I just saw the following article over at F16.net comprised of the same ole crying and sniveling by those that won't face reality.  Enjoy.

April 13, 2009 (by Eric L. Palmer) - The top two bosses of the United States Air Force (USAF), Secretary of the Air Force, the Honorable Mr. Michael Donley and the top serving military man, General Schwartz are wrong about the future air power roadmap for the service.

An F-22 Raptor taxis at Andersen AFB while a B-2 Spirit from the 509th BW, 13th BS Whiteman AFB, waits for clearance on March 12th, 2009. The Raptors are deployed from Elmendorf AFB to the 90th EFS at Andersen for a three month deployment as the Pacific's Theater Security Package.

In an astonishing surrender of future air capability, the two have written a piece that showed up in the Washington Post called, “Moving Beyond the F-22”. In it, they say it is time to stop funding the F-22 and move on toward full funding of the F-35. The reasons they give for this are seriously flawed. It ends with a wild blue sky marking statement claiming, “Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.”

First, is the top USAF leadership insane? I mean that with all due respect because these are not dumb people, they are just seriously misled on what defines air power capability and risk.

Part of the justification for their statements is that the USAF is out of money. There is just no way to pay for all of the things in the current plan. This first part pretty much kills the final statements of any dream of sixth generation capabilities. Sixth generation capabilities will come with a sixth generation price. A price that a debtor nation won’t have funds for.

Rynizzle's Note:  Standard lack of SA on what sixth generation capabilities mean.  It means a UAV dipshit.  And it will cost significantly less money.  Dry your eyes.

Another point made by Donley and Schwartz is that the F-22 will provide capability for decades to come. And then what? In the 2020’s the USAF will start retiring its first F-22s.

The two go on to state that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will pull us back from the abyss facing the nation with its growing geriatric fighter force. Their claims aren’t reassuring. For example this quote stands on a house of cards, “Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost”. The F-35 has only two percent of its flight testing done, contains a wide variety of risk, is over budget and behind schedule, yet Donley and Schwartz continue with this statement, “This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production.”

OK, so I’ll ask it again with all due respect, is the top USAF leadership insane? Donley and Schwartz don’t have a very good grasp how air domination is achieved. They also don’t understand what tools are needed. Just as stunning, is their lack of understanding in relation to the U.S. defense establishments track record of not delivering weapons programs any where close to cost, schedule or capability.

Rynizzle's Note:  Yeah, because "how air domination is achieved" is so fucking cosmic.  Here's a clue.  They get it.  You don't.

The F-22 was designed to break stiff enemy air defenses long into the future. F-22 systems have truly no peer in lethality. The F-22 uses extreme altitude, high speed, high quality stealth, and leading edge sensors to kill and survive on its own terms.

Rynizzle's Note:  Did you get paid for that advertisement?  You forgot to mention that a 1.99 Chinese UAV will smoke the F-22 in the not too distant future.  Wake up and smell the fucking coffee...

What the two USAF leaders don’t understand is that once the F-22 has cleared the huge threats which are enemy long range super surface to air missiles (SAMs) and enemy aircraft, common legacy aircraft can do the rest of the bombing and not get touched by the lesser threats. In other words, current legacy aircraft that are in production now, the F-15, F-16 and F-18 can drop cheap near all weather precision bombs from high altitude and not get touched by shorter range battlefield SAMs, shoulder fired SAMs, anti-aircraft artillery ( “triple A&rdquo and trash fire. “I can touch you, but you can’t touch me”.

Rynizzle's Note:  Right, I love how you guys are now talking up the air to ground aspect of the F-22.  If you haven't noticed UAVs and cruise missiles have been taking care of SEADs threats quite nicely and will continue to do that better, and cheaper, than your darling F-22 (RIP).

Based on this, the USAF has not justified a reason to acquire the F-35. The F-35 is not interchangeable with the F-22. The USAF claiming that it needs an expensive all stealth fighter force isn’t practical.

With its limited funds, the USAF can rebuild its fighter force to meet requirements of expeditionary war and home air defense. This can be done by funding the F-22 to a proper number of aircraft and buying new build F-16s which still contain a significant war fighting capability.

If the top USAF leaders believe what they wrote, then America should consider their ability to do the job. The track Mr. Donley and General Schwartz want to take us down will risk not only billions on an unproven and untested F-35 aircraft, but billions more to clean up the mess all while leaving the U.S. unable to secure air domination in future conflicts.

Rynizzle's Note:   You're a moron.  Buzz is out and your fighter mafia is headed for the history books.  Get used to it and stop filling up the internet with your bullshit.

