tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post7390585040829712675..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: Another Procurement Holiday?George Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-41757745846834765232008-11-10T02:43:00.000-05:002008-11-10T02:43:00.000-05:00JosephI entirely AGREE with you about the KC-135 a...Joseph<BR/><BR/>I entirely AGREE with you about the KC-135 and KC-10 replacement. But that problem has gotten so mired into politics.. that we might not see another tanker replacement if we let Congress play footsie with the procurement process..<BR/><BR/>The KC-135 replacement should have been started in the late 1980s'.. But again.. the senate told the air force to soldier on.. and look where we are about 15 years later.kitanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10657260938925328929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-59207955268004718452008-11-09T06:56:00.000-05:002008-11-09T06:56:00.000-05:00It's fine to talk about F-15s and -16s and how old...It's fine to talk about F-15s and -16s and how old they are getting, but don't forget the backbone of any air war, the tanker. The newest KC-135 on our ramp is from 1963, with the oldest being from 1958. The last estimate for retiring the tanker is 2048. The -16s can fly for another 10-15 years if maintained properly, but anyone who thinks the tanker will fly for another 40 yrs is off their rocker.Idlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04345581737581870435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-43801754987578211212008-11-09T05:40:00.000-05:002008-11-09T05:40:00.000-05:00I blame the DoD and Congress. The weapons systems ...I blame the DoD and Congress. The weapons systems that are being pushed are designed to combat enemies that don't currently exist and weapons systems to deal with the enemies we have are not being developed. Their primary purpose seems to be to fatten the coffers of as many campaign contributors as possible while building the careers of project managers who can deliver real gee-whiz for power demonstrations.<BR/><BR/>The F-22 is yet to be used in combat though we are in two wars currently. But no follow on to the A-10 has ever been seriously considered.<BR/><BR/>Likewise the DDG-1000 addresses a problem we haven't faced in 50 years, amphibious landing. Yet we can't deal with pirates in Somalia.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately the Army got the Crusader canceled but there are still all manner of FCS projects gobbling up money while grunts still fight with the maintenance intensive 50 year old M-16. <BR/><BR/>If a hiatus helps the military refocus its strategy and procurement on the enemies and conflicts that are most probable it will have been worthwhile.Mrs. Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00264792783926606972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-5003760279015895332008-11-09T02:53:00.000-05:002008-11-09T02:53:00.000-05:00Although I do blaim some of the moderate Republica...Although I do blaim some of the moderate Republicans and Democratic senators and representatives who kepted cutting and re-allowcating funds for new weapons systems.. I also blaim President Clinton and Bush for ignoring the problem(s).<BR/>But I really blaim the pentagon higher ups for not pushing harder for replacement for aging weapon systems. The feeling I perceived all through the 90's and the early 2000 period was.. "Budget what I got and cut.. Yes Sir" kind of attitude. It was sickening to see. Heck.. the Army put in Billions on new artillery and tank systems.. Only to have them cut..<BR/>Like you pointed out.. the F-15 initially came from early 1970's... and the F-16 came in the Mid 1970's... We have rested on those aircraft for a long time.. and airframes do age...kitanishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10657260938925328929noreply@blogger.com