The Latest Installment of My Favorite Soap Opera (Of Late)

We've been watching and reporting on the debate over the F-22 for quite a while now… even though we pointedly ignored the WaPo article referenced and linked in one of the following paragraphs… said paragraphs taken from today's (07/13/2009) AFA Daily Report.

Chicago Rules: Have you noticed the strangely heavy outbreak of bad F-22 news recently? The timing is convenient for F-22 foes; they face a do-or-die Senate vote this week, so any negativity is welcome. The bad news started Thursday, when USMC Gen. James Cartwright, JCS vice chairman, told a Senate panel about a new Joint Staff-led study—heretofore unknown—validating DOD's plan for 187 F-22s (not 243, USAF's requirement). Next came a punch from US theater commanders; as General Cartwright told it, they didn't want more F-22s as much as they wanted more EW versions of the Navy F/A-18. On Friday came a tiresome Washington Post gut job, titled, "Premier US Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings" (more on which below.) Among the story's sources: "confidential Pentagon test results," "Pentagon officials," "internal [Pentagon] documents," "The Defense Department," "a Defense Department critic of the plane," "other skeptics inside the Pentagon," "Pentagon audits," "two Defense officials with access to internal reports." Hmmm. Do you think DOD might have planted this story? Others have watched this spectacle and drawn their own conclusions. Weekly Standard blogger Michael Goldfarb on Friday posted a story noting how Pentagon leaders have been spanked by Congress on the F-22 recently. "So what does the White House do?" asked Goldfarb. "It goes on offense." It's what happens when you are not winning the argument on the merits.

The F-22, Bagel and a Smear: The Washington Post's putative exposé of the F-22 and all its shortcomings, printed on its front page Friday (and picked up as gospel by various wires and blogs over the weekend), was riddled with inaccuracies, according to the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, and our own investigation. The Post said only 55 percent of the F-22 fleet is available for missions "guarding US airspace," but as we reported recently, the F-22's combat air forces mission capable rates have been climbing slowly but steadily, and inlate June stood at 62.9 percent, according to Air Combat Command. On Friday, Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-22, said in a statement that the MC rate "has improved from 62 percent to 68 percent from 2004-2009 and we are on track to achieve an 85 percent MCR by the time the fleet reaches maturity," or 100,000 hours, which should take place next year. The company also said that the mean time between maintenance—the number of hours an F-22 flies before it needs service—rose from 0.97 hours in 2004 to 3.22 hours in Lot 6 aircraft. The Post claimed a figure of 1.7 hours. Direct maintenance man-hours per flying hour have dropped from 18.1 in 2008 to 10.46 in 2009, "which exceeds the requirement of 12," the company added. The Post used out of date figures from 2004-2008 when the rates were higher because the F-22 was a new system. The Post also trotted out the old school criticism of stealth that it is somehow "vulnerable to rain," but the company noted that the F-22 is "an all-weather fighter and has been exposed to the harshest climates in the world—ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida and Guam—and performed magnificently." The information quoted by the Post "is incorrect," the company said flatly. While the Post led its piece saying that the F-22 costs more to fly per hour than the F-15 it replaces, it didn't say whether it had factored inflation or fuel prices into that cost and neglected to point out that the F-15 has no stealth coatings to maintain. An Air Force public affairs spokeswoman said the Post did not contact the service for comment on the story before publication. The F-22 passed Follow-On Test and Evaluation Testing in 2005, and in FOT&E II, in 2007, USAF's test and evaluation outfit rated the F-22 "effective, suitable, and mission capable," despite the Post's claims that it "flunked" those evaluations. The Post attributed most of its information to unnamed Defense Department sources.

(Partial caption to the photo at left, above: "Here, four F-22 Raptor aircraft, assigned to the 90th Fighter Squadron, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, fly over Andersen AFB, Guam, May 13, 2009. The F-22s, deployed here as part of the 525th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, are supporting Pacific Command's latest theater security package rotation." [US Air Force photo by SrA. Christopher Bush])

And the Air Force's Take: The Air Force also objected to the Washington Post's loose interpretation of F-22 statistics, and the paper's portrait of the fighter as overly expensive, unreliable, and ineffective (see above). Generally, according to USAF's analysis of the article, the Post either used outdated data or exaggerated problems that have long since been corrected. The Post quoted a variety of F-22 glitches from Government Accountability Office reports issued seven years ago, when the F-22 was still in development. In a four-page rebuttal provided to the Daily Report of 23 claims the Post made in its hatchet job on the F-22, the Air Force dismissed the Post's claim that the F-22's stealthy skin maintenance issues are somehow due to rain, and the service said that the Post was wrong in saying the trend is that F-22 has gotten harder and more costly to maintain. "Not true," the service said. The rates "have been improving." The Air Force said the Raptor's cost per flying hour is not much greater than that of the F-15—$19,750 vs. $17,465—and the F-22 is a far more powerful and capable machine. The Post had claimed a cost of more than $40,000 per flying hour. Likewise, whereas the Post claimed the fleet had to be retrofitted due to "structural problems," this claim is "misleading," USAF said. Lessons learned from a static test model were applied to production of new aircraft and retrofitted to earlier aircraft; a normal part of the testing and development process. One problem the Air Force owned up to: The F-22 canopy's stealth coatings last only about half as long as they're supposed to. The service said the program has put some fixes into play and "coating life continues to improve." The Air Force also confirmed Lockheed's contention that the mission capable rate had risen over the years to 68 percent fleetwide today.

I find the title to the first item above… and the narrative therein… to be both interesting and appropriate, given the administration's geographical origins and political methods. This isn't the first time Obamanauts have either made up their own facts or taken things out of context to further their objectives, no?

And about that WaPo article… While I pointedly ignored it when it was published last week, our favorite former fighter pilot did NOT ignore the smear. Lex published a damned good and rather extensive essay on the F-22 last week… written with and from a fighter pilot's perspective… and he takes serious issue with both the Post and other critics of the F-22. His conclusion:

Tremendous maneuver advantages accrue to those that can sweep the air above a battlefield, and the F-22 does so better than any other design. One hundred and eighty seven is, however, too few to do so persistently in an away game.

Read the whole thing. The comments, too. They… the commentariat… are always interesting and informed over there.

All Raptors, All the Time...

