Otto,

I think you might be off the mark here.  It may be time for General Keys to retire, but having worked programs, if only at the MAJCOM level, and having had to fight with USSOCOM to revalidate programs previously validated in order to save funding from other services that wanted it for things like, oh MH-47s, I'm here to tell you that there is some truth in those words.  AFSOC had to buy an aerial refueling system for the Talon 2 that the mafia did not want, and it is an overengineered piece of work, I'll tell you.  They had the chance to go to Congress ("Invited" by a Senator) and make the pitch for a different system that was already working and did not do so.  So when the General ways that the wars we fight in the halls of congress are that hard, I don't take it as demeaning to the folks shooting and taking bullets, I believe it's him admitting in a roundabout way that our leaders need to do a better job to justify the money we do get.  Personally I can't believe we're not asking for the money we need.  We may be, but I don't see it.  Cutting 40K troops to save $4B is only 1/5 of the money we're not getting annually to fix our problems, so why are we not asking for the additional $15B at least?  That's a question I want to see answered.

Loflight,

I will completely admit I reacted in a somewhat emotional manner, and of course, thats something I've NEVER done (sarcasm alert)  And having fought some small inter-agency struggles and a major budget full court press, I agree with you that the USAF leaders don't do a tremendous job in articulating the need for major weapons systems.

It just seems like its F-22's or nothing and that the rest of the team arguing for all the rest of the USAF program is not the A-team: F-35, next Tanker, CSAR next, any SOF aircraft, you name it. But, this is not the first quote I have seen from this senior officer and I wholeheartedly agree it's his job to go to the Pentagon, to go to Capitol Hill, and articulate the need and translate that into a defendable requirement.

I am not totally focused on the GWOT or Afghanistan and Iraq, I do know that no soldier or Marine has been attacked by an enemy aircraft in many years.  I am just hoping the USAF leadership can do better than this. Your comment about the lack of the ability to properly ask for the "stuff" we need is spot on.

Either way, thanks for the comment, great stuff!

I agree, brother.  What I see, though, is the inability to focus on priorities.  We can't have six different #1 priorities...F-22, C-17, CSAR-X, HC-130 recapitalization, KC-X, a new bomber...and after having toured the F-35 production facility and gotten the "corporate pitch" I don't believe we need the F-35, that's for sure.  Do we need a follow-on to the F-16/F-18/AV-8?  You bet.  But an airplane that can only carry 2 bombs and 2 missiles and only one version of which carries a gun with all of 240 bullets...come on!    No I think our prioritization is the problem.  I believe the F-15 needs replacing, and the F-22 goes a hell of a lot farther than a mere replacement.  The cost issues are big, but why is it that we continue to fail to convince Congress that buying fewer of the airplane (what are we...about half of the original desired buy?) is not going to lower costs?  More of a more capable system.--that's the ticket.  Yes it costs money, but not as much as 2500 F-35s!  I'm more inclined to agree that the right mix might be to retain upgraded capability in the Strike Eagle fleet and reengineered or upgraded A-10s for a while, but without a lobotomy nobody's going to convince me that the JSF can effectively replace the AV-8, F-18, F-16 and A-10 all at once.  Hell, the F-16CJ didn't even effectively replace the Weasel, and that was a 35 year old design when it retired.  All I see is continued desire for the newest and shiniest car on the lot, when that isn't necessarily what we need.  Gotta find where it all connects and see what part of the message is not getting through to the top!    Talk to you later!