Several possible reasons as I see it:

1. Historically there has been a craving for flop reality TV shows requiring more than a handful of tender skinned guys willing to be filmed acting like queers (no offense intended to queers).

2. Strategic studies show there will be a massive increase in future airshows and thus a need for guys with "good hair" and homosexual tendencies (again no offense to homosexuals)

3. Or it could be a feint for the Chinese. By having so many F-15s they become complacent thinking the majority of our pilots are panzies that stay home with the women and children while real men go to war.

Posted By Shep on 07 May 2009 04:31 PM
But lately it seems that discourse on this site has been becoming more and more slander and attacks on individuals (not ideas) aimed at engaging emotion into the debate.

Can you provide an example or two of recent slander and attacks on individuals?

Sure, I'd be happy to... I don't even have to look that far.

"1. Historically there has been a craving for flop reality TV shows requiring more than a handful of tender skinned guys willing to be filmed acting like queers (no offense intended to queers)."

This is a blatant attack on the fighter pilots filmed in the "American Fighter Pilot" series.  If it's not on that specific series, it seems to be some other reality show with F-15 pilots in it.

"2. Strategic studies show there will be a massive increase in future airshows and thus a need for guys with "good hair" and homosexual tendencies (again no offense to homosexuals)."

Again, an attack that at least seems to be aimed at the "tender skinned" fighter pilots mentioned in point one.

"3. Or it could be a feint for the Chinese. By having so many F-15s they become complacent thinking the majority of our pilots are panzies that stay home with the women and children while real men go to war."

This one is my favorite.  Not only are these insults/attacks on the same group of individuals for a third time in a row, but it also insinuates that fighter pilots aren't "real men" but rather they are "panzies" they have no interest in actually participating in the fight.

All three of these points are just short examples of many.  And to make it worse, they didn't even attempt to answer the serious question that was posed before hand.  It's one thing to poke fun and joke, and then to carry on with some seriousness.  But it is something completely different when opinionated remarks, not even attempting to be even partially objective, are being thrown around in a community where people coming looking for guidance about their futures, attempting to seek knowledge from experience to make life altering decisions. 

This exact same kind of slanderous rhetoric has been being thrown around on this website for a while now that attacks a person or a group of people, even if it's not a specific person with a name.  The attacks have been numerous and repeated, and pretty much all of attacks have been aimed towards fighter pilots.  They all seem insinuate that EVERY fighter pilot (or at least the vast majority of them) is stupid, self-serving, self-preserving, cowardly, and worst of all... they seem to serve our country in a capacity that is somehow less than that of other "real war fighters."  Tell that to a community of F-15C pilots who have over 100 kills and zero losses in the history of their combat flight.  Tell that to my flight commander who lost one of his squadron members flying F-111s in El Dorado Canyon.  Tell that to the family of the F-117 pilot who got shot down over Bosnia.

It should also be noted that I'm just a young pup who hasn't even started pilot training yet, have zero combat experience, and have not yet had an opportunity to put my life on the line.  However, I know what I signed up for.  I know what airframe I hope to fly.  And I didn't decide that I wanted to fly that airframe to get my rocks off or stroke my own ego.  I know that I want to fly fighters because I believe a day will come in our future where we will once again be challenged in the sky.  I WANT the chance to put my life on the line and to fight for my country.  And when that day comes, some will only hope that people like me are in the air to make sure the clear, threat-free skies that they take for granted... stay that way.  That way when they're loitering around, fulfilling THEIR  part of the mission, some MiG or Sukoy doesn't fly up on them and shoot their self-righteous asses down.

Posted By Shep on 07 May 2009 08:09 PM

Sure, I'd be happy to... I don't even have to look that far.

"1. Historically there has been a craving for flop reality TV shows requiring more than a handful of tender skinned guys willing to be filmed acting like queers (no offense intended to queers)."

This is a blatant attack on the fighter pilots filmed in the "American Fighter Pilot" series.  If it's not on that specific series, it seems to be some other reality show with F-15 pilots in it.

"2. Strategic studies show there will be a massive increase in future airshows and thus a need for guys with "good hair" and homosexual tendencies (again no offense to homosexuals)."

Again, an attack that at least seems to be aimed at the "tender skinned" fighter pilots mentioned in point one.

"3. Or it could be a feint for the Chinese. By having so many F-15s they become complacent thinking the majority of our pilots are panzies that stay home with the women and children while real men go to war."

