Category Archives: Air Force

Mc Donnell Douglas YC-15 (part 4)

Parts 1,2 and 3.

In January 1978, the same day the AMST program ended, the C-X (cargo experimental) program began. The CX program was needed because formulation of the Pentagon’s RDF (Rapid Deployment Force) in the late 1970s. CX would serve as RDF’s airborne transport. In short CX combined the roles of strategic and tactical airlifters. Specifically, CX requirements, among others were a max takeoff weight of 580,000 lbs, max speed of Mach0.825, a range of 2400nm, a landing run requirement of 27,000ft, and all of this with a 3 person crew (2 pilots and a loadmaster)

File:C-17 test sortie.jpg

Boeing C-17 Globemaster 3

Out of the CX program came the McDonnell Douglas (Boeing after the 1996 merger) C-17 Globemaster 3. The C-17 first flight was on 15 September 1991. The C-17 was able to combine the tactical and strategic airlift roles because of its STOL characteristics. On the outside, the YC-15 and C-17 have a very similar appearance because both use EBF to achieve STOL.

3 view drawing of the YC-15

3 view drawing of the YC-15

 

3 view drawing of the C-17

3 view drawing of the C-17

The YC-15 made quite a few contributions to the C-17 program. Many of the Mc Donnell Douglas personnel that worked on the YC-15 worked on the C-17 program. During it’s development the C-17 ran into many of the same problems that the YC-15 had. There were excessive thermal, air and acoustic loads on the portions of the flaps that were directly in the jet exhaust.

This table highlights further differences between the 2 aircraft.

Incorrect predictions of airframe drag again resulted in slightly reduced range at given takeoff weights. Range\payload went from 2,400 nm at 172,000lb to 167,000lb. A few years after the C-17 entered service it gained a reputation as a somewhat “short legged” aircraft when transiting the Pacific. However by the year 2000 this was resolved by adding a fuel tank in the overhead wing\fuselage body joint.

Center wing box fuel tank on the C-17

Center wing box fuel tank on the C-17

There were also quite a few “lessons learned” that were incorporated into the C-17. Windows for a downward view were moved slightly forward in the cockpit. The YC-15’s GWS was replaced, in the C-17 by an indexed switch attached to a mission computer that calculated optimal takeoff flap settings at a given gross weight. Loading ramp “toes” were added to the C-17.  The thrust reversers were limited to idle when deployed in-flight. Flaps were not moved during the takeoff roll and improvements were made in the DLC. The VAM in the YC-15 became a HUD (Heads-Up Display) displaying far more information on approach to the pilot.

C-17 Heads Up Display

C-17 Heads Up Display

In 1998 the YC-15 was at AMARC and that year Mc Donnell Douglas contracted with AMARC to make the YC-15 again flyable. The YC-15 was to be used as a test-bed for testing defensive countermeasures and techniques for lowering the infared signature of the C-17. The process to make 875 again flyable began in April 1996. 875 was remarkably well preserved aside from many birds’ nests in the nooks and crannies of the aircraft. The JT9D engines had to be reinstalled  and 875 was given the FAA registration “N15YC.”

On 11 April 1997 YC-15 875 again took the air from Davis-Monthan AFB for a shakedown flight. The jet flew for 2 hours 1 minute and taken to 250kt at 25,000ft.  875 was flown three more times before a planned flight to Long Beach for further modification and test work, including the addition of a new paint job.

The YC-15 in its new paint scheme seen at takeoff.

The YC-15 in its new paint scheme seen at takeoff.

Again 875 was flown again on 11 July 1998 to the Edwards AFB test ranges and some approach work at Palmdale. It was during this work that the number one engine third stage LP turbine came apart. While able to land at Palmdale without incident the YC-15 languished on the ramp until money could be made to make repairs. This was to never be.

After the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merger, the cost of repairing 875 couldn’t be justified. As of 2002, the aircraft remained at Palmdale.

There was talk of using the YC-15 as an airborne avionics test platform to support the x-32 but Boeing opted for a 737 instead. There was thought of bringing 875 back to test some concepts for the NOTAIL ATT and to test a STOL “tilt wing” concept but none of these came to fruition.

At the time of writing YC-15 72-0876 is on display of sorts at AMARC in a semi scrapped state with the engines removed. YC-15 72-0875 was moved from Palmdale to Edwards in 2008 and is on display at the west gate of Edwards AFB, just off the Century Circle.

You can learn more about the YC-15 and C-17 here and here.

About these ads

Leave a Comment

Filed under Air Force

Final Hog Sortie in Europe

A-10

The Cold War ended more than 20 years ago and things like this still make me realize just how much things have changed.

SPANGDAHLEM AIR BASE, Germany – The U.S. Air Force launched the final A-10 Thunderbolt II tactical sortie in Europe at Spangdahlem AB May 14, 2013.
The airframe belongs to the 52nd Fighter Wing’s 81st Fighter Squadron, which inactivates in June.
“I’m proud to be a part of the last sortie,” said Lt. Col. Jeff Hogan, 81st director of operations and a pilot from today’s flight. “It’s definitely a sad day for the (81st) as we end 20 years of A-10 operations here. I’m just proud to take part in this historic event.”

The A-10 has been a Cold War icon in Europe for over 20 years and was originally deployed to stop the hordes of Soviet armor across the Fulda Gap in then West Germany.

I’d always pictured that operations would look something like this:

Speaking of Soviet Armor, English Russia has an interesting feature on the Armoured Repair Plant №61 in St. Petersburg.

amreppl003-44

On a side note there’s, as of yet, there is no comment from DoD on whether or not the 81st Fighter Squadron will be reactivated and deployed to counter the “cat-tank” threat that has recently emerged in the Chicago loop (the vid was sent to me by a friend as I was working on this post. She works here.).

3 Comments

Filed under Air Force, armor, planes

B-17F Cutaway.

I usually do a “cutaway Thursday” over that The Lexicans. It’s features unusual aircraft cutaway pictures I’ve got saved in my stack-o-stuff. This one was too awesome to not pass along.

Not posting the actual cutaway but this site for the iconic Boeing B-17 features one of the best interactive cutaways I’ve ever seen.

B-17F “Nine-O-Nine.”

Here’s the mission tally and nose art of Nine-O-Nine.

tumblr_leri2albfM1qfw8v1o1_500

You’ll need to set aside an hour for this one and maybe some alone time too :)

3 Comments

Filed under Air Force, Around the web, planes, war

Name that Plane

I’ll say this, it’s not often I come across a plane from the post-war era that went into serial production for the Air Force that I don’t instantly recall.

Trimotor

10 Comments

Filed under planes, Air Force

Battle for Berlin, 1945

This week marks VE Day, commemorating the Victory in Europe over Hitler’s Third Reich.  The last and perhaps the most savage battle was for the German capital of Berlin.   This from the Battlefield series, which was aired weekly on Far East Network (“Forced Entertainment Network”) when I had an artillery battery in Okinawa in 1996.   The entire series is superb, and if you look, you can find most of them on line.  They are also available on DVD.   They contain a pretty good description of the higher tactical through the strategic picture, and have enough detail and technical stuff, but not too much.

Since the series was made, Russian archives have been explored more completely, and the number of Soviet casualties have been scaled up more than two-fold, from the 305,000 quoted in this episode, to nearly 700,000.   Note the ever-present use of artillery and mortars, rockets, and field guns, even in an urban environment.   The episode is 116 minutes, roughly the time one spends clicking on all of Mav’s aviation links and cool pictures and videos and stuff.   So get your Eastern Front geek on, and watch it.  You know you wanna.