In re: the post title. It only seems that way, Gentle Reader. Soon it will be "All Hockey, All the Time." But... that said... This is kinda interesting. From the Tuesday edition of the Air Force Association’s Daily Report:

Raptor Cutoff: Production of the F-22 fighter will end at 187 aircraft if Defense Secretary Robert Gates has his way. Gates announced the decision in a round-up of Fiscal 2010 budget moves at a Pentagon press conference Monday. The F-22 buy "completes" the program at the 183 level set for it in 2005, plus four more added by Congress, Gates said, adding that "there is no military requirement for more." He later said that the Air Force told him that no more were needed, which is surprising because the service has been strongly promoting its need for more F-22s and unofficially quoting 60 as the number. Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has said USAF needs 60 more F-22s. Although he did not elaborate on his decision yesterday, Gates has previously criticized the F-22 as being an overly powerful machine that has been unnecessary in Iraq or Afghanistan. Gates has also asserted that the US is "dominant" in airpower. Speaking broadly about the budget—but apparently reflecting on the F-22's superiority to similar foreign fighters now presumed to be on the drawing board—Gates said "our conventional modernization goals should be tied to the actual and prospective capabilities of known future adversaries, not by what might be technologically possible for a potential adversary given unlimited time and resources." In another veiled reference to the F-22, Gates said, "Every dollar spent to over-insure against a remote or diminishing risk—or, in effect, to 'run up the score' in a capability where the United States is already dominant—is a dollar not available" for care of troops or to "win the wars we are in." The Air Force did not provide a response when asked if its official military advice to Gates was that more F-22s are unnecessary. (Gates remarks as prepared for delivery; briefing Q&A) (From Monday's Daily Report: The Air Force Cut List)

And on the same subject… here’s a blurb from today’s Daily Report:

Where's the Beef?: We've asked the Air Force for an unambiguous confirmation that its senior leadership recommended no further F-22s are needed, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday. Gates told a Pentagon press conference that "the military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement" beyond 187 F-22s, and when asked about the Air Force's position, he replied, "that was their advice as well." The Air Force's response to our query wasn't exactly on point. A USAF spokesman said, "The Air Force supports the holistic, strategic approach to next year's budget adopted by the Administration and the Secretary of Defense, and we will continue to provide our best military advice to DOD and Congress as they propose and approve a Fiscal 2010 budget. As a service, we understand the need to balance current and future requirements and to exercise fiscal discipline. We're ready to move forward with the guidance Secretary Gates has provided to make the most of the resources we're given and to work as a member of the joint team in accomplishing our nation's military objectives." We'll keep working on them for a direct answer.

God Save Us. Even the frickin’ military has gone PC these days. Even though it IS part of the culture to salute smartly and execute the order… even if you disagree with said order… there isn’t anything in the culture that prevents you from giving a direct answer to a direct question. Or there didn’t used to be, anyway.

―:☺:―

Speaking of Our Man Gates… he did an extensive interview on The News Hour last evening, and here he is holding forth on the F-22:

ROBERT GATES: I think what we're trying to do is not reduce emphasis on conventional warfare, but be more selective about the weapons systems that we fund to fight that kind of a fight. I'm not cutting the F-22; I'm not recommending the F-22; I'm simply recommending that the program set in 2005 was to build 183 of these aircrafts. I'm simply saying, let's finish that program and then let's focus on buying large numbers of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35, which has 10- to 15-year newer technology, has some capabilities that the F-22 doesn't have.

The F-22 is a great airplane, all you have to do is ask the pilots who fly it, but - and it will remain in the inventory, but there is no military requirement for more than 183 of them, 187 with those that are in the supplemental. So we're doing that, we're building additional ships, we're doing more in the way of theater and tactical ballistic-missile defense. We're converting more ships to have ballistic-missile defense that would help against China. So I think there's kind of a misunderstanding of exactly what it is we're trying to do here. We're trying to be more selective about systems that actually work and that can be delivered in a reasonable period of time than some of these exotic systems.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But by ending production in - down the road, of the F-22 Raptor, I'm already reading that shutting it down is going to mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. Was that something that weighed on you as you made that decision?

ROBERT GATES: Well, we can't be oblivious to the impact that these decisions have on people, but the information that's available to us shows that the direct employment of the F-22 will go from about 32,000 in - I'm sorry, from about 24,000 this year to about 11,000 in 2011. But Joint Strike Fighter will go from 38,000 people working this year to 82,000 people that work on that plane in direct support in 2011. So there are puts and takes. I think we've done a good job of taking care of the industrial base in the shipyards and the workers there in the decisions on the shipbuilding.

So we're not oblivious to the employment aspects, but to be perfectly honest, there isn't a single defense program anywhere, procurement program, that doesn't have an impact in somebody's hometown and somebody's state. And so if you're going to bring any discipline to the Defense Department budget, if you're going to try and make any selectivity, have any selectivity in terms of what you fund and don't fund, it will have an impact somewhere.

That’s just a little disingenuous… the bit about finishing the program as it was approved in 2005. The Air Force originally requested approximately 700 F-22s, back when the program was in its infancy… with the full realization that it would never be able to get that many. The F-22 is generally viewed as the follow-on replacement for the F-15, which has been in service since 1975. The Air Force operates 522 Eagles. Here’s a little blurb from Global Security.org on the subject of numbers:

A Joint Estimate Team was chartered in June 1996 to review the F-22 program cost and schedule. JET concluded that the F-22 engineering and manufacturing development program would require additional time and funding to reduce risk before the F-22 enters production. JET estimated that the development cost would increase by about $1.45 billion. Also, JET concluded that F-22 production cost could grow by about $13 billion (from $48 billion to $61 billion) unless offset by various cost avoidance actions. As a result of the JET review the program was restructured, requiring an additional $2.2 billion be added to the EMD budget and 12 months be added to the schedule to ensure the achievement of a producible, affordable design prior to entering production. The program restructure allowed sourcing within F-22 program funds by deleting the three pre-production aircraft and slowing the production ramp. Potential for cost growth in production was contained within current budget estimate through cost reduction initiatives formalized in a government/industry memorandum of agreement. The Defense Acquisition Board principals reviewed the restructured program strategy and on February 11, 1997 the Defense Acquisition Executive issued an Acquisition Defense Memorandum approving the strategy.

The Quadrennial Defense Review Report, which was released in mid-May 1997, reduced the F-22 overall production quantity from 438 to 339, slowed the Low Rate Initial Production ramp from 70 to 58, and reduced the maximum production rate from 48 to 36 aircraft per year.

The Air Force has maintained for years that 381 Raptors is the minimum number required to achieve the air superiority mission and has only grudgingly accepted lesser numbers. Here’s an excerpt of testimony by one Christopher Bolkcom (Specialist In National Defense, Congressional Research Service), before the Senate Armed Services Committee in July of 2006:

The number of F-22's to be purchased has fluctuated considerably over time. Originally conceived of as a 750-aircraft program, DoD’s first Selected Acquisition Report that included the F-22 (December 31, 1991), reported a 648-aircraft procurement plan. Over time, the number of F-22s that could be purchased under budget limits was reduced to 442, 440, 342, 341, 278, 279, 181, and 185 (including aircraft built with RDT&E funds). The Air Force called its attempts to purchase as many F-22's as possible under budget limits a “buy-tobudget” plan. Some criticized this approach as being inconsistent with DoD’s more traditional requirements-driven weapon system acquisition strategy.

