Clark Griswold

Legitimate point but what bothers me is that he has some academic and professional credentials that give him access to decision makers, policy shapers, respected publications, etc... granted the probability of his ideas coming to full bore are not likely, the chance of some part of it taking root is real. I could easily see the AF strategic nuclear mission being truncated or lost to the Navy, at least the bombers and/or the ICBMs; while on the outside part of left field, CAS could be lost also. The Key West Agreement is not written in stone and while it would be a big change, sometimes earthquakes happen and the whole landscape changes. If the AF doesn't jealously defend its right to exist, the branches will constantly nip at it leaving little mission then little reason for being. Even though he may seem like just a crank with a PhD, you have to pay attention. Now that being said, as an AF guy I think actually we should listen to him not to take his ideas literally and abolish our own service but look at not the details of his argument but the greater why of his argument. That is the AF exists partially and in some cases wholly to support the other branches. There are missions that exist that are not just support to the others (the nuclear enterprise, strategic warning & ISR, air / space soverignty & access, etc..) but a large portion is to support, we probably should embrace that more and diffuse our critics. A legitimate argument could be made that we are doing that right now but just as strong an argument could be made that we only did that after being dragged to that decision eventually. Recent examples of the MC-12 and LAAR are ones where the AF only reluctantly responded and in the case of LAAR didn't happen even though a need existed. Both of those would have diffused the idea that the AF is principally interested in operating on its own. That being said, I don't believe that and I know a lot of people here don't believe that but a large portion of the other branches believe that. Perception is reality and unfortunately we seem a bit aloof.

For once I agree with Farley The Israeli B-52 Is a Terrible Idea Now giving them F-117s might actually work but put that in the never gonna happen column too.

Maybe and good examples of other members of the total team fumbling the ball also. Not sure this would help but a "forest fire" approach to the DoD at high echelons maybe needed, periodically sweeping out 10% of the staff and putting in some new blood to get rid of the deadwood entrenched with power and their own agendas. What seems to me to be the factor that corrupts other wise good officers into corrupt ones is time, time soaking in the atmosphere of deal making, schmoozing and being removed from the line and daily ops. Too much time thinking that the DoD is a jobs & contractor enrichment project and that designing, building and buying good systems that people will actually use is not what they actually do (Pentagon & Acquisition specific rant). The staff & leadership track should be shorter and the leap to multi-star GO shorter to prevent the inevitable corruption, i.e. go from Col to Gen quickly and without the usual telegraphing and be promoted to one-star with an agenda. It's the inevitable erosion of morals and character from too long a road to get to a position where you can actually get something done.

Not surprised about the cost but the idea that it will actually get funded at $550 mil a copy is surprising. Given the financial realities, that is just a bridge too far and I doubt Congress or anyone else believes that it will actually stay at $550 mil a copy, some new requirement will come up and the gold plating begins. Not opposed to us having nice things but we've got to break the habit of bending the budget around the next superstar while everything else gets screwed, the B-1 did this in the 70's and the F-22 did this in the 90's to 00's and the F-35 is currently shredding our budget and credibility to run our own affairs, hence the original theme of this thread, serious attack on the existence of the AF as an independent branch. This would either not be happening or have no credibility given to it if we had been able to get our projects on time and budget (Congressional and Contractor meddling not withstanding).

Mass only in terms of massively over-priced USAF General: 'Of Course' Bomber Will Be More Than $550M Per Copy

More reasons for the Poles to be concerned Belarus says Russia to send warplanes in response to NATO drills

Yup - but slowly and reluctantly I think they are starting to realize that they actually live in a really nice neighborhood but with some really really bad neighbors... Europe Begins to Rethink Cuts to Military Spending Rethinking German Pacifism and Poland is not going to get run over by history again, at least not without a real fight... Don't Mess with Poland

Return to course... more from Mr. Farley. http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/air-forces-and-asia-interview-with-robert-farley/

Yup, that checks...

