Top to bottom, that's some of the worst advice I've ever seen posted here.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Flying for Navy, Marines or Air Force?
- Thread starter gringo
- Start date
Top to bottom, that's some of the worst advice I've ever seen posted here.
I'll grant you that. As I noted I am biased, older, and so far out of the game that any advice I offer has little to no value. Still, since I left the choice of service open to the individual how is the advice so awfully terrible?
The only "advice" given was in the last sentence or two. It is not completely unsupported by facts. It is hardly the worst advice given in the 280 preceding posts. I think what you take exception to is his opinion and observations that constitutes the majority of the post. He began by qualifying his remarks and provides a point of reference for his opinion, which just might have value to some. You have a problem with his opinion, based on dated experience but current observation, given your current experience, have a polite debate with the man and maybe some will benefit from the exchange. Don't be an ass.
The last air to air kills against the enemy by US pilots were actually 17 years ago during Operation Allied Force. And just because it hasn't happened in a while doesn't mean it won't happen again.
You are correct on both counts. My apologies to those F-15 jocks.
Look, to all the fighter pilots out there, I did not mean to knock anyone's work and, as I noted initially I temper my comments with my limited experiences. That said, I imagine that in 1918 some great military mind might have thought, about say horse cavalry changes, "just because it hasn't happened in a while doesn't mean it won't happen again." But sure, there is every chance a US fighter pilot will claim an enemy aircraft in direct combat, but if the last 17 years are a measure this strikes me as increasingly increasingly remote.
The militaries of the world didn't invest billions of dollars into horse cavalry after WWI though, every major military power today is investing that kind of money in air-to-air combat systems. While large or even small scale air-to-air combat isn't likely any time soon things can change rapidly and we have to be prepared for that. The next aerial conflict will likely be unexpected, short and sharp with no real time to prepare. A 'come as you are' conflict where everyone involved will have to rely on existing training and not 'lessons learned' like we have in previous conflicts involving large-scale aerial combat. A failure to prepare for that will result in a loss for us and an aerial battlefield where no US aircraft, helos included, will be safe from the enemy.
Again, Flash, I will agree with all you are saying. Nevertheless, I never suggested we have a "come as you are" aviation force. All of this is born from my opinion that wide-eyed youngsters looking to be converted into steely-eyed fighter jocks should be prepared for some disappointment. In 2014 the USAF started the debate that the "last fighter pilot" has already been born. I was in the room at National Harbor last year when the SecNav said, quite clearly, that F-35 Lightning fighter "should be, and almost certainly will be, the last [crewed] strike fighter aircraft the Department of the Navy will ever buy or fly." If you go all the way to my initial post I mentioned that
. There is plenty of room left in the cockpit for young people but the space available for the "turn and burn" types seems to be getting smaller and smaller every year.
But they did before WWI and were quickly shown that this was a misguided investment. If you could say for certain which current military investment would be shown to be obsolete during the next conflict you'd be a pretty damned popular guy.
In a more indirect way, I think we have been perpetually throwing billions of dollars at trying to create the military technology/technologies that will render all others obsolete during the next conflict. Unfortunately, this is starting to come at the cost of maintaining and operating the military investments we have already made and fielded. Sadly with every flag officer in the DoD rambling about "the high end fight", the good idea fairies and acquisitions money pits are the very last priority for budget cuts.
True, but this is the constant fight between now and later. Calvary officers didn't want to spend horse money on tanks. Battleship admirals didn't want to spend money on subs or CVs.
Now fighter guys don't want to spend money on UAVs. And in a few years infantry guys won't want to spend money on killbots.
Now, a flying killbot that can hit Mach 2 while searching for subs and then break into a hover and slip into a hot LZ to start blasting away at enemy positions Rambo style, guns blazing...there is an investment.
I'm speaking to a lot more than UAV's, or even aircraft specifically. One of our strongest qualities as an armed force, has been the innovation of US industry in providing these sorts of technologies. No argument there, either historically, or today. But we also can't have the Reagan buildup again if we don't fund it. Right now, we want all the same new toys, but we are trying to pay for them with little change in funding. With that mindset, we either get great ideas that get trimmed down to useless widgets once they hit the fleet due to cost saving measures, or we get the broader problem where a few pet projects get massive funds and the existing fleet takes it in the teeth. I don't think we are quite there yet, but very soon, we will be that person who bought a garage full of ever more expensive sports cars with a revolving wallet of maxed out credit cards, and thus can't afford to change the oil/tires/etc. It is the definition of a "hollow force" and I think we are headed down that road if we don't change some of our priorities soon.
I'm not sure if things today are any worse than in the past though. The A-6 community was sacrificed for the A-12. The Army sacrificed a lot for the RAH-66. The F-111 was a disaster for most involved.
A lot of the acquisition dramas of the past don't make it into the history books and when the story is written it looks like all past decisions were premeditated successes when they weren't that way when they were happening.
Yeah, me too.
Just as another thought I remember being told that the Hornet failed OT. The tomcat guys thought it sucked as a fighter and the Sluf drivers didn't like the AG capability. And now 30yrs on the hornet is heralded as a fantastic idea and had been proven to be successful.
At some point the fleet will manage with what they have despite how much it differs from what was promised in the glossy brochure.