5 Comments

Filed under 120mm, Air Force, armor, army, Around the web, Artillery, guns, history, infantry, planes, Splodey, Uncategorized, veterans, war

Random Aviation Photo links

I’ve been too lazy to get to part 4 of the YC-15 series this week. I’m having motivational issues.

First up Russian Live Leak has an interesting perspective on the Aviation Museum at Monino.

Here’s a sample of what you’ll see:

web

There’s a Tupelov TU-4 “Bull”, a Tupelov TU-16 “Badger and a Mil Mi-12 “Homer.”

It’s interesting to see the size difference between the different aircraft.

Next up, a link of World War 2 Russian aircraft. They appear to be taken during the time period.

0_7bedb_3cb1ded3_XXL

I’m pretty sure that’s an Ilyushin DB-3.

There has been a lot of interesting books to come out about the Red Air Force after the Soviet World War 2 archives were opened up. Don’t tell anyone that I’m supposed to finish a book review for that…

[*ADDED] Continuing my fetish for twin-boom airplanes. The Warbird Information Exchange has some really cool photos of the Northrop P-61 Black Widow.

P-61-test-aircraft-NACA-1

Also, today in 1972 was a red letter day in the dangerous skies over North Vietnam. Never forget.

Showtime 100. GIT SUM!

5 Comments

Filed under Air Force, navy, planes, war

Inside Commando Solo

A couple years ago, Craig shared pics and a bit of history on the EC-130E Commando Solo II PSYOPS aircraft.

Used to broadcast propaganda via radio and television, the EC-130Es were retired in the mid-2000s, replaced by new airframes built on the updated C-130J airframe.

Today, The Aviationist blog has some rare pics from the inside of the new birds.

EC130J_5

Comments Off

Filed under Air Force

Atheists in Foxholes

ST/WEINSTEIN16

Seems it might become policy for the US Military.  Unless you are Muslim.  Which is fine, provided you can somehow refrain from blowing up your CO with a grenade, or shooting four dozen comrades while yelling “ALLAHU AKBAR!”   And even if you do, we can conjure terms like “pre-traumatic stress” and speculate about discrimination being the cause if not the justification for such acts.

But those Christians.  They’re monsters.

Those who believe this will end up as a “common-sense” regulation against those forcing their religion, unwelcome, upon comrades and juniors must have missed the DoD genuflecting (pun intended) to Islam, Global Warming, Diversity, Gun Control, Feminism, LGBT, and the various other “religions” that General and Flag Officers spend an inordinate amount of time proselytizing as a matter of command influence.

Could one imagine the Defense Department having ANY dealings with someone who declared sharing the Koran with fellow Muslims to be “spiritual rape” and those who do so are “enemies” of the Constitution?

The reason, perhaps, that this grates so is that it is another in a long line under this Administration, with these GOFOs, of political pandering to the far-Left, anti-Christian, anti-cleric secular progressives.    With no end in sight.

But don’t worry, Marty Dempsey and your band of bended-knee political servants.  Jesus loves you.

Some of the rest of us can’t stand the sight of you.

3 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, Around the web, history, islam, marines, navy, obama, Politics, veterans, war

McDonnell Douglas YC-15 (part 2)

Part one is a general description of the YC-15 aircraft. You can view that here. This post will detail the flight test program of the YC-15.

There were 2 YC-15 aircraft,serials 72-01875 and 72-01876. 875 was rolled on 5 August 1975. The first flight was 26 August 1975. 875 flew from the Douglas plant in Long Beach, CA to Edwards AFB. The only problem during this 2.5 hour flight was a landing gear door found to be ajar. The flight itself was therefore speed limited to 200kts at 20,000ft.

875 flew 3 times over the next 3 days, conducting general flight envelope verification and expansion tests. A further 2 weeks were conducting 7 air-worthiness flights. On 12 September, 875 moved to a Douglas Aircraft Company (DAC) test facility at Yuma, AZ.

876 flew for the first time on 5 December 1975. This flight took the aircraft from Long Beach, CA to join 875 at Yuma AZ.

The YC-15 Joint Test Force (JTF) personnel from the Air Force Flight Test Center (AFFTC), Air Force Test and Evaluation Center (AFTEC), McDonnell Douglas, Boeing (for the YC-14). The (Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC), Tactical Air Command (TAC), Army and the USMC played minor logistical roles in the flight test program. NASA also sent (short take-off and landing (STOL) engineers to analyse data gleaned in the AMST program. The core pilot cadre for the YC-15 was made up of 3 contractors, 3 AFFTC and 3 AFTEC pilots. The competing aircraft were housed in separate hangars with the JTF office between the 2 contactors. This became the model for both the ATF and JSF programs.

The consensus amongst the test pilots and crews was that the YC-15 had generally good handling qualities. The aircraft was easy to fly with the SCAS off and on. There was concern that the pilot could overload the aircraft with the SCAS off but control forces were considered light in both modes.

There was some discussion on whether or not the YC-15 should have a stick or yoke for control input.  The intention was to have a “fighter-type” stick installed but there was some skepticism over it’s suitability from higher up the chain-of-command so the stick was removed. To counter, it was argued that the yoke obscured the view of the instrument panel.

The YC-15 had no natural warning upon entering the stall (i.e. vibration) so warning for the stall relied on an artificial “stick-shaker” to provide some warning within the critical angle of attack. This was judged as an inadequate solution because the shaker could activate in conditions of high thrust and flap settings when the aircraft clearly wasn’t in a stalling condition and because a high stink rate (such as during a STOL landing) could mask stalling conditions. As such, a Supplemental Stall Recognition System (SSRS) was developed and tested during the program. The SSRS provided an aural warning when the aircraft approached critical alpha during a given flight condition.

640px-McDonnell_Douglas_YC-15A

At gross weights of 149,300 the YC-15 flew STOL approaches at 87kts at a 6 degree glideslope giving a sink rate of 15.4 degrees per second. Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) approaches were normally made a 127 kts with a typical 8-12 feet per second sink rate with no flare at touch down. In STOL mode the aim-point for touch down was about 300 feet from the runway threshold . The YC-15 tested both flare and no-flare landing techniques in STOL mode. Testing at Edwards AFB showed the YC-15 was unable to land consistently in “hot-and-high” conditions in the required 2000 feet because of the slow actuation of the thrust reversers.

The thrust reversers could be used in-flight with some minor airframe buffet.

Testing the VAM, used approaches very similar to Navy carrier approaches were airspeed on approach is governed by angle of attack. The major issue was that the VAM didn’t display enough information to enable a completely “eyes-out-of-cockpit” approach.

33 STOL and CTOL off field demo landings, at Edwards, were conducted on 5000ft x 200ft runways with markers placed at 2000ft x 60ft. 5 pilots flew these tests and the YC-15s landing gear tire pressure was reduced. It was also found that the YC-15 could taxi over a 4-inch dump at 75-80kts. A unique procedures for the YC-15 during a STOL takeoff was extending the flaps from 14 to 23 degrees during the takeoff roll. Below is some archive video of STOL testing in 1975 (please pardon the music, Creed’s “Higher” just doesn’t work IMO):

During testing cracks were found in the blown flap material and fasteners had to replaced on a cracked rob. This was due to repeated exposure of hot jet exhaust. Direct Lift Control (DLC) (*see update below) was found to be effective for corrected high approach errors in the glide-slope but wasn’t effective for getting too low during approach. Flight path correction was done with a slightly high arrival at glideslope,correct with DLC, and then add thrust.  Maximum DLC deflection angle was 20 degrees from flush on the upper surface of the wing. Orientation of the DLC actuation in the cockpit was a major “human factors” issue of debate among the pilots.

