Two platoons were ordered to engage the enemy at once; the first stormed toward the Japanese at full force as the second gave “support-by-fire” position in the rear.
As Nett and the first platoon advanced, they slid Bangalore charges through the enemies’ barb wired defense system, clearing their path. The flamethrowers operators then crawled through the detonated gaps and incinerated the enemy forces, allowing allied troops to create a stable foothold for themselves.
Nett’s objective was to clear a sizeable fortified enemy building just up ahead. He called to the forward observer to light the area up with 105mm shells to break the structure’s exterior security.
Just as the shells struck the building, Nett took a surprising neck wound — his jugular vein had been nicked.
Ignoring the pulsating wound, Nett crawled from squad-to-squad while engaging enemy that appeared nearby. Nett decided that it was time for him and his men to fix their bayonets.
With adrenaline pumping through their veins, Nett and his fellow soldiers carefully dashed toward their objective. Nett moved his machine gun teams to their new fighting positions while dangerously engaging the enemy in close quarter combat along the way. At that time, he took another enemy round, this time to his chest — collapsing a lung.
Way back in January 2011, the Chinese Air Force’s 5th-generation fighter, the J-20, was making its first flight.
At that same time Chinese J-10s were flying an air combat exercise. This exercise featured their planes taking down 1950s-era American-built F-5 fighters with air-to-air missiles and they aired it on Chinese state television.
Except China’s featured fighter pilot was actually Maverick from the 1986 classic “Top Gun.”
According to Foreign Policy, the China-watcher blog “Ministry of Tofu” originally wrote about CCTV’s newscast right after it aired in China:
In the newscast, the way a target was hit by the air-to-air missile fired by a J-10 fighter aircraft and exploded looks almost identical to a cinema scene from the Hollywood film Top Gun.
It was pointed out that the jet the J-10 “hit” was actually an F-5, shot down by Tom Cruise’s F-14. He then placed the images side by side and commented further on their exact similarities.
Ministry of Tofu’s original post has since been deleted, but not before screenshots of the broadcast we quickly shared throughout the internet, alongside its suspected Hollywood counterpart.
On Oct. 23, 1941, US Navy destroyer USS Reuben James left Newfoundland to escort a convoy bound for Britain. Two days later, the German U-boat U-552 left the French port of St. Nazaire to prowl the North Atlantic on its sixth patrol.
The US was not a belligerent in the war in Europe at the time, but Washington had set up neutrality zones in the Atlantic in which its ships would guard British and neutral merchant ships. US ships would also notify convoys of U-boats’ locations.
The James and the U-552 sailed a few weeks after a U-boat fired on the Navy destroyer USS Greer without hitting it. After that incident, President Franklin Roosevelt told the public that “if German or Italian vessels of war enter the waters, the protection of which is necessary for American defense, they do so at their own peril.”
In the early-morning hours of October 31, when the Reuben James and the U-552 crossed paths near Iceland, the de facto state of war between the US and Germany in the Atlantic intensified.
German Capt. Lt. Erich Topp and other crew members aboard the U-552 in St. Nazaire, France, Octo. 6, 1942.
The James and four other US destroyers were escorting the more than 40 ships that made up HX-156, a convoy of merchant ships sailing from Halifax in Canada to Europe. At that time, US warships would escort convoys to Iceland, where British ships took over.
As day broke on October 31, the Reuben James was sailing at about 10 mph on the left rear side of the convoy. Just after 5:30 a.m., the U-552 fired on the James, its torpedoes ripping into the left side of the destroyer.
“One or more explosions” occurred near the forward fire room, “accompanied by a lurid orange flame and a high column of black smoke visible for several minutes at some miles,” according to the Navy’s Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
The ship’s forward section was blown off, and it sank rapidly. Only two sailors on that part of the ship survived the blast. Others who made it out were sailors “berthed, or on watch, [aft of] the forward fireroom.”
No official order came to abandon ship, but crew members launched three rafts and started to leap overboard as the sea swallowed the ship. The captain had issued life jackets to the crew and told them to have them on hand at all times, which meant many sailors were able to get to them as they fled the ship.
A German U-boat.
While many men made it off, a number of those in the water around the ship were killed or later drowned after at least two depth charges on the ship detonated as it sank.