This one is my favorite.  Not only are these insults/attacks on the same group of individuals for a third time in a row, but it also insinuates that fighter pilots aren't "real men" but rather they are "panzies" they have no interest in actually participating in the fight.

All three of these points are just short examples of many.  And to make it worse, they didn't even attempt to answer the serious question that was posed before hand.  It's one thing to poke fun and joke, and then to carry on with some seriousness.  But it is something completely different when opinionated remarks, not even attempting to be even partially objective, are being thrown around in a community where people coming looking for guidance about their futures, attempting to seek knowledge from experience to make life altering decisions. 

This exact same kind of slanderous rhetoric has been being thrown around on this website for a while now that attacks a person or a group of people, even if it's not a specific person with a name.  The attacks have been numerous and repeated, and pretty much all of attacks have been aimed towards fighter pilots.  They all seem insinuate that EVERY fighter pilot (or at least the vast majority of them) is stupid, self-serving, self-preserving, cowardly, and worst of all... they seem to serve our country in a capacity that is somehow less than that of other "real war fighters."  Tell that to a community of F-15C pilots who have over 100 kills and zero losses in the history of their combat flight.  Tell that to my flight commander who lost one of his squadron members flying F-111s in El Dorado Canyon.  Tell that to the family of the F-117 pilot who got shot down over Bosnia.

It should also be noted that I'm just a young pup who hasn't even started pilot training yet, have zero combat experience, and have not yet had an opportunity to put my life on the line.  However, I know what I signed up for.  I know what airframe I hope to fly.  And I didn't decide that I wanted to fly that airframe to get my rocks off or stroke my own ego.  I know that I want to fly fighters because I believe a day will come in our future where we will once again be challenged in the sky.  I WANT the chance to put my life on the line and to fight for my country.  And when that day comes, some will only hope that people like me are in the air to make sure the clear, threat-free skies that they take for granted... stay that way.  That way when they're loitering around, fulfilling THEIR  part of the mission, some MiG or Sukoy doesn't fly up on them and shoot their self-righteous asses down.

Oh the sweet sweet irony...

First, you think an attack on the fighter pilot community is the same thing as a personal attack on individuals?  So, if I were to say all politicians are liars then you would tell me I was making a personal attack, right?  I think we disagree on what is a personal attack or what the definition of an "individual" is.  You have failed to point out how I have made a personal attack.

Your real problem is that you don't like me slandering fighter pilots.  I imagine it really hits a nerve with you when I call them "tender skinned" panzies (pun intended).  The sweet irony here is that should you get the opportunity to join the fighter community they are going to tear you a new vagina.  You're going to be offended at every turn.  When it comes to talking shit there is only one difference between me and the vast majority of fighter pilots I meet....I can back my shit up.  I don't have to rely on the 100 to nothing kill ratio as a result of the sum total of all fighter engagements since the Wright Brothers were flying.  But it's more than just talking trash as goes on both sides of the heavy/fighter line.

There is a cultural war going on in the miltiary and the fighter mafia is fucking up on a massive scale.  Until their culture unfucks itself I will continue to make fun of it.  Feel free to defend that culture as you see fit but if you expect me to stop expressing my opinions because it rubs you the wrong way that's not going to happen.  Maybe one day you'll wisen up, gain a little SA, and understand there are bigger things going on than your wet dream to fly a fighter.

At any rate, please defend that community against my slanderous remarks.  It should make for a fun discussion.

You're right about one thing, we are definately talking about two different things when it comes to personal attacks. I know what you're talking about, and I'm not saying that you are attacking one specific person. My point is that if you're going to have a productive, educated debate on an issue, you debate the issue itself. Attacking individuals or groups of individuals is a rhetorical strategy that attempts to engage the consumer's emotions to overrride their reason. This is what I have a problem with. It's counterproductive and corrosive to any real debate.

Also, you seem to think that your trashing everything in the fighter world somehow "offends" me. You couldn't be further from the truth. The reason I say what I say is because I know there are a whole lot of people who want to be military aviators out there, and they end up at this website looking for direction. And you have this serious problem with stating your personal opinion as if it were written fact. When those individuals get on this website looking for guidance, they see your smut spewed all over this website. Since you present your opinion as if it were the absolute word of God Himself, they wouldn't know the difference if somebody didn't present the other side of the coin. That's why I do what I do. I could care less what you think of the fighter world and what you think offends me. Ecspecially since you're too arrogant to even consider the possibility that you could be wrong about something here or there.

