Air Force Voices

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?"

Raptor Acquisition Strategy

"If you build it they will come..."

The timing of the Defense Acquisition Board's decision to approve full-scale production is suspect.  Either they waited too long in recommending approval to the Milestone Decision Authority or they are in a rush to get the F/A-22 into production before the funding dries up (see previous post).

David Hirschman of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution has the story (HT: Aim Points).  Here is an excerpt:

"A Pentagon panel known as a defense acquisition board approved full-rate production of stealthy, supersonic Raptors in late March, said Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute. That board's decision will allow Lockheed Martin to accelerate construction of the planes in Marietta, where about 2,200 of the plant's 7,800 workers are tied to the Raptor program."

"The Raptor has completed its development," Thompson said. "It's a full production program that will stay on course unless Congress accepts [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld's recommendation to terminate it early. And Congress has rebuffed him on many program proposals..."

Even more revealing is the following statement by Rob Fuller, a Lockheed spokesman in Marietta (emphasis added):

"...The Raptor gains an industrial constituency, and that makes it harder to kill," he said. "But with so few airplanes in the pipeline, support for the Raptor will be broad --- but not particularly deep."

I have seen the slick Lockheed Martin promotional brochures signed by many generals and propenents of the program (they were distributed around the campus last month).  Based on the marketing, I am excited about the aircraft. 

However, constituents and proponents aside...What concerns me is getting a fighter that is safe to fly and where software or mechanical failures are not the cause of freak accidents.  Our pilots deserve better.

Full Production of F/A-22?

The Defense Acquisition Board has approved the F/A-22 for full production.  The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Karp and Andy Pasztor have the story (HT: Early Bird).

"The decision is a critical milestone for the complex and controversial aircraft, which has been under development since the Cold War and whose costs have soared. The green light could provide ammunition for advocates of the F/A-22 ahead of congressional budget votes and a broader Pentagon review of long-term acquisition priorities. That is because the approval by the Defense Acquisition Board, the Pentagon's top procurement panel, is an endorsement of the plane's capabilities as well as Lockheed's ability to produce it at the rate and cost determined by the Air Force."

This is good news for the Air Force.  However, the timing is suspect given the December 2004 crash which is still under investigation and the ongoing debate about the program in the QDR.

A google news search of the F/A-22 crash yields an article in High Performance Composites which states:

"While the cause is still under investigation for the Dec. 22 crash of an F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, signs are pointing to a mechanical malfunction and not pilot error...

...The crashed jet was one of eight jets at Nellis and had accumulated about 150 hours in the air. The pilot ejected safely and suffered no serious injuries, but burned parts of the fighter were scattered over a 1,220m/4,000-ft range, with the front end of the plane clearly separated from the main body of the wreckage."

If the cause is indeed mechanical failure or maybe even a software glitch, it could force another costly change in the baseline.  Lockheed Martin already had to overcome a series a crippling software problems (very expensive) to get to this point.  Just how much management reserve is still available to fix this latest error?  Hmmm.

In any case, we are talking serious politics and arm-twisting here.

Which is it?

Yesterday, Sharon Weinberger of Defense Daily had an article which acting Air Force Secretary Teets (before he retires today) stated "recapitalizing the military's aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers is the top challenge facing the Air Force."

However, in today's edition, Ms. Weinberger writes about the QDR and the F/A-22.  The article cites Major General Ronald Bath, Director of Air Force Strategic Planning, and that the Air Force angling the QDR will either restore cuts to its premiere fighter program (from 179 to 381), or least delay closing the production line (currently scheduled to close in 2008).  (HT: Early Bird)

So which is it?  Tankers or new Fighters? 

This issue has been rolling around the Corporate Budget Process for years.  It appears some hard decisions will be made this time around.  Particularly in the investment accounts (R&D and Production funds).  The old "peanut butter spread" isn't working anymore.

Last time it was thought the Air Force could raid the already strained Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts and "lease" newly developed tankers, thus preserving the investment accounts for the F/A-22. 

Of course, the Global War on Terror is still ongoing, the Boeing "deal" went sour, Congress got involved (and you know the rest), and oops, someone forgot about paying for the Defense Health Program.  The Air Force got by with supplemental budget requests...now that option no longer appears viable.  O&M is no longer on the table...thus hard choices will have to be made.

The leadership moment has arrived...where are the leaders?

Budget Battles

The Tampa Tribune is posting an editorial regarding comments made by the Army Chief of Staff (General Peter Schoomaker) in a speech to the University Club of Tampa. (HT: Early Bird) 

(Note:  I searched the Tampa Tribune site and couldn't find the editorial yet.  As soon as it is available I'll link it to this post)

The comments by the Army Chief of Staff are significant though since they point to the F/A-22 debate and the current budget battles between the services.

In his remarks, the General commented on Operations Northern and Southern Watch (which were in effect from the end of the first Gulf War until 2003).  According to the article, Gen Schoomaker made a rather short-sighted remark that neither operation toppled the Iraq regime...what was the difference?  Army boots on the ground.

While I agree with part of the general's remarks...remember both operations were severely limited in terms of the ROE.  Also, the relatively smooth ground operations are made possible through air superiority maintained in the 12 years leading up to the Iraq War.  Finally, don't forget about naval power (especially sealift) in getting all that combat power into the theater. 