The escort commander sent two destroyers to investigate. With a smooth sea and little wind, they were able to spot the James’ sailors just before 6 a.m. and began rescuing them minutes later. The destroyers’ crews used cargo nets, Jacob’s Ladders, life rings, and lines to pull survivors, many covered in oil, out of the water.
Rescue operations were over by 8 a.m.; 44 of the crew were recovered, but 93 enlisted men and all the ship’s seven officers were killed.
US merchant ships had already been sunk in the Atlantic, and in mid-October, another US destroyer was hit by a torpedo but made it to Iceland. But the James became the first US warship sunk by the enemy in World War II.
“The news of the torpedoing of one of our destroyers off Iceland was the first thing that the President spoke of this morning, and that has cast a shadow over the whole day,” Eleanor Roosevelt wrote on November 1. “I cannot help but think of every one of the 120 men and their families, who are anxiously awaiting news.”
US Coast Guard cutter Spencer crew members watch a depth charge blast a German submarine attempting to break into a large US convoy, April 17, 1943. The U-boat was critically damaged and sunk off the coast of Ireland.
Germany was unapologetic, saying US ships were escorting British ships in a war zone and had fired on German vessels before. The US didn’t declare war, but the sinking drew the US further into the conflict in Europe, which was already more than two years old.
On November 1, Roosevelt signed an executive order reassigning the US Coast Guard from the Treasury Department to the Navy. About two weeks later, under pressure from the president, Congress further amended the Neutrality Acts passed in the 1930s, revising them to allow US merchant ships to be armed and to sail into war zones.
The James was stricken from the Navy’s official register on March 25, 1942. The U-552 continued the fight. It joined U-boats that preyed on US ships along the East Coast in 1942 but was later transferred to waters closer to Europe.
The U-552’s success waned, as did that of the rest of the U-boat force, as the Allies improved their convoy and anti-submarine tactics and invaded Europe, recapturing ports. In early May 1945 — days before the surviving Nazi leadership surrendered in Berlin — the U-552 was scuttled in waters off the North Sea.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
The United States Military is good at its job and, understandably, a little cocky about it. That cockiness got the U.S. Strategic Command in hot water on New Years Eve 2018 when it posted a tweet about being able to drop something “much bigger” than the ball that drops in New York City’s Times Square every year.
In a move the House Armed Forces Committee members called “tacky,” the official Twitter account of the United States Strategic Command sent a tweet featuring a music video of B-2 bombers hitting targets during a training exercise – 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators – also known as “bunker busters” – on a test range.
#TimesSquare tradition rings in the #NewYear by dropping the big ball…if ever needed, we are #ready to drop something much, much bigger.
Watch to the end! @AFGlobalStrike @Whiteman_AFB #Deterrence #Assurance #CombatReadyForce#PeaceIsOurProfession… pic.twitter.com/Aw6vzzTONg
— US Strategic Command (@US_Stratcom) December 31, 2018
U.S. Strategic Command is the body that maintains and commands the United States’ nuclear arsenal. A Strategic Command spokesperson told CNN the post was intended to remind Americans that the United States military was on guard and had its priorities in order, even on a holiday like New Years Eve.
The command was later forced to apologize for the tweet, via Twitter.
The video itself was one created by airmen based at Whiteman Air Force Base, Miss. and is less than a minute long. According to the Aviationist, it likely wasn’t filmed recently but is one of the first videos to show a dual dropping of Massive Ordnance Penetrators.
However, it’s doubtful they will ever hear these words:
7. “Whenever you’re ready, gentlemen.”
Drill instructors aren’t patient or gentle with their recruits because they don’t have to be. In fact, if a recruit isn’t moving at “double-time” — they’re freakin’ wrong.
6. “If we are too mean, let us know and we’ll tone it down for you.” That’s not what the Marines are for?
That’s just not going to happen, really.
5. “If you can’t run three miles, it’s okay to quit after just one.”
Marines pride themselves on finishing every job. Instilling that no-fail mindset into young recruits is critical.
4. “You are outstanding! I can’t wait to serve with you one day in a grunt unit.”
The U.S. Marine Corps is known for being the smallest branch. It’s rare that you’ll run into your senior drill instructor years down the line, but it happens. That being said, the recruit you are now isn’t the Marine they’ll want to serve beside later.
3. “I will never show you my knife-hand.” Marines learn love knife hands. Or Embrace them, at least.
You will see your DI’s knife-hand frequently and often.
2. “Slow down. The war will wait for you.”
