AF Secretary and Chief of Staff Dismissed

[Cliff]

Here's one (LINK)I can find more pertaining to everything from the YC14 and 15 to Bombers.

Shortly after this the A-10C precision engagement program upgrade was funded by the USAF.... I haven't seen the memo in question, so I can't comment on that, but I am pretty sure the A-10 wasn't ever in much danger.

Point is the senior leadership of the USAF has been excessively air to air fighter centric since Viet Nam.Since 1975;

So we should have ignored the less than 2-1 kill ratio in Vietnam? Ignore the threat of SAMs to bombers?

since 1989 when the USSR dribbled into a puddle, since 1991 when the future of air to air for some time was illustrated plainly; since 2001?

The future of air to air was illustrated since 2001? How? Who did we fight since 2001 that had advanced jammers and 4th gen fighters with active missiles? What about the future of Surface to Air Missiles? This wasn't illustrated in any of the above because none of the adversaries had the SAMs other folks have now... The F-22 is a response to SAMs almost more than it is to Flankers. If we were only talking about the Air to Air threat, we would be able to upgrade F-15Cs and at least have parity with the Su-30...

Take your pick. As you may recall, I've defended the AF in several of these threads. I will on this one as well; I just found it interesting that seemingly, the PR aspect -- which I admit is important -- took precedence over the practical, do the job aspect -- which would seem to me to be more important.I would agree. SAC worked and should not have been trifled with, I suggest that what occurred was an effort to appear in tune with the times that was ill thought out.I'd say it's been about on par with the others -- none of whom, not even the rather flexible USMC have exactly covered themselves with glory in that respect. All the services practice "tradition before innovation."True.I agree but offer the caveat; with quite selective priorities which have not done them any favors. That, I think is the rub.

The ditching of SAC was, in fact, a significant innovation. It is interesting that you argue against the USAF due to the focus on air to air but like the fact that we shackled our entire bomber force to a single nuclear mission.... While perhaps SAC should have been retained, having all the USAF's bombers focus solely on the SIOP and not train to conventional missions is exactly the lack of innovation you are unhappy with. The idea of getting rid of SAC was that we should focus on the effects weapons create rather than the command that owns them or the type of aircraft in question.

This is the same reason the USAF has a requirement for a certain number of Raptors... we need to preserve a broad spectrum of capabilities to be able to deal with a range of future threats, rather than focusing solely on one narrow scenario.

I agree that the USAF could show more flexibility, and hasn't always done the best PR. I fail to see how the PR aspect took precedence over doing the job... that isn't happening at the warfighter level. From my perspective (and that of many USAF folks) we know we're sacrficing training hours, maintenance, and equipment (as well as a lot of folks) to support our brothers and sisters from all services in the AOR... and most folks aren't thrilled, but they understand why things are this way.