You're right about the culture war in the Air Force though. But your actions, and people who act like you, are just perpetuating that war. How do you think that war is ever going to end? By continuing to attack the other side? Or do you just think the culture war would be won by eliminating fighter pilots from the scene altogether, so no one is left to oppose your views? It is my personal opinion that the best solutions come from comprimise, and that they have since the beginning of our country. Hell, America was constituted on a comprimise! By continuing to attack each other (beyong the normal figher/heavy BS that goes back and forth all in good fun) we just look for ways to exclude the other side from getting what they want, and we don't even consider other possible solutions that could end up being the right thing or the best for all parties involved.

I'll be the first to admit that the leadership of the Air Force from the fighter community have made a lot of mistakes. Hell, the fighter community itself has perpetuated a culture of egos and arrogance that has been rubbing everyone else wrong for decades. I understand how listening to a fighter pilot talk about how much better he is than everyone else could definately lead one to believe that they're all that way. But you're an educated man, and surely you know that stereotypes are never universally applied. By saying that everybody in the fighter community has it all wrong, you ignore and ostrasize the ones who do the right things for the right reason. The same way you assume to know me and who I am. You are even so arrogant to assume you know what is going on in my head, blatantly ignoring and the ridiculing the reasons I want to serve my country. This is just another example of you stating your opinion as if it were fact, completely undermining any potential legitimacy in your argument.

I also think it's funny and ironic that you think being a fighter pilot isn't something our country needs. This leads me to believe that you either think we will never have to fight anyone in the skies again (or even fly weasels to take out SAMs) or you think that we're going to have a UAV fleet capable of doing that mission without pilots by the time that threat ever is an issue again. That's a pretty big gamble on your part, considering the fact that you can't safely fly your mission if the skies aren't clear and the SAMs aren't down. It seems to me, we are all interdependent parts who can't do the mission without the other parts. I suppose you think that the guy working in Services isn't doing what his country needs, either?

Posted By Shep on 08 May 2009 04:21 PM
You're right about one thing, we are definately talking about two different things when it comes to personal attacks. I know what you're talking about, and I'm not saying that you are attacking one specific person. My point is that if you're going to have a productive, educated debate on an issue, you debate the issue itself. Attacking individuals or groups of individuals is a rhetorical strategy that attempts to engage the consumer's emotions to overrride their reason. This is what I have a problem with. It's counterproductive and corrosive to any real debate.

Also, you seem to think that your trashing everything in the fighter world somehow "offends" me. You couldn't be further from the truth. The reason I say what I say is because I know there are a whole lot of people who want to be military aviators out there, and they end up at this website looking for direction. And you have this serious problem with stating your personal opinion as if it were written fact. When those individuals get on this website looking for guidance, they see your smut spewed all over this website. Since you present your opinion as if it were the absolute word of God Himself, they wouldn't know the difference if somebody didn't present the other side of the coin. That's why I do what I do. I could care less what you think of the fighter world and what you think offends me. Ecspecially since you're too arrogant to even consider the possibility that you could be wrong about something here or there.

You're right about the culture war in the Air Force though. But your actions, and people who act like you, are just perpetuating that war. How do you think that war is ever going to end? By continuing to attack the other side? Or do you just think the culture war would be won by eliminating fighter pilots from the scene altogether, so no one is left to oppose your views? It is my personal opinion that the best solutions come from comprimise, and that they have since the beginning of our county. Hell, America was constituted on a comprimise! Be continuing to attack each other (beyong the normal figher/heavy BS that goes back and forth all in good fun) we just look for ways to exclude the other side from getting what they want, and we don't even consider other possible solutions that could end up being the best for all parties involved.

I'll be the first to admit that the leadership of the Air Force from the fighter community have made a lot of mistakes. Hell, the fighter community itself has perpetuated a culture of egos and arrogance that has been rubbing everyone else wrong for decades. I understand how listening to a fighter pilot talk about how much better he is than everyone else could definately lead one to believe that they're all that way. But you're an educated man, and surely you know that stereotypes are never universally applied. By saying that everybody in the fighter community has it all wrong, you ignore and ostrasize the ones who do the right things for the right reason. The same way you assume to know me and who I am. You are even so arrogant to assume you know what is going on in my head, blatantly ignoring and the ridiculing the reasons I want to serve my country. This is just another example of you stating your opinion as if it were fact, completely undermining any potential legitimacy in your argument.