The war doesn’t wait and you should never slow down. If that’s not common sense to you now, it will be.
South Korea and New Zealand are moving closer to buying the Boeing-made P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, joining India and Australia as the only countries in the region to field the advanced aircraft.
June 2018, New Zealand Defense Minister Ron Mark is set to make a proposal to purchase four P-8As to the country’s Administration and Expenditure Review Committee. If approved, the proposal would move to Cabinet for a final decision.
There’s no set date for the proposal to go to the Cabinet, though Mark expects it to get there before the end of July 2018. The acquisition process was started by the previous government, and the US State Department signed off on it in spring 2017, but Mark paused it when the new government took office at the end of 2017 to review it.
“I am confident now that the recommendation I will take to Cabinet committee stacks up. That it is robust. It’s justifiable, and I’m in the stage where I am consulting with people,” Mark said, according to local media. “So my closing comment, not being able to pre-judge what the Cabinet committee or Cabinet might decide … I would simply say, put your cellphones in flight mode, put your tray up, buckle in, hold on, it’s coming.”
(US Navy photo by Mass Comm. Specialist 1st Class Jay M. Chu)
New Zealand’s Defense Ministry said in 2016 that the Orions needed to be replaced by the mid-2020s, and maintenance costs for the planes have spiked over the past decade.
The State Department approved a sale worth $1.46 billion to replace New Zealand’s aging fleet of P-3 Orion patrol aircraft, though the New Zealand Defense Force has said the purchase would likely cost less.
South Korean officials also said that Seoul would make a $1.71 billion purchase of Poseidons on a “sole-source” basis, forgoing a tender process, according to Reuters. A South Korean official said an “open contest” would have likely pushed up the price of the Poseidon.
The number of Poseidons that South Korea plans to buy was not specified, though Defense News has reported Seoul wants six.
South Korea said in February 2018 it would replace its P-3 Orions with maritime-patrol aircraft from a foreign firm in order to counter the threat posed by North Korean submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The Poseidon’s large payload capacity and flight range made it a prime candidate.
Tensions with North Korea have eased in the months since Seoul announced its intention to buy new planes, but the purchase still makes sense, according to Yang Uk, a senior research fellow at the Korea Defense and Security Forum.
“Even if South Korea and US decided not to hold military drills in 2018, we have to maintain security until North Korea fully denuclearizes, and we also needed to replace our old maritime patrol aircraft,” Yang told Reuters.
‘One of the best maritime … assets in the world’
(Indian Navy photo)
India first purchased its Poseidon variant, the P-8I, in 2009, deploying eight of them in 2013. Delhi bought four additional aircraft in 2016, and naval officials have said the country is looking to buy more.
India has its own designs on a role in the global maritime order, but it is also concerned about increasing Chinese submarine activity in the Indian Ocean. The planes are but one element of the country’s shifting security focus, away from its northern boundary with China toward the Indian Ocean.
Australia is currently in the process of acquiring 15 P-8A Poseidons to replace its own aging P-3s. The Royal Australian air force declared initial operating capability for the aircraft in March 2018, five months ahead of schedule. At that time, six of the 12 Poseidons under contract had been delivered, and three more were going through the approval process.
Australia’s P-8As will work with the country’s Triton remotely piloted aircraft, of which Canberra plans to buy six, with the first arriving in mid-2023 and the last by late 2025.
Tritons taking off from Australia’s Northern Territory will be able to do a lap around the South China Sea, covering an area the size of Switzerland in one flight.
Australia plans to cooperate with the US on Triton operations, and Canberra and Wellington are likely to coordinate maritime patrols as well.
New Zealand officials have already been in contact with their Australian counterparts about maximizing the advantages of both countries operating the Poseidon, according to Defense News.
The Poseidon’s range, armaments, and capabilities make it an ideal platform for the Indian and Pacific regions, where militaries are increasingly focused on their ability to project power at sea.
“The P-8 is the best ASW localize/track platform in the fleet, one of the best maritime [Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance] assets in the world, with the ability to identify and track hundreds of contacts, and complete the kill chain for both surface and subsurface contacts if necessary,” a pilot told The War Zone in early 2017.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
UPDATE: THE VOTING IS NOW CLOSED AND THE WINNER WILL BE ANNOUNCED ON MONDAY, SEPT. 25, 2017 AT WE ARE THE MIGHTY!