Since 2002, Air Force leaders have consistently stated that they require 381 F-22s. Further, Air Force officials point out that this requirement has been validated by DoD.

The Air Force’s stated rational for the 381 figure has not been consistent. At times Air Force officials have argued that this figure is required to field one 24-aircraft F-22 squadron in each of the Service’s 10 Aerospace Expeditionary Forces (AEFs). Other times, the Air Force has argued that 381 was the minimum number required to address emerging “nearpeer” competitors. At still other times, Air Force leaders argued for the F-22, based on their perception of the Raptor’s potential contribution to the “global war on terrorism.” Specific F-22 missions Air Force leaders described include conducting cruise missile defense over the United States, and flying close air support (CAS) missions for small, dispersed U.S. ground forces fighting terrorists or insurgents.

It is also important to note that although DoD may support the 381-aircraft goal for the F-22 in theory, DoD has cut the F-22 program by $10.5 billion. This reduction has made the 381 requirement difficult to achieve.

The Air Force is part of the problem, obviously. It’s ludicrous to justify the F-22 as a close air support platform… and the Air Force sacrificed a good deal of its credibility by attempting to do so. But that is neither here nor there. We began with Secretary Gates’ comment about the F-22 program, “as established in 2005.” The truth is just a little bit different, no?

Of Fighters and Pig Books

Clue-free: I was watching Washington Journal this morning while making the rounds. A Mr. Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, was on…speaking about CAGW’s annual report on government waste, strangely enough. The report (The Pig Book) is smaller than usual this year, due to the moratorium on ear-marks. But…what caught my ear (remember, I’m reading at the same time and I’m male) was Mr. Schatz saying the F-22 is included in this year’s report. “We don’t need it,” sez Mr. Schatz, “because it was designed to fight the old USSR. The Cold War is over.” I go back to my reading. Then some clown calls in and I hear that “the military doesn’t even want the F-22, it’s only in the budget because of the collusion between Congress and the military-industrial complex.” Our Dear Mr. Schatz nods sagely up and down and lets the clown prattle on without correcting the many errors in fact the idiot was making.

I grabbed the remote and changed over to the WX Channel.

So. I got curious later and went looking for source documentation on this F-22 thingie at CAGW’s web site. Here’s what the Pig Book says about the F-22:

$1,190,000,000 for full funding of 20 F-22A fighter jets; this barrel of pork is so big that Congress will not even spend it all in one year. The bill funds 20 F-22s per year until 2009. The F-22 was originally designed as an air superiority fighter for use against the Soviet Air Force. Before Congress put the ink on the check, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sent a 13-page letter on June 20, 2006 to then-House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young urging Congress to stop funding this program due to its high cost and the fact that the aircraft is out of date. The GAO said, “DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program.” The GAO also noted that the F-22s “are not sufficient to be effective in the current and future national security environment.” There are 22 test F-35 aircrafts that are more modern, effective, and cheaper. In 2003, Popular Science reported the F-22 had a price tag of $120 million each while the F-35 cost $35 million. In June 2006, the GAO report raised the F-22’s numbers, concluding that the multi-year contract would drive per-plane costs up to $183 million from $166 million. The F-35 made its maiden flight in December 2006. Apparently, the F-22 will be stopped only when pigs can fly. (Emphasis mine on the dumb-ass points)

I think the Air Force might disagree with this. Maybe. Here’s Lt. Gen Ray Johns, quoted in this month’s Air Force Magazine:

Buying the new fighters is “critical,” according to Lt. Gen. Raymond E. Johns Jr., deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.

“While extending the service life of legacy aircraft meets some niche requirements,” they will find it increasingly tough to get past modern integrated air defense systems, Johns said.

“It’s critical that we keep production of our fifth generation fighters on track, ensuring sufficient quantities” to preserve the US edge in air combat, he said.

Nevertheless, there just aren’t enough F-22s or F-35s on order to meet all the Air Force’s commitments, which for the fighter force involves the ability to fight up to two nearly simultaneous major theater wars as well as ensuring sovereignty over US airspace.

[…]

The QDR also specified 183 F-22s, versus the Air Force’s long-validated requirement for 381. All agree the smaller figure was driven by monetary constraints and not by strategy.

“We still need and want 381,” Johns said, but he said the lower figure is “not ... a crisis to me” because the decision on whether to go beyond 183 will take place beyond the current planning cycle, in 2010. The Air Force succeeded in winning Congressional approval to buy the F-22 on a multiyear contract basis, getting three lots of 20 each. In Fiscal 2010, when the multiyear expires, the Air Force hopes to get approval to buy at least 20 more. The decision point will come beyond the term of the Bush Administration, which set the 183 limit.

The USAF is “extending the lives of 1980s vintage fighters” (F-15, F-16, A-10) in order to compensate for not getting the fighters we need. Some of the ‘80s fighters’ lives will be extended until 2030, making our fighter aircrews go to war in 50-year-old airframes. Now there’s a confidence-inspiring move.

I’m all for cutting real pork. But organizations such as CAGW don’t do themselves any favors, nor do they gain support, by advocating cuts in military programs when it’s patently obvious they don’t know what the Hell they’re talking about. And especially when they throw around bogus numbers to substantiate their points. Specifically: regarding the cost of the F-22 vs. the F-35:

In 2014, when production reaches about 21 airplanes per month, the F-35A will cost $48 million a copy. The F-35B and F-35C will cost $62 million and $63 million, respectively. By comparison, the Eurofighter Typhoon—probably JSF’s closest foreign competitor—costs more than $95 million and the F-22 is expected to come in at an average of about $120 million by the time production winds up in 2010.

CAGW overstates the F-22 costs and the F-35 costs are understated. But Hey! You substantiate your points however you can. Popular Science is a great authority on fighter procurement, I suppose. God only knows how much better they are than, say, USAF generals who are responsible for fighting the nation’s air wars and ensuring our front-line fighters are world-class.

(About the image: Titled "Hunters" this piece of art was created by Ken Chandler and downloaded from the official USAF web site. You can download the hi-res version of this painting here.)

