Comments on: Young Slams AF Over UAVs

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:33:25 +0000

A response to Mr. Young can be found at: http://www.wingeddefense.com/archives/95.

Thanks for reading!

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 01 May 2009 12:43:10 +0000

When the Air Force stops trying to play politics with the lives of troops maybe I will not be as cynical as I am. I have never forgotten the fact that the most damage done to my unit in Vietnam was done by the United States Air Force jets and not the Peoples’ Army of Vietnam or the Vietminh.

The Air Force other than Special Operations units do not want to support ground troops. The AC130 gun ship crews are first rate and the transport squadrons are very good. I trust the few A 10 crews that are still around. The rest of the jet crews I don’t trust.

Also I think that the United States Air Force has aspirations of being Herman Goring’s Luftwaffe and controlling Airborne forces and Army Aviation. If the United States Air Force had its way the First Air Cavalry Division would have been stillborn and I would have died in Vietnam.

By: RFL

RFL — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:15:12 +0000

Auroa I work with the Japanese and your facts are a bit out of whack; the boom is not effective

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:02:47 +0000

What the Air Force needs to do is bring back Warrent Officers to fly them and make successful UAV hours a perequisite to flying fast movers and heavies. When AF-1 is flown by pilot with UAV hours that will be the symbol the nation takes the technology seriously.

Then again after NYC fly by there maybe an ex AF-1 pilot flying UAVs in the desert.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:38:08 +0000

lol pilots dont even want to fly that thing, i dont think they care about the feature… UAV’s are the last thing on pilots out of UPT want… if was their choice they would rather have it automated so they wouldnt have to even go down the UAV pipeline after UPT…

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:20:24 +0000

What?!? The AF put pilot job security ahead of mission needs?!?

(Sounds like business as usual to me.)

By: hess

hess — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:47:12 +0000

ummmm you guys high-jacked this thread.….. stay on topic

By: John

John — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:30:25 +0000

Tim D-T is on to something.

By: Aurora

Aurora — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:44:02 +0000

RFL, Boeing has transferred 3 tankers to Japan for delivery. How many gallons of fuel has the KC-30 transferred? How many A330 tanker varients have been delivered? EADS has delayed deliveries of the A330MRTT to the RAAF. No reason given for the delay. What gives?

A grasp of the facts would be nice.

By: Tim D-T

Tim D-T — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:32:40 +0000

Um, I thought this article and thread was about UAV systems and acquisitions, not tankers …

By: RFL

RFL — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:12:08 +0000

By the way Aurora a grasp of facts would be good; the contract was to NG and NG beat Boeing which has still not delivered a tanker that works effectively to Japan or Italy; and the A330 air frame is superior to the 767 which remains the problem,

By: Aurora

Aurora — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:52:56 +0000

James Hasik, I did not mean to troll. There are many dimensions to national security that transcend the number of pallets an aircraft can carry; economic and industrial base must factor into the equation as well. The last administration, for whatever reason, choose to ignore any of these considerations. John Young’s testimony before Congress on the tanker speaks for itself.

Do we really want Everett, Washington, to look like Flint, Michigan, in 5 years?

I submit that if the USAF had chosen Boeing, they would have hand funding in place for the tanker as we speak (type).

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:36:11 +0000

James Hasik,

The KC-30 is obviously a bad choice. It is larger & heavier than the KC-10 (in fact it is larger & heavier than all aircraft in US inventory except for the C-5 & a handful of 747-based aircraft) yet has a fuel capacity of ‘just’ 246,000 lbs (110,000 lbs less than the KC-10 & ‘only’ 44,000 lbs more than the MUCH smaller & lighter KC-135R — note that the KC-135s are in need of replacement NOT because they lack sufficient fuel capacity but because they are old & expensive to maintain & will not last forever).

Despite its very good take-off performance, the KC-30 is too big &/or too heavy to operate from the smaller bases closer to the refueling points the KC-X is/was intended for (of it it can only at reduced take-off weight were the KC-767AT can actually take-off with a greater amount of fuel than the KC-30) & can not operate in sufficient numbers from those that it can.

By: Scathsealgaire

Scathsealgaire — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:40:24 +0000

Got to agree with james there, it does seem to be a matter of buying US-Made over any other consideration.

By: James Hasik

James Hasik — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:06:42 +0000

Aurora’s comment is thoroughly uncalled for. Whatever John Young’s relative merits as a manager of such a large enterprise, the A330 has unmistakable merits as a tanker. Since neither the 330 nor the 767 is an obviously bad choice, choosing the Airbus logically must logically within the discretion of the Air Force, subject only to the USD-AT&L’s review. Protectionist interference in the decision has only endangered lives by delaying the program.

By: Aurora

Aurora — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:43:34 +0000

Goodbye, John Young. This is the guy that wanted to give one of the largest procurement contracts in DOD history to Airbus. Adieu!

By: John

John — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:48:54 +0000

Obviuosly General Michael Moseley’s proposal that the AF become the primary manager of all medium-high altitude UASs ruffled some feathers over at the Army.

“At an Army aviation roundtable March 23 at the Pentagon, Army Brig. Gen. Stephen D. Mundt, chief of Army air operations, blasted the Air Force for proposing that it be responsible for the development and operations of unmanned aerial vehicles that operate above 3,500 feet…
Don’t get into the tactical commander’s fight and don’t get into the way we do business,” Mundt warned the Air Force.“
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/airforce_army_UAVfight_070330/

So why would the Army now want to work with the AF, when the AF is still trying through Congress to take away Army capability? I chuckled that the Army already had “auto-land capability”.