I also think it's funny and ironic that you think being a fighter pilot isn't something our country needs. This leads me to believe that you either think we will never have to fight anyone in the skies again (or even fly weasels to take out SAMs) or you think that we're going to have a UAV fleet capable of doing that mission without pilots by the time that threat ever is an issue again. That's a pretty big gamble on your part, considering the fact that you can't safely fly your mission if the skies aren't clear and the SAMs aren't down. It seems to me, we are all interdependent parts who can't do the mission without the other parts. I suppose you think that the guy working in Services isn't doing what his country needs, either?

All lurkers, your attention please.  It has come to my attention that you all need an education.  Apparently you lack common sense so we need to clear some things up.

1. This is an internet message board and not the cyber portal of unblemished absolute truth
2. When somebody posts an opinion or a viewpoint you will have to weigh the argument and should not just believe it because you see it on this forum
3. I am not GoD

Haha, glad we cleared that first part up.  And your absolutely right that I don't share your faith about how smartly we as a society consume information.  You seem to think it's a matter of common sense.  I would argue that it's well beyond common sense; it actually takes a very educated and engaged person to consume information wisely... ecspecially all the unfiltered crap on the internet.  It's scary how much of the general public will believe whatever they read or see out there.  But if you think the average person knows how to filter information as a matter of common sense, we will just have to agree to disagree.

As far as personal attacks go, I don't see how attacking groups of people is any different than attacking an individual.  You're right, the words "personal attack" do seem to insinuate that it's an attack on a single person.  I've just never heard of the obviously more appropriate saying, "group attack," as common phraseology in this situation.  But this is just semantics - you know what I meant and I know what you meant.

Contrary to your post, I was actually involved in the very same debate about the F-22 on another thread.  You and I actually debated some of the meat of the argument before it died off.  If you would like a quick summation of my points from that debate, they were:

1. We have no where near the bandwidth capabilities required to fly and sustain a UAV fleet that would be required for a conventional conflict.  We would need to control hundreds of aircraft from remote stations simoultaneously, and we can't even do double digits right now.
2. It would be unwise to delegate the control of our air superiority to drones being controlled by frequencies which can be hacked and controlled by unfriendlies.  To add a little weight to this argument, we just had one of the most secure networks in our government hacked into very recently by... who?  We don't know.  But we do know that there are countries out there (like China) that are getting better than we are at cyber warfare.  How awesome would that be if we had a Ryno-sized UAV fleet without any manned fighters in the air when they all turned around and pointed their guns right back at us?

There are multiple other theoritical arguments that I could bring up in support of manned fighters as well as counter-arguments to a few so called "advantages" of UAVs.  But those are really hard to get facts on because a lot of the technology that would need to be referenced isn't there yet.

That being said, I DO recognize a need for a lot more UAVs in the very near future of our Air Force.  I also see the potential advantages and am completely on board with the development of air-to-air UAVs.  I also DISAGREE with several arguments that are currently out there right now in defense of manned fighters.  I believe the people who think we should keep fighters manned (at least partially) have done a poor job of presenting their case.

I believe the most advantagous incorporation of air-to-air UAVs for the future of our Air Force is one in support of and in conjunction with manned fighters.  I think the posibilities of combining those two capabilities are endless and will keep our country the safest in the future.  However, I have a feeling that the amount of evidence and research that I would need to bring to the table to go point for point with you would fill a 100 page thesis paper.  Unfortunately, I'm not taking any classes right now.  However, when I start working on my masters, you can bet that this will be a topic I will research and write on.  And when I'm done with that thesis, you'll be the first one to get a copy.

At the end of the day, I've said it before and I'll say it again - I have absolute mad respect for your combat record and your service to this country - and that will never change.

It seems the current CSAF is now changing his tune on the number of F-22s needed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/gove...dChannel=0

Looks like another example of Congress doing what it does best....

I don't think the two wars we're in justify the F-22 at all.  The F-22 is like driving a gas guzzling sports car a block away to the convenience store when you really just need to walk or get a bike.

I agree with you that numbers do matter...and more is almost always better.  And in the nightmare scenario with China would it be better to have more F-22s?  I'm sure.  Could we do it without the extra F-22s?  I'm sure.

If we had the dream scenario what should we do...we should develop and field air to air UAVs.  The F-22, in my opinion, isn't just a decision on an aircraft.  It's a decision that affects an aircraft for years to come which will make it more difficult to transition to air to air UAVs.  The Air Force has had a track record for years of denying unmanned innovation because pilots don't want to lose their jobs.  I think people that trumpet the China argument are full of shit.  China is a threat...but it's not a threat that's likely to result in war anytime soon.  And we are still a nuclear powerhouse and the old SAC mentality can tide us over while me make the smartest investment of our technology.