USAF grounds 17 combat squadrons

[Waco]

A C-17 cost less per hour then those small VIP birds do, believe it or not.

Not even close.

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.

Again, no.

Interesting thought wile on the subject, Cost per flight hour for an Osprey is more then an F-22.

Not by an order of magnitude is this anywhere close to being an accurate statement. No offense, Wayne, but where are you pulling these numbers from?

1 hour for a F-22 is cheaper then 2 hours in a F-15.

Considering they fly the same mission sets, and the F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15, I'd certainly hope that one hour's flying costs for an F-22 is cheaper than 2 hours' flying costs for an F-15. It is, but sadly, not by as much as you'd like it to be. Maybe as the airframe and maintenance practices reach full maturity, but honestly, I'm willing to bet that the costs of LO maintenance probably never get those per hour rates as low as they should be.

At any rate, sorry to intrude. Those claims just boggled my mind. I'd really like to see your references Wayne. Even the open source stuff I could find doesn't come anywhere close to what you've stated above.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Waco

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I recall/understand there are NO CUTS to defense spending for this fiscal year. The USAF for one was going to get all the money they had last year but only a cut in the amount of the increase in their budget asked for this year.

P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S-!

The DoD brass and their sleezy, paper pusher cronies are playing hard ball with Congress and the White House.

"If we don't get EVERY PENNY of the budget increase demanded, we will show YOU who runs the roost at DoD."

I SAY CALL THEIR BLUFF!!! They are playing a lousy game of political poker. Don't fall for their slimey politics and the idiot clamour of their dept. cronies and lobby groups.

As just an interested outsider I have little support for your idiot Congress (both damn parties) and the politics from the W.H. but the DoD is really playin ya all!!! :rolleyes:/>/>

Edited April 11, 2013 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[TaiidanTomcat]

The DoD brass and their sleezy, paper pusher cronies are playing hard ball with Congress and the White House.

The US military sets the budget?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I recall/understand there are NO CUTS to defense spending for this fiscal year. The USAF for one was going to get all the money they had last year but only a cut in the amount of the increase in their budget asked for this year.

you are wrong. well that was easy. I guess we disregard the little rant you said afterword, oh well another time maybe.

Sequestration= $42.7 billion in defense cuts (a 7.9 percent cut) for 2013. Thats twice the Canadian defense budget cut, so its kind of a lot of money.

No buck, no buck rogers. Planes don't fly without money. so 17 squadrons have to be shut down until the end of the FY.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=sequestration+defense+cuts+2013&oq=sequestration+defe&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l4.735.7829.0.9773.22.11.2.9.10.0.140.1153.5j6.11.0...0.0...1c.1.8.psy-ab.IvDGvKA0KhI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45107431,d.b2I&fp=d14b4293a52428ed&biw=1821&bih=800

Edited April 11, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[JB2013]

This is a terrible mess.

[jward]

Thank you for bringing some expertise and REAL facts to this issue / debate.

Jim

Not even close.

Again, no.

Not by an order of magnitude is this anywhere close to being an accurate statement. No offense, Wayne, but where are you pulling these numbers from?

Considering they fly the same mission sets, and the F-22 was supposed to replace the F-15, I'd certainly hope that one hour's flying costs for an F-22 is cheaper than 2 hours' flying costs for an F-15. It is, but sadly, not by as much as you'd like it to be. Maybe as the airframe and maintenance practices reach full maturity, but honestly, I'm willing to bet that the costs of LO maintenance probably never get those per hour rates as low as they should be.

At any rate, sorry to intrude. Those claims just boggled my mind. I'd really like to see your references Wayne. Even the open source stuff I could find doesn't come anywhere close to what you've stated above.

[Wayne S]

The US military sets the budget?

Sequestration= $42.7 billion in defense cuts (a 7.9 percent cut) for 2013. Thats twice the Canadian defense budget cut, so its kind of a lot of money.

There technically is no 2013 Budget, Yes they have figures which they ask, need.

The Budget which the USAF asked for, was 5 percent lower then the Budget they got, since the Budget that was asked for never made it through congress.

Another words, For half the year the USAF had 5 percent more then they expected to get. Sequestration=s a cut that "Includes that 5 percent" By your own figure,

For this half of the year, the actual cut would be 3 percent from the Budget the USAF wrote they needed. If one wanted to factor in the Budget they got to the end of the year, For the entire year they still had a 2 percent increase for the Budget.

No buck, no buck rogers. Planes don't fly without money. so 17 squadrons have to be shut down until the end of the FY.

