brickhistory

I'm not sure which side of the fence you are taking, but let me be very clear. The book doesn't, in my view, take a position on it. edited to add: that I recall. My position is it pointless to talk with Iran. Live up to the agreements you made with the UN and we can chat. Otherwise, they are not ever going to see past the "Great Satan" politically and we can't deal with Armydinnerjacket as the front man for the ayatollah. They will/do see us as weak by sucking up to them. Fine you think otherwise, I'm not interested in a debate. Sorry for the minor thread hi-jack here.

CIA's A-12 (SR-71 predecessor) unclassified history Pretty good read and photos for the single-seat A-12 - CIA version of the program. It is a CIA site, so enter at your own risk for black Suburbans showing up at your house...(Omegas for Steve D.)

"It shall be the policy of the United States Government that a nuclear weapon detonation upon any target in the Middle East shall be considered an attack on the United States' vital national interests. Further any such nuclear weapons use will be considered as originating from Iran and thus will draw retaliation to the full measure of our capability."

Dunno, but I thought it worked...

First entry for the most unused/unusual word in a thread contest. Well done!

I think you are right regarding the Administration. I don't think you'll get any additional money for either more F-22s or new flavors of Eagles.

Rest of the world?! B-52, KC-135, C-130, even the F-15/F-16/A-10. Hardly a novel concept that the US has ignored. The question is, how long do you keep putting lipstick on the old sow(s)? Until a jet breaks up in flight? Ok, milestone achieved already. Can't blame Boeing for trying to sell. Or another country for wanting to buy. We need new build stuff to replace our old and getting older stuff. The object is win big, not have a duel with evenly matched opponents.

CH, ever thought of becoming an ABM? You tossed around the (correct) acronyms pretty good for a fist full o'throttles guy... I keed, I keed...

That's him. As I said, he may/may not know of this as NMUSAF is essentially it's own entity despite being part of the USAF History and Museum program. Tell him Brick said hello. He'll no doubt go deer in headlights as we only briefly chatted a year ago when I was job hunting for a USAF/HO job.

As would be appropriate, Washington, D.C. (and on Anacostia Naval Station). As well as at MAJCOMs, each base, and each deployed location. Being the historian at Nellis could be fun. At Minot, not so much...

The USAF Historian, a civilian SES, is the heritage advisor to the CSAF who would make the final decision. Separate but related, the NMUSAF is part of the Air Force HO organization, but for practical purposes, it's an independent fiefdom.

You show those anti-gun, anti-2d Amendment rights California hippies, boy.... Sorry, couldn't resist being a d1ck...

Redundant...

I'm assuming that since this is "lesser known" flying movies is why "Dr. Strangelove" is not mentioned. Absolute classic, funny, ironic, witty movie. "2" on "12 o' Clock High," "The War Lover," and "The Battle of Britain." Another one related to flying but no flying scenes is "The Great Escape." Both the movie and the book by Paul Brickhill are really, really good. True WWII POW mass escape in Germany by Allied flyers. Steve McQueen on a stolen German motorcycle. Nothing cooler than that...

The RAM material and joint sealing compound was, at one time, very classified. I'm betting it still is. You'd have just an ugly jet without it though. That would be one component that would be hard to "safely remove prior to delivery."

A huge UFB!!! As in no drinking off base? Or even on, for that matter? How in the hell is that a lawful order? Ok, an order in Muslim country where they, notionally, don't drink and we are 'guests' on their soil, but in Central and South America? What is the rationale for that? Was one given? I'd be writing to my Congressmen/Senators.

Not a nav, only C-130 time was in the web seats, so take this for what it's worth: E-8C JSTARS nav does sit just about even with the leading edge of the wing join with the fuselage, not on the flight deck. He has a mission console just like the ABMs/intell/Army dudes plus a set of flight instruments. The nav does the standard nav stuff plus the self-defense stuff - mostly coordinating running away (not that there's anything wrong with that), plus some mission stuff which isn't for open forum. The jet is a pig, the mission avionics - radar/computers/consoles - are freakin' cool. Warner-Robins is one of the ugliest base towns ever. Schools pretty much suck. Cost of living is good. Macon is a very easy commute should you want a little bigger town. Perry is also close if you want really small town. If you go E-8s, as mentioned, you're life is pretty much going to be E-8, E-3, maybe to some other form of the -135 at Offut. C-130s would seem to offer much more variety in both missions and locations. C-130 has the smaller crew, thus easier logistics. E-8 has a legion of folks on board so the logistics/ass pain can be greater. It is what it is and provides a great picture to dudes on the ground who need it. Good luck at whatever you fly. brick (former E-8C SMO (pronounced "SMO," and yes, I've heard every Three Stooges impression, "Hey, SMO....")

Not sure if this is a perfect fit, but I think it at least works on this thread. I'm not always a fan of Peters (sts), for example, the thinks the USAF should be 100% CAS and the rest is 'toys,' but he is spot on on this one: https://www.nypost.com/seven/03122009/posto...five_159152.htm

Me either. Don't paint me as some Cindy Sheehan ally type, but we haven't been the guy who hits first in a war. Somehow this went from China's ever-increasing share of GDP towards its military to this cluster. A 10% cut doesn't make a lot of sense with the threats facing our country. Even as part of the economic recovery, buy new stuff makes sense.

