Air Force Voices

Fraud, Waste and Abuse

We are fighting a global war on terrorism and I understand that effectiveness is more important than efficiency. 

However, there is lots of fraud, waste and abuse out there that eventually impacts the ability to remain effective in the long run.

Major Mike offers a great example of what I am talking about.  Major Mike gives his readers a warning at the beginning of his post...this is a hornet's nest...are you ready?  Here is an excerpt:

Of the 339 people who started [the Air Assault Course (02-05)], only 77 graduated. Of the 190 who were left on the last day, only the 77 who completed the 12-mile road march, graduated. I don’t know how else to put this…this is a monumental waste of assets...

...This school specifically, needs to get over itself and provide a training service to the Army that has value. No general skills, follow-on school can call itself a success with a washout rate of 77%. Only 39 students failed on the technical aspects of the course…this could have been a completion rate of over 88%. OK, wash out the zero day guys, and the completion rate still would have been over 82%. The curriculum, the program of instruction, the screening processes, the staff, the focus, the mission…all need to be re-examined in order to determine how this kind of waste is possible. I may want to provide realistic and challenging training, but I am failing the Army if I can only graduate 23% from an Air Assault course.

I realize that a patch/badge is involved here, and I’ve been in the rod and gun club, but there is no way I can view this as anything other than waste and mismanagement. Does this course stand-alone in this regard? I doubt it.

This post is about value…if I were a unit commander, I would not send another soul to this course. I would stand a 77% chance of wasting my money. Shame. This kind of waste is what sends congressmen clamoring for General’s heads, and in some ways…I can’t blame them. You can’t belly-ache for more money, then pour it down the drain. This needs fixin.

I agree. 

[Note: Usually the home station commander is charged the entire training cost when a trainee is eliminated (voluntary or involuntary) from a training course...otherwise, a central training fund pays for the graduates]

Major Mike...now you got me started...

Other abuses...a commander schedules passenger airlift for his troopers over Labor Day weekend...expensive rates due to the holiday.  To be sure, USTRANSCOM asks the commander if he is sure he needs airlift over the holiday weekend.  The commander verifies his request so USTRANSCOM makes the necessary arrangements and signs a contract with an airline. 

However, a couple of days before Labor Day, the commander cancels the mission (probably decided to give his troopers the weekend off).  However, the contract must still be honored since schedules had to be changed, civilian aircrews readied, and insurance purchased.  Even if there was a termination clause in the contract, the military is still getting ZERO benefit for the cost.  The contractor airline pockets a nice chunk of change.  Even better, the troopers still need to be transported at a later date.  Ka-ching...another contract...more dollars for the airline. 

Who pays?  Not the commander.  These types of contracts are managed centrally.  If the commander is forced to assume liability, he can simply charge the excess cost to the war on terror.  After all, we get a supplemental appropriation right?  Not any more.  How long do you think Congress will tolerate this kind of abuse and start holding someone accountable?

Then there is the habit of some people (Pentagon types) who travel to Afghanistan/Iraq at the end of one month and make sure they stay long enough for the next month to start.  BINGO...two month's Combat Zone Tax Exclusion...and you wonder why the troops who are actually deployed are skeptical.

Again, I understand the need to be effective in war and that taking time to study more efficient ways of doing business (or investigating each FWA charge) is a luxury we don't always have in the middle of the war.

But come on...enough is enough already.  I agree with Major Mike...this needs fixing!

Letters to the Editor re: Ralph Peters

The New York Post received a number of letters regarding Ralph Peters article last week (see previous post). 

I checked the NY Post yesterday and saw only what they had posted in Wednesday's edition.  In the interest of time and space I elected not to post these letters. 