The YC-15 displayed docile engine out characteristics with mild crew indication 4-6 seconds after an engine out occurred. The YC-15 also was unable to meet the range requirement of 2600nm. The aircraft had more drag than predicted giving it a range of 1760nm.

I’ll be standing fast on this post for now. I’m splitting part 2 into this and an additional part detailing some of the operational and international demonstrations as well as technical improvements and further flight test results.

Cross-posted at The Lexicans.

*[UPDATE]: For reader that may not know, direct lift control (DLC) is a system of spoilers, located on the upper surface of the wing. that either differencially control roll and in unison control pitch by dumping lift from the wings. They are common to most airliners.

5 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, history, planes

Obama’s Syria Intervention Talk: An Echo of Bush

O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson

“I think that in many ways a line’s been crossed when we see tens of thousands of innocent people killed by a regime, but the use of chemical weapons and the danger that is poses to the international community, to neighbors of Syria, the potential of chemical weapons to get into the hands of terrorists, all of those things add increased urgency to what is already a significant security problem and humanitarian problem in the region,” Obama told reporters.

So the hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed by a regime, the use of chemical weapons, the potential for chemical weapons to get in the hands of terrorists, ARE considerations for military intervention?    Could we say as a counter, perhaps, that Bashar al-Assad poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors…and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history?

Yes, indeed we could.  I am not advocating for or against intervention in Syria, though I would be curious to know whom we believe we would ally with, and whom against, and just what we could accomplish given the active opposition of Putin’s Russia (not least because of the possibility of Russian fingerprints on Syria’s chemical stockpile, and on a chemical stockpile of Iraqi origin).

It seems that President Obama’s “student union view” of the world and how it works has once again collided head-on with reality.    The “game-changer” bandied about so often of late has already happened.   The world, our allies, and our adversaries, will see what comes next.    Will we see the Obama who condemned his predecessor for Iraq?  Or the Obama whose tough talk regarding Syria is a virtual echo of that predecessor?  Has he the statesmanship and foreign policy acumen to act decisively and effectively?   Considering the string of diplomatic failures punctuated by the Benghazi catastrophe and the ineffectual confrontation with the DPRK, I am not terribly hopeful.

3 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, guns, history, iraq, islam, israel, Lybia, marines, navy, obama, Politics, Uncategorized, veterans

YC-15 (part 1)

YC-15

The McDonnell Douglas YC-15 was a prototype developed of the USAF ‘s AMST program in 1972. The competition was the Boeing YC-14.

McDonnell Douglas developed the YC-15 from the Breguet 941s, using extensive wind tunnel testing (for optimum configuration testing) and using Cornell Aeronautical Labs B-26B In-Flight Simulator (for flight control testing).

yc-15-line

The aircraft itself is 124.25 feet long, wingspan is 110.36ft, height is 43.30. Max gross weight is 216,680lbs. The interior cargo-box is 47 x 11.8 x 11.4.

Thrust for the YC-15 was provided by the JT8D turbofan (also the DC-9 powerplant) and produced a total thrust of 16,000lbs. The engines were mounted on shallow pylons mounted ahead of the wings leading edge. Thrust reversal was accomplished using so-called “daisy nozzles.” During final approach, with flaps fully extended and facing the engine, the engines provided 54% of the YC-15 lift.

The straight wings consisted of ailerons, double-slotted flaps, leading edge high lift devices (Kruger flaps, etc), and spoilers. The trailing edge devices, flaps and ailerons spanned 75% of the wings trailing edge. The flaps could extend as much as 46 degrees into the downstream. The YC-15 was the first jet powered aircraft to use externally blown flaps (EBF).

YC-15's EBF

Flight controls consisted of the conventional hydraulic system and a stability and control augmentation system (SCAS). The SCAS was dual channel and 3 axis enabling hands off flight for high angle approaches (tactical approaches) and modes for attitude, altitude and heading.

The YC-15 saw the first use of a heads up display (HUD) system, specifically called the VAM (Visual Approach Monitor). Developed by Sundstrand, the VAM displayed the horizon, flight path scale, airspeed indexer and touchdown point.

Sundstrand's VAM display

Being essentially a research airplane, the YC-15 did not need to fully conform to MILSPECS. As such it borrowed components from various aircraft, the DC-10 cockpit enclosure, the F-15 fuel pumps, the C-141 stabilizing struts, the A-10 UARRSI, the C-5 cargo handling equipment and other parts from 9 other types of airplanes. Cockpit instrumentation used components from 10 different airplanes.

Here’s a cutaway of the YC-14 and YC-15 for comparison:

YC-14-YC-15

Part 2 will detail the YC-15s flight test program.

Part 3 will detail the YC-15 technological contributions to the C-17.

Cross-posted at The Lexicans

[UPDATE- XBrad] I’ve added Mav as another author here. We’ve got a grunt, a rocket scientist, a Marine Artilleryman, a Chaplain, a Sigo/Civil War historian, and now, an aviator.

3 Comments

Filed under Air Force, ARMY TRAINING, planes

Bagram Batman

One of the annoyances of being stationed overseas was Armed Forces Networks, the provider of pretty much the only English language television available back in the late 80s/early 90s. It wasn’t so much that the programming was bad and out of date. The problem was, unlike regular commercial television, the “commercials” were in fact public service announcements from the Army reminding you of such weighty matters as “don’t bounce checks at the PX,” and “don’t beat your wife and kids,” and the ever popular “don’t abandon your privately owned vehicle when you rotate back to the states.” All delivered with the charm and panache one expects out of a government run entity.

AFN still runs overseas networks, particularly in fun places like Afghanistan, home to the sprawling Bagram Airbase. And while I’m certain most of the AFN produced content is as lame as it ever was, at least one campaign has shown someone, somewhere, screwed up and let a little humor into the system.

Meet Bagram Batman.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Air Force, ARMY TRAINING, Around the web

Winning Words From a Warlord

winston_churchill

In the very darkest days of the Second World War, when England stood alone, and suffered alone, Prime Minister Winston Churchill replaced his friend General Edmund Ironside, veteran of two wars, as Chief of the Imperial General Staff with General Sir John Dill.  Churchill told Dill:

“We cannot afford to confine Army appointments to persons who have excited no hostile comments in their careers…  This is a time to try men of force and vision, and not to be exclusively confined to those who are judged to be thoroughly safe by conventional standards.”

Ponder.

But for the leadership in our Armed Forces to embrace such sentiment.

4 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, history, marines, navy, Politics, SIR!, Uncategorized, veterans, war

Aviation Week on LAS

We’ve written several times about the ongoing effort by the USAF to buy an off the shelf light attack aircraft. We’ve always pretty much preferred the A-29B Super Tucano over the proposed AT-6. Mind you, we think either aircraft would be essentially suitable. Mainly our frustration is that such a simple, low cost program should be taking so long to move forward. It’s not quite a poster child for paralysis by analysis, but it’s pretty close. It also shows the costs of allowing contractors to protest competition results with impunity.

Fred George at Aviation Week has a nice little post about why he thinks the Super Tucano is clearly the better choice.

For a second time, W.W. “Bill” Boisture, the CEO of Beechcraft Corp. (formerly Hawker Beechcraft), is challenging the U.S. Air Force’s decision to award a contract to Sierra Nevada Corp. to supply 20 Embraer A-29B Super Tucano aircraft for the Light Air Support (LAS) program for use by the Afghan military.

Boisture claims the Defense Department is spending significantly more for the A-29B than it would for Beechcraft’s AT-6, its proposed LAS variant of the T-6 Texan II turboprop primary trainer. The T-6 is a well-proven platform, and the AT-6 shares about 80% of its parts.

I could see Boisture’s point if lowest cost were the only criterion for awarding a contract and if the AT-6 and A-29B offered equivalent capabilities. But neither point is the case.

I have flown both aircraft and there are significant differences. The AT-6 is a trainer that has been adapted for the LAS role with a 1,600-shp engine, a beefed-up wing with hard points, plus twin external gun pods, an electro-optical/infrared camera sensor ball and a network-centric C2ISR communications suite, among other significant improvements. On paper, that gives the AT-6 virtually the same capabilities as the A-29B Super Tucano.

Walk around the two aircraft, though, and obvious differences emerge. Built from the ground up for the light attack role, the Brazilian contender is considerably larger than the Beechcraft. The relatively small five-blade propeller offers 5 in. more ground clearance than the AT-6′s four-blade prop, and its oil cooler intake is much higher, for protection against foreign object damage. These features make the Super Tucano better suited to rough-field operations.

The A-29B’s wingspan is 4 ft. wider than the AT-6′s and the lateral distance between the landing gear is 50% greater, making the aircraft easier to handle on runways in stiff crosswinds. The A-29B’s main landing gear rolling stock is larger, featuring low-pressure 6.5-10 tires that are better suited to unimproved runway operations than the AT-6′s high-pressure, 4.4-20 tires that are designed for smooth pavement. The A-29B’s fuselage is 3 ft. longer and its vertical stabilizer is 2.3 ft. higher, providing more aerodynamic stability to handle the 1,600-shp engine.

Of course, my real first choice would be an updated OV-10.

9 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Air Force

Political Officers of the People’s Defense Commissariat

commissar_nkvd_unif_0

Over on the Front Porch, the ever-thoughtful Commander Salamander has some very good thoughts on an initiative by which commanders and General/Flag Officers would be subject to evaluation above and beyond what should be the considered judgment of their reporting seniors and reviewing officers.   Salamander calls it “Outsourcing Leadership”, and so it is.  He makes good arguments as to why such a thing should be anathema to anyone who considers him/herself worthy of high command.

While I agree with everything Sal says, I do believe very strongly that the implications are far more destructive than he points out.   What this new “review” is setting the conditions for is nothing less than an evaluation of Officers in the US Armed Forces for their political and social reliability.   We have had a long tradition of political non-alignment among especially our senior commanders, but also among Officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, which has largely protected us from the scourge of a military that is a social force that has its say in national politics.  No Kurt Schleicher or Francisco Franco here.  Our military leaders who have held office have been retired from the Armed Forces before doing so.   Any test of political and social reliability was in the obverse, in that propriety was maintained by refraining from expressing personal opinions or political views in uniform, especially as a part of official duties of office.

The landscape changed dramatically in 2009, when CJCS Admiral Mike Mullen indulged in telling Congress and the American people, unsolicited, his personally-held views on repeal of DADT and open service for homosexuals in America’s military.  At the time I warned of the damage of that unprofessional, arrogant, and selfish act.   Soon, Mullen informed our service men and women that, unless they held the same personal beliefs he did, they were not fit to serve, and should “vote with their feet”.   We were on our way down the well-greased slope.

This Administration, many of whose principles have openly and loudly expressed their disdain for our military (Hillary Clinton conspicuously among them), has spared no effort to co-opt military leadership into conforming to a political stance.  Even when Stanley McChrystal was justifiably relieved, he blithely informed the American public that he had indeed personally voted for Obama, and such a revelation garnered scant attention.  One has to imagine that, had he mentioned he had voted for John McCain, the howls of the Administration and its complicit “free press” would have been deafening.  Rightly.  But because McChrystal voted “correctly”, not a peep of of objection was heard.

The push to allow Commanding Generals to order confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms from service members in private residences has far less to do with any kind of prevention, and much more to do with General Officers falling in behind a gun control agenda that anyone in DoD is willing to admit.  Violation of due process and Constitutional liberties of those who defend our freedom is scant cost for active advocating of a Leftist crusade.

In the midst of escalation of rhetoric and sabre-rattling of a nuclear North Korea and a China bullying our allies over two sets of disputed islands, the Commander of the Seventh Fleet informs us that he believes the biggest security threat in his assigned Area of Operations is….  global warming.   Someone in Locklear’s position who says something so patently absurd and politically pandering should be relieved forthwith as someone who lacks the judgment and/or integrity to lead.  If he doesn’t believe his own words, he is disingenuous and untrustworthy.  If he does, he is an imbecile.  In either event, he does not belong where he is.  But, of course, he remains.  He toes the line of political agenda.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, a political appointee, volunteers the US Navy to be a beta-tester of biofuels, at enormous expense, not least of which is the up-front cost of the fuel itself, but as yet undetermined is the cost of the damage that the corrosion and water will do to extremely expensive systems in ships and aircraft in the medium-long term.  While Mabus doesn’t wear a uniform, I would speculate that nobody who does raised a single objection to SECNAV in any way, or told him how inappropriate such measures were, that it amounted to incestuous political pandering at the expense of readiness and warfighting.  Not one.

When outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta fired his parting political broadside and removed the exclusion of putting women in combat arms units (the issue is NOT women in combat, and anyone honestly evaluating the situation knows that), there were loud promises from every corner that standards would not be lowered.  Until CJCS General Dempsey quickly said that the would be, to accommodate making women successfully pass the training requirements.

To anyone who watches what is said and not said, all these occurrences are signposts that point in the direction of travel.  This “review process” is another waypoint on that journey of the destruction of the fiber of our Armed Forces and its leadership.  That same CJCS, General Marty Dempsey, is now mandating that the review program will include inspections.

The inspections will not be punitive, but will provide a “periodic opportunity for general officers and flag officers to understand whether, from an institutional perspective, we think they are inside or outside the white lines,” he said. In addition, new programs will be instituted to ensure that a commander’s staff, and a spouse, are fully aware of military regulations.

This is the Marty Dempsey who violated his oath to our Constitution on two occasions, actively criticizing the legal free expression of private citizens in direct violation of that Constitution he is sworn to support and defend against all enemies.  In the Benghazi incident, Dempsey’s admonitions amounted to a deliberate falsehood, a lie, to perpetuate the lies told us by our State Department (and Hillary Clinton) that the attack on the embassy was a spontaneous one stemming from a demonstration regarding an online anti-Muslim video, when both he and SecState knew good and well their words were false.   He readily and easily forfeited his integrity for his bosses.  Are we now expected to believe that those “white lines” reflect the traditional role of the non-political military officer?   The traditional tenets of leadership, technical and tactical proficiency, integrity, judgment, courage, decisiveness, and the others, will be pre-empted and eventually superceded by assurance of political reliability and the “correct” beliefs regarding social and political issues, and a willingness to set aside one’s honor at the behest of military and political seniors.

Why ever would we expect any different?  Men (and women) in uniform who behave as political sycophants should not be trusted to lead.   Certainly, Martin Dempsey has proven on several occasions not to be worthy of my trust, nor yours.  Except to use these new standards of performance as a tool to remake the senior officers of our military in his image, that of a pliant servant of political masters, whose oath to the Constitution is a mere gesture.   Those who conform to that mold will not be worthy of our trust, either.    When the choice is between obedience to our Constitution or obedience to political bosses, why, it won’t be a choice at all.