Welcome to the finals for Mission: Music, where veterans from all five branches compete for a chance to perform onstage at Base*FEST powered by USAA. CLICK THE BUTTON BELOW TO VOTE every day to determine the winner!
Bobby Blackhat is a Coastal Virginia Bluesman and an award-winning recording artist, harmonica player, vocalist, songwriter, producer, comedian, and actor. He’s been playing harp for over 40 years.
After 27 years of service in the U.S. Coast Guard, which included serving as Military Aide to the President and being awarded the Coast Guard Medal for Heroism, Bobby started to pursue music professionally. He is a proud graduate of two Armed Services Arts Partnership (ASAP) programs: Piano and Comedy Bootcamp.
“I love doing what I do because music allows me to get fingers poppin’, toes tappin’, hip shakin’, and faces smilin’. Through music I can bring joy and happiness to the lives of others. I am a prime example that it’s never too late to pursue your dreams and check an item off that pesky bucket list.”
For every vote, USAA will donate $1 (up to $10k) to Guitars for Vets, a non-profit organization that enhances lives of ailing and injured military veterans by providing them with guitars and a forum to learn how to play. Your votes help those who served rediscover their joy through the power of music!
When Ciara Hester, wife of a U.S. Marine, tweeted to Ava DuVernay (Salem, When They See Us), she had no idea the powerhouse director would respond — let alone send a gift.
Hester complimented DuVernay’s red carpet look and said she wanted one like it for the Marine Corps Ball. To her surprise, DuVernay replied asking for her mailing address so she could ship the gown right over.
OMG @ava I need this dress for the Marine Corp Ball. #SheWoreItBest #ShowStopper #TuesdayThoughtspic.twitter.com/sqcIRukFiG
The gown, in a perfect shade of Marine Corps red, arrived in time for the Marine Corps Ball, an exclusive event steeped in tradition and pride. It’s probably one of the biggest events in the military. I literally don’t even know if the other branches, including the branch I served in, care about their balls birthdays?
Like a real life fairy God mother. Thank you @ava for your thoughtfulness and kindness. I had an amazing night and I felt amazing. #honor #marinecorpsbirthday #USMC #Marinespic.twitter.com/FjZWXTAE2Q
The Wilmington, North Carolina, couple were all smiles at the event, with Ciara beaming in a dress that not only fit her perfectly but had pockets (which, we should all know by now, is a very big deal).
I had no clue it had pockets till it arrived. Certainly loved it even more. (Couldn’t have thought that was possible either )
This isn’t the first time celebrities have shown their support for the Marine Corps Ball — many have been known to accept — or request — invitations to attend the ball, including Ronda Rousey and Linda Hamilton. Elon Musk was invited to speak at one, where he was visibly touched by the heroism and sacrifices of the service members in the room.
You wore it well, @CiCihstr! Hope you had a night as lovely as you. xo!https://twitter.com/annaphillipstv/status/1198055140651130880 …
Take your pick: Gundam, Pacific Rim, Godzilla, RoboCop, MechWarrior, whatever. When it comes to giant robots in pop culture, they’re almost always in the hands of the military, sent to fight against some equally giant threat.
In film and television, it makes for a great, over-the-top action sequence. In reality, if troops were given a giant robot to battle, they wouldn’t be focused on the awesomeness our childhood selves imagined, but rather on all the annoying chores associated with a real, giant, fighting robot.
6. Maintenance would be a pain in the ass
Think about how troops handle Motor Pool Mondays today. Kicking a tire, turning it on, and sitting in the A/C doesn’t count as an actual maintenance check of a vehicle.
Imagine if you had to PMCS a vehicle the size of a building. Nobody would check every inch of that robot to make sure it works.
“That’s a 10-level problem.” (Image from Sunrise’s Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team)
5. The rules of engagement on deploying one
Whenever anything is deployed into a combat scenario, risk assessment forms are done out the ass just to make sure that using a certain piece of equipment is worth the risk it poses to its surroundings. This is why the big guns of the Apache’s Hellfire missiles aren’t tossed around like candy.
Now, take that risk and multiply it by every step the robot takes, every laser that it shoots, and every time it punches a giant monster into a building.
4. You probably wouldn’t be the pilot
If you consider how many people share the dream of being a pilot in the real world versus how many pilots there actually are, you’ll understand your chances are slim.
