Air Force Chief Says 70% of ALL Combat Aircraft 'Non Combat Capable By July'

[unhappycamper]

http://defense.aol.com/2013/02/21/air-force-chief-says-70-percent-of-all-combat-aircraft-non-comb/?icid=trending2



Air Force Chief Says 70% of ALL Combat Aircraft 'Non Combat Capable By July'
By Colin Clark
Published: February 21, 2013

AFA Winter, Orlando: Imagine if someone told you 70 percent of all American combat aircraft would not be ready to fly in time of war by July. That's just what Air Force Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told some 600 people attending the Air Force Associations's annual winter conference this morning will happen should the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration occur.

This means 70 percent of all fighters (and MAYBE Remotely Piloted Aircraft and bombers -- except those for nuclear missions and aircraft in ongoing operations --we're checking) will be unready to go to war.

Welsh was careful to note that the service would protect all "named operations," so this doesn't appear to mean that troops in Afghanistan will go without air cover, but it should send a very clear message to those in Congress who continue to cling to entrenched positions that they risk gutting the combat capability of the military we spend so much to build and maintain.

The degradation will begin May 1, when flying hours will begin to get chopped, Welsh said.



unhappycamper comment: Don't know about you, but I would rather use the $$$$ for something useful. Like roads, bridges, teachers, policemen, food, housing, public transportation, etc. etc.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

1. Absolutely agree w/you.

[Scuba]

2. If this guy's plan for dealing with budget cuts is to let our planes go NORS ...

... then he's a lousy leader. Try closing some bases instead.



Um, for non-AF types, "NORS" is "non-operational ready status". Do they still use that?

[gejohnston]

9. don't know about other commands but

in AMC, MAC with tankers, we called it Mission Capable or Not Mission Capable. I don't think he has the authority to close bases, but I'm sure he can get some money putting a stop to throwing out perfectly good furniture, painting rocks, painting manhole covers, and base beautification contests.

[kevinbgoode1]

3. Why is it that we spend way more than most of the other powers combined on "defense"

. . .and yet if there is the possibility of a single dollar being cut to their budget, suddenly we are completely incapable of defending ourselves?

The role of the U.S. military is to defend the United States. And yet, we spend trillions of dollars on military commitments to defend scores of other nations whose people enjoy such things as universal health care, longer vacations, and often a higher standard of living.

[gejohnston]

10. we piss a lot of it away of stupid stuff

One thing I noticed about working with the French, Brits, South Koreans, etc. They scrimp on things like nice furniture and painting rocks. I was in Japan when McPeak was PACAF commander. Congress wouldn't give him the money to redecorate the PACAF HQ so he pulled it out of Operations and Training funds.

[think]

4. Sounds like a great excuse for a false flag event

Of course now every school shooting is smeared purposely as a false flag event reducing the credence of real false flag events. Calling these school shootings false flag events is complete nonsense and offensive.

Real false flag events send America to war based on lies like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Bush's Iraq war based on falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

These things happen because someone is going to make money and that someone will make sure we have a reason to go to war...... JMO

[SheilaT]

5. That strikes me as only possible if every single penny

of the sequester were to be taken from the combat aircraft part of the Air Force.

In other words, the actual money, either in dollar amounts or as a percent, simply isn't that great.

How about we simply stop paying all the money to all the contractors?

[Angry Dragon]

6. Close some foreign bases and sell them

that should loosen up some money

[think]

7. +100 more and

a few golf courses too...

[Victor_c3]

8. I suspect this is all a part of the various government agencies strategy to fight a budget cut

I really think that all of these agencies are trying to make any budget cut as painful as possible to show the public "hey, you can't cut us! A small portion of cuts means that all of this terrible stuff will happen. You'll have to cut from some other agency".

They can cut other things that wouldn't have nearly as large of an impact, but that would just show that they could easily cut more. They have to make it as painful as they can so that cuts to our war budget become an unpalatable option to the public.

[unhappycamper]

11. Here's a little something the Veterans For Peace put together regarding the subject:

It's right on the money.