Alles klar, Herr Kommisar?

7 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, infantry, marines, navy, obama, Politics, Uncategorized, veterans, war

Now’s not the time for slash and burn

At least, not when it comes to active duty troop levels.

One of my frustrations when frequenting Milblogs with a naval or air centric theme is that in tough budget times, the authors and commentariat are quick to offer up ground forces on the budget alter. “Oh, put the bulk of ground forces in the reserves!”

Well, here’s the thing. In the almost seven decades since the end of World War II, we’ve found ourselves time and again involved in manpower intensive ground combat.

Recently, retired Admiral Gary Roughead and defense analyst Kori Schake published a paper from the Brookings institution recommending that, in effect, all the looming budget cuts in DoD should come from the Army, and that the Navy and Air Force should see their funding levels maintained.

First, thanks guys, for validating the suspicion many of us harbored that AirSea Battle wasn’t a doctrine, but political maneuvering to preserve Navy/Air Force budgets. One can hardly fault a former Chief of Naval Operations for being a tad proprietary when it comes to his service’s budget.*

But to wave your hands and pronounce that henceforth, wars will be high technology affairs with little or no need for manpower intensive operations is to ignore not just the last seven decades of history, but all of history.

Comes now Steve Metz and Douglas Lovelace, arguing that, like it or not, we still need ground troops.

It would be nice if the United States could simply opt out of all messy conflicts, but it cannot. Global connectivity means that conflict in any part of the world has cascading effects. These are most intense in neighboring states or regions as combatants, refugees, money, disorder, crime, and weapons flow back and forth, but in most cases will spread even further. The recent conflict in Libya shows this contagion effect, when there is no sustainable security following the defeat of an enemy regime. In the future, major conflicts anywhere will affect the global and American economies, increasing commodity prices, disrupting the supply of goods and services, and creating uncertainty. U.S. economic growth will depend, in part, on whether the global economy is generally stable or conflict-ridden. This will make it difficult or impossible for the United States to totally avoid major conflicts (although it does not mean the U.S. will intervene militarily in every major conflict). The profusion of global diasporas will also make it politically difficult to ignore major crises or conflicts.

Now, Metz and Lovelace are not unbiased, either. They work for the Army War College at the Strategic Studies Institute.  But they’re quite right that in spite of all our efforts to avoid messy operations on the ground, we seem to always end up there.

I’ll grant that one reason we tend to fight land wars is that in recent history, our naval power has been so overwhelming as to effectively preclude a naval war. And I do fully support the nation keeping a strong, forward naval presence throughout those areas of the world that hold our strategic interest. But the Navy has done poorly at managing the relatively strong support it has received. That’s not to say the Army has done much better, but before the Navy and the Air Force raid the Army’s budget, maybe they ought to consider which branch has born the brunt of the nation’s fighting for the past 70 years.

 

*We’d be a lot more sympathetic if his term as CNO hadn’t been such a goatrope in terms of shipbuilding.

6 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, history, navy, Politics, war

Mountain Home AFB, home of… The Singapore Air Force?

Yep. Or at least, a fair portion of it. Mountain Home AFB, in Idaho, is home to one of the Air Force’s F-15E Strike Eagle fighter wings.  These Eagles are specialized air-to-ground variants of the long serving F-15 family, and still retain full air-to-air capability.  In practice, the F-15E is the successor to the F-111 Aardvark. The US operates about 200 F-15Es. It’s also becoming a rather successful export product. Variants have been sold to South Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

Singapore is, per capita, pretty damn wealthy. But it is also more of a city, than a country. And its exposed position at the tip of the Malay  Peninsula leaves it vulnerable. And so Singapore invests very heavily in airpower.

And it’s a very respectable air force. In addition to the F-15SG, RSAF also operates other very respectable frontline aircraft such as the F-16C/D  Block 52+, the AH-64D Apache, the CH-47D Chinook, modern AEW aircraft and modern transport aircraft, including KC-135R tankers.  That is pretty damn respectable for a country pretty roughly the size of New York City.

The problem is, being such a small country, they have virtually no airspace of their own. In a shooting war, busting some borders isn’t a problem. But in peacetime, the restricted airspace means opportunities for effective training are limited. Because of this, about a third of the Republic of Singapore Air Force is actually stationed overseas.

Most of their basic flight training takes place in Australia. RSAF also maintains a training base in France.  But here in the good old USA, the Republic of Singapore Air Force has no less than four training locations.

Luke AFB, AZ  is home to RSAF F-16 operational training. Silverbell Army Heliport , also known as the Western Army National Guard Aviation Training Site, at Marana, AZ is home to AH-64D training. Redmond Taylor AHP, part of the Joint Reserve Base Dallas complex, is home to CH-47D training. That leaves Mountain Home Air Force Base.

As noted, Mountain Home is already home to one of the US Air Force’s Strike Eagle wings, so bedding down the RSAF Strike Eagles there makes sense. Plus, Mountain Home has a very respectable range complex available for training.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/428th_Fighter_Squadron_-_Boeing_F-15SG_Strike_Eagle_05-0005.jpg

Oddly, the RSAF squadrons stationed in the US have adopted US squadron numbers and tailcode markings, though they wear RSAF roundels. Currently, the squadron at MHAFB is the 428th Fighter Squadron.

Actually, here’s where it gets a little weird. The 428th Fighter Squadron is a US squadron. It has about 25 US Air Force personnel assigned. And about 140 RSAF folks. And falls under the 366th Operations Group, along with two US fighter squadrons. Of course, it isn’t a deployable asset like the other two squadrons.

In addition to serving as a training squadron for the RSAF, having roughly a third of their F-15SG fleet stationed here leaves them a nice war reserve to replace any losses Singapore may suffer.

This is hardly the only foreign fighter squadron to be stationed in the US. For many, many years, Germany maintained F-4F and Panavia Tornado squadrons in the US for a similar purpose.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/428th_Fighter_Squadron_-_Lockheed_F-16C_Block_52_Fighting_Falcon_94-270.jpg

Earlier incarnation of the 428th Fighter Squadron, when it was the prime RSAF F-16 training unit stationed at Cannon AFB, NM.

2 Comments

Filed under Air Force, history, planes

Blogs. Why We Write ‘Em, Why We Read ‘Em.

milblogs2a

Those of us in this somewhat focused community of MilBlog writers and readers are often asked by people who haven’t any exposure to MilBlogs, “Why do you do it?  You put in a lot of time and work.  What’s the point?”

It’s a fair question.   Thinking of ideas, and putting together a cogent discussion starter, or historical summary, takes more time than people think.  Knowing that, and being somewhat of an analysis geek (which may turn out to be a very good thing soon), I have my list of half a dozen daily reads, at least.  This’n here.  Salamander’s Front Porch.  Ray’s Information Dissemination.  OP-FOR, The Castle, and a number of other places make the list, blended with traditional news sources domestic and foreign, plus policy and analysis outfits.

Why?  Well, my gracious host here gives me an outlet for expression.  Like anyone with a fair-sized ego, I believe just a little bit that everyone is entitled to my opinion.  But there is also the great opportunity for feedback.  To hear from a mostly very educated crowd, their opinions and takes on events and occurrences domestically and in foreign affairs.  But it extends into culture, literary works, certainly history, and other aspects that spark discussion.