In fiction, it always seems like a young and spunky kid is given the reins on a multi-billion dollar fighting robot and everything works out. If the military hardly trusts its troops with something that costs a few thousand dollars, good luck getting behind the reins of a 10-figure fighting machine.
3. If you WERE the pilot, you’d be uncomfortable as hell
Go ahead and ask a tanker, pilot, or literally anyone who spends their career operating heavy military vehicles if they were physically comfortable in their vehicle. Unless they’re a fighter pilot with seats designed to withstand the G-Force, they’ll laugh at you for asking such a ridiculous question.
Every last dime would go into giving it the ability to dispense more firepower and take more hits. Uncle Sam doesn’t care if your legs get a little bit sleepy.
2. All of the safety classes…
Still enthused on the giant robot idea? Well, consider that the military would likely make a million and one different classes on the importance of proper robot safety. You’ll zone out and start hating the robot the well before you’re through with half of the forty required robot safety courses.
1. It’d just suck in battle
And then cold, hard reality sinks in. Giant fighting robots just aren’t that effective in battle.
If they’re designed to walk on two legs, it could trip easily because of how top heavy it is. If it had hands, the controls to match the precise movements of a human hand would be mindblowing. If it was as massive as a building, it would be such an easy target. If it was piloted by a human, the human better hope the metal casing is sophisticated enough to him or her.
If you manage to do mental gymnastics to justify a giant robot in the face of all these issues, congratulations! You’re basically describing a modern day tank — and that already exists.
After suggesting in late March 2018, that the US would be pulling out of Syria “very soon,” President Donald Trump reportedly told his national security team that he is open to keeping troops in the country for the time being, but wants to look to pull them out sometime soon, a senior administration official told CNN.
The US has now been involved in Syria for about three and a half years, having started its military intervention there as part of Operation Inherent Resolve in September 2014. The military has carried out numerous operations in Syria against ISIS and other targets, according to the Department of Defense, and members of the US Marines, Navy, Air Force, and Army are active in the country.
As of December 2017, there are approximately 2,000 US troops in the country. Four US soldiers have been killed in action in Syria.
The US has carried out over 14,989 airstrikes in Syria since 2014, according to the Pentagon.
While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how much the US military spent in Syria specifically, Operation Inherent Resolve as a whole has cost over over $18 billion as of February 2018, according to the Pentagon. The majority of these funds were spent on Air Force operations.
Since the US mission began, ISIS has seen its territory dwindle in Syria, and now almost all of its holdings have been conquered by local forces on the ground with US support.
US forces are fulfilling a variety of roles in the fight against ISIS
The US mission in Syria is aimed at defeating ISIS and its offshoots, providing coordination between air assets and troops on the ground and the anti-ISIS coalition. So far, this mission has largely been a military success — the group has reportedly lost over 98% of its territory since it stormed across Syria and Iraq in 2014.
(US Army photo)
The US has also been supporting Syrian Kurds in Syria’s north, bolstering a coalition of forces led by the Kurds called the Syrian Democratic Forces by deploying coalition advisers to train, advise, and assist the group. The SDF has conquered swathes of territory from ISIS in northeastern Syria with support from US airstrikes and special forces and, according to the Pentagon, is leading the fight against the remnants of the Islamist group in the country.
But the incredibly fractured nature of the conflict lends itself to additional challenges, Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon told Business insider.
“It’s the most complex battlefield in modern warfare,” he said, explaining that there are active lines of communication open between US forces and other actors in the conflict like Turkey and Russia, which serve to avoid accidental military engagements and as deconfliction hotlines.
Pahon said that now that the active fight against ISIS is drawing down, the US is pivoting to civilian reconstruction efforts, clearing IEDs, and rebuilding civilian infrastructure.
“That’s a big challenge for getting people back into their homes, especially in populated areas like Raqqa,” Pahon said, citing numerous ways in which fleeing ISIS fighters have booby-trapped abandoned homes with explosives.
Pahon said part of the US civilian effort is training people on the ground on how to de-mine former urban battlefields.
He also pointed out that in addition to the military aspect of US operations in the country, other parts of the US government like the State Department and USAID are also active in reconciliation efforts, recovering water access, and rebuilding the power grids in destroyed towns and cities.
“It’s more than a military effort, it’s a whole of government effort,” he said.
