Comments on: AF Problems Deep-seated, Says Senior Senator

By: cheap rappelz rupees

cheap rappelz rupees — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:46:38 +0000

And I apply a new number, I prepared to play with her, upgrade and earn cheap rappelz rupees together. I felt she is a good girl, I decided I must change myself for her. Later, we often played together, and we are very happy. She also became my wife. But after a few time, I met many things, I was very sad, and I did not spent a long time to play the game. I did not often to play with her. Finally, I said to her, I will leave the game. I let her find another husband. She was very sad, when I left the game, she also left.

By: cheap rf gold

cheap rf gold — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:41:51 +0000

During the time pass, my union was larger; my union members are very solidarity, when some people have difficult, we all go to help. I also remembered once a people

By: cheap gw gold

cheap gw gold — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:34:46 +0000

Together and he is not a very long time, but I feel very comfortable. He was sometime as a child, lovely, simple, not too many worries, likes a fish in a pure travel freely in the sea. He often took his only cheap GW gold send to me. His world simple, but he is happy.

By: pleuris

pleuris — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:07:27 +0000

I totally agree with you Anon. I cannot speak for the USAF because I am ex Dutch airforce (RNLAF), but I recognize the situation you point out, so it makes sence to me. Same problem in the Dutch airforce. In my opinion Leaders must by picked by leadership and management skills, not that they piloted an aircraft in their carreer.

By: Hooded swan

Hooded swan — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:58:48 +0000

Would be hard put to cite a source, but there was a proposal many years ago to swap responsibility for Patriots & A-10s. The reasoning at the time was that Patriots & fighters operate in the same airspace on the same air defense mission.
Maybe there’s an opportunity to revive this idea. BMD doesn’t have much to do with most of what the Army does. It would be interesting to see what the Army would do if they could freely choose between rotary & fixed wing birds (and without the budget limitations the Marines work under)

By: KragCulloden

KragCulloden — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:56:14 +0000

RE: “You can’t give the Army A-10s…“
Yes, you can. Its called joint training. It already happens for arty and armor officers of both the USA and USMC, it can work with pilots as well (it may already be in effect for some pilots for all I know).
The USA could send pilot trainees through USMC, USN, or USAF pilot pipelines for the mechanics of flight. Ditto with A&P, ordnance handlers, and other maintainers. However, their professional training would come from Army schooling, which is where the major change from the present would occur. They would be *Army* pilots supporting Army troops, which is a hell of a lot different than USAF flyboys “deigning” to help out the Army “dogs”. Institutional focus and memory MATTER.

By: C4Casey

C4Casey — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 18:34:55 +0000

You can’t just “give the A-10 to the Army” because: 1) The A-10 wasn’t designed to do just CAS. It was specifically built to defeat enemy armored units, a job it did extremely well in the first Persian Gulf War as well as the conventional fazes of the current Iraq and Afghan wars. These missions were done behind the front lines, and did not involve the CAS mission.
2) The training path a pilot goes through to become an A-10 pilot is the same as all fighter pilots. They start out flying T-6’s, advance to the T-38, and then to the A-10. The A-10 has fighter-jet manueverablity and performance, and requires fighter-pilot training. Obviously, the Army has no fighter-pilot training. To ask the Army to adopt the A-10 would also be asking it to adopt the T-6 and T-38 as well, along with a completely unfamiliar training routine. Giving the A-10 to the Army just doesn’t make sense from a pure training standpoint.

By: Nobody Important

Nobody Important — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:40:50 +0000

Tremendously interesting story. I’m guessing that if there is a subtext here, it is Iran, not the F-22. Based on gossip and rumors on the ever reliable Internets, the Air Force was the only service enthusiastic about a new war. This may or may not be true, but it resonates with Gate’s speech about “Next-War-itis”. This shake-up can be read as Gates giving the AF a slap upside the head to remind them they have more important things to worry about than Iran. Like their own nukes. And the wars they are currently waging. And the abysmal procurement system.
If so, then it signals Gates has no intention of attacking Iran. At least in no more than a symbolic manner, like firing a couple of Tomahawks at empty training camps.
Admittedly, this is speculation built on rumor. I’d like to hear what better informed readers think.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:29:27 +0000

I wouldn’t take too much of what Sessions says as altruistic and “wanting to do the right thing.” He wants to do the right thing for the Army and if that means gutting the Air Force then so be it. Not denying that the AF has serious problems but Sessions is just as, if not more, opportunistic as other politicians.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:04:19 +0000

The problem with the Air Force is that we (yes, I’m in the USAF) allow the “truck drivers” to run the show. Look at any other similar operation and “operations” is dispatch and maintenance. The drivers are there to drive.
Too many pilots think they are leaders because they know where to point the nose of an airplane.