Lt Col James Rhodes Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) Still think it's about making things look bad through airshows? Edited April 9, 2013 by Lt Col James Rhodes Link to post Share on other sites
martin_sam_2000 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) Still think it's about making it look bad through airshows? WOW! I hope this will be the wake up call needed. Sean Edited April 9, 2013 by martin_sam_2000 Link to post Share on other sites
Niels Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) Sad, but if you ain't got the money.... So, what do these squadrons do in the interim while beeing stood down? From the sound of it, the'll be back up again in September unless something else happens? Edited April 9, 2013 by Niels Link to post Share on other sites
USAFsparkchaser Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 SO WHO IS COVERING DEPLOYMENTS TO THE AOR?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I SEE NO EFFECTS TO AMC UNITS I AM MAINTENANCE FOR C-17'S MAYBE THEY WILL PROVIDE CAS WITH AMC ASSETS AND JUST THROW GRENADES OUT THE CARGO DOORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** TO THIS ARTICLE AND MESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) SO WHO IS COVERING DEPLOYMENTS TO THE AOR?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I SEE NO EFFECTS TO AMC UNITS I AM MAINTENANCE FOR C-17'S MAYBE THEY WILL PROVIDE CAS WITH AMC ASSETS AND JUST THROW GRENADES OUT THE CARGO DOORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *** TO THIS ARTICLE AND MESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My thoughts tell me, They will provide Close Air Support with assets who are to be deployed, "NOT" with assets that "just came back from deployment" or assets "that will not deploy anytime soon". Edited April 9, 2013 by Wayne S Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 The Aristocrats! Link to post Share on other sites
dean spirkoff Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 this is what north Korea the terrorist loves to here. if are forces are not combat ready who will stop them. please say that they grounded Airforce one, till 2016 . Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 this is what north Korea the terrorist loves to here. if are forces are not combat ready who will stop them. please say that they grounded Airforce one, till 2016 . Very gud pointes. Keep obamo grounded and that will fix things. It's his falt that we are now deefennceless. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony Stark Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Sad, but if you ain't got the money.... So, what do these squadrons do in the interim while beeing stood down? From the sound of it, the'll be back up again in September unless something else happens? Ramp up simulator time is one option (that's already been happening). The other option is to have the pilots walk around parking lots with planes on sticks. The third option? Link to post Share on other sites
mungo1974 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 So will Obama give up Airforce One's flight hours,and the UC-25's(I think that's what they are) used by the presidential aids?? Taking flight hours away from frontline units is just stupid. Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 So will Obama give up Airforce One's flight hours,and the UC-25's(I think that's what they are) used by the presidential aids?? Taking flight hours away from frontline units is just stupid. :bandhead2:/> Yeah, the prez flies as much as 17 fighter squadrons combined so this will definitely solve the problem. He travels much less than the last guy so I guess I really don't see your point. The military has a vast fleet of corporate jets that are used to fly high level brass around. Much larger than the fleet that supports the executive branch. How about we look at grounding all those VIP King Airs, Gulfstreams, etc? When was the last time you saw an AF general/Navy Admiral and his aides flying coach on Southwest? It's a bit telling that the military brass is going after tactical flight hours whilst still keeping their private fleet of biz jets fully operational. Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) Yeah, the prez flies as much as 17 fighter squadrons combined so this will definitely solve the problem. He travels much less than the last guy so I guess I really don't see your point. totally O/T but I talked to a secret service guy who said its the entourage, not the miles. you may resume what promises to be an awesome thread Edited April 9, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Jinxter13 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) No matter how you cut it........WE'RE IN DEEEEEP stinky stuff.....for those who are not defense minded...it's getting near a crisis situation. The end of the cold war did not lessen our need for a staunch defense force. The world at large is a much more dangerous place, and the West seems to be the target in general. Anything past this will cross the invisible line of non political comment, I ain't going there. Edited April 9, 2013 by #1 Greywolf Link to post Share on other sites
SinisterVampire319 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Dear North Korea, Please don't attack until us until after September. Thank you, little Timmy <_< Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I hope this will be the wake up call needed. For what? To start doing the job our elected "representatives" were sent there to do? What makes you think this will do it? I have zero faith, nor reason to believe it will do any such thing. Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 ...the West seems to be the target in general And until we ask ourselves - and more importantly, answer ourselves honestly - why that is, nothing is going to change. They don't hate us because of our freedom. They don't hate us because of Starbucks and McDonalds. Unless and until we (the big "we") figure out why these people hate us so much, no amount of armaments, squadrons, bombs, missiles, drones, or (most importantly) dollars is going to fix the problem. As long as we go on the assumption that because we're the USA we can by definition do no wrong in the world, generations yet unborn will continue to hate us and attack us. We can't kill everybody. Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 No matter how you cut it........WE'RE IN DEEEEEP stinky stuff.....for those who are not defense minded...it's getting near a crisis situation. The end of the cold war did not lessen our need for a staunch defense force. The world at large is a much more dangerous place, and the West seems to be the target in general. Anything past this will cross the invisible line of non political comment, I ain't going there. To be honest bud, I am way more worried about the weather these days then getting nuked by a vast missile system and or subs sitting off our coast. Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 And until we ask ourselves - and more importantly, answer ourselves honestly - why that is, nothing is going to change. They don't hate us because of our freedom. They don't hate us because of Starbucks and McDonalds. Unless and until we (the big "we") figure out why these people hate us so much, no amount of armaments, squadrons, bombs, missiles, drones, or (most importantly) dollars is going to fix the problem. As long as we go on the assumption that because we're the USA we can by definition do no wrong in the world, generations yet unborn will continue to hate us and attack us. We can't kill everybody. We have a system that can be implemented to lesson the strength of the evil ones against the USA. Open up trade and sell as much fast fattening food "cheap cheap" to said countries. They need a bag of rice, give them 20,000Lbs of 8000 calorie burgers. Link to post Share on other sites
Lt Col James Rhodes Posted April 10, 2013 Author Share Posted April 10, 2013 It's a bit telling that the military brass is going after tactical flight hours whilst still keeping their private fleet of biz jets fully operational. They're not. This particular article and list denotes the reductions/groundings to CAF--combat Air Force--units. MAF--mobility Air Force--reductions are impacted similarly. Tankers, airlift...it's all been hugely scaled back. However, since AMC is totally a pay-to-play operation (you want cargo moved? Sure...as long as you pay for its movement), the impact is different. And all official travel has been drastically cut back, to include VIP lift. When was the last time you saw an AF general/Navy Admiral and his aides flying coach on Southwest? Happens all the time, they're just not usually in uniform so you don't notice. Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 They're not. This particular article and list denotes the reductions/groundings to CAF--combat Air Force--units. MAF--mobility Air Force--reductions are impacted similarly. Tankers, airlift...it's all been hugely scaled back. However, since AMC is totally a pay-to-play operation (you want cargo moved? Sure...as long as you pay for its movement), the impact is different. And all official travel has been drastically cut back, to include VIP lift. Happens all the time, they're just not usually in uniform so you don't notice. I have to disagree with you here sir, as these two rebuttals above show if I'm not aware of it, then it must not be occurring. Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) Yeah, the prez flies as much as 17 fighter squadrons combined so this will definitely solve the problem. He travels much less than the last guy so I guess I really don't see your point. When it comes to flight hours, one has to look at the cost per aircraft type etc. The military has a vast fleet of corporate jets that are used to fly high level brass around. Much larger than the fleet that supports the executive branch. How about we look at grounding all those VIP King Airs, Gulfstreams, etc? When was the last time you saw an AF general/Navy Admiral and his aides flying coach on Southwest? It's a bit telling that the military brass is going after tactical flight hours whilst still keeping their private fleet of biz jets fully operational. A C-17 cost less per hour then those small VIP birds do, believe it or not. Can almost get 2 hours out of an F-16 for the price of one hour for a F-15. F-16 cost per hour is close to the Cost per hour of an C-17. That little stint with those two B-2s that flew to South Korea ate up a lot of cost for flight hours, they are the most expensive aircraft per flight hour. Interesting thought wile on the subject, Cost per flight hour for an Osprey is more then an F-22. Would have to put thought into this, My thoughts want to tell me it would be cheaper to have a Detachment of F-22s sitting somewhere like Lakenheath then it would to keep the 493rd FS active. 1 hour for a F-22 is cheaper then 2 hours in a F-15. Edited April 10, 2013 by Wayne S Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) Interesting thought wile on the subject, Cost per flight hour for an Osprey is more then an F-22. F-22s are under $11K per hour? As the Marines, the Air Force, NAVAIR and Bell-Boeing gain more experience with the 21st Century Osprey, its operating expense is also coming down. Over the past year, its cost per flight hour declined from more than $11,000 an hour to about $9,500, according to Marine Col. Greg Masiello, the program manager at NAVAIR. Using the Osprey's fiscal 2010 flight hour cost of $11,651 per flight hour, http://defense.aol.com/2011/08/09/the-v-22-safer-than-helos-effective-worth-buying/ Edited April 10, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
thegoodsgt Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 If you're truly concerned, write your Congressman. Seriously. WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN! Link to post Share on other sites
Wayne S Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 F-22s are under $11K per hour? Times the bold by 7.5, that would be close to cost for the CV-22B. Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Times the bold by 7.5, that would be close to cost for the CV-22B. LOL where did you get that stat? and the CPFH i posted was USAF inclusive Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts