Posted on 06/05/2008 10:38:22 AM PDT by PurpleMan
The military and civilian chiefs of the Air Force are resigning, U.S. officials said Thursday.
Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne to step
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Missed it further down on the “Latest”
Apologies.
It’s probably more about the Air Force wanting to acquire the F22 in larger numbers...
It probably has more to do with the USAF not wanting to contribute anything near their fair share to the war effort.
I hope this isn’t related to the awarding of the new tanker contract to Northrup-Grumman/EADS and not to Boeing.
Looks like these two disagreed with the Iran bombing plans. Your outa here!
and the mistaken shipment of triggers to Taiwan.
Reminds me of the time a FSN got mixed up and resulted in shipping a CVN anchor to Ft Carson CO.
that is exactly why...and it is about damn time, too...we got troops on the ground 24/7, and this elitist pompous ass says having guys here in the u.s. controling drones in iraq is too stressful on his guys....what a blithering idiot..don’t let the door hit ya dude
Seems as though the Air Force has had its’ collective head handed to it. Gates isn’t one to be messed with, and when the AF guys didn’t change anything in its’ operations, Gates changed it for them. This could get interesting as time goes along. IMHO, this was way overdue.
There is a huge fight quietly underway about the future of manned tactical A/C.
One one side, you have the folks who say you can pull 20g, need no HVAC, SAR ,etc. with the man out.
As soon as you have an A/C pulling 20g vs. one with a pilot that can pull 9g max, it's all over for the guy in the manned A/C. In addition, the best performances of “piloting” the drones armed with Hellfire missiles have come. not from the classic pilots, but the B/Ns with a history of playing a lot of computer games!
On the other side, the old hands say there is nothing like a pilot in the cockpit to make decisions, evaluate, etc.
Doubtful. Sounds more like irreconcilable differences over larger policy/strategy issues.
If I had to guess, it's resistance to some sort of proposed change in mission capabilities and/or force structure.
One possibility: the USAF has been dragged over the coals for its poor performance in managing and fielding high-dollar space programs. Could be that Gates is looking at giving some of those programs away to some other organization....
Well this will have all the moonbats saying that it’s a divergence of views about bombing Iran — ooooooooohhhhhh — probably much more likely it’s conflict over what Gates said in April, demanding much more effort on UAVs and battlefield support in Iraq and Afghanistan, and AF brass did not like it.... probably built up over a long time and it’s come to a head in the past few months..... just my 2 cents worth of guesswork.
Countdown to the publication of the tell-all books...
(Probably not so much from the General as the Sec’y-AF)
Looks like these two disagreed with the Iran bombing plans. Your outa here!
Even during WWII, there were generals and admirals who were too afraid to fight. I recall a fascinating account in the weeks before the D-Day invasion of Europe, of a general who complained to Eisenhower that the plans would lead to catastrophe and unacceptable losses.
Mind you, this is after years of planning, with just weeks to go for the launch, and this guy speaks up. Well, Eishenhower did not blow him off. Instead, with the general’s concerns foremost in his mind, Eisenhower spent three whole days reviewing everything. This showed he was willing to listen and even take the critic’s point of view. After those three days, he wrote the general back saying that after he had completely reviewed the plans, and had to disagree with the good general. That is just incredible leadership as far as I’m concerned.
Hopefully, Gates learned from Eisenhower.
Doubtful. Probably this.
Air Force Wing In Nuclear Goof In Has Trouble
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/30/nuclear.mistake.inspection.ap/
I'm thinking these firings/resignations have more to do with what is talked about in this biased editorial from the "Army Times".
Well, OK .... and the reason why an M1-A1 Abrams is called a "tank" is because, back in WWI, they were shipped over to France in containers labeled "Water Tanks."
IMO, the neither the shipment of triggers, nor the subsequent reports of the incident, were accidental.
Exactly my take on it. Anyone who thinks the Air Force, of all services, would object to bombing somewhere—anywhere!—truly does not understand the mentalities involved here.
The UAV debate is a big deal. It’s been going on for a while now, and, speaking from my own experience as a ground pounder, the Air Force is smoking crack if they think UAV ISR assets will be better serving other ground pounders if the AF is controlling them, rather than a trained E7 in the BDE TOC.
I’m all for the next-gen fighters, etc, but the AF needs to wake up and smell the modular unit concepts.
IMHO: When you are entrusted with the safeguarding of a nuclear weapons stickpile and your command and control structure fails miserable at that, I doubt that that reason you are fired is because of something to do with the election.
Well, that's the Air Force for you. There's not much love here in the Army for the Air Force.
Huh? How about corruption in doling out contracts? Over and over again. The nuke stuff certainly has played a part, but there’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye. (did I post the wrong article link or something?)
Oh, I’d say it’s numerous things that have added up in Gates’ Air Force oh-crap score book. The lobbying for more F22s behind the SECDEF back. Them not meeting the demands for UAVs flying over Iraq. A two-star general not following contract procedures that supply the Air Force flying demonstration team. And the highly publicized loss of accountability of nukes from Minot AFB.
Ouch.
Maybe it a battle of Manned vs. UAV for this Platform.
It’s been my impression that the Air Force is sort of like Club Med.
A ton of frat going on between enlisted and officers, enlisted and senior enlisted.
I suspect you're right, but remember that the Army, Navy, and Air Force Times are all written by the same folks, Gannett (USA Today) and their bias is decidedly anti-military. In this case, it looks like the Air Force had it coming - perhaps they need to retire their foot-seeking missle.
If anything, AF should be ripped on the process used to award tanker contract - whether it's the right AC or not aside and benefits to Alabama aside (?) the award was a foregone conclusion.
That said, AF has always believed itself to be above the herd and has always been dominated by techies, nukes, and fighter pilots. I can easily imagine them dragging their feet on non piloted platforms that mere ground pounders would control.
The U.S. landed 6 Army/Marine divisions in all of Normandy on D-Day, 1944. The Germans had more than 44 Wehrmacht and Panzer armored divisions for the defense.
Traditional military thought was that we'd be slaughtered.
So, you think having more troops in the AOR...and all of the support they need...is a good idea?
Where did you get that impression?
I tell ya what, for a place that is supposed to support the troops, there seems to be a lot of slamming the USAF here lately. Yeah, it's the Chair Force, Zoomies, Club Med...ha ha...
There's no sense in me writing any more. Note to self: stay off of these threads.
That's a very interesting observation! Mind games with the commies? It would be wonderful if it were true. LOL
Safe to say.
The Air Force was told to get the drones up and running in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2 years now but it’s been like pulling teeth in getting it going. The Air Force has purposely tried to distance themselves from these combat situations because they might miss the next air show.
“The nuke stuff certainly has played a part,”
What???
Tell me, what’s more important? Nuclear weapons security (or gross lack thereof) or a stupid audio/visual contract worth $50 million?
Well said.
i do not understand your question, please elaborate...
Reality is we need both - And there is room from both - Another reality is....when your as$ is on the ground and you have to call in for a drop danger-close.......you want it from human eyes from a pilot above, I'll tell you that......not eyes from thousands of miles away looking through a straw-size hole...with even less SA...(of course if that is all you have as an option, if the sh*t is flying enough....you'll take it and wish for the best).
The old hands said the battleship was invincible, too.
If your guess is right, it's high time - we really can't afford to waste any more money on manned aircraft.
There are Air Force guys on the ground in Iraq, wearing ACUs (or their equivalent), in armored Humvees, pulling patrol duty in the streets.
I wonder if those that resigned are Carter and/or Clinton appointees.
Gates hit the decks running and firing and pushing the surge.
Gates appears to be a friend of McCain and vice versa.
What Gates may be doing is getting the Pentagon running how McCain and his think tanks feel it should be to win the WOT.
a small part of me hopes it was because of the stupid “over all” slogan they stole from the nazis and that some army officers were going to be asked to resign for “army strong” and “army of one” next.
B3?
Got more on that?
Whoa. You seem to need an education. Service secretaries are political appointees in this case Wynne is by Bush and serves at his pleasure or until the administration is over.
Service Chiefs are selected by POTUS whenever there is a “need” (term expires, retirement, death, resignation)
Carter was POTUS 30 years ago and the Clinton Presidential era ended 8 years ago. Neither one was involved.
Even less for the Navy. Having an admiral running the wars in Afganistan and Iraq just about caused some generals' heads to explode. They finally got their guy, Petraeus, to head up CENTCOM. It took much effort to get rid of the Navy guy.
Well thanks for the education.
When the Navy decided to kick the signoff on reqs up a level we considered doing something similar. Our chief always questioned every part we ordered. In wasn’t unusual for a module to cost thousands. A pickup truck in those days was a rather cheap $1,500. The lieutenant who took over the signoff chores never asked a question.
Would it be too much for someone in the supply chain to wonder why a DDG needed a pickup truck?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.