The following letters were published in Monday's New York Post and are very good responses...they speak for themselves.  I was especially moved by the letter from Nicole Das, an Air Force veteran and widow.  Here are the letters (HT: Aim Points):

New York Post letters to the editor: Responses to Apr 13 "Clashing Military Cultures"

BY: Letters to the Editor, New York Post
04/20/2005

I am an Air Force veteran and a widow who lost my husband over the skies of Iraq while we were both deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Ralph Peter's venomous article ("Clashing Military Cultures," Opinion, April 13) incorrectly stated, "Not a single Air Force fighter pilot has lost his life in combat in Iraq."

Lest we forget, Capt. Eric Das and his crewmate, Lt. Col. Bill Watkins were killed in action April 7, 2003.

The sacrifices of all services — whether Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard or Coalition — should be recognized and remembered.

Our forces were on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam and World War II calling in air support.

We are on the same team. We fight and die together.

Peters denigrated the Air Force, which has taken care of me and my family during our darkest days.

He breeds in-fighting among the ranks and wears a facade as champion for Marine causes.

As the daughter of a Marine helicopter pilot from Vietnam, as an Air Force veteran and a widow, I am deeply offended by the ignorance Peters displayed toward the families of the fallen.

And why? Is it because of some baffling agenda?

So far, American military forces have seen 1,544 in Iraq and 173 in Afghanistan make the ultimate sacrifice.

Our branch of service doesn't much matter.

We are in a family of service that has seen tragic loss.

The loss is tremendous, no matter what the total number.

Nicole Das

Alexandria, Va.

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

I am writing from Iraq, in regard to a column written by Ralph Peters.

I would say I am curious about the rationale behind such a venomous diatribe, but that would lend it credibility.

Whatever Peters thinks of the F/A-22, to indict an entire service as "morally bankrupt," because its view on what it requires to fight differs from his, is disgusting.

Marine aircrew have flown for years in their "aging jets and ancient helicopters" under the blanket of air superiority that's provided, in part, by the "fighter-jock Air Force."

They don't steal money from the Marines. They state their needs, and we taxpayers cough it up.

As a Marine aviator on my third combat tour, I can find the general Air Force attitude a little un-martial — to say the least.

But I will never question their patriotism, valor or professionalism as aviators.

Peters should keep his acidic rants and cliché "go Marines" chants to himself.

Capt. Jeffrey Bauer

U.S. Marine Corps

Anbar Province, Iraq 

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

Peters' venom against the Air Force could hurt the Marines by portraying them as a bunch of gripers (being equipped with old and decrepit equipment).

President Truman became so exasperated by complaining Marine brass, he lost his temper and dubbed the officers the "Police Force for the Navy."

The military is a team, and all the services need the support of one another.

Anthony Lembo
Mastic Beach

Ralph Peters sure did open a can of worms (as Major Mike points out).  Maybe that was his intent all along.  If it was, then putting institutional bias ahead of one's professional reputation to spark interservice "debate" or settle an old score is truly unfortunate and sad to see. 

One thing is certain, we should no longer be protecting our "rice bowls" and learn to work and fight as a joint team.  At least that is what everybody keeps preaching. 

Noting the rank of the writers above leaves me with some hope for this vision.  Perhaps we will truly see real jointness in a generation or two.  Until then...

More Thoughts on the F/A-22

Not sure why, but this passage from Lincoln on Leadership by Donald T. Phillips comes to mind when thinking about the F/A-22 debate:

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln told a story about the dilemma of an old farmer who had a very large shade tree towering over his house:

It was a majestic looking tree, and apparently perfect in every part--tall, straight, and of immense size--the grand old sentinel of his forest home.  One morning, while at work in his garden, he saw a squirrel [run up the tree into a hole] and thought the tree might be hollow.  He proceeded to examine it carefully and, much to his surprise, he found that the stately [tree] that he had [valued] for its beauty and grandeur to be the pride and protection of his little farm was hollow from top to bottom.  Only a rim of sound wood remained, barely sufficient to support its weight.  What was he to do?  If he cut it down, it would [do great damage] with its great length and spreading branches.  If he let it remain, his family was in constant danger.  In a storm it might fall, or the wind might blow it down, and his house and children be crushed by it.  What should he do?  As he turned away, he said sadly: "I wish I had never seen that squirrel."