Decisions, Decisions

The political war over the F-22 is heating up. From the Air Force Association’s Daily Report:

Gates Has a Big Problem: Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he has "a big problem" with the House Armed Services Committee addition of 12 F-22 Raptors to the 2010 defense budget. He told reporters at the Pentagon June 18 that the reason is "because it continues the F-22 program, which is contrary to the recommendations I made to the President." However, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), who as chairman of the committee's air and land forces panel put forth the additional Raptors, says we need them to provide "breathing room" to keep F-22 production going while debate continues on national strategy as the Pentagon works through the Quadrennial Defense Review. For Gates that debate is obviously over. In a direct slap at the professional opinion expressed recently by Air Combat Command boss Gen. John Corley that the current national military strategy requires more than 187 F-22 fighters, Gates told the reporters: "Frankly, to be blunt about it, the notion that not buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security of the United States I find completely nonsense." With that statement, Gates not only derides Corley's judgment but also that of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, who has acknowledged the fiscal constraints that make a smaller F-22 force necessary, but who has stated publicly that the current military requirement is for 243 Raptors. Asked when he would recommend a presidential veto, Gates said, "I'm not going to go that far at this point." Abercrombie, however, meeting with reporters, openly ridiculed the notion of a veto, claiming that President Obama would be uncharacteristically foolhardy to veto a defense bill over the issue of a few airplanes. Abercrombie added that, in any event, a veto would be met in a flash with an override by huge supermajorities in each chamber. (Gates press briefing transcript)

Corley's Rationale: In making his unvarnished military assessment of the high risk he sees in halting F-22 production at 187 aircraft, Air Combat Command boss Gen. John Corley upheld his sworn duty to Congress to "provide his unbiased opinion on all matters of military importance," according to a June 19 statement from ACC. It's important to note, too, that in Corley's written response to a direct request from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) about the F-22 risk factor, Corley noted that USAF leaders had asked for and received ACC views, but he also acknowledged that they and DOD leaders were faced with "tough choices … in balancing current warfighting needs against fiscal realities." That, in our view, shows integrity. Among the factors, ACC says Corley used in making his assessment were the need for homeland defense, combatant commanders' requirements, opposing air and ground threats, ongoing reductions in fighter force structure, and the rapidly aging fighter force—all part and parcel of the Defense Strategy Force Planning Construct. For Defense Secretary Robert Gates to dismiss Corley's assessment as "nonsense" is nonsensical.

Between Proverbial Rock and a Hard Place: Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz issued a joint statement last week, acknowledging that they had considered the views of Gen. John Corley, who leads Air Combat Command, on the F-22 risk factor (see above and here High Risk). The bottom line, as they have said before, is that other needs trumped continuing F-22 production beyond 187 aircraft when they had to work within a fixed budget. They said: "We assessed the F-22 by taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs within the context of available resources. After carefully considering a full range of views and alternatives, including those expressed by General Corley, we recommended to Secretary Gates that other priority Air Force programs should not be reduced in order to fund additional F-22s beyond the program of record." That, in our view, is an honest presentation of the situation and in no way denigrates Corley's military expertise.

We tend to go on about the F-22 quite a bit here at EIP.

―:☺:―

Update from Saturday: We decided on a computer, Gentle Reader, and we should have a new Gateway LX 6810-01 in our hot lil hands by the end of the week. One of the more interesting things about computer shopping is reading all the customer reviews. Someone always gets a lemon and they are NOT shy about telling the world about it… it doesn’t seem to matter what brand or model computer you look at. So… we have our fingers crossed here at El Casa Móvil De Pennington in hopes our previous good luck with computers holds. That luck has been substantial, too. We’ve bought every single one of our computers over these inter-tubes, with the exception of our first two. And the only reason we didn’t buy those online is online shopping didn’t… ummm… exist at the time.

Speaking of our first computer… it was one of these. I bought my XT in early 1986, and it was the model that did NOT come with a hard drive; it had two 5.25” floppies. I bought a 10 megabyte… yes, MEGAbyte… Seagate hard drive from a mail order firm and installed it myself. The drive only cost about 300 Yankee Dollars, if I recall correctly. The XT itself was about $1500.00, if memory serves. As far as connectivity went, I had a 9600 bps outboard modem to access BBSes and the like. You cannot imagine how impressed I was when I upgraded to a 19.2 Kbps modem. Oh, the power and the glory!

We’ve come a long way, Bay-bee. But ya know what? I miss those clickety old IBM keyboards. Those things were built to last, in addition to having the best feel of any keyboard I've ever used. They were heavy enough to have made damned good weapons, too... and I'm sure someone, somewhere, beat the snot out of another person using one. I wouldn't take odds on anyone surviving a determined attack with that keyboard.

USAF's Dark Clouds... and a Silver Lining

Both of you frequent readers know I’ve been saddened and chagrined by the negative press the Air Force has been getting in the last year or so, and a lot of that bad press was brought on by the Air Force itself. Things like mismanaging a multi-billion dollar tanker procurement, unknowingly flying “live” nuclear cruise missiles under the wings of a B-52 from North Dakota to Louisiana, and nuclear surety issues in Europe, all of which contributed to the recent firings of SecAF and USAF’s Chief of Staff. USAF is truly beginning to look like “The Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight” if you believe everything you read, and most of what you read in this space is fact, not opinion. But USAF is doing some things right.

Enter Mike Dunn, President and CEO of the Air Force Association (and a retired USAF three-star). In a relatively short piece published by the AFA yesterday, Mr. Dunn takes on the Air Force’s critics. His lede:

When a company doesn’t meet its earning numbers, it is popular to look at management for someone to blame. Over the last few weeks numerous articles and editorials have been featured in the press about the “downfall” of the US Air Force – a Service besotted with so-called systemic, cultural, leadership, ... and even moral problems. The way this story line goes is the writer bundles every perceived “wrong-doing” – often over many years – into a big package and applauds DOD leadership for firing the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff. (“Everything” being tanker selection process, nuclear issues, lack of focus on today’s war, “next war-it is,” the number of UAVs deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, officer pilots versus enlisted pilots, etc. Some media even add in the tanker lease contract, proselytizing at the Air Force Academy, sexual assaults at USAFA, and a host of others). Usually the author throws so much mud on the wall, it is difficult to refute much of what is said … and trying to point out the many inaccuracies only brings more attention to pieces which have titles like: “Clean up the Air Force.” Also, most publications limit responses to 100 words or less. And with so many items to refute, it is impossible to do so.

What follows is a point-by-point refutation of some of the criticisms leveled at the Air Force…not all, but some. Two key accusations cited in almost every negative article I’ve read lately concerns the availability of UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ever-popular whipping-boy, F-22 procurement. First, on UAVs:

Third, the supposed AF bias against UAVs is often cited as why the AF is not paying attention. Again, the facts don’t bear this out. It is important to remember that it was the AF which embraced the Predator … this after the Army refused to field it. It was the AF which modified it to add anti-icing capability so it could fly in the winter over Bosnia, the AF which modified it to carry Hellfire missiles; the AF which designed and built the distribution system to ensure the intelligence got to the warfighter; the AF which repeatedly called for increased production and a second line. Every Chief of Staff in the last 10 years has sought increased numbers of UAVs – and it was the AF which fielded both the Global Hawk and the Reaper. The AF has 88% of its UAVs deployed to the AOR … this as opposed to the Army, whose Ops concept is to organically assign them to its fighting units – only 30% of which are deployed. And … the AF has beat the DOD requirement for 21 CAPs. They now have 23 CAPs – two years ahead of schedule. [For more see: http://www.afa.org/EdOp/edop_5-6-08.asp]

