|
Bush #1 cut the Cold War budget (which, if adjusted for inflation would be well above the current DoD budget), Clinton cut it even more. Bush #2 came along and increased it some, but the vast majority of that money got sucked into operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since about 1991, there has been very little modernization going on within the military. Funding went down, while deployments and operations tempo went through the roof. In the 1980s, the military was at its zenith because it was well funded, and didn't go anywhere except to NATO exercises. Following the first Gulf War in 1991, funding was slashed, and deployments just kept coming and coming (Desert Storm, Somalia, Haiti, Northern/Southern Watch, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other smaller operations). Here's what I'm talking about (it's Air Force oriented, since I'm in the Air Force and it's what I know):
I fly C-130s. C-130Es specifically. The airplanes I fly now were designed in 1955 and the specific airplanes I fly rolled off the assembly line between 1961 and 1964. Some of our navigation radios- I kid you not- are tuned by winding a knob, like the radios of the 1940s (same technology). We now sport a GPS receiver, but we are unable to fly GPS approaches. A simple Cessna 172 light airplane can do more with GPS than we can. Many of the airplanes have wing cracks from being in service well beyond their intended life span. I am almost 36 years old, yet the airplane I flew earlier today was manufactured when my father was 10. It entered front-line service when my grandfather was in the prime of his military career.
KC-135 tankers: Most were made between 1955 and 1963, and are based on the Boeing 707, a 1950s-era airliner. Many have engine pylon cracks, and some are getting structural cracks from age.
C-5 airlifters: The largest airplane in the world when they rolled off the production line in the late 1960s, many of the earlier models (production restarted in the early 1980s for a limited run, but most were made in the late 1960s) suffer from tail cracks and poor engine reliability. The current engines on the C-5 were technological breakthroughs back in 1965, but were expensive to maintain and burn fuel rapidly. Modern airline engines produce twice the thrust and burn half the fuel of the engines the C-5s have, yet the funding to re-engine the airplanes is on the chopping block.
C-17 airlifters: The "baby" of the fleet, most were made in the 1990s and are still in production today. However, early production models are showing signs of cracking from the high use of the past 15 years.
F-15 fighters: Most people assume that the USAF has the best and most advanced fighters. They do, but not in any significant number (F-22 is most advanced). Most of the fighters are F-15s and F-16s, which for many years were unrivaled. But Russia has developed aircraft that are just as good (or better according to some experts) as the US equipment. Moreover, the Russian aircraft are all still in production, while the USAF stopped buying F-15Cs in the early 1980s. Most F-15s are suffering from airframe fatigue, and several have broken up in mid-air due to stress cracks. F-15s were produced from 1977 to 1983, with only a handful being bought after that as attrition replacements. While 26 years old doesn't sound like much, for an airplane that spends most of it's time pulling 7 times Earth's gravity, it's an old airplane.
F-16 fighters: Not much better position. Most bought in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Attrition examples were bought into the 1990s, but production (for the US) stopped in the mid-1990s. The average F-16 is about 20 years old, and like the F-15, it's a high-abuse airframe (lots of g forces), and wasn't designed to last for decades.
A-10 anti-tank aircraft: Many are suffering from wing cracks, and there's a program to re-wing the airplanes. But they are largely unchanged, save for some avionics modifications, from the version the US bought in the mid-1970s. Most A-10s are over 30 years old.
B-52 bomber: The mainstay of the US bomber fleet, during the 1980s there were several hundred in service. Now there are only about 70 left, and most of them were made in the early 1960s. They also suffer from fatigue cracking in some aircraft, since in the 1970s and 1980s, many were flown on high-stress low-level training missions to counter the Soviet threat of high-altitude missiles.
HH-60 helicopters: Search and rescue version based on the Army's Black Hawk helicopter, they were bought in the early 1990s. They are all suffering from fatigue cracks, since all the special rescue equipment forces them to fly around at close to maximum weight, unlike the Army versions that generally operate at lighter weights.