Question:  Applying this story to the F/A-22 debate, is the tree a better metaphor for the Department of Defense, the Department of the Air Force (Army, or Navy) or the F/A-22 program?  In other words, which argument is better served by Lincoln's story?  Hmmm...food for thought.

Update: Ralph Peters

The debate over the F/A-22 is getting heated.  For anybody who didn't read Ralph Peters' column last week, here is the link to his piece "Clashing Military Cultures."

Earlier this week, an emailed copy of Brig Gen Dunlap's response was making its way throughout the Air Command and Staff College.  The letter scores on many points.  Here is the letter that appeared in the email:

Ralph,

Wow...I must say this article seems way over the top.  Geez, I'm genuinely shocked that you've reacted this way to my note to you about your earlier piece.  I can assure you that I wasn't "lobbying" you - is that really what you thought?   Until I read today's article, I would have thought the notion of "lobbying" Ralph Peters to be preposterous.  But if you want to talk about lobbying, no one does it better than the U.S. Marine Corps.  Just ask them.  Believe me, the Air Force is a rank amateur vis-à-vis the Marine Corps in the lobbying business!!

Speaking of "old" aircraft, I assume you know when the USAF B-52s were built or, for that matter, the F-15s and F-16s we have these days.... 

But more importantly, isn't the Marines main aviation priority the V-22 Osprey?  It has a fascinating record...  Still, it may be the right answer for them, but the point is that it isn't exactly a low-tech - or inexpensive - solution to a mobility problem.  I'm amazed it wasn't referenced in your article....  Moreover, didn't the Marines get the Super Hornet, and aren't they buying the Joint Strike Fighter?   (And there are other USAF-funded programs for which Marine aviation is getting the benefit.)  Was none of this mentioned to you?

And what "pressing need" - exactly - is being denied them by the Air Force?  What exactly has the Air Force turned a "blind eye" to?   Amphibious assault doctrine?

And what's this about the Air Force being "morally bankrupt"?  Is that what you really want to say about 360,000 mostly-young Americans serving their country all over the world?  I don't think that many of our most energetic critics in the Army or Marine Corps would say that.

Yes, we were deeply humiliated by Darleen Drulyan and Tom Fiscus....but the Air Force had nothing to do with the Abu Ghraib mess (except that now airmen have had to be detailed to serve as guards there).  In fact, no USAF people have been accused of torturing or killing any detainees in Guantanamo or Afghanistan or anywhere.  Is the Army or the Marine Corps making claims of moral superiority in these cases?  I would suggest to you that these latter misconduct events have had far more adverse consequences to the U.S. effort in the GWOT than anything any airman did. 

I'd also add that we have had nobody who refused missions (in fact, there are 2,500 airmen seconded to the Army for convoy duty in Iraq...and none of them have refused dangerous missions to my knowledge.)   Moreover, before you moralize about services, compare rates of drug abuse, desertion, or any other criminal behavior.  I think you will find that your Air Force runs a relatively clean operation; in fact, none of the services are "morally bankrupt"... Ralph, you don't need to seize the rhetoric of the extreme left to make your points...and it is perfectly legitimate for you or anyone to question things like the F/A-22...it ought to be scrutinized like every other aspect of national defense.

But why should the other services be exempt from scrutiny?  I think it's sad that you conclude that any critique of the land component performance is "slander."  Slander?  Is that really the right word for any disagreement with Army dogma?  At one time you were a critic of some of the things that the Army did...  And there are quite a few soldiers and Marines who firmly believe in critiquing their own performance...and welcome such critiques from whatever sources.  That's the genius of the American military, the ability to question assumptions and scrutinize performance. 