True - but it indicates they are not going to let any naval asset operate without real threat anywhere close to the Crimea.

2 Reading "Boyd" right now and the Mad Major was fighting the good fight for this long ago, we need someone there now (HHQ levels) who believes in the quality with quantity mantra also...

Winds of War keep blowing... Russia to deploy Tu-22M3 'Backfire' bombers to Crimea

Another article from the USAF's #1 fan: No, F-22's Can't Save Ukraine 22's by themselves would not be enough, but combined with a decent Combined Arms force (Typhoons from the Euros, Patriots & Armor from US/UK/Poles, etc..) might give pause to the Ruskies...

1. SAPR 2. Disco belts 3. Professional Relations CBT 4. GTC CBT 5. LOAC CBT

I wish I could go back and not Google what that term means too... pirates are sick...

Thanks for the post - just watched it. Nothing new learned but interesting none the less, doesn't change my opinion (worth approx. $0.02) that it is too expensive, too many compromises and too far gone to completely stop. Even all that said, if we just stop the bleeding at some point, i.e. buy only 700 or so and learn a lesson to give up when you are 7 years behind schedule and 160+ billion over-budget, perhaps it won't pull AF, Navy, and USMC down the drain but I'm an optimist. Buy enough so that when inevitable shit storm comes up when the program is curtailed, whatever hapless leader (mil or civ) who is forced to go on 60 Minutes to explain what things didn't go as planned has some small amount of maneuvering room by being able to say we achieved some of our objectives, just not all and it just cost too much. Somebody put the screws to the F-22 and we only bought 187 of planned 650 buy, somebody can do the same thing here.

This is bullshit... Beer-delivery drone grounded by FAA

More good news https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2ef94297330d

Return to course... Another screed from Mr. Farley... https://medium.com/war-is-boring/1a7733c66b52 Not that you should judge someone before you meet them but looking at his bio, he appears to have no real experience actually in the military, seems like a cheerleader/groupie. To have an iota of legitimacy on advocating for a MASSIVE shift in the Defense structure of the US, you have to have some real world experience. Reading a lot of Stephen Ambrose books does not count. Serving in some capacity, at a significant level to see the nuances, the strengths and the weaknesses of the culture and outlook of each of the branches is just a requirement.

More anti AF propoganda and the main "intellectual" behind this... Robert Farley http://prospect.org/article/abolish-air-force http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140574/robert-farley/ground-the-air-force Pretty much his blather boils down since Strategic Air Power by itself didn't win the wars outright, it's all bullshit... therefore the Army is the only one who did anything in WWII and beyond, except Gulf War I, Allied Force, El Dorado Canyon, The Drone Wars, etc... This DB should expand his poor military history scope to oh let's say Israel vs. everybody in the Middle East and ask them if the Air Force is really not that important...

Just adding this little gem... C-27J getting mothballed in 2013 after being delivered in 2008, because that made sense... but with the recent news hopefully it's getting pulled out (sts) soon...

There's a good bit of risk but some of their CD products are FDIC insured. The main worry I see is the exchange rate, that is these countries like to inflate their currencies when they get into trouble; the high yield on the CD would be minus the inflation rate of the currency + change (+ or -) in value against the dollar + transaction fees. Looking into this, it seems longer term than I thought, people seem to keep the CDs for several rollovers and cash out when the time is right (currency strong against the dollar or at least stronger). Seems reasonable enough but I've just been thinking about it, looking for higher yield is great but the loss in potential return for keeping cash liquid is an insurance premium until things stabilize.

Restless natives.

On the subject of looking for greater rates of return on cash savings, I've thought about trying foreign currency CDs with Everbank Higher rates of return and diversification beyond the dollar but haven't pulled the trigger yet. Some currencies like the Indian Rupee can yield 6.25% for a 3 month CD but that yield come with a just a bit of risk.

Another couple of critiques of the JSF / F-35 program https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ddccb57f0e43 http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1225/RAND_MG1225.pdf