But one of the most valuable reasons to read and write in the Military Blogosphere is to hear from people who are truly experts in their fields, who possess great wisdom, are extensively experienced, and are considered and well-spoken people.  I do miss terribly reading the thoughts and musings of Lex, which was a morning staple and often provided several day-long trains of thought.  And this is true of not just Bloggers, but commenters.  Byron, the ugly old shipfitter, could wax authoritative about steel, and aluminum, and hull flex, and do it in a way that, perhaps over beer, I am sure I could listen intently to for hours.     Grandpa Bluewater’s urbane sophistication and eloquent dissertation always is worth the consideration, whether one agrees or not.    And there are others who add insight and humor, and are enjoyable to read.

Another such commenter is Steeljaw Scribe, shepherd of a superb blog of his own.   I did something the last two days that I rarely do, which is to go back and re-read a comment he made in Salamander’s post of the IG investigation of Admiral Gaouette.  His explanation of the dynamics of the bridge of a CVN, and the personalities and cultures that must blend and not clash if the mission is to be accomplished.

The bridge of a CVN is a unique environment that brings together two communities that normally opt to keep their distances from one another – SWOs and Aviators. That the three senior officers that regularly spend time up there (CO, XO and Navigator) are also aviators can at times, exacerbate that standoffish environment. This clash of cultures evolves from one group that is brought up in a dynamic environment and is used to rapidly changing events, making intuitive decisions and being cognizant that their butt and that of the x-number of NFOs or aircrew with them will suffer the consequences of those decisions. SWOs that typically (and note I said *typically* – there are always exceptions) come to the carrier do not come from the CRUDES environment, but from amphibs and auxiliaries and tend to be methodical if somewhat conservative and deliberative in their decision-making and watchstanding. At least that was my experience as a CVN nav. My challenge was working across that divide – to show the aviators (from watchstanders up to the XO who would go on to his first deep draft after this tour) on the one hand, how a series of events can unfold where little things not readily apparent to the eyeball can bite you (case history of the Eisenhower hitting the Spanish freighter at anchor in Hampton Roads being one of my teaching points). The flip side of that was getting the SWOs to be more anticipatory (e.g., looking to the next 2x cycles for managing sea space for downwind repositioning) as well as coming to grips with the immediacy of fixed wing operations at sea.

I know of no other vehicle by which an audience can learn, and share the insights of men and women with such experience.   It is the gaining of understanding, at the end of the day, that makes all this effort worthwhile.   Brad’s rules here do not include “write only what I agree with” or “water it down so it couldn’t possibly offend”.   He trusts us to understand and abide by propriety, and we seem to, as do the commenters,  on the whole.  And that is appreciated.

So in the end, despite the trolls, and my own alarming tendency to follow links and wind up pissing away two hours looking at cool stuff, reading and writing is worth the effort.   Even if the pay isn’t great.

3 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, Around the web, Artillery, guns, history, infantry, iraq, marines, navy, Personal, SIR!, Uncategorized, veterans

1 April 1945: Love Day

B23487.83161428_std

Today is the 68th anniversary of L-Day, known as “Love Day” to the half a million Allied soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines whose mission was the conquest of the island of Okinawa.    An armada of 1,300 ships included 40 CVs, CVLs, and CVEs, and close to 400 amphibious vessels carrying 187,000 troops, thousands of trucks, artillery tubes, mortars, tanks, amtraks, and many thousands of tons of ammunition and all classes of supply to sustain the landing force of the XXIV Corps and the Marine III Amphibious Corps in the fighting ashore.

Battle_of_Okinawa_1

The Japanese, to the surprise and immense relief of the invasion force, barely contested the beaches.  Almost every unit came ashore without opposition, as the first night saw more than 60,000 ashore.   The Japanese 32nd Army’s 100,000 defenders and the locally recruited militia of Okinawan men would instead meet their American enemy inland, in expertly-prepared and defended positions on key terrain.   But all of that, the massive kikusui of the kamikaze aircraft, the drenching rains that turned the island into a reprise of the horrors of the Western Front in the Great War, the savage fighting for Naha and the Shuri line, the Half-Moon, Sugar Loaf, the sacrifice of the Yamato battle squadron in Operation Ten-Gō, the massed suicides of civilians, was yet to come.   On this day, casualties were negligible, and a lodgment established.   The question became not if, but when, Okinawa would fall.

2 Comments

Filed under Air Force, armor, army, Artillery, ducks, guns, history, infantry, marines, navy, planes, Uncategorized, veterans, war

AC-130W

Early on in the blog, we wrote about the development of the gunship, modified transport aircraft armed to provide fires to troops on the  ground. They’re very expensive aircraft (mostly because of their sophisticated sensor arrays) so there are only a relative handful in service.

The introduction of the C-27J in service had some folks hoping a “Gunship Lite” program could be developed to supplement (but not supplant) the current AC-130U.  For various reasons, including the cancellation of the entire C-27J program, that never came to pass.

But the need to bolster gunship numbers didn’t go away.  So the MC-130W “Dragon Spear”  was pressed into service. Originally intended to make up for losses in the special operations MC-130H community (clandestine delivery and retrieval of special operations forces), the MC-130W’s were in fact armed with sensors and weapons. A 30mm Bushmaster gun and ViperStrike missiles gave it a limited ability to attack enemy targets on the ground with great precision.

The armed mission was so pressing, the special operations mission was set aside, and last year, the “Dragon Spears” were redesignated AC-130W Stinger II.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2012/09/120918-F-PB123-002.jpg

The Air Force hopes to add Hellfire missile capability within the next year.  I’ve heard they can (or soon will) use the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, but haven’t seen confirmation of that.

If you look closely at the pic above (click to embiggenfy) you’ll note not only the 30mm gun on the port side, but also the pylon outboard of the engine. That’s where the Hellfires will mount. The small turret under the nose radome houses the infrared sensor/laser designator.

2 Comments

Filed under Air Force, ARMY TRAINING

Getting your money’s worth

In 1952, Boeing, using its own money, began development of a jet transport prototype. From its first flight in July 1954, Boeing knew it had a winner, and proceeded to develop two new aircraft based on this 367-80 design.

A larger, longer variant went on to become the world famous Boeing 707. But a smaller, shorter plane, very similar to the Dash Eighty, would also go on to a remarkable career.

In the mid-1950s, the Air Force Strategic Air Command was shedding its piston powered B-29, B-50, and B-36 fleet in favor of jet bombers such as the Boeing B-47, and B-52. As fantastic as those two jets were, they still needed in flight refueling to meet the range requirements to hold at risk targets deep inside the Soviet Union. Existing tanker aircraft, based on the B-29, and its cousin the B-50,* simply couldn’t provide enough fuel, nor fly fast enough, to fulfill the mission.

So it came to pass, in the mid 1950s, the Air Force, wanting a jet tanker for Strategic Air Command, held a competition to build one. And as we all know, the winner was… Lockheed? Yep. Lockheed. They had proposed a jet with a configuration similar to the later VC-10. But since it would take some time before Lockheed could get around to building any tankers, the Air Force gave an interim order to Boeing to build 28 tankers based on its Dash Eighty prototype. That order soon grew to 250 tankers. And pretty soon, the Air Force it would be silly to support two separate tanker fleets, and cancelled the Lockheed program. Boeing’s order book continued to grow, and in addition to tankers, “vanilla” transport versions without the refueling equipment were ordered.  The basic designation for the design was the C-135. Tanker variants were known as the KC-135 Stratotanker.  From 1957 to 1965, Boeing delivered 820 tanker and transport C-135 Stratolifter aircraft, the vast majority of them as KC-135A tankers.

http://www.vr-24.org/SquadronScrapbook/B52_KC135.jpg

Originally intended primarily to support the Strategic Air Command’s bombers, the KC-135A tanker fleet found itself more and more involved in supporting tactical aircraft in Vietnam. The F-105s and F-4s based in Thailand would have been unable to strike the heart of North Vietnam without the support of the Stratotankers. Since that time, the fleet has been deeply involved in virtually all use of tactical airpower, and increasingly has supported US Navy carrier operations, particularly the very long flights in Afghanistan and Iraq.