They will not be "actually" shut down to the end of the fiscal year. Like I already wrote, some of the squadrons mentioned, Have already been deployed this year and or coming off deployment.

Waco,,,,,,,,, My points were for Actual flight hour cost, If I am off, I am not off by that much, that I am sure of.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Waco,,,,,,,,, My points were for Actual flight hour cost, If I am off, I am not off by that much, that I am sure of.

because...?

How does "actual flight hour cost" differ from the official CPFH?

Edited April 11, 2013 by TaiidanTomcat

[Lt Col James Rhodes]

They will not be "actually" shut down to the end of the fiscal year. Like I already wrote, some of the squadrons mentioned, Have already been deployed this year and or coming off deployment.

Actually, you are the one who does not get what is "actually" going on here. In the article I originally posted, it lists 17 squadrons which are standing down for the remainder of the fiscal year. Whether they're returning from a deployment previously this year or not, those units listed are done flying until 1 Oct 13, at the earliest. That's when the new fiscal year starts. I'll restate that, to be perfectly clear: as of this month, all of those units listed are assigned ZERO flying hours for the remainder of the fiscal year. So yes, they are actually shut down to the end of the fiscal year.

My points were for Actual flight hour cost, If I am off, I am not off by that much, that I am sure of.

Source?

The DoD brass and their sleezy, paper pusher cronies are playing hard ball with Congress and the White House.

And this, right here, is the statement which I find most distasteful about all of this. It's been repeated more often in the airshow threads, of course, because people seem to think the DoD cancelled airshows because they wanted to really stick it to the public. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Now it's "the DoD brass is just trying to stick it to Congress." I'd suggest you take TT's google tip, and do some reading up. While the DoD has sufficient funds to cover certain accounts in their budget (acquisitions, medical, retirement, etc), they did not get the flexibility to implement the sequestration cuts they way they wanted. Also, because there was no budget for 2013, money was being allocated on a quarterly basis through continuing resolution. So folks were only able to budget, forecast, and plan their operations account spending for the incremental funding drops they were getting on a quarterly basis. They WARNED the Legislative and Executive branches that sequestration, as written, was going to dramatically impact their operations because it didn't allow them to target waste, it implemented inflexible, across the board cuts that hadn't been built into an operations plan for the year. And since money was being dropped quarterly, when sequestration DID finally kick in, there was less than half the fiscal year remaining, with inflexible cuts to the OMA accounts, which meant there wasn't enough to cover forward deployed operations, spin up for those units deploying for the remainder of the year, and keep the remainder of the force mission ready. So they cut from the "easy" places first (airshows, TAD/TDY funding, command travel budgets, reduced operating hours, etc), and then they had to cut where it hurt: general readiness of the force.

I'll also point out that, come fiscal year '14, it will be MORE expensive to get these stood down units back to mission ready status than if they'd been allowed to fly at a minimal, basic qualification status for the remainder of the fiscal year. And it will have a multi-year ripple effect on deployment schedules, readiness, and quality of the force. These arguments were also made, but it doesn't matter, because FY14 dollars are different than FY13 dollars, and you're stuck with what you've got for the remainder of '13, with no flexibility to redistribute. Sorry, charlie, but time to make some tough choices.

So your "villainous" DoD brass made the difficult call, and decided to take the long term hit to readiness of the force at large in order to keep sufficient OMA funding to cover the forward deployed forces. Those lecherous, treacherous, political minded fools!! I know, right?

Manufactured outrage, particularly from a disinterested outsider...bah. At least educate yourself before you start blathering on about how people are being "played."

[Tony Stark]

Back to the subject of the sequester and it's effects on the DoD...

Source

(Gen. Herbert) Carlisle (who is in charge of PACAF) said the Air Force's core activities - maintenance and operations - are disproportionately affected because the military lacks the flexibility to cut other spending.

Congress didn't allow the branch, for example, to cancel acquisitions programs even when they're behind schedule or not meeting requirements, he said. It also can't cut airmen salaries or health care coverage.

On top of this, the Air Force is implementing a year's worth of budget cuts in six months. That's because the services were told Congress would come to an agreement to avoid the budget cuts and so the Air Force didn't plan for them when the current fiscal year started in October.

"It's our ability to do the mission when we're asked to do it. It's flying hours, it's training, it's fixing airplanes, it's buying parts for airplanes. All of those things were cut 40 percent for the rest of the year," Carlisle said.

[Viasistina]

Amen brother. If we didn't invite Timberlake the force could fly.

[Postman623]

But we can send 550 BILLION to Africa to help them out....