And about the F-22:

Fourth, is the AF’s strong advocacy of the F-22. This is true. The Service believes that the tasks given to it by DOD requires this advanced technology. We’re heard lots about why the AF should stop buying F-22s, but nothing about DOD changing its defense strategy to reflect a different threat set in the future. In fact, an attempt to do so was non-concurred by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [see: http://www.afa.org/GatesApproves.pdf]. Moreover the critics often cite the expense of the F-22 and compare the performance of the F-35 favorably against it. Both are factually inaccurate. The F-22 flyaway cost is about $130M and it has a much better capability than the F-35. The more relevant question is what is the cost of all the conventional systems required to penetrate denied airspace to accomplish what one F-22 can accomplish? The answer is the F-22 is a bargain in that regard. Most critics don’t know it has an air-to-ground and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability. Likewise most don’t realize the F-35 costs are likely to grow. [For a short tutorial on why we need the F-22, see the film at this site: http://www.afa.org/MPEG/Air_Supremacy.asp]. Secretary Gates says the AF has not even deployed the F-22 to Iraq with the implication that we don’t need it. The fact is that the theater commander has requested the F-22, the AF has agreed, and the Secretary has refused to send it forward … reportedly for fear of scaring Iran, but more likely because if he did approve that request, the value of the F-22 would become very obvious, validating the demand for the F-22. Further, this “test” of whether a weapon system is worthy is a false one. There are lots of systems which are not deployed in Iraq … e.g. nuclear subs, P-3s, ICBMs, etc etc. It is clear that the F-22 is needed for the future, and if we stop building it, we will wished we had not … much like we did when DOD made the AF stop buying the B-2. (Ed: links left as found)

There’s more at the original link in my second paragraph, above. There’s some stuff in Mr. Dunn’s piece I didn’t know, and I’m fairly well informed about things USAF (for a guy over 20 years removed from active duty, that is). Mr. Dunn points out that there are good things going on in the Air Force right now and the Air Force is indeed carrying its weight, perhaps more than its weight, in the nation’s current wars.

Even though “things” may not be as bad as they seem, my take-away from Mr. Dunn’s article is that the power struggles in the Pentagon are very intense at the moment, and are likely to get much MORE intense as time moves on. Perhaps not as intense as the Revolt of the Admirals, but pretty danged close. Except this time the shoe is on the other foot, and it ain’t all about one particular weapons system. There are serious “roles and missions” discussions going on right now in the Pentagon and amongst our most senior civilian leaders. These discussions will affect the shape and structure of our forces for the next 20 years and beyond. The Air Force’s most senior leaders need to make their case, both within and outside of the Department of Defense, for the importance and relevance of airpower in our present and future conflicts. I think Mr. Dunn’s piece is a good start.

Sagas

The F-22 saga continues… three items from today’s Air Force Association Daily Report:

Hollow Threat: Just last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was not yet ready to invoke a "veto threat" over the addition of 12 F-22 Raptors in the House Armed Services Committee's version of the 2010 defense authorization bill. Now, it appears he is ready. A just-released statement of administration policy on H.R. 2647 states the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto if the final bill still contains funds to take the F-22 program of record beyond 187 aircraft. Last week, Rep. Neil Abercrombie, chairman of the committee's air and land forces panel, said he believes the full House will find money for 20 additional Raptors in 2010. Talking with defense reporters in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday morning, the head of the House defense appropriations panel, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), also lent his weight to the notion that Congress will approve buying more Raptors (see below). Saying it wouldn't be easy, Murtha pulled a list from an inside coat pocket that he would not share because it constituted "personal conversation" between himself and Gates, but which he said was a list of program decisions that Gates' considers "not negotiable," and from Murtha's subsequent remarks, we concluded the F-22 is on that list. However, the SAP and Gates' notional list are the not the last word. In Abercrombie's view, "The President is much too shrewd [not to realize] … that, should a veto come over adding a few planes into the defense budget, that that wouldn't be overridden in a nanosecond?" He added that a veto threat is "not a productive way to go about having this conversation."

Murtha for More F-22s: House Appropriations defense subcommittee chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) supports further buys of the F-22 and is optimistic that more will be bought, but he said that it will take some wheeling and dealing in Congress to make it happen. Speaking with defense reporters Wednesday in Washington, D.C., Murtha said, "I think we can reach a compromise" on Capitol Hill that would allow the F-22 to go forward. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its defense panel, "feels very strongly about it, and I do, too," Murtha added. Murtha said he wants the decision to be based on the threat, not on budgets, but that the decision to end the program at 187 aircraft "I think … was made based on cost." He said that on his panel, "we know the Air Force believes it does not have enough airplanes to train people, deploy people, and have enough spares available." (see below, The Sustainment Numbers Game) Murtha said Defense Secretary Robert Gates is "adamant" that no further F-22s be bought. He also said there is "strong sentiment" in the House to continue the production line "but not a majority." Murtha said that the F-22 debate is complicated by the fact that the airplane is still having maintenance issues—although he acknowledged it is still early in its deployment—and by questions about whether the F-35 will perform as advertised.

The Sustainment Numbers Game: When Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the Air Force's acquisition military deputy, told lawmakers earlier this month that the smaller F-22 Raptor fleet would pose long-term sustainment challenges, he was referring to a wide range of issues, from depot requirements to unscheduled maintenance and repairs and the need to upgrade the older Raptors with enhanced capabilities. Air Force spokesperson Lt. Col. Karen Platt told the Daily Report Tuesday that Shackelford was comparing the sustainment of larger fleets with a sizeable inventory of backup and attrition reserve aircraft where there is less difficulty in removing aircraft from operational squadrons to undergo maintenance, repairs, or retrofits, to the sustainment of a smaller fleet—in this case, only 186 Raptors. Platt said, "The F-22 fleet, however, has a small backup aircraft inventory and no attrition reserve aircraft," so taking Raptors from an operational squadron for critical maintenance and upgrades has a greater impact on readiness and must be more carefully planned to mitigate impacting mission requirements. And any further losses, due to accidents or combat, would increase this effect, she added.

And then there’s this about recapitalizing the tanker fleet:

Tanker Verbiage: Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chair of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said Wednesday he wants to introduce language during his panel's forthcoming markup of the Fiscal 2010 defense spending proposal that would call on the Pentagon to acquire new Air Force KC-X tanker aircraft from two suppliers vice just one and build them at a higher annual rate than the Air Force currently projects. However, he told defense reporters in Washington, D.C., his language would not go so far as to mandate this dual tanker buy approach—although it is the one that he clearly favors—but instead would retain the option for DOD to select a single supplier in a winner-take-all competition. The latter has been Defense Secretary Robert Gates' clear preference, but Murtha said he thinks it would be a mistake, given the failed attempt to advance with a single supplier last year. "You are not going to have a [new] tanker if you don't divide [the buy]," he said, recounting a recent conversation he had with Ashton Carter, the Pentagon's new acquisition executive. Murtha continued, "If you don't split it up with two, there is going to be a protest. It will be years before you settle it." Murtha said not everyone on the defense appropriations panel will support his measure, but, in the end, he predicts a compromise. "I think we will get legislation through that will say, we need to have tankers sooner rather than later," he said. Ideally, he'd like to have three new tankers assembled per month (see above), more than the Pentagon and Air Force leadership have said would be fiscally possible each year. Murtha acknowledged that earmarking the extra money to support a larger annual buy would be a challenge, but he didn't characterize it as a show-stopper.