It is a legitimate question as to why we are having so much difficulty with an insurgency the land component leaders tell us is about 20,000 in strength versus what, 110,000 soldier and Marines?  Ok, there may be bona fide reasons that even with that kind of advantage, success isn't in the cards for the near term.  But isn't it still fair question as to whether the forces are properly organized, trained, and equipped - as to whether there might be some way we can do better?   Shouldn't we try to determine if the current strategy is the right one?   Is it wrong for me or others in the Air Force to be concerned about soldiers and Marines being killed and maimed every day?

Hypersensitivity to asking legitimate questions about the conduct of the war is not the way to save the lives of young troopers going into harms' way.  You advocate silence as we watch our comrades in arms die, but that's just wrong.  Challenging assumptions is not challenging the personal courage of individual soldiers and Marines, rather it is intended to try avoid losing even one of their lives unnecessarily.  Maybe you are right and the Army and Marines are doing everything perfectly and there are no better answers, but that doesn't mean it is Ok to question the morality and patriotism of those who ask tough questions.  Asking hard questions makes us better...exempting the Army and the Marine Corps from such queries does them a disservice.

Ralph, let me say this as a friend and admirer:  you were very wrong to disparage the courage of people serving in your Air Force...that is not the Ralph Peters I know and respect.  Moreover, you really don't know these young people or the sacrifices they have made and make every day.  I don't know what this Colonel Davis told you, but there are a lot of soldiers and Marines with combat time who are pretty happy with our Air Force, and who would disagree with you vociferously.

You are upset because the Air Force takes care of its people better than the other services.  Guilty as charged.  But why does it make you so unhappy that anyone serving their country has a decent place to live and work?  Would it be such a crime if Army and Marine families could have a similar standard? 

Maybe one reason the USAF has such low rates of drug abuse and other misconduct is the environment we provide for our people.  Maybe it's a reason we always meet our recruiting targets (and recruiting the kind of people the USAF mission requires isn't easy).  Perhaps our sister services could learn something from us.

And, by the way, take a look at the senior officer housing in the Army and the Navy (though can't honestly tell you I've been in a Marine flag officer's quarters)...believe me, we have nothing to compare with some of the mansions I've seen just on the other side of the river here. 

On more important subjects, you obviously are not concerned about China or any of the other potential peer competitors...and I sincerely hope you are right...but I think you ought to look at the literature (and this may surprise you, but many thoughtful soldiers and Marines are concerned about China as well...ask the Marines in Okinawa).

It may be, as you suggest, that the Army and Marines are wise to prepare to fight replays of Iraq in the future.  I just don't think that that is the likely scenario; indeed, I think that those who do believe that are, in essence, already re-fighting the proverbial "last war" - but that is a debate we ought to be able to have without a lot of name-calling.  Regardless, as a Nation we just can't assume that all future wars will be Iraq redux...or that everyone will bury their airplanes. 

I'll be the first to say that the Air Force has its problems (and, true, many of them are self-inflicted).  We are "down", and - like you - everyone is seizing the opportunity to kick us.   In many respects, the Air Force is being taken to school as to its naiveté about parochialism.

Nevertheless, I will openly say that I believe that you and all of our critics are indeed making real headway, and may well succeed in deconstructing the Air Force as you desire.   The result will be not a bunch of Air Force deaths that you seem to want to see (how many Air Force people need to die before the service has "courage" in your view?).

Rather, the sad truth is that the deaths will be of the soldiers and Marines you believe are better Americans than those wearing Air Force blue.  It will be a very sad day when the ground forces of this country find out what it is like to try to fight without the control of the air they have enjoyed for fifty years.

Still your fan, but very perplexed....  Warm Regards, Charlie

Okay...each service has its own scores to settle in this debate.  Lots of point/counter-point to come.  For those of us watching the debate, I keep thinking of that scene in "Gladiator" when Maximus yells, "Are you not entertained?" 