And we're off..... Spanish-American War: result (probably wrongly) of the USS Maine explosion. That act was considered an act of war. Hence, the declaration of war following it. Bay of Pigs: ?Que? As poorly as it was planned/executed, it was Cuban rebels on the beach, not more than a handful of Americans. Don't remember any war. If JFK had manned up and supported the invasion with the USN sitting off shore, then it might have succeeded. I'd also argue that his pussy-ness on the Bay of Pigs led JFK to try to stand tall in the saddle for Vietnam. Vietnam: Little measue called the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that Congress voted to allow the President to respond to military actions in Vietnam as he saw fit after the North's attack(s?) on USN destroyers. No pre-emption there. If you want to say that a Declaration of War should have been issued, I'm agreeing. Grenada: We were asked to protect the citizens of the island by the deposed Governor-General. Not to mention our own medical students there which were under threat by the bad guys. Again, asked in. Panama: the repeated attacks on US citizens and installations by Pineapple Face were provocation enough not to mention the warrant for arrest of Noriega. Again, acts by the enemy first, then our response. In any event, I'd hardly call Grenada or Panama "wars." Military actions? Sure. Wars? Not by what I was taught. As to the "second invasion as justifiable as the first," you are unclear. What was/when was the first by us? But in any event, the legal justification for OIF were the lack of compliance with UN resolutions regarding destroying and verifying that destruction. Saddam rolled the dice that he could stonewall the world. He lost. But seeing as how we pissed away the USAF for 12 years for ONW and OSW keeping him in a box (sts), I don't think the calling "fight's on" by President Bush was a good one. Once it was, however, it should be win it quickly and in a big way. Secretary Rumsfeld botched that. Now that it appears to be won by some incredible work by our guys on the ground, there does seem a way for us to go. The Iraqi government in place now has signed an agreement with the US for us to leave by 2011. Ok, let's abide by that.

If the ROK negotiated a new SOFA that wanted the US out, then, yes, we'd leave. They haven't felt that need yet, although there have been a gazillion protests - mainly the all-knowing university students arguing that it is time - to that point. Iraq wanted, and got, a SOFA that said "U.S. out in 2011." Their country, their rules. As as far as basing in Japan, it's what we did from about July 1950. Tac air flying from carriers and Atsugi, Japan. B-29s from Okinawa. Ground troops from the Army of Occupation (read about Task Force Smith, poor bastards), etc, etc. That's assuming, of course, Japan let's us. During the first party, Japan didn't have a say in its own future. We were the rulers. It was something like 1954 before the treaty giving Japan sovereignty back to itself was signed. Agreed that we have a strategic interest in seeing Iraq succeed as a nation at least not inimical to the US. As a democratic state, it's a nice philosophy that is utterly alien to the region and mindset as a whole. Absolutely I can see us going toe to toe with China without NATO and, especially, the UN. First there's the little matter of a seat on the Security Council. China will, obviously, veto any move against itself and the rest of the world will use that lack of UN decision as an excuse to do nothing. Been done before, why is it a stretch to think it'll happen again? Particularly as China holds a lot of those other nations' debt? Agree, we do have to deal with both. But mortgaging the future for the present has never been a good strategy. You argue more UAVs now vs F-22s later. I vote for both. But that would cost some beloved social entitlements. As to "strategic interests in seeing Iraq succeed as a democracy," no, we don't. We have interests in seeing the oil continue and it be a counterbalance to Iran. Democracy would be nice, but after some 1,000 years, it hasn't taken root yet. Not sure where this came in, perhaps a bit of self-deprecation, but unless you count SOS as "fancy PME," neither did I. The square-filling correspondence, yes, but simply taking the tests, never reading the garbage. Attending such a school or not doesn't add or detract from one's opinion. As I'm in the past category, I'll have that beer with you. Bottom line: don't try to put me in an anti-war category. The original idea was flawed - pre-emptive war goes against our traditions and history. Once there, we should have gone in strong (more troops) and not disbanded some of the army and infrastructure. Now that it seems to be getting better (or beyond where we can effectively do anything about it), it's time to call it a win and come home. I'd be fine with bases/forces left behind to train/provide some backbone. To the Arabs, that's unacceptable. Ok, fine, here are the keys... For Afghanistan, I don't know. Do you?

Are the two mutually exclusive? But to answer each part - nope and yep. Per the signed agreement of all out by 2011, yes. As that's the Iraqis wish as well, perhaps it is time to let them have the keys and the issues associated with them - insurance, payments, leaving it parked outside at night, etc. I'm very curious as to how this turned from China's military budget vs ours and how a cut in the latter can compete with the former in the future. As a related aside, part of Obama's reduction in the deficit plan is to count the money not being spent in Iraq in the future as savings. UFB. BTW, thanks for what you do.

I'm trying to follow your logic in tieing my posts to that question and failing. My point was that more, not less, F-22s, F-35s, new tankers, etc, etc, etc, are our best guarentee of not having to take on China toe to toe. Well, that and paying off our debt to them. But to answer your question, no, I don't think so. The SOFA agreement signed by President Bush is about right given the current situation. Obviously, that could change for better or worse. However, our job is pretty much over. It is time to hand the keys back to Iraq. As an aside, I fully expect another strong man to arise after we're gone. That's just how that culture is, in the main. Regarding Afghanistan, I simply don't know. Massive troop invasions in the past - Brits x 2, Russians - didn't work. I don't know that we can do much better. Not a slam to the dudes doing the humping on the ground and in the air, just an observation on the overall picture. But, I've never been there and have never experienced it first hand. Is it time to go home? What is a win there? How do we get to that point?

Wow.

From the article: Remain calm, all is well. 183-ish (Ok, less due to depot, testing, replacements, etc) Raptors can handle hordes o' Commies, right? Besides, we've got the oldest -C model Eagles (did anyway) at Kadena to ride to the rescue as well. What could go wrong?