There’s background on this particular flap… including a lot of useful links… here, if’n you’re at all interested. For what it’s worth, the average age of a KC-135 in today’s air force exceeds 46 years. How would YOU like to fly in an airframe that old, day in and day out?

―:☺:―

The computer saga... So, we’re preparing to receive the new computing box tomorrow and part of that effort is to do a complete back-up of the current box’s hard drive. On Tuesday it came to my attention that my El Cheapo back-up program that came bundled with the outboard hard drive I bought a couple of years ago has been… umm… less than effective. I run incremental back-ups on a nightly basis and supposedly had a full back-up scheduled once a month. Investigation… i.e., comparing the contents of my external drive to that of the internal drive… revealed significant discrepancies. So… we wiped the external drive and launched a complete back-up last evening around 1730 hrs. As of this writing it’s still running and is only about half complete. It takes a long time to back-up 130 GB over a USB connection.

Oh. I also bought a full-fledged back-up program… no more El Cheapo solutions in this (ahem) space. I’m damned lucky my internal hard drive hasn’t failed.

―:☺:―

The Nanny-State Saga... Today’s Funny, from Gary Varvel:

The “anti-smoking legislation” refers, of course, to the FDA regulation of tobacco legislation The One signed into law last week. Which, of course, is a stunning act of hypocrisy on Obama’s part. The President’s smoking habits remain one of the most closely guarded secrets of this administration, but rumor has it he’s “95% successful” in his effort to quit. Now I have NO idea what the Hell that means… in MY world you’ve either quit or you haven’t. But Hey! I don’t live in that “reality-based community” like he does… so what do I know, anyway?

For the record: I quit cigarettes two and a half years ago. Completely. None of this “95% successful” bullshit. Yes, I still smoke a cigar a day... sometimes two. One doesn't inhale that smoke, though.

War Stories... One Personal, One Not

Just the Facts, Ma'am… or "How I Came to Know and Love Single-Malt Whiskey." Gordon dropped this lil bit last evening in comments to my End of an Era post:

The funny thing about a distillery tour is that the process is the same for beer and whiskey. With beer they stop after the fermentation; whiskey gets run through the still twice.

It's kind of like touring cathedrals in Europe; one distillery is pretty much like another unless you really get into details like the shape of the still. Of course, the reward at the end is the tasting, which I can't do (but I do smell it). Some places are a little more generous with the samples than others, of course.

You could spend a month touring a couple of distilleries a day in Scotland and still miss a bunch.

Gordon speaks Truth, especially when it comes to Scottish distilleries. I've not been in all that many Scottish distilleries, but my first distillery tour was one of those life-changing experiences and I mean that most literally.

It came to pass that The Second Mrs. Pennington and I decided to take a ten-day camping road trip up to Scotland the first Spring we were in Ol' Blighty. We had had a bout of extremely unseasonal warm weather in the south of England in mid-April… so being the clue-free sorts of people we were when it came to the UK's miserable weather, we loaded up our camping gear in the back of our old Ford Courier the third week in April and hit the trail for Points North. Bad idea... more correctly: bad timing for a rather good idea. But that's not the point of this story… suffice to say we spent more time in bed and breakfast establishments and hotels than we did in our tent, although we did manage to camp out about three of our ten days on the road.

Anyhoo. The focal point of our springtime odyssey was "Castles of Scotland" and we procured a way-cool Ordnance Survey map of just about every Scottish castle there is (or ever was) as our basic guide, planning the excursion so as to take in as many castles as was humanly possible during a ten-day period. Aside: the term "ever was" is key, as more than a few Scottish castles are better described as nothing more than piles of big-ass rocks. But quite interesting rocks, none the less.

And so we set out. It further came to pass once we were in the Highlands… on about our third or fourth day out from London… that Balvenie Castle was on our agenda. And a most beautiful castle it is…

 

(Image from the web site linked above)

But… and here's where serendipity enters the picture… to get to Balvenie Castle one must drive right by the Glenfiddich distillery (conveniently located on Castle Road). Where there is prominent signage right on the lane that says "Tours Daily." Which, of course, seemed like a damned good idea to YrHmblScrb and TSMP. So… we went up the lane about a quarter to a half mile, parked the truck, and proceeded to play among the ruins of Balvenie Castle for about an hour or so. We were alone amid the spectacular ruins of this castle... and that allowed us to run and play like nine-year olds, in the most literal sense of the term.

(Yet another aside: since the Scottish tourist season doesn't really begin until May, TSMP and I found ourselves alone or nearly so at pretty much every castle/tourist spot we hit, with the notable exception of Edinburgh, which… being a city… is fairly crowded year-round. There was a downside, as some of the larger attractions were closed for the season. But there was also an upside to the downside: on at least three occasions we were treated to private tours by resident caretakers who indulged us "since you've come all the way from America!" No shit. Really.)

(A further aside: we took pictures on these trips. LOTS of pictures. And they ALL disappeared in The Great Divorce Cataclysm of 1998. Regrets 'R' Us. In SO many different ways.)


 

So… back to our story, such as it is... we meandered back down the lane, pulled into the distillery carpark (which was nearly deserted, given the season), and went inside for a tour… which was memorable on several different levels, beginning with the fact there were perhaps six of us on the tour and ending with the tasting experience at the tour's completion. Up until that very point in time I had been a blend-guy if and when I drank Scotch, which was rarely. My first sip of Glenfiddich was a revelation and I do NOT use the term loosely. Epiphany would be a better term. When it comes to Scots whiskey it has been single-malts... and ONLY single-malts... ever since the day I took that tour.

And that is how I came to love single-malts. What began as a castle tour opened up a whole new world to me... a world that is still being explored to this day. In other words: so many whiskeys, so little time.

(Final aside: TSMP and I cut our ten-day trip short by a day. We spent our last night out in our tent in a campground somewhere south of Edinburgh and awoke the following morning to about two inches of snow on our tent and the surrounding ground. We set a "personal best" for breaking camp that morning, throwing most of the stuff in the bed of the truck in a supremely disorganized jumble and beating feet for the motorway south towards London, all while listening to The Beeb tell us that we were in peril of being caught up in the UK's biggest blizzard since Gawd-Only-Knows When. Weathermen are all alike, no matter where you are: it's ALL doom 'n' gloom in their world. But these weathermen were speaking truth. We raced that blizzard south, making better time than it did, thank the Deity At Hand. We awoke the morning after we got home to about ten to 12 inches of new snow on the ground… and that was in LONDON. It was much worse "up north," where the motorways were closed. We most definitely dodged a serious bullet, that time. If I have ANY advice to give in this space…"this space" being motor-touring in Ol Blighty… I'd recommend you not go up to Scotland until sometime in May. Mid-May.)