Anyway, Major Mike has great commentary on his site (read through the comments as well).  BTW: Major Mike has extensive experience in fighter aircraft as a WSO.  Here is an excerpt:

First of all, having an unmatched aerial capability can be taken for granted. US troops have not had bombs dropped on them in significant amounts since World War II, period. If our ground forces had been subjected to 1/10th of the air delivered ordnance that we have dropped over the last 60 years, our casualties would have been significantly higher, and the outcomes, in each case may have been different. Remember the Army in Grenada at the airfield? Add in significant aerial bombardment and what happens? My point is, that we have been achieving our superior results on the ground with a virtually impenetrable shield over our heads…some supplied by the individual services, some provided by the USAF, usually with significantly more capable aircraft, and with the unstated assumption that we will not get bombed. As has been the case for sixty years. So, on one hand, I can’t blame the AF for digging in, and pursuing a technological advantage.

I think anyone would agree here.  Also, although it pains me to say it, Major Mike has a point when he writes:

I think the AF hurts its credibility when they over-do their “crew rest,” and “substandard facilities,” arguments. It was a bit ludicrous that the AF pilots had to live in ski lodges in the Dolomites while us Marine schmucks had to live in tents 300 meters from the end of the runway in Aviano, Italy. They couldn’t stay there because their sleep would be disrupted…somehow us Marine aviators are built a bit different than our AF brethren and are impervious to db levels above 140. A bit of advice here, toughen up, show good value at all times, and rarely will you be denied a legitimate request.

Air Force Voices take:

I believe we need the F/A-22.  The United States needs this fighter to counter future threats in advanced Integrated Air Defense Systems from Surface-to-Air-Missiles and Detection systems.  Who is to say advanced technology is not or will not be developed? 

A great point made by one of my classmates is double-digit SAM technology is increasingly lethal.  Why wouldn't the Chinese (or the European Union for that matter) reproduce or sell SAM technology like they did in Vietnam? 

The United States must have an air superiority fighter that can guarantee air superiority or ground troops will die in greater numbers.

It just seems the Air Force has "sold its soul" in order to get this fighter.  Too many additional roles have moved the baseline (at great cost) over and over.  [NOTE: It is called the F/A-22 today instead of the F-22].  Prior decisions and delays in getting a production model fighter to initial operating capability are now haunting the Air Force. 

Also, it seems the Air Force has protected acquisition of this system above everything else.  The Air Force needs new tankers.  The whole tanker controversy (and subsequent Boeing/Druyun fiasco) with its "leasing" option seemed like an attempt to raid the Operations and Maintenance funds in order to preserve the Investment dollars for this program.  Today, there are no plans (and folks have been "encouraged" not to discuss it) to procure a tanker.

Perhaps we develop a KF-22...the Super Hornet can refuel aircraft can't it?

Bottomline:  We need the F/A-22...just not the quantities the Air Force wishes to buy.  Let the system prove itself and keep the production line/industrial capability open so we can build more once the concept is proven.

This leads to a related topic:  The Air Force public affairs strategy has been pretty dismal both on the F/A-22 and the Iraq War.  This may be why the Air Force is having a hard time selling its story.  Sure, the Air Force achieved Air Dominance in the opening stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Yet, success in the air is not enough to sway public opinion these days.  Did anyone read about any coalition ground troops coming under enemy fire from the air?  Yet, how many people know this?

How many embedded reporters were on Air Force missions?  How many Air Force bloggers are out there reporting news?  [Note: what is Air Force Public Affairs policy on bloggers...you need to read my research paper]  Probably why you only hear stories that are centered around ground troops.

Also, does anyone remember the Air Force had been flying air superiority missions over Iraq for twelve years in the time between Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom?   

I have much more to write...however, this should leave enough information to keep the discussion going for a while.  I am looking forward to comments and emails on this subject.

Ralph Peters

Lots to say about the Ralph Peters column regarding the Air Force. 

Security Watchtower and Major Mike have been all over it.

