Majestik Møøse

Utterly invalid point that assumes aircraft development is linear. These planes have been around for a long time for good reason. Operationally, the KC-46 will be more or less identical to the KC-135. It will carry marginally more gas, burn a bit less, and be able to get a little closer to a threat. All for the low price of $250m each. The KC-135 has been around so long because it works fine. A tanker doesn't need to be cosmic. The U-2 argument is shit because they were redesigned and built new in the 80s. The S-model today has a F-118, the cockpit is all glass, and the sensors are the illest shit around. The "newer" HAISR platform that the USAF spent the taxpayer's hard-earned money on is inferior in nearly every measurable category. The Buff can still end the world at a moment's notice better than it ever could, so there's never been much incentive to get new ones. Even after we buy $60B worth of LRS-Bs, we're still keeping the Buffs anyway. Did the chief mention that part? Edit: TLDR: The B-17 was inferior within 10 years of its first flight. The 3 aircraft above are still relevant and their replacements will either be similar in capes, a newer version of the same design, or not even required.

As a flyer, I would prefer that ABU wearers had patches so I could tell where they worked. About the only enlisted badges I recognize are MX and ATC.

Huh. That trick actually works? I always figured the ABU wearers found it condescending, like when presidential candidates roll up their sleeves while visiting factories.

Force dudes to go fly preds and no one wants to go. But offer a $200k/yr contract job and people will volunteer in droves. It's all about choice; no one wants to feel trapped.

Yep. He lost me at "Claim 1". Not sure how how he couldn't have heard of the oil boom up there, so he's either poorly informed or hiding facts to make his argument better.

"It doesnt carry any short-range, dogfighting missiles like the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder when its in a stealthy configuration." Wait, what?

I was under the impression that the 3d system is used because it's cheaper.

Back to shiny aluminum jets, then! Or a million little DLP mirrors to redirect the energy right back to its source.

Considering this combination of wing, fuselage, and avionics has never been airborne before, I'd say there's enough reason to warrant a measured approach to flying it.

Or why don't we just keep flying hawgs.

Rolling over like that is totally not cool.

Fuckin A, Mr. Rogers.

Dude are you having a stroke?

Written by the same guy who advised the use of the term "PMV-4" instead of "car". We're really swimming in "technical correctness" and hyper-inclusiveness these days.

I think there is a problem, in some corners of the Air Force, that everyone has become so busy supporting the bureaucracy that the proper time can't be given to brainstorming sessions and idea development. Guys are treading water in the office while min-running mission knowledge. The only active idea soliciting going on is the "anybody got anything for me" part of the weekly CC call. Guys may have good ideas or bad ones, but they'll never be asked in the first place. Fixing tactical problems is priority #22 in a lot of places. Leading an open, honest, and non-retributional "bitches/gripes/complaints" session once every couple of weeks might help open things up a bit.

Billy Mitchell was court martialed for criticizing superiors.

It's hard to know if you're being serious. Either way, this is a great example of the mentality that has turned the AF into a career advancement exercise for bureaucrats.

Any of the aforementioned names are great examples for why no one should've stopped working on their masters.

The Air Force tends to organize itself to fight the most difficult war scenarios it can imagine. In the 60s it was poised to fight global nuclear war. In the 80s it was positioned to halt the Soviet advance across the Fulda Gap. Today, we're most concerned with an Air-Sea battle against China. The problem is, though all those scenarios are extremely difficult, none of them are very likely. The most likely wars, like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq 2.0 & 2.5, are the ones that tend to expose our shortcomings. Maybe the A-10 wouldn't be very survivable against China or Russia. But it sure would be useful against every other enemy we're facing now and in the future.

Well they're already used to riding in shipping containers. Make sure to drill a few holes in it first.

What will the future be like though? A shit ton of dudes just punched, so I think the promotion chances are looking better for everybody.

Lots of discussion about tanker winglets here: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/116204/

Put a wheel on the boom! It would've been cheaper than changing the fuselage.

Fucking heinous waste of money, on top of being discriminatory. "Hey can I be a part of this record flight?" "No, you're a man!"

It's too late, we're already outspending ourselves.