The CAB Motorworks’ Eagle electric bike was designed to maintain efficiency while reducing noise and pollution. Designed to move over any terrain, these bikes come standard with an inverted 8-inch front fork and tuned 9.5-inch rear downhill inspired suspension. The Eagle has the highest power to weight motor on the market but is still able to reach speeds of 50 mph with the use of proprietary cooling techniques. The bike also has over 160 ft-lbs of torque which boosts acceleration. With its state-of-the-art battery technology, the Eagle can go about 100 miles with no pedaling when ridden conservatively at about 20 mph on flat ground. An integrated active braking system, DOT motorcycle wheels and tires, and a comprehensive heat control system are just a few of the other features you will find on the Eagle electric bike.
Mike Glover of FieldCraft Survival put the CAB Motorworks’ Eagle electric bike through the paces in some of Southern California’s hilly terrain. Utilizing trails meant for jeeps and trucks, Glover set out with nothing but a bug out bag and some water. Without even using the pedals, Glover immediately noticed the bike’s ample speed and acceleration. After 45 minutes of hard riding, he put the bike in front of the thermals to see if it displayed an increased thermal signature. Most of the bike showed up as cold compared to the environment, with the hottest spots on the bike being the front brake rotors and the rear hub motor. After about 20 minutes of hard riding, Glover took the bike onto a more aggressive trail with no issues.
In the end, Glover walked away impressed with its capabilities. From the torque to the low noise signature, and handling steep and aggressive terrain with ease, this bike crosses off a lot of boxes from recreation to survival purposes.
This article originally appeared on Recoilweb. Follow @RecoilMag on Twitter.
The U.S. Air Force will soon need to make a decision on whether its plan to grow to 386 operational squadrons should focus on procuring top-of-the-line equipment and aircraft, or stretching the legs of some of its oldest warplanes even longer, experts say.
Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson announced in September 2018 that the service wants at least 74 additional squadrons over the next decade. What service brass don’t yet know is what could fill those squadrons.
Some say the Air Force will have to choose between quantity — building up strength for additional missions around the globe — or quality, including investment in better and newer equipment and warfighting capabilities. It’s not likely the service will get the resources to pursue both.
“It’s quite a big bite of the elephant, so to speak,” said John “JV” Venable, a senior research fellow for defense policy at The Heritage Foundation.
Wilson’s Sept. 17, 2018 announcement mapped out a 25 percent increase in Air Force operational squadrons, with the bulk of the growth taking place in those that conduct command and control; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; and tanker refueling operations.
Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson speaks with members of the workforce during a town hall at Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., April 5, 2018.
An additional 14 airlift squadrons using C-17s could cost roughly billion; five bomber squadrons of fifth-generation B-21 Raider bombers would cost roughly billion; and seven additional fighter squadrons of either F-22 Raptors or F-35s would be .5 billion, Venable said, citing his own research.
“Tanker aircraft, that was the biggest increase in squadron size, a significant amount of aircraft [that it would take for 14 squadrons] … comes out to .81 billion,” he said.
By Venable’s estimates, it would require a mix of nearly 500 new fighter, bomber, tanker, and airlift aircraft to fill the additional units. That doesn’t include the purchase new helicopters for the combat-search-and-rescue mission, nor remotely piloted aircraft for the additional drone squadron the service wants.
And because the Air Force wants to build 386 squadrons in a 10-year stretch, new aircraft would require expedited production. For example, Boeing Co. would need to churn out 20 KC-46 tankers a year, up from the 15 per year the Air Force currently plans to buy, Venable said.
The Air Force thus would be spending closer to billion per year on these components of its 386-squadron plan, he said.
New vs. old
In light of recent Defense Department spending fiascos such as the Joint Strike Fighter, which cost billions more than estimated and faced unanticipated delays, some think the Air Force should focus on extending the life of its current aircraft, rather than buying new inventory.
The Air Force will not be able to afford such a buildup of scale along with the modernization programs it already has in the pipeline for some of its oldest fighters, said Todd Harrison, director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Harrison was first to estimate it would cost roughly billion a year to execute a 74-squadron buildup, tweeting the figure shortly after Wilson’s announcement.
F-16 Fighting Falcons in flight.
If the Air Force wants to increase squadrons quickly, buying new isn’t the way to go, Harrison told Military.com. The quickest way to grow the force the service wants would be to stop retiring the planes it already has, he said.
“I’m not advocating for this, but … as you acquire new aircraft and add to the inventory, don’t retire the planes you were supposed to be replacing,” said Harrison.