From first delivery to the early 1980s, the KC-135s underwent very few modifications.  That’s a testament to the basic soundness of the design. But engine design in those years lead to far more powerful engines, with much better fuel efficiency, and lower noise levels. As commercial 707s began to retire, some KC-135s assigned to the Air National Guard were re-egined with their surplus TF-33 turbofan engines. More powerful engines meant a shorter take off roll. More fuel efficiency meant more of the fuel onboard could be transferred to other aircraft.  These converted jets were known as KC-135E’s.

Fifty-six KC-135A’s were specially modified to support the SR-71A. Since the SR-71A uses a special fuel (JP-7) that normal jets can’t use, these modified tankers had to be able to segregate their own fuel from that intended for offload. Designated KC-135Qs, several tankers could be expected to support every operational SR-71 sortie.

Eventually, the remaining KC-135A fleet was re-engined with the CFM56 high bypass turbofan engine, essentially identical to what a modern civilian airliner would use. Twice as powerful as the original J57 engine, far more fuel efficient and much quieter, it has given the fleet much lower operational costs, lower maintenance requirements, and better available fuel offload.  With the new engines, they were redesignated KC-135R.  With the retirement of the SR-71, the KC-135Q’s were also re-engined, and designated KC-135T, and used alongside the “R” fleet.

Finally, from 1999 to 2002, the fleet, now down to about 365 jets, underwent a modernization program known as Pacer CRAG (Compass, Radios, Avionics, and GPS), which completely updated the flight deck to modern standards. With the new engines and flight deck, navigator position could be eliminated, and crew costs reduced, all while improving aircraft efficiency and reducing operating costs.

Today, the KC-135 still forms the backbone of the US tanker fleet.

Almost as soon as the first of the C-135 family entered service, the Air Force recognized that such a sound airplane could be used for other roles.

One of the very first “off label” uses was to remove the refueling boom at the rear of the jet, and replace the operator station with a battery of panoramic cameras. These RC-135As were used for photomapping and topographical survey.

They also spawned a bewildering array of modified C-135 airframes for a variety of specialized reconnaissance roles, most in the Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) and Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) missions.

The Air Force tends to give programs a two word code name, generally with the first word being the “umbrella” for a particular genre of programs, and the second one being a specific designator. For instance, virtually all programs that begin with “Pave” have to do with electro-optical and infrared sensors to improve night flying or targeting.

The two major programs that most recon and special mission C-135s fell under were “RIVET” and “COBRA.” RIVET was usually a SIGINT or ELINT program, while COBRA usually meant gathering intelligence on Soviet ballistic missile tests.

Several times, a single KC-135 or C-135 would be specially modified for a particular purpose, receiving both a new designation, and a new code name. One example would be the C-135B modified in 1960 to RC-135E RIVET AMBER, equipped with a special phased array radar to track ballistic missile warheads. With the stupendous cost of $35,000,000 for the radar alone, it was at that time probably the most expensive plane in the Air Force.   Only one was modified. After it was lost in an accident in 1969, it was not replaced.

Quite a few aircraft would see their original mission change, undergo further modification, and receive yet another new designation and code name. Keeping track of all the variants is beyond the scope of this post, but suffice to say that the number of variants has used up almost all the available letters for designations.

The major RC variant is the RC-135V/W RIVET Joint, used both for strategic and tactical SIGINT and ELINT. Even today, RIVET Joint supports the war in Afghanistan.

File:RC-135 Rivet Joint 2008.jpg

That doesn’t count the various EC-135 variants, most (but not all) of which served as airborne command posts. Per wiki:

  • EC-135A – KC-135A modified for airborne national command post role
  • EC-135B – C-135B modified with large nose for ARIA mission
  • EC-135C – purpose built C-135 variant for airborne command post role, “Looking Glass”
  • EC-135E – re-engined EC-135N
  • EC-135G – KC-135A modified for airborne national command post role
  • EC-135H – KC-135A modified for airborne national command post role, “Silk Purse”
  • EC-135J – KC-135B modified for airborne national command post role, “Nightwatch”
  • EC-135K – KC-135A modified for deployment control duties
  • EC-135L – KC-135A modified for radio relay and amplitude modulation dropout capability “Cover All”
  • EC-135N – ARIA aircraft with “Snoopy Nose”
  • EC-135J/P – KC-135A modified for airborne command post role, “Blue Eagle” and “Scope Light”
  • EC-135Y – NKC-135 reconfigured as C3 aircraft for Commander-in-Chief, United States Central Command

Then there are the “weather reconnaissance” WC-135s.  The only “weather” the WC-135C and WC-135W ever looked for were radioactive clouds produced by nuclear explosions. They use special air sampling equipment to retrieve particulate matter to analyze the results of foreign atomic testing (and they’re still in service).

Various C-135s permanently converted to specialized test aircraft were designated NKC-135s, most being one of a kind modifications.

Finally, there is the OC-135B. Under the Open Skies treaty, the US and other signatory nations (including Russia) have the right to conduct scheduled aerial reconnaissance missions over any other signatory nation on a reciprocal basis (that is, for each overflight we make, the Russians can overfly the US).  There are limits to the equipment used (any recon equipment an Open Sky plane uses must be made available to any other signatory nation).  The US operates two OC-135Bs, and maintains one in storage.

This doesn’t even count the several Air Force jets that actually used the Boeing 707 airframe, such as the E-3 Sentry AWACS, the E-8 JSTARS, or the E-6 Mercury TACAMO.

For well over half a century, the C-135 family has served the United States well, and current projections have it serving until, at a minimum, 2040.  I guess when it hits 80 years old, it will have earned its retirement.

*The B-50 was essentially a B-29 with the R-3350 engines replaced by the R-4360- a radial engine of 4,360 cubic inches of displacement. The other major piston powered tanker of the time, the KC-97, used the wings and powerplant of the B-50 with a new, much larger fuselage to form the C-97 transport, which was further modified to the KC-97 tanker.  The KC-97L would actually continue to serve for a long, long time, with the last one retired from the Texas Air National Guard in 1978.

7 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Air Force, history, planes

About that Air Force Chaplain getting the Bronze Star…

So, some folks are pretty upset to learn that an Air Force chaplain was awarded the Bronze Star Medal (BSM) for writing a power point presentation in the wake of a Koran burning incident in Afghanistan.

After the accidental burning last year of Qurans by U.S. troops in Afghanistan sparked deadly rioting, an Air National Guard chaplain from Springfield stepped in and potentially saved countless American lives.
For his effort, Lt. Col. Jon Trainer received the prestigious Bronze Star — a medal given for heroic or meritorious achievement in connection with operations against an armed enemy.

 

And he did it with a PowerPoint presentation. . . .

Within 48 hours, Trainer developed a PowerPoint presentation on the proper handling and disposal of Islamic religious material that was seen by every American — military and civilian alike — in Afghanistan. The presentation then was distributed to the U.S. for use in all pre-deployment training.

Well, that would certainly seem to be rather insulting to  the large numbers of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines (and the odd Coastie) who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters in the Global War on Terror, and not received a Bronze Star.