That's a quick run-down of some of the big problems in the US Air Force. You can argue that perhaps we should be smaller, leaner, and more domestically focused (I don't mean enforcing domestic law, I mean defending our country instead of nation-building, etc). We still have commitments with NATO, but honestly, the Europeans are reaping the benefit of reduced defense costs because we provide most of their defense needs for them. Perhaps we should require NATO to foot more of the responsibility and draw down our forces in Europe.
Those are all issues that can be debated...but my concern is we have our young servicemen and women flying around in museum pieces. Imagine if our cargo aircraft fleet was around 40-50 years old in the 1980s...we would have had a fleet of DC-3s on the ramp. That would have been unacceptable back then, but for some reason everyone I know that's a civilian has this idea in their head that we're the most advanced military ever...my favorite question I get from friends and family..."It must be amazing to fly those really advanced airplanes"....sure it is...since my airplane isn't any more advanced than a 1960s DC-8. Airliners, even private light airplanes, are more advanced than the aircraft I fly. I know because I also rent airplanes, and one guy pulled up at the general aviation airport a while back showing me his 4-seat Piper that had color weather display, traffic avoidance system and a world-wide terrain database that displayed all the mountains and stuff on a moving map. Yet the C-130Es I fly have a monochrome radar that I can't even see (it's at the Navigator's station), and many of them don't have TCAS (traffic collision avoidance system) or terrain databases of any kind. We've just got the old 1950s "steam gauge" round dials and old WWII-era navigation radios.
I've read about all sorts of articles on this web site with people screaming in anger about the government not providing proper body armor, not providing adequate vehicles for troops to ride in, etc etc etc. But when it comes to buying new airplanes, they scream "they don't need any more toys!"
They aren't toys. And I'd really like to avoid a repeat of the May 1982 accident involving a C-130E over Judsonia, Arkansas (an airplane with wing cracks lost a wing during a formation flight...the other aircraft watched helplessly as the stricken aircraft spiraled to the ground, killing the instructors and the students...it was assigned to the C-130 training squadron). They had inspections back then, and cracked aircraft were repaired or retired...and that was in 1983, and everyone said "well, the C-130Es are old and will probably get replaced soon anyways". Well, here we are, about 25 years later, and they're still flying, cracks and all.
Right now, we're SLOWLY getting new C-130s into the fleet...called the C-130J. It's a terrific aircraft, but we don't have the budget to buy a bunch of them. So we've been getting a few in each year, and I'm glad to say that Americans build the airplanes in Georgia. There is a program to try and replace the 40-50 year old tankers, and hopefully Boeing gets the contract because US workers will build the things. Airbus is a competitor, and the supposedly are offering a bigger airplane for the same price, but honestly, it's a US government contract, so US workers should get the benefit. Finally, we're trying to get new fighters too, but that's in jeopardy (all these programs are in jeopardy, to be honest).
I don't think the DoD budget should be reduced right away. We need to cut the spending on wars and operations, and keep the budget the same for a few years so we can replace all these really old airplanes...and it's not just the Air Force...it's the other branches too. I'd say the Air Force is probably in the worst position, since aircraft are very expensive and over the past few years our spending priorities have fallen behind the Army (for obvious reasons). But the Army and Marines have their own issues. The Navy is actually doing OK. They are replacing old aircraft at a decent clip, and our ships still rule the roost, since there aren't many Blue Water Navies out there to really challenge us right now.
But let's not be naive and think that as soon as Iraq ramps down, we can dissect the DoD. That would be a disaster down the road...because all those programs to replace these aircraft will disappear, and in 8 years, the next president will inherit 60 year old aircraft...imagine...60 years old. How many of you drive cars that are 40, 50 or 60 years old? It's absolutely amazing that we've been able to keep these things running and viable this year...I have to hand it to our maintenance folks, because without their work, these aircraft would be true rust buckets. But from personal experience, these old airplanes absorb a tremendous amount of man hours and parts each year just to keep them working.
That's my .02 cents.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
