Leaderboard

You obviously have never been to Arlington...

Because a GENERAL was killed in combat dude. This was the highest ranking person to die in a conflict since Vietnam. Kind of a big deal if you ask me.

Posted by Gen Greene's son on facebook. " Ladies and Gentlemen, while the president and vp were welcome to attend my father's funeral and burial lets make a few things clear. 1) my father is no more important than any other soldier lost in war. What message does it send if he attends one funeral over another? Does it make that soldier more important than another? What does it say to families? 2) do you think the president being at the service helps bring my father back or make us feel any better that he is gone? The answer is no. 3) If the president or vp had been there, there would have been more stress on our family simply in terms of logistics let alone security. More people would have had to stand outside or not come at all due to the security requirements . I am happy the president or vp did not come because the ceremony was more personal, more intimate and better because we got to share it with the people who meant the most to us. Do not allow news outlets to make a political soapbox out of my family or my father."

Majestik fail.

Back in UPT at CBM, the Wx is getting bad and the vis is decreasing. They called a mass re-call of all solo studs to RTB. My bud is on a long straight on final in a 38. The RSU asks him what he estimates the visibility. He responds, "Poor, maybe 1 mile" Now they're starting to worry in the RSU. Then RSU responds, "Call when runway in sight" Instantly, my bud responds runway in sight, RSU states 'Say DME?" he responds "8 DME????????????" He wore a huge footlong dog-bone around his neck for a week, which was a punishment bestowed to the stud who did the biggest "bone-headed" thing that week.

But back to the article instead of your personal cheap shots. What I will take issue with is taking time to imagine some far off sci-fi world while the rest of us were in the real world practicing, fighting, studying and building TTPs for the foreseeable future so that we can integrate as a fighting asset in current/near-future contested environments (within limitations) or rescue package and as a reconnaissance/strike asset beyond the Army-S2-point-and-stare game. I've done actual contingency mission planning to bring unmanned to the fight in real time and for future OPLANs as well as plenty of lobbying with actual war planners, joint teams, and within AOC cells to leverage the very real skills that our unmanned assets possess. I’ve also cautioned when they're at their limits to steer the conversation back to getting unmanned assets into a viable role to achieve desired effects. And I think that's the key: useful thinking versus wishful thinking. What people ought to be reading are things like Squeeze Callahan's SAASS paper, because it can be taken seriously. This article is fantastical and does little to prove that any of what he talks about can be done at the simplest level. For instance, the AOD/commander's intent isn't a 1's and 0's programming problem like he paints mission/targeting prioritization to be. We do it with preplanned ground targets and standoff weapons, but those typically don't move and the missile doesn't interpret commander's intent, the MPC and aircrew do. And if a semi-autonomous system has to reach back to its operator at a critical juncture, it is vulnerable, whether from the increase in decision time thereby negating its computer advantage or from the transmission it just made to give itself away, negating its stealthiness. Unmanned technology definitely has a future, but there are so many other problems to solve before frying his big fish.

Agreed. My idea wasn't to debate the technological merits of any one path, just to highlight that the next paradigm shift will be something more creative than just shoving old-thinking square pegs into round new-technology holes. It isn't the science that's lagging this fight, it's the thinking, imo. If stakeholders don't want clowns determining the way ahead, then ignore the clowns, but don't remove yourselves from the discussion altogether.

I think that the SECDEF should have attended. Agree with both sides of the president debate.

Why does POTUS comment on some teenager's deaths and not others? He's the President and he's a politician, no different than his predecesors--he decides what he personally wants to comment on, what events he does and does not want to attend, etc. His advisors and staff work for him, but in the end what he says/doesn't say and does/doesn't do is up to him. I personally don't have a problem with the President not going to the funeral, it's his choice. But as for the remark of "Why does the death of an O-8 result in expected POTUS attendance, but an E-8 doesn't?"...(assuming that someone thinks the Major General deserves it) it has to do with the same reason of why a base makes a big deal when an O-8 visits vs when an E-8 visits. And why the service chiefs get a front row seat at the State of the Union while at the same time the top E's do not. Rank has its privileges, even when you're dead.

Do you guys think POTUS should have been there? I guess I don't get all the consternation about him not being there (if he was in fact playing golf, then that's probably poor timing...). Seems the Army Chief of Staff attending is an appropriate level for the funeral of a 2 star. I think there's enough legitimate critiques of the administration that glomming onto something like this drowns out debate on valid topics.

Totally agree. And I'll take it one step further: the only commissioning source should be OTS, fastest and cheapest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While we're at it, just close the zoo, it costs too much anyways and is always in trouble in the news. I'm serious, shut the bitch down.

This is probably one of the saddest, yet courageous, commentaries I've ever read. After reading this, go hug your children. http://www.386aew.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123420007

In all honesty, anyone who says this neither has the clearance or need-to-know to even be informed on exactly what the Lightning does bring to the table, nor the knowledge/experience to understand what that stuff it has means to the missions Lightning will be tasked with accomplishing. There are a lot of things that are not so great about the Lightning. To cast those deficiencies into believing that it is not worthy of replacing the Viper and Hog is just ignorant. To even think that the legacy platforms are even remotely equipped to deal with the threats of the next 20-30 years that Lightning and Raptor will have to deal with it just ludicrous. With that kind of logic, let's go dig out the A-1s and O-2s from the boneyard so we can really go to town in the CAS world. Let's park all of those F-16CJs and whip out the F-4Gs, let's junk the Growlers and get the Spark Varks flying again. These are ALL aircraft where people cried that the world was going to end because the aircraft replacing them wasn't as capable as the aircraft being replaced...and guess what: somehow we've managed to just squeak by with those under-capable "replacement" MDSs. In a double-digit-SAM and Flanker world, the Viper, Hog, Eagle, and Hornet are just not going to cut it with the margin that we need to ensure that we will win with the least amount of flag-draped caskets.

Ugg... You guys sound like the bitchy wives club. At least take the time to attack the idea and not the speaker.

They're pretty hand-in-hand in this case.

I've got plenty to stand on; he didn't earn his UAV, he selected it and put all his chips in because he believes in them, too much, and can't see their limitations. I read the article when it appeared, and I think it's too UAV-Kool-Aid laced with a narrow scope of the nature of and attributes required for aerial combat. ETA: This is why I said the person and opinion go hand-in-hand. He is that dedicated to the cause. I haven't started chucking spears. You started that.

Paul you don't have a leg to stand on. You earned your Pred out of UPT just as much as he did, and have your own set of personality/professionalism quirks as well so I wouldn't start chucking stones. Mike published a peer reviewed article in the Air and Space Power journal. Most people won't agree with him, but he has no control over how people spin what he wrote. He is a super nerd with a 10lb brain, and it shows though both in his article and if you have ever met him. It doesn't mean he is a lousy officer by any means. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2014-May-Jun/F-Byrnes.pdf

All the headstones at Arlington are the same size. Just saying.