AF Secretary and Chief of Staff Dismissed

[Cliff]

...In reverse order, not so. Not at all -- some in the system have most always predicted what would come and pretty accurately. The problem is and has been that the system is too bureaucratic to respond to the input and that senior people do not want to hear the world may be different than their preferences. That, regrettably, seems to still be the case.

I agree, I guess my point is that the entire system does poorly at observing the indicators and being prepared for the next war. IE, doctrine, training, and equipment as well as strategy have often been aimed the wrong direction at the start of a conflict.

Three very different situations and not at all comparable to today. ForWW II, we had started building up in November, 1940, as rapidly as Roosevelt could convince Congress to act. Major aircraft, ship and army equipment programs were just starting to produce millions of tons and the services were slimming down and getting ready. At the time of Korea, we were sound asleep, period. For Viet Nam, most of the stateside Army was prepped, ready and trained for COIN -- problem was the Generals were not. None of those relate to today

I am talking about the fact that we were not ready overall when hostilities kicked off... agree that in WWII we were attempting to get there, but bottom line we started with a sub-standard Army and AAF, and probably Navy as well. Doesn't really matter in what respect you're unprepared - you're unprepared. If we fail to equip, train, or develop doctrine/TTPs/strategies to cover a myriad of scenarios realistically, we may be caught flat-footed... focusing only on the current war in the above at the expense of all else is wrong, unless it is going to cost you the war - which it isn't (funding training and equipment for medium risk across the full spectrum of options I mean).

Can't answer that because you didn't tell me what it is that will cause those losses?

If, just guessing, your concern is the potential loss of air dominance, I'd like to know why you think that may be a problem; I know what you said above and I agree that training has been allowed to slide but I doubt it's gone down that much. The F22 and F35 are in the pipeline so the issue is not no new and capable aircraft, it is simply that they are so expensive that in a time of peace (which is what everyone outside of some service guys in Afghanistan and Iraq and a few other places is experiencing now) we can't buy as many as some would like. Given a threat, the money tap gets turned on and production ramps up.

So I'm uncertain what causes your doomsday scenario...

SAMs are almost a bigger threat than anything else.... but add in 4th gen ftrs, jamming, subs, infowar/cyberwar, a savvy use of our media, WMD, etc.... even a 3rd rate power could threaten our interests and kill a lot of our folks. Kind of hard to eliminate that terrorist or rogue nation WMD stash when all your SOF carrying 130s get zapped by SA-20s or 10s.... OBTW weaponizing WMD for carriage by aircraft is a lot easier than by SSM... How would a stryker BCT do vs. a serious Su-30/PGM air attack? These are the kinds of things that people forget about, because we have not been challenged in the air for a long time... the morale effect alone of a sudden loss of air dominance would count for a lot.

Not saying we aren't going to buy F-35/F-22, just saying to make F-35 effective you need F-22, and to execute the Natl Military Strat with less than medium risk you need a certain number... there's only so many places one airplane with 8 missiles can be at any given time, no matter how awesome it is! I think the request for approx. 220 F-22s is pretty reasonable considering the stated requirement is 389 to cover the NMS.... I'm not saying we don't fund the Army and USMC expansion fully and focus on the current fight. I am saying that in time of war the nation can afford to fully fund the fight while hedging just a little (IE at the medium risk level) against the next... and it's not like closing down the F-22 line is going to help the economy over keeping it open another year or so and buying the cheapest Raptors ever... brand new 2008 Raptor costs $108 million (fas.org).... brand new 2008 F-15K (F-15 for the ROK) costs $110 million... (aerospace news daily)... how does it make sense to have to buy new legacy jets again?

V/R,

Cliff