I haven't been lost on the story...or the Air Force response I saw yesterday. 

Comments are forthcoming...stay tuned.

In the mean time...where is that "espresso bar?"

More Politics - Troops Suffer

The Washington Times has an editorial in today's paper (pg. 16) that highlights a moral dilemma facing Congress in approving the $81 billion emergency spending bill for the war on terror (HT: Early Bird). 

Here is an excerpt:

"If the appropriations bill designed to fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't pass because of a misguided amnesty amendment, it'll be squarely the fault of supporters of the Craig bill. They can then go explain what happened to the soldiers risking their lives around the world..."

"...The impasse now threatening to block needed resources for our soldiers highlights the impending Republican breakdown over immigration issues. If handled ineptly, the issue of illegal immigration could do serious political damage to the Republican Party in next year's elections. For now, it's up to this newspaper and others in the non-liberal media to make clear that a vote against a supplemental bill saddled with "Ag Jobs" is not a vote against the troops. It's a vote against amnesty for illegal immigrants."

So the troops on the frontline get to "make do" as best they can, while Congress plays politics and the usual gimmicks with amendments. 

The troops deserve better...we expect more from our Congress.  Its time to get its act together or its time to clean house.

UPDATE:  Lots of debate over at The Blue State Conservatives...I agree with what Joe Scarborough said (HT: The Blue State Conservatives):

As a former congressman, I know how this scam works.

You pick the most offensive bill you can find and attach it to a piece of legislation that everyone knows must be passed.

So what have Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate decided to hold hostage?

The safety of U.S. troops overseas.

That's right, sports fans.

U.S. Senators are holding American soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan hostage because of this Illegal Immigrant Protection bill. And these politicians have done it by tying the Illegal Alien Protection Act with an $80 billion Emergency Funding bill aimed at funding our troops overseas.

Market Share Competition

Air Force Voices reader "Wayne" posed an interesting question in his comment to a 1 March post regarding the Tanker Controversy. 

In an email conversation with Wayne, I agree...his idea merits a new posting rather than a comment.  Here is what he writes in an effort to stem the Tanker Controversy:

"Compete for Market SHARE"

"There is little doubt that the tanker fleet needs to be re-capitalized ASAP.  Continued debate about HOW to go about the required acquisition is causing an unwarranted delay in moving forward.  At this point, a normally-budgeted acquisition could begin - but for delays caused by the controversy."

"The US DoD dominates the world market for in-flight refueling - there is no commercial competition to help keep costs in check.  Planning a winner-take-all tanker competition cannot resolve this economics problem - either way, the winner has a monopoly after the competition."

"This comment is to propose that TWO contracts be awarded immediately - with the market share set at their respective production capacity for FY06 (say 90%/10% ?).  Then, to ensure competition in the marketplace, which is the intent of the FAR, compete the MARKET SHARE each subsequent contract period (say every two years).  By competitively adjusting the MARKET SHARE that each competing contractor has, both the performance of the aircraft and the contract execution (cost) performance can be evaluated continually over the course of the decade(s) that it will take to replace the current fleet of KC-135E/Rs."

"This way the DoD gets deliverable aircraft much sooner (a full-up contract RFP/ proposal/ evaluation/ award could take > year) & competition is ensured, both at award and throughout the term of the contract."

"Then consider having NATO put up the funds for the EADS aircraft, treating it as a FMS.  Since it's a European developed aircraft, their NATO partners should put their acquisition $ where their R&D $ are.  Not try to take over the whole market!"

Air Force Voices' take:

Wayne's idea is much better than the lease option which is getting more people into trouble these days.  I think Wayne offers a fresh approach that should merit serious consideration by acquisition officials. 

Talk about streamlined acquisition...this is a novel acquisition strategy that emphasizes quick delivery and better competition. 

Air Force Voices thanks Wayne for sharing his idea.  Let's hope someone in the acquisition hierarchy reads this and explores this strategy.

