The Perfect Soldier: Special Operations, Commandos, and the Future of Us Warfare by James F. Dunnigan
More Books by James Dunnigan
|
Dirty Little Secrets
Is Older Better?
by James Dunnigan
March 1, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic
The U.S. Air Force is flying the oldest fleet of aircraft in its history, and
wants to replace most of the older planes with new aircraft. But there is also
pressure to simply update and refurbish existing aircraft. The B-52 bombers and
KC-135 tankers average over 40 years old. The F-15 fleet averages over 18 years
old. The F-117 fleet is over 17 years old, and the F-16s average 12 years old.
The problem is that many of the oldest aircraft are the most effective and
cheapest to operate. The best example of this is the B-52, which is much older
than the other heavy bombers in service (B-1 and B-2), but are much cheaper to
fly. The air force is having a very hard time making an economic case for
replacing the KC-135 tankers. Although these aircraft are old, they don’t have
that many flight hours on them. In other words, the KC-135s can fly for another
decade or more. The transports, like the older C-5s and C-131s, get used a lot
more than the bombers and fighters, and wear out much sooner. But the air force
would rather buy new warplanes, than replace rickety transports. Congress
usually has to compel the air force to buy more, badly needed,
transports.
Another problem is upgrades. It has not gone unnoticed that
many military aircraft are serving for decades, and kept effective by upgrading
key components. But air force fighter pilots believe that the best investment is
the development of the most modern new aircraft. This is seen as an outmoded
custom. For over half a century, from World War I to the 1960s, it was customary
to build new warplanes every 5-10 years. But by the 1970s, the new technology
became more expensive, and took much longer to develop. It also became clear
that speed and maneuverability were not as critical as they once were. Missiles
became more effective, as did radars and electronic warfare equipment. Without
much fanfare, the equipment became more important, and lethal, than the aircraft
carrying the stuff. Pilot skill is also, as always, a critical element. With
more gadgets aboard, pilots required more training to deal with it
all.
At the same time, there is no major air war, between somewhat
equally matched opponents, to demonstrate what really worked better, old school
or new style. The wars between Arabs and Israelis, and Indians and Pakistanis,
provided some practical experience. But the results were murky. Pilot skill, as
always, was paramount. This was often the case even when the more skilled pilots
were flying inferior aircraft. This is also nothing new.
So either out
of necessity (lack of money), or on purpose, many nations began keeping older
aircraft, and putting new radars, missiles and electronic warfare gear on them.
By spending more on training (actually flying the aircraft, and letting the
pilots practice), nations could produce truly lethal air forces, even with "old"
aircraft. The inability of many nations to afford the latest, and very
expensive, aircraft, made upgrades very common. This has led many politicians to
begin questioning the wisdom of buying very expensive new aircraft. The main
advocates for completely new aircraft, the air force generals who were fighter
pilots, are seen as less than balanced in their assessment of the situation. The
fighter generals have not had a real war to test their theories, and are seen as
flying on autopilot when it comes to deciding how to proceed in procuring future
air combat systems. As a result, there is weakening support for buying new
fighters like the F-22, Rafael, Eurofighter and whatever top-of-the-line stuff
the Russians are offering.
|
|