The article also mentions the bitter battles behind the scenes where winners take a larger portion of the budget.  Now that the pendulum is swinging toward the Army, I understand why the general made his comments in such a manner: You should always strike while the iron is hot!

However, service rivalries do not serve our nation's interests very well.  We need to move beyond Cold War politics and on to a better informed debate on the proper use of the military instrument of power.

F/A-Catch 22

The F/A-22 program presents a catch-22:

Aim Points had an article (before it mysteriously disappeared) with some harsh criticism of the F/A-22. 

I found the article on POGO's website.  Here is the POGO teaser:

"In concert with the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), Col. Everest Riccioni (USAF ret.), a pioneer in combat fighter design, has published his critical analysis of the Air Force’s F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet program."

Go read the POGO Release here.

Also, the No Angst Zone had an excellent post last Saturday with a good recommendation.

Here is why I believe there is a catch-22:

First, the projected number of F/A-22 aircraft has dwindled to a mere 180 fighters.  A small number of jets would be spread too thin and may not be enough to win a decisive air campaign.  A year ago, Indian air forces scored multiple victories in mock dogfights flying Russian Sukhoi and MiG as well as French Mirage fighters against our F-15s and pilots.  This sparked some debate amongst air strategists.  Yet, the F/A-22 has superior flight characteristics including stealth that would dominate enemy fighters.  I believe the United States should never be in a fair fight.  So how many do we need?  How many can we afford?  Fantastic technology can be overwhelmed by mass.  Without the F/A-22, how many lives will be lost once the "playing field" is leveled?  By the way, the U.S. may sell F-16s to India and Pakistan.  Parity anyone?  Mass beats technology...technology trumps mass...ugh, the argument continues.

Second, "the F/A-22 role no longer exists."  The Soviet Union dissolved.  That is a fact.  Yet, roles and platforms often change on the battlefield.  At the height of the Cold War, no one envisioned employing a B-52 as a "tactical" conventional bomber...until someone did it.  How do we know exactly how the F/A-22 will be used?  Plus, the F/A-22 technology is vastly superior to anything else out there.  The F/A-22 tips the balance in favor of the United States...perhaps not in the way we might envision...SAAS grads, are you paying attention?

Third, "the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fleets can fill the gap with advanced avionics packages."  Currently, this is true.  Yet, how old is the airframe on an F-15C?  Can pilots still fly these old jets at the edge of their performance envelope without stressing and cracking the airframe?  Do we continue to mortgage our future on older technology?  What about our obsolete tanker fleet?  If the F/A-22 can't refuel on the way to the battlefield, then it is a very expensive weapon with a limited range (if it makes it across the ocean by itself).  What else are we giving up "out of hide" by pursuing the F/A-22?

Having said all that (and believe me there is more)...the catch-22 is this: We have spent far too much time and money in F/A-22 technology to simply give up...yet, by continuing to fund this program, the Air Force delays on other pressing needs (i.e., tankers, special forces platforms, heavy launch capability, etc).  Shrinking the size of the fleet or slipping the delivery schedule to the right (i.e., surviving another budget year) isn't much of a strategy.  It sort of reminds me of Social Security.  The professional Acquisition Corps knows what I am talking about. 

Personally, I believe the Air Force has lost momentum on public opinion in favor of the F/A-22.    I wouldn't feel this way if I hadn't read all the opposing articles out on the Internet and in the MSM.  These not only influence my decision, they influence others.  If my opinion is uninformed...then enlighten me (us).  Frankly, the PA strategy could be better...the other services are successfully selling their story.

What frustrates me is there is great discussion (pro and con) on the F/A-22 "around the water cooler" and "at the ops counter" that doesn't go anywhere.  No one outside the Air Force hears these discussions.  Instead, decision makers are left with either 'glaring' reports and editorials (see previous posts on F/A-22...you'll need to scroll down since this post appears at the top) or 'glowing' reports from the SecAF, CSAF, and other senior leaders.  Lobbyists?!...please. 

Aside: Where do you think Members of Congress are getting their information in the digital age?  Hmmm

Finally, what is missing is informed discussion from those of us who will inherit the final decision.  Hopefully this post will spark discussion.  Just as it does no good for the Air Force to bury the story (as Aim Points did today)--it does no good for you to sit silent.  People will fill the void with alternative messages.  I don't believe Air Force members are indifferent...so speak up.

For more discussion on the F/A-22, click on the F/A-22 category on the right sidebar.  There are some great comments from "wildbill" and "monckywrench." 

More QDR Viewpoints

This week has seen lots of attention focused on the QDR and the future of the F/A-22.

Belmont Club publisher, Wretchard, offers a "Tale of Two Worlds" which contrasts two different perspective on where the Department of Defense is heading.  One this is clear...the military will transform. 

"These changes will come at the expense of weapons systems like the F-22 and because they are a radical departure from many current missions."

"But implied within Rumsfeld's reported plan is the startling aspect of time: it is above all a preemptive approach aimed at shaping the political and cultural battlefield in advance of actual hostilities involving American troops."

I like the way Wretchard finishes the post:

"How and whether this concept evolves into doctrine will be a fascinating process to watch. One suspects that the ultimate price of the Western European vacation from history will have been the transformation of the United States into the foremost revolutionary force of the age."

I agree...it will be fascinating to watch.

Having worked in the building before--lots more late nights ahead...