This cuts across DoD

A few items of interest to all DoD members and supporters:

First, in BRAC news:  The BRAC Panel has been named. Dave Montgomery of Knight-Ridder News Service (HT: Aim Points)

"Headed by former Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi, the commission could recommend cutting or realigning up to a fourth of the nation's estimated 450 major military installations, the biggest round of base closings since World War II. President Bush and Congress must ratify its recommendations.

Bush submitted the list of nominees in response to a congressional mandate creating the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The commissioners are expected to be confirmed easily by the Senate."

The nominees are:

"In addition to Principi, the nominees are former Rep. James Bilbray, D-Nev.; Clinton administration Assistant Defense Secretary Philip Coyle; retired Adm. Harold Gehman Jr.; former Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah; retired Army Gens. James Hill and Claude Kicklighter; George H.W. Bush administration Transportation Secretary Samuel Skinner of Illinois; and retired Air Force Gen. Sue Ellen Turner of Texas."

There is an interesting point in the article regarding the return of nearly 70,000 troops and 100,000 dependents from overseas in Korea and Europe...where to put them?

Also there is a BRAC timeline at the bottom of the article...Go read the story.

Second, regarding the Joint Strike Fighter: The GAO has called the JSF program "unexecutable."  Renae Merle of the WaPo has the story (you need to register for free access to WaPo) (HT: Aim Points)

Basically, the JSF program needs a $10 billion dollar increase:

"Nearly half the increase, $4.9 billion, is needed to lower the aircraft's weight because being heavier hurt "the aircraft's key performance capabilities," the report said. The Pentagon said more money was also needed to add anti-tampering technology to keep sensitive technology safe."

"The fighter was designed to be a low-cost replacement to the Air Force's F-16, with different versions being developed for the Navy, Marine Corps and British forces."

More details in the article.  Keep a watch on this program.

Finally, thinking of my space weapons school friends (who are in town for their conference): Walter Pincus of the WaPo reports on Pentagon is working to develop a suborbital space capsule by 2010 (no HT to Aim Points on this one).

"This year, the Falcon program will test a launcher for its Common Aero Vehicle (CAV), an unmanned maneuverable spacecraft that would travel at five times the speed of sound and could carry 1,000 pounds of munitions, intelligence sensors or other payloads. Among the system's strengths is that commanders could order a CAV -- an unpowered glide vehicle -- not to release its payload if they decided not to follow through with an attack."

Sounds pretty cool...space launch is the challenge.  I wonder what else DARPA is working on or has in mind?

The article has some great quotes from Commander of Air Force Space Command and other potential uses for space.  Go read the article.

Stay tuned.

Budget Shortfalls

Aim Points has posts an AF Times article regarding the current budget crunch in the Air Force's Operations and Maintenance budget. 

Laura M. Colarusso of the AF Times reports a $3 billion shortfall to pay for things such as official travel, morale welfare and recreation services, physical fitness centers, family support and childcare services, and general supplies and equipment.  The article goes on to say even readiness accounts may be impacted.

I understand the need for readiness...this cannot be compromised.  We are in the middle of fighting the Global War on Terror.

However, it is the cuts to other services that I also worry about.  I know this doesn't sound like much...but if you are spending time overseas, coming home to an austere environment has chilling effect. 

I'll put it this way so commanders can relate--without somewhere to spend their energy, troops WILL FIND other avenues to release tension--potentially driving Article 15 infractions higher.  Who needs that?  This isn't a slam on troops...it is simply a reality.  That is why we have MWR (I know the acronym is old) services in the first place.

Loss of family support and childcare services means extra tensions on the family.  Coming home after a deployment is already hard on families.  You thought family separation was hard...it is only the first part. 

Military members will do their duty no matter the budget.  However, something needed to be said.

Finally, I'll offer this for thought...the $3 billion sounds alot like the Defense Health Program shortfall a couple of years ago.  Hmmm