If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On 7/4/03 8:43 PM, in article ,
"Giz" wrote: No? The airframe transfer shellgame between deploying squadrons and those just returning has ended? No sarcasm there. If that has ended, then the VFA's are doing well, but the last I heard was that returning squadrons were being picked apart to bring the deployers up to full strength. I agree that we should SAU all communities that need it. If that allows VFA and/or VF to remain as Reserve Squadrons great, but we do need to end the cycle of aircraft transfers. Giz From an idealist's standpoint, I agree with you... but after 17 years of experience in Naval Air, I've observed that post-deployment airframe transfers are the norm. More commonly, a squadron would put their jets into preservation for 1-2 months after coming back from deployment and lose parts support. In Hornet squadrons (because each squadron typically flies only 1 or 2 lots of jets (e.g. mine flies 8's and 9's) preservation is more common than transfers. What I'm saying is that in the TACAIR communities, airframe transfers are not necessarily a gauge of health because Naval Air has been unhealthy from a parts and airframes standpoint ever since I was an Ensign. A better indicator might be the number of airplanes air wings deploy with. On my first cruise, an air wing had 90 aircraft. My most recent cruise: 70. That's all funding-driven. Sure we still have 46-50 bomb-droppers, but we could have more (i.e. an even better tooth-to-tail) if the budget would allow it. The leadership has allowed (even promoted) the decrease to keep aircraft carrier decks filled and because it looks more efficient. So we're agreed that Naval Aviation could be healthier--just not what the indicators of health are. What's the cure? Certainly not shutting down the reserve hardware units. The defense budget has been decreasing as a percentage of the total federal budget for a long time and there's no reason to suspect that it won't continue to decrease. Even if the money from the reserves is absorbed into the active duty coffers, it will only serve as a band aid fix. And without extra capability to fund, congress will continue to shave off dollars in the years ahead because they will have no reason not to. The net result will be (a) "Termination" of the Navy's "insurance policy" (such as VFA-201 provided for CVW-8 this year) and (b) Loss of 60% of the Navy's adversary players (all reserve squadrons right now). Because of the lack of adversary units, (and the fact that in the last 3 "wars" that there was no credible air-to-air threat) the case will be made that air-to-air training syllabi can be decreased and/or civilian units flying CAT III aircraft will be brought in to augment the VFC's. This "cart before the horse" mentality will certainly work in the short term, but will leave Naval aviators ill-prepared for conflicts involving better equipped and more serious forces. Sounds a lot like "the sky is falling." It's not, but it's getting a whole lot darker. --Woody |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trident I C-4 is damaged at US naval base | Krztalizer | Military Aviation | 20 | April 7th 04 03:05 AM |
John Kerry insults military reserves | T. Nguyen | Military Aviation | 15 | February 23rd 04 01:22 AM |
This week in naval, aviation history, By Bill Swanson | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 17th 03 09:37 PM |
FS: Naval and Aviation Books | Gernot Hassenpflug | Military Aviation | 0 | August 9th 03 05:06 AM |
FA: Naval Ships & Aircraft - 1950 | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 8th 03 11:53 PM |