and we don't like to admit defeat, most of the folks I know and flew with are hard charging mission hacking mother ers who will find a way to get it done...but we have been doing that for too long and it is now at risk of major parts of the enterprise.  So if are going to live within our means then lets operate within out limitations.  If a Service Chief fell on his sword and said I need more money or less mission period dot, I think it would make a difference, if more than one did it I think we would have change.
Now, GET OFF MY LAWN.

Wholeheartedly agree with the above. I didn't perceive the "saying no to missions" part on first read of your original post. Though you just wanted more money. I agree with what you are saying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brickhistory]

Ron Fogleman. 

Among other leadership considerations, the ability to organize, train, and equip the forces to carry out national strategy is dependent upon resources provided.

Sure, there are finite resources.  It is the responsibility, and more importantly, the duty of the CSAF to advocate for those resources necessary to conduct the missions given.

If the necessary resources aren't provided, the CSAF has a responsibility, and more importantly, the duty to notify his civilian leaders of the consequences of the lack of those resources.  Then, the missions are either reduced to meet the resources or the resources are increased to meet the demanded missions.

Failing that, the CSAF has the responsibility, and more importantly, the duty to respectfully refuse to carry out those mission knowing that the risk to the personnel under his care is thereby increased with no benefit to the nation.  Having refused, in our generally grand tradition of military subordination to civilian control, the result is resignation or firing.

That tends to crimp post-uniformed service board memberships and the like...

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

...If a Service Chief fell on his sword and said I need more money or less mission period dot, I think it would make a difference, if more than one did it I think we would have change.

More resources are fine but in reality it is the control over the appropriation is really what is needed.

How many useless installations, pet projects, make believe jobs, redundancies, "fall out money" spending orgies in the 4th quarter could add up to needed resources?  

Congress can appropriate more money but it they tell us it can only be spent in Turdshit AFB, USA on a non-relevant money sucking system or mission, then it does not matter.  And they have no track record of doing that... 

On the subject of replacing the Eagle with the Viper... you save money short term but you might be eating your Vipers up faster than you originally planned on thus incurring a risk until the F-35A is FOC and the squadron(s) are supplied.  The training bill to convert X number of Eagle drivers into Viper drivers will have a few zeroes on the end of it also, doubt the F-16 FTU has a bunch of open spots also, another problem to solve.  It's a damn Rubik's cube...

If the Eagle is too expensive to continue flying for Homeland Defense, from the T-X competition develop a light fighter / aggressor and call it good.  That squarely favors the T-50 or T-100 but Boeing could figure it out quickly if they won the competition.

[HU&W]

12 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Until SECAF/CSAF fall on their sword in a very public manner we will continue to see issues like this.

The only swords either one will see will be the ones presented by the enlisted corps at retirement.  Why?  Because our nation perceives us as a peacetime military.  A peacetime military is only really good for two things; maintaining sufficient readiness to deter war and funneling money to congressional districts.  As a nation, we're really good at doing at least one of those.

Edited March 24, 2017 by HU&W

[redshift2020]

I loves me some banzai. Take that ers whole world..... 2 DEPLOY! And then SOO right in the face on the one that's left cause the other 3 are dead

[Sprkt69]

15 hours ago, BeerMan said:

Wait...am I your asshole, our asshole or not an asshole? Screw it! I whole heartily accept all three compliments!

Somewhere over the Northern Range about 10 minutes into the fight...Rambo 1, Fox 3, close 4-ship over Tonapah, banzai!

Rambo 1, Showtime delayed 2-minutes, you're dead!

F-ing M78...

Hey can we get one of those fancy RWR things from this century? No? Ok...

Cheers,

Beerman

It's always nice to have the Eagles CAP over the super MEZ and soak up those SAM shots. Keep the Eagles flying so that others may live!

[Kenny Powers]

It's always nice to have the Eagles CAP over the super MEZ and soak up those SAM shots. Keep the Eagles flying so that others may live!

Best case scenario, they push this agenda a little further for the next couple years, Vipers get AESA, then they decide it's a bad idea, upgrade Eagles to 10x2 load outs and they're still there to soak up the SAMs.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Cameltactics]

On 3/23/2017 at 6:36 AM, SocialD said:

Search her name on here...you'll find the reason for the post by CH.  

[brabus]

F-ing M78...

Should have been above 25K, SAMs can't shoot eagles above that, it's science. 

[SurelySerious]

[12xu2a3x3]

On 3/23/2017 at 9:25 AM, Day Man said:

It's hard to convince someone you're broke when you're bankrolling shit like this:

the viper on the left is that video was biggest piece of shit i ever worked on, still the least offensive thing shown

[Cameltactics]

Some more news on the subject.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/04/12/air-force-opts-to-keep-f-16s-flying-for-decades-longer/

 

Anyone in the know who can speak to what new/upgraded stuff the viper might get besides AESA? 

[Ram]

4 hours ago, Cameltactics said:

Some more news on the subject.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/04/12/air-force-opts-to-keep-f-16s-flying-for-decades-longer/

 

Anyone in the know who can speak to what new/upgraded stuff the viper might get besides AESA? 

I don't think it's a good discussion for anyone "in the know" to have on this board.  The peanut gallery can speculate all they want, though.

[brabus]

Fuck you Ram, the world deserves to know! Hopefully the source selection goes with the great white, sure as hell don't want that piece of shirt tiger shark Northrup is pitching - only one laser, bullshit!

 

Edited April 13, 2017 by brabus

[Guardian]

Northrop products are crap


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[stract]

On 4/12/2017 at 9:58 PM, Cameltactics said:

Some more news on the subject.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/04/12/air-force-opts-to-keep-f-16s-flying-for-decades-longer/

 

Anyone in the know who can speak to what new/upgraded stuff the viper might get besides AESA? 

Yes, I'm in the know.  No, I'm not speaking to any of that shit.  Where are your troops and can I count them?