―:☺:―

This F-22 thing is getting to be a regular feature here at EIP. So here's your Daily Dose…

"Not So Much a Study": It now turns out that a recent "study" touted by Pentagon leadership as the justification for terminating the F-22 fighter isn't really a study at all, but a series of briefings by DOD's Program Analysis and Evaluation shop and the Air Force. That word comes from the Pentagon's top spokesman, Geoff Morrell, who told the Daily Report late Tuesday that the study, ah, whatever it is, is "not so much a 'study'" as "work products." Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman Gen. James Cartwright told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, "There is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force" which, he said, nailed the F-22 requirement at 187 aircraft—not the 243 that the Air Force says is the minimum requirement. Asked to describe the nature and timing of this study, Morrell told the Daily Report , "What I think General Cartwright was referring to … is two different work products"—one by the PA&E shop and one by the Air Force—"and not so much a 'study.'" Morrell said work on the F-22 issue was done by "both entities" and that each was likely "informed by the other," but they didn't amount to "formal studies," and they had no formal name, such as the last known DOD analysis of fighter requirements, "Joint Air Dominance," dating to about 2004. Cartwright, in his testimony before the committee, wasn't clear about how many studies had been done, but said that 187 F-22 s would be enough for a one-war strategy. He assured SASC chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that he'd get whatever justifying analysis exists to the committee right away. However, Morrell said yesterday that "I don't know that it has been provided, yet." Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been claiming a rigorous analytical basis for stopping the F-22 since early this year. Congress has been pressing the Pentagon for a vetted analysis of F-22 requirements since 2007, when then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England was directed to provide, within a year, a comprehensive tacair plan that would specifically explain how the number of F-22s had been determined. According to various members of Congress, he never complied with this directive.

I find that last bit interesting as the congressional directive was delivered during Gates' tenure as SecDef. I'm thinking the Secretary would be less than forgiving if one of HIS subordinates dilly-dallied around on what amounts to a direct order.

This is pretty interesting, as well:

Ask the States: Seemingly neglected in the vitriolic F-22 debate that is ongoing today on the floor of the Senate are the needs of the states with responsibility for protecting the airspace on the periphery of the American homeland. Adjutants General in five of those so-called "corner" states (California, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon) are advocating a plan to acquire 100 F-22s to outfit the Air National Guard fighter units in each of their states charged with NORAD's air sovereignty alert mission, Army Maj. Gen. Raymond Rees, adjutant general of the Oregon National Guard, told the Daily Report in an interview. Only the F-22 is available in the timelines necessary to counter emerging threats to the American homeland, like offshore cruise missiles that could be fired at American cities, Rees said. "The more research we have done, the more convinced we are that it is absolutely imperative," he said. These Adjutants General are proposing a four-year multiyear deal with Lockheed Martin starting in Fiscal 2011 to acquire these 100 aircraft at rates of 25 per year. This four-year plan would keep the ASA mission viable by bolstering the Air Guard's fighter inventory, which is otherwise going to be decimated soon by retirements of legacy F-15s and F-16s. It would also move the Air Force's inventory from a high-risk force of 187 to one of medium risk since these F-22s would be available, like their active duty counterparts, for overseas rotations, Rees said. Further, the four-year build plan would preserve the option of exporting the F-22 to US allies such as Japan. (For more, read Don't Cut Corners.)

I'm as big an F-22 proponent as anyone, anywhere… but this idea seems a bit of a stretch. There are a few critical missing pieces in this argument. The US doesn't have an effective early-warning network like we used to have back in the days of the Soviet air-breathing threat… and by that I mean a network of early-warning radars that ringed the continental United States. Part and parcel of that early warning network was a sophisticated command and control network with data links from ground air defense control centers to the interceptors, once the jets were airborne. If you think the F-22 is expensive, try rebuilding the entire air defense infrastructure, which has been gone since the early 1980s.

Today the Air Force essentially relies on the FAA's air route surveillance system to identify and intercept aircraft that either do not have flight plans or wander into controlled air space, such as that around Washington, DC. Protecting Portland… or any other US city… from cruise missiles is quite another can o' worms.

Update, much later that same day: This 2006 essay at American Thinker... "Air Defense and Terror"... provides some great background information on the type of air defenses our country used to have, as well as a few "modest proposals" concerning how we can correct our current deficiencies, which are many and considerable.

News...Good, Bad, and Indifferent. Plus: Plane Pr0n!

Good News/Bad News… First, the good:

House Democrats have pulled back from efforts to link additional funding for the war to strict troop-readiness standards after the proposal came under withering fire from Republicans and from their party's own moderates. That strategy was championed by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and endorsed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

[…]

Murtha doomed his own plan in part by unveiling it on a left-wing Web site, inflaming party moderates.

"Congress has no business micromanaging a war, cutting off funding or even conditioning those funds," said Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), a leading Democratic moderate, who called Murtha's whole effort "clumsy."

Calling Murtha’s plan “clumsy” is way too kind. “Stupid” and “treasonous” are two adjectives that come to my mind, but then I’m not a Democrat like Rep. Cooper. Murtha might have made a go of it, if it wasn’t for his oh-so-idiotic crowing and pandering to the anti-war Left. In which case we can be thankful for his poor judgment, which I ascribe to advancing senility. But just because Murtha failed in this heavy-handed attempt to undercut the President’s prosecution of the war doesn’t mean he won’t stop trying. He’s nothing if not persistent.

And now the bad news:

Senate Democratic leaders intend to unveil a plan next week to repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops.

Good luck on that idea, Senate Democrats. You might have a problem maintaining your majority status if you go that route.

Jules Crittenden gives us his take on the Good News/Bad News meme here. And Captain Ed holds forth on the unfolding Democrat strategies to end the war without victory.

Interesting times, these. Too damned interesting, if you ask me.

The World’s Finest Precision Aerial Demonstration Team has released their 2007 schedule. And El Paso is the closest they’ll come to me this year. But they are performing in Bulgaria and Romania… Ankara, Turkey, too. I used to live there once upon a time. Fat lot of good that does me now.

In other Air Force news… Air Force magazine has a pretty good piece on the F-22 titled The Raptor in the Real World. Yeah, it’s a puff-piece, but so? The F-22’s capabilities are the stuff fighter pilots’ wet dreams are made of…

A dozen F-22s, flown by a cadre of handpicked pilots and kept in shape by the 27th’s best maintainers, went to Northern Edge, a two-week joint-force wargame in Alaska. Participants included 5,000 troops in Army ground units, Marine Corps ground units, Navy Aegis cruisers and aircraft, and Air Force aircraft ranging from fighters and search and rescue helicopters to E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft.