“That doesn’t necessarily give you the capabilities that you’re looking for,” he added, saying the service might have to forego investment in more fifth-generation power as a result.
By holding onto legacy aircraft, the Air Force might be able to achieve increased operational capacity while saving on upfront costs the delays associated with a new acquisition process, Harrison said.
The cost of sustaining older aircraft, or even a service-life extension program “is still going to be much less than the cost of buying brand-new, current-generation aircraft,” he said.
Just don’t throw hybrid versions or advanced versions of legacy aircraft into the mix.
“That would just complicate the situation even more,” Harrison said.
“Why would you ever invest that much money and get a fourth-generation platform when you could up the volume and money into the F-35 pot?” Venable said.
Boeing is proposing a new version of its F-15 Eagle, the F-15X.
Running the numbers
Focusing on squadron numbers as a measure of capability may not be the right move for the Air Force, Harrison said.
The Navy announced a similar strategy in 2016, calling for a fleet of 355 ships by the 2030s. But counting ships and counting squadrons are two different matters, he said.
“While it’s an imperfect metric, you can at least count ships,” Harrison said. “A squadron is not a distinct object. It’s an organization construct and [each] varies significantly, even within the same type of aircraft.”
Still less clear, he said, is what the Air Force will need in terms of logistics and support for its planned buildup.
Harrison estimates that the aircraft increase could be even more than anticipated, once support and backup is factored in.
For example, if it’s assumed the squadrons will stay about the same size they are today, with between 10 and 24 aircraft, “you’re looking at an increase [in] total inventory of about 1,100 to 1,200” planes when keeping test and backup aircraft in mind, he said.
A squadron typically has 500 to 600 personnel, including not just pilots, but also support members needed to execute the unit’s designated mission, he said. Add in all those jobs, and it’s easy to reach the 40,000 personnel the Air Force wants to add by the 2030 timeframe.
“It’s difficult to say what is achievable here, or what the Air Force’s real endstate is,” said Brian Laslie, an Air Force historian who has written two books: “The Air Force Way of War” and “Architect of Air Power.”
“[But] I also think the senior leaders look at the current administration and see a time to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak,” Laslie told Military.com. “Bottom line: there are not enough squadrons across the board to execute all the missions … [and] for the first time in decades, the time might be right to ask for more in future budgets.”
The way forward
Air Force leaders are having ongoing meetings with lawmakers on Capitol Hill ahead of a full report, due to Congress in 2019, about the service’s strategy for growth.
So far, they seem to be gaining slow and steady backing.
Following the service’s announcement of plans for a plus-up to 386 operational squadrons, members of the Senate’s Air Force Caucus signaled their support.
“The Air Force believes this future force will enable them to deter aggression in three regions (Indo-Pacific, Europe and the Middle East), degrade terrorist and Weapons of Mass Destruction threats, defeat aggression by a major power, and deter attacks on the homeland,” the caucus said in a letter authored by Sens. John Boozman, R-Arkansas; John Hoeven, R-North Dakota, Jon Tester, D-Montana, and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. “We are encouraged by the Air Force’s clear articulation of its vision to best posture the service to execute our National Defense Strategy.”
For Air Force leadership, the impact of the pace of operations on current and future airmen must also be taken into account.
The secretary said the new plan is not intended to influence the fiscal 2020 budget, but instead to offer “more of a long-term view” on how airmen are going to meet future threats.
“I think we’ve all known this for some time. The Air Force is too small for what the nation is asking it to do. The Air Force has declined significantly in size … and it’s driving the difficulty in retention of aircrew,” Wilson said.
There will be much to consider in the months ahead as the Air Force draws up its blueprint for growth, Laslie said.
“I think the Air Force looks at several things with regard to the operations side of the house: contingency operations, training requirements, and other deployments — F-22s in Poland, for example — and there is just not enough aircraft and aircrews to do all that is required,” Laslie said. “When you couple this with the demands that are placed on existing global plans, there is just not enough to go around.”
It’s clear, Laslie said, that the Air Force does need to expand in order to respond to current global threats and demands. The question that remains, though, is how best to go about that expansion.
“There is a recognition amongst senior leaders that ‘Do more with less’ has reached its limit, and the only way to do more … is with more,” he said.
This article originally appeared on Military.com. Follow @militarydotcom on Twitter.