Re: Moving beyond the F-22
How is it a good idea to stop production of the best fighter ever produced? Time and time again it seems we don't learn from mistakes. After WWII everyone thought future wars would be fought with nuclear weapons. But they weren't, they were fought with conventional weapons. Experts thought it was a good idea to build a jet without a gun because the future of dogfighting would be with missiles. And, as we all know, later models of the F-4 Phantom II had a gun installed internally because the missiles weren't as effective as they were expected to be. Right now there is this idea that all future conflicts will be low-intensity counterinsurgency operations. However, if you look at Israel's fight with Hamas in 2006, you can see that not all wars of today are fought with hit and run tactics. Hamas dug in and fought back wreaking havoc on Israeli armor.
What this shows is that you need to have the best weapons available and enough of them to overwhelm the enemy. We can have all the Predators and Reapers in the world, but who thinks that these would be useful in a potential battle with China or Russia? The only thing that will save us is versatility, the ability to fight anywhere at anytime. Whether that means having the most dominant air-to-air fighter possible, a ground attack jet, or a bomber that will destroy the forces opposing our forces. Being ready for one kind of fight and ignoring the other potential ones will set us all up for spectacular failure.
Staff Sgt. Matthew Leopardi
Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
4/14/2009
Re: Moving beyond the F-22
There is much talk of shrinking Air Force and DOD budgets. From this talk came the familiar but faulty dilemma which dictates we can afford either this or that weapons system, but not both. Rubbish. The first duty and responsibility of government and the Commander in Chief is to provide for the national defense of the people. Everything else, including health care and the environmental myths, is secondary.
In truth, we need the F-22 and the F-35 in numbers more than equal to the current and future threats. Four hundred F-22 aircraft is a good start with an option to buy more. Overall, we need all the weapons systems necessary to give us overwhelming military might on land, air, sea, and in space. The President must provide these weapons systems in their fullest measure. Anything less is a dereliction of duty. When our national security is assured, then we can allocate our remaining resources as needed, realistically and not politically.
Lt . Col. (Ret.) Thomas F. Fitzpatrick
Warrensburg, Mo.
4/14/2009
Re: Moving beyond the F-22
We are all taught that when given an order we don't agree with, and that doesn't break the law, we can raise our objections in private but we are still expected to carry out the order to the best of our abilities. This has not been the case with previous leaders when the issue was the F-22. I have to applaud and salute Secretary Donley and General Schwartz for doing what has failed to be done for several years; explaining the reasoning behind wanting more F-22s, and taking a clear stand to support our current elected/appointed officials.
While the decision to end production is not a popular one, as an Air Force we have to stop the “taking it to the streets” campaign that sustaining the F-22 has blossomed into. While they may disagree with the decision, that is not for us to know. What’s important is that we “…obey the orders of…those appointed over us.” We have spent too much time and effort arguing and debating the want for more F-22s, and what has it brought us? In an effort to purchase more aircraft we cut our manpower to the bone, introduced “consolidation” programs that put more administrative tasks on each Airman, and have made the Raptor program synonymous with stubbornness.
Senior Master Sgt. John J. Lysaght
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
4/14/2009
Re: Moving beyond the F-22
We never learn. China and Russia will surpass us and we will be short.
Lt. Col. (Ret.) Boyd Yaden
Clackamas, Ore.
4/14/2009
Comment: Moving beyond the F-22
Cutting the F-22 was the right decision to make at this time. Money is needed in other programs and, in my opinion, we have plenty of F-22s to do the job. Besides, the Air Force needs a new tanker now! When was the last time an F-22 shot an aircraft down?! Tankers are in the fight 24/7 delivering gas to those that need it. Let's make the right decision this time without the politics! View story
Chief Master Sgt. Michael Belanger
Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.
4/14/2009
Comment: Officials say cyber defense costly
The article certainly raises the point as to how important network security is to the mission, but more work is necessary. Within the Air Force alone, there are numerous applications operating that have not been formally tested by software engineers with expertise in security vulnerabilities. Recently, while using the AF ADLS application I was able to get into another user’s account and could make changes to their info. I immediately contacted the ADLS help desk, and proceeded to ask questions to the technician as to why this was allowed, whether the application was tested for this vulnerability and certified to be on the AF network. I then followed up with my local Privacy Act representative to report the incident. They assured me that the problem was resolved, but I never received an official reply from ADLS addressing my concerns. Afterwards, I researched AFI33-210 and, based on the information in this AFI, this application may not meet the guidelines outlined for AF certifications and accreditation.
With my SSN being used as a primary key for authentication, you can imagine I’m a little concerned. If the AF continues to impose rigid testing and certification requirements on all applications in operation, our IT infrastructure will be robust. This article highlights the importance of IT security, but action at the execution level is vital. IT developers and program managers must take these threats serious and follow the IT Lean and the Security, Interoperability, Supportability, Sustainability, and Usability SISSU checklist in the Enterprise Information Technology Data Repository EITDR. View story
Anthony Daniel
Prattville, Ala.
4/14/2009
Comment: Airmen make pledge to prevent sexual assaults
I think this should be done when they become military members. There should not be any second chances here. View story
Staff Sgt. (Ret.) Dwayne Ford
Panama City, Fla.
4/13/2009
Comment: Memorial service honors fallen team leader
Phil Meyers was an outstanding EOD team leader who will be missed by all his brothers. I had the honor of serving with Phil in combat, and he was as solid an operator as you could find. My sympathies go out to Phil's family and to Lakenheath EOD for their loss. View story
Tech. Sgt. John P. McCoy
Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, Md.
4/10/2009
Re: Heritage Coat production
I am encouraged to see that the Air Force is finally taking cost seriously into consideration with uniform changes. As a National Guard officer, who does not receive a clothing allowance to defray the cost of uniform items, not having to make changes for purely fashionable reasons is welcomed. The cost for “optional” items, such as outdoor wear (ABU Gore-tex $270, lightweight jacket $90, running suit $98), is already out of control and excessively exceeds the price point for items of similar design and quality.
Additionally, all previous proposals on the Uniform Board portal site show the new female Heritage Coat paired with a dismaying man's tie requiring modified blouses, which are additional excessive expenses that provide no increased functionality and little value to the individual servicemember for the excessive price tag attached.
Capt. Toni Gray
Sacramento, Calif.
4/10/2009
Re: Heritage Coat production
I only have one question------WHY????
Master Sgt. Mike Rafter
Los Angeles, Calif.
4/10/2009
|