Col. Thomas Bergeson, the 1st Operations Group commander, said it was the largest exercise for him in 20 or so years. In one Northern Edge engagement, USAF and its sister services put more than 40 fighters in the air at once, as well as E-2C Hawkeye and E-3 AWACS aircraft.

To confront the F-22-led “Blue Air” collection, the joint force mustered its best “Red Air” threat—front-line F-15s, F-16s, and Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets. The F-22’s team blitzed the opposition with a favorable 241-to-two kill ratio. What’s more, the two lost aircraft were F-15Cs, not F-22s. The Raptors came through the engagements untouched.

[…]

“They [the Red Air adversaries] couldn’t see us,” Tolliver said. This was true even when the opponents were assisted by AWACS. “And that’s what makes the F-22 special,” Tolliver went on. “I’m out there and I have weapons like an F-15C or an F-16, but ... I’m basically invisible to the other guy’s radar.”

The 241-to-two record was amassed over two weeks of air engagements. Tolliver noted that, in such battles, Red Air units were allowed to regenerate and return to the fight, but lost Blue forces could not. Even with such handicaps, in the largest single engagement, F-22-led forces claimed 83 enemies to one loss, after facing down an opposing force that had generated or regenerated 103 adversary fighters.

More at the link, including Plane Pr0n!!!

More “Red-on-Red” stupidity:

Should we Fox?

"Fox," as in partner with the Fox News Channel. Liberal bloggers and the online political powerhouse MoveOn.org launched a campaign Thursday to persuade the Nevada Democratic Party to boot Fox News as the broadcaster of the state's August Democratic presidential debate.

The reason, according to an online letter MoveOn sent to 2 million of its members Thursday, is that "Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel. The Democratic Party of Nevada should drop Fox as its partner for the presidential primary debate." Joining the chorus Thursday was liberal filmmaker Robert Greenwald, the director of the anti-Fox film, "Outfoxed," who released a video online of Fox's coverage of Democratic candidates.

But the Nevada party organizers -- and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean -- said Thursday that while they may not think much of Fox's reporting, they want to reach out to viewers of the largest cable news network, one with double the number of prime-time viewers of CNN.

[…]

Bloggers like Matt Stoller of mydd.com are more worried about what the network's post-debate spin could be. When Fox broadcast a Democratic candidate debate in September 2003, Stoller noted that the network's post-debate story was headlined, "Democratic Candidates Offer Grim View of America." It cut away early from the show, Stoller said, giving conservative pundit William Bennett first crack at post-debate analysis.

Well, Matt…you can run, but you can’t hide. Your party’s view of America is grim, isn’t it? There is one thing about Fox: they tend to call a spade a spade. Lefties don’t like that. Nunh-unh. Not at all. So I can understand their angst. Kinda sorta.

Hey!! I got an idea!! Put the debate on Versus! Hasn’t that worked for the NHL? No? Well, hell. I thought that idea was at least as good as anything coming out of MoveOn…maybe better.

Austin Bay, writing in TCS Daily on “The Real News Behind the Surge:”

The relentless, focused targeting of Shia and Sunni extremist organizations is a far more important feature of what Iraqis are calling "the new security plan" than more U.S. troops. The coalition's effort to better integrate the economic and political development "lines of operation" with security operations could have greater long-term effects.

Part and parcel of “focused targeting” is keeping pressure on Mookie and the Mahdi Army. Col. Bay talks a lot about that, and brings up the relevant history, in case you may have forgotten. Would that Dubya had done this about a year ago. But… “better late,” eh?

Another quiz thingie, this time it’s Which Famous Guitarist are You?

That's a copy 'n' paste jpg... coz the tables in these thangs never show the bars as filled. At any rate, it's good to know I'd be more like Hendrix if I actually played the guitar!
To take the quiz go here: Which famous guitarist are you?

Nekkid

No one should be surprised at anything the MSM does these days, unless it's an oh-so-rare case of them doing the RIGHT thing.

And then there's this from the Usual USAF Source:

Positive Vector: No F-22 pilot has experienced an unexplained physiological incident in flight since March 8, a span covering some 10,000 sorties and more than 13,000 cockpit hours, said Maj. Gen. Charles Lyon, Air Combat Command's director of operations, in testimony on Capitol Hill on Sept. 13. "This is the longest period" without one such incident "in years," he told members of the House Armed Services Committee's tactical air and land forces panel during a hearing on F-22 pilot oxygen-deprivation issues. Lyon said the Air Force continues to transition the F-22 fleet back to normal flight operations. "The path to resuming normal flight operations hinges on the successful development, testing and fielding of the modified combat edge upper pressure garment valve," he said. Fielding of the valve is expected by year's end, he noted. Activity also continues to incorporate an automatic backup oxygen system in the jet; the first F-22 is slated to get this upgrade in January, he said. "We are certain the F-22 cockpit and surrounding workspace is a safe, effective place to operate," said Lyon. He added, "Continuous process improvements will ensure the safety of the F-22 workforce now and in the future." (Lyon's prepared statement)

I'm not diminishing the good news about the F-22's oxygen system, and the news IS good, but someone/anyone describing a fighter's cockpit as a "safe place" (a) raised my eyebrows and (b) made me laugh.  Out loud.

Raptors Off to Ol' Blighty

U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Bill Wiseman

From the AFA’s Daily Report…

British Invasion: The F-22 fighter will be appearing in the skies over Britain for the first time later this month, demonstrating its prowess at two air international shows. Tomorrow, three Raptors from the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, Va., along with members of the F-22 demonstration team will make the trek across the Atlantic Ocean for a week-long stint. On July 12 and July 13, Maj. Paul Moga, USAF's first F-22 demonstration pilot, will treat visitors to a single-ship performance at the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, wing spokeswoman 2nd Lt. Georganne Schultz, told the Daily Report. On the following day, Moga will perform at the Farnborough International Air Show outside of London, Schultz said. The F-22s will head back to Langley on July 15, she said. The F-22 Demonstration Team is in its first full season. Last year was its debut year, but not a full season. Normally two aircraft would be sent for such a demonstration, with one serving as a backup. Schultz said, in this case, the decision was made to send three.

And what will our Brit friends see? Well, since you asked, Gentle Reader, here’s Major Moga explaining the elements of the single-ship demonstration as he puts the F-22 through (some of) its paces…

Cool, eh? The photo (taken last month) shows an F-22 out of Langley AFB, VA in formation with members of the RAF's aerial demonstration team, the Red Arrows. The Arrows were in the US last month on a goodwill tour; you can see a two-minute video of them flying over NYC here.