It seems particularly frustrating as the news comes today that another chaplain will finally be recognized for his valor and intrepidity more than 60 years later.

But here’s the thing…

First, LTC Trainer is in no way the bad guy here. Lot’s of people saw the article at NRO and are ready to let their outrage meters max out. He actually felt the need to step into the comment section:

Hey folks. Lt Col Trainer here. I am an almost daily frequenter to “The Corner.” Imagine my surprise when a friend pointed out I was actually on the corner!

This is an end of tour award. Standard fair for the rank, position, and responsibility I held during this tour–Training Chaplain for all the of the chaplains in Afghanistan and Garrison Chaplain at New Kabul Compound in Kabul. Events of serious consequence occurred while in theater; the article highlights those. The way the original article is written implies the BSM was given for writing a PPT presentation. This does not represent the facts nor the bullet points in the BSM write-up.

I am quite disappointed that NRO didn’t bother to look into this situation a bit deeper before posting an article that seems to undermine my six month deployment in service of our great nation and the troops I am proud to serve.

He is quite correct. Such an award to a field grade officer at the conclusion of a tour overseas (known as an EoT or End of Tour award) is typical, and would normally only be remarkable by its absence. That is, if LTC Trainer had not received an award, people would wonder how he screwed up.

And this kerfuffle shows up one of the great problems with the Bronze Star Medal.

Created in 1944, it was an conceived as roughly analogous to the Air Medal for meritorious service or valor, less than that worthy of the Silver Star, but still worthy of recognition.  The requirements were:

(a) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;
(b) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
(c) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

But there’s the rub. It is awarded either for meritorious service, or for valor. Those Bronze Stars awarded for valor are marked with a metallic “V” device. But it is entirely possible to earn the BSM without ever hearing a shot fired in anger, so long as you are deployed within a theater of operations. Worse yet, those medals that would normally recognize meritorious service, such as the Meritorious Service Medal, may not be awarded for service in a combat theater.

As a rule of thumb, when I see a Bronze Star without a “V” device, I automatically assume it is in the nature of an “I was there” award. Some people do earn them for one especially meritorious achievement during a tour, but most are simply EoTs.  But a BSM with the “V” device is an entirely different matter. Theoretically, all valorous awards of the BSM are roughly the same. I, and many others, tend to suspect that in reality, the award of a BSM(V) is a little easier for a senior NCO or officer than it is for a junior enlisted troop.  Further, there is a very strong feeling that the likelihood of a BSM award varies greatly between the services. The Marines especially, but also the Navy, are notoriously stingy with them, while the Army and especially the Air Force are seen as generous with them.

Personally, I favor a fairly generous policy for awards for valor. And indeed, I’ve no real problem with a fairly generous policy for awards in general. Heck, for a guy with a grand total of four days of combat time, I’ve got a fruit salad that makes me look like I defeated the Republican Guard singlehandedly armed only with a P-38 can opener. I never went hunting for awards, but I never turned one down, either. So I’d be a bit hypocritical if I started bitching about it now.

But so long as the Bronze Star remains an award both for doing your job well, and as an award for great personal valor, it will be especially controversial. To a lesser extent so will the services Commendation medals. The Department of Defense should take this opportunity to overhaul its awards program, and make the BSM strictly an award for valor. Lifting the restriction of awarding “peacetime” medals while deployed to a combat zone will still give the services ample opportunity to recognize merit, and restore some of the  prestige to its awards.

16 Comments

Filed under ARMY TRAINING, Afghanistan, Air Force

Eric Holder: Drone strikes against Americans on U.S. soil are legal

holder

It didn’t take long for the other shoe to drop.  Responding to a pointed inquiry from Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky), this nation’s Attorney General stated:

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,”

Summary execution of an American citizen on US soil, without due process, without trial, without anything except the “informed high-level government official” that believes that citizen is a “threat”.   No Fifth Amendment, no Sixth Amendment.  No Eighth Amendment.  No grand jury, no counsel for the accused,  no jury of one’s peers.  Nothing except a death sentence carried out after secret deliberations by a Star Chamber of politicians, few of whom are elected.

I am sure Marty Dempsey will eagerly crumple up that pesky old Constitution to please his masters.   Wouldn’t be the first time.

Those who believed that the drone strikes against Anwar Al Awlaki and Samir Khan were about killing Islamic terrorists have thoroughly missed the bus.   I told you then what the precedent was.  Killing of an American without due process.   Eric Holder confirmed such a precedent with his affirmative reply to Senator Paul.  That Holder claims that such an eventuality is “entirely hypothetical” and “unlikely to occur” should be taken with a very small grain of salt.  Not letting a good crisis go to waste, and all.

A criminal enterprise on the Potomac.

***************************

It is worth noting that Holder’s faux-assurances that such an eventuality of the assassination of American citizens on US soil is “unlikely” is strikingly similar to another government official who assured the public regarding the extraordinary and far-reaching powers which spelled the end of another Republic.

The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures…The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.

Enemies, foreign and domestic.

15 Comments

Filed under Air Force, Around the web, history, obama, Politics, war

Leadership Lesson of the Day

While I enjoy poking fun at the Air Force as much as the next guy, the fact is, they are a military service, and they face many of the same leadership challenges that the other services struggle with.

While this post focuses on the cultural problems of the Air Force, I’d say the lessons, particularly regarding centralized execution, are universal across all services.

Doctrinally, each and every service preaches devolving authority to the lowest possible level.  Mission orders describe an end state that a subordinate must achieve, allowing him the flexibility and initiative to achieve that state by the best means.

But in fact, virtually no commander at any level is willing to grant his subordinates the true freedom to execute without micromanagement. No supervision (which is a good thing) but detailed micromanagement. And if you micromanage your troops, they’ll let you assume more and more responsibility for how things are done, and the outcome good or bad (and it’s usually bad).

I’m a “company guy.” I’m not a bold, outside the box thinker. I spent a lot of time reading and understanding doctrine and thoroughly bought into the concepts. I wasn’t going to be the guy that invented a new way of doing things. On the other hand, our Army had a couple centuries of experience, and had bothered to write down what worked  in the past, so I saw no sense in reinventing the wheel, or learning the hard way what someone else had already taken the time to write down as “ the right way, AND the Army way.”

But there is a difference between understanding doctrine, policy, management practices and  processes, and forgetting that those policies, practices and processes are merely tools to achieve a mission. Following them is not the mission itself.

8 Comments

Filed under Air Force

From the Castle: There are Many Ways to Break an Army

Brilliantly stated.   Both the latent but still virulent anti-military sentiment that has been at the core of the Progressive Far Left since before World War II, and the rapidly growing focus on the supposed internal threat which law enforcement has used as justification to become increasingly militarized.

Because, in their heart of hearts, they don’t like the whole concept of an Army, and want to change it into some sort of fluffy-bunny simulacrum. That and because DoD is the one institution they can play with that will just do what it’s told. Oft times reluctantly, but in the end it does what it’s told.

While, ironically, they make domestic law enforcement, especially on the Federal level, more and more like… an Army.

Give it a read.  Damned little of the “change” in the “Hope and Change” era has been progress.  In fact, the cascading effects downstream will likely be catastrophic, for our Armed Forces and our nation.   And if our fervent hopes that things turn out otherwise are dashed, why, there will be internal “threats” aplenty for the army of Law Enforcement to take care of.

8 Comments

Filed under Air Force, army, Around the web, guns, history, marines, navy, obama, veterans, war