ClearedHot

You ain't seen nothing...two years ago a AFSOC Wing/CC dropped General Order #1 on his folks deploying to Nellis for Weapons School ME.

MOSCOW – A Russian Air Force chief said Saturday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has offered an island as a temporary base for strategic Russian bombers, the Interfax news agency reported. The chief of staff of Russia's long range aviation, Maj. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, also said Cuba could be used to base the aircraft, Interfax reported. The Kremlin, however, said the situation was hypothetical. "The military is speaking about technical possibilities, that's all," Alexei Pavlov, a Kremlin official, told The Associated Press. "If there will be a development of the situation, then we can comment," he said. Zhikharev said Chavez had offered "a whole island with an airdrome, which we can use as a temporary base for strategic bombers," the agency reported. "If there is a corresponding political decision, then the use of the island ... by the Russian Air Force is possible." Interfax reported he said earlier that Cuba has air bases with four or five runways long enough for the huge bombers and could be used to host the long-range planes. Two Russian bombers landed in Venezuela last year in what experts said was the first Western Hemisphere touchdown of Russian military craft since the end of the Cold War. Cuba has never permanently hosted Russian or Soviet strategic aircraft. But Soviet short-range bombers often made stopovers there during the Cold War. Russia resumed long-range bomber patrols in 2007 after a 15-year hiatus. Independent military analyst Alexander Golts said from a strategic point of view there was nothing for Russia to gain from basing long-range craft within relatively short range of U.S. shores. "It has no military sense. The bombers don't need any base. This is just a retaliatory gesture," Golts said, saying Russia wanted to hit back after U.S. ships patrolled Black Sea waters. Moscow and the new U.S. administration of President Barack Obama have appeared to want to mend their relations, which reached a post-Cold War low last year when Russia's invasion of U.S. ally Georgia compounded disputes on security and democracy. U.S. plans initiated under former President George W. Bush to position defense missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic had particularly irked Russia, which has welcomed his successor's apparently more cautious approach to the divisive issue. Venezuela and Cuba, traditionally fierce U.S. foes, have close political and energy relations with Russia.

Do you even read what is posted? Who said China wants to conquer or destroy the U.S.? Choke yourself. The "chopped up quote" talks about their strategy....not a desire to rule the world. Maybe they would by up trillions in bonds to secure a position of advantage... The mistake of simple minds is to apply western values and ideology to every adversary we face. In the case of China it is not about world domination, it is to an extend about influence but more importantly the way they view their sovereignty. If you actually take the time to read the source of these "chopped up" quotes you might find a rational that makes sense from their perspective. The Taiwan question is not even a question in their mind and they are incredulous that it is a question in our mind. Try viewing Taiwan from their perspective in the following example... As Americans how would we feel if a group tried to over throw our government through an armed rebellion? They waged a war across the western states but we prevailed and they retreated to California. Somehow they were able to leave California and make it to Hawaii where they consolidated their position. After the fight we did not have enough Schlitz left to take Hawaii back...it will take time for us to build a Navy strong enough to do so. Suddenly China pops up and says they support and will DEFEND the island of Hawaii against the folks on the U.S. mainland... Would their be any question in ours minds about the status of Hawaii? Hawaii is a U.S. state....sovereign territory of the United States of America and we would do whatever we could, whenever we could to get it back. That is how the Chinese view Taiwan.

Concur... “Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership.” – Deng Xiaoping “. . . resolutely and effectively carry out the sacred duty of defending national sovereignty, unification, territorial integrity, and security . . .” – President Hu Jintao

The point is....China

"Massage Therapists"...

You need to talk to your current commander as well as here. Both will have a hotline to AFPC and the functionals that can get the ground truth. It has been my experience that APFC is more than accommodating, sometime too accommodating in my opinion...to the detriment of the single guys. Regardless, talk to your CC's

Perhaps this will make it more clear... Wall Street Journal March 2, 2009 Pg. 14 Declining Defense Obama's budget does cut one federal department. For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward. The White House proposes to spend $533.7 billion on the Pentagon, a 4% increase over 2009. Include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would be another $130 billion (or a total of $664 billion), and overall defense spending would be around 4.2% of GDP, the same as 2007. However, that 4% funding increase for the Pentagon trails the 6.7% overall rise in the 2010 budget -- and defense received almost nothing extra in the recent stimulus bill. The Joint Chiefs requested $584 billion for 2010 and have suggested a spending floor of 4% of GDP. Both pleas fell on deaf ears. The White House budget puts baseline defense spending at 3.7% of GDP, not including Iraq and Afghanistan. The budget summary pleads "scarce resources" for the defense shortfall, which is preposterous given the domestic spending blowout. More ominously, Mr. Obama's budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years -- to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade. This means that relative both to the economy and especially to domestic priorities, defense spending is earmarked to decline. Some of this assumes less spending on Iraq, which is realistic, but it also has to take account of Mr. Obama's surge in Afghanistan. That war won't be cheap either. The danger is that Mr. Obama may be signaling a return to the defense mistakes of the 1990s. Bill Clinton slashed defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000, from 4.8% in 1992. We learned on 9/11 that 3% isn't nearly enough to maintain our commitments and fight a war on terror -- and President Bush spent his two terms getting back to more realistic outlays for a global superpower. American defense needs are, if anything, even more daunting today. Given challenges in the Mideast and new dangers from Iran, an erratic Russia, a rising China, and potential threats in outer space and cyberspace, the U.S. should be in the midst of a concerted military modernization. Mr. Obama's budget isn't adequate to meet those challenges. That means Secretary of Defense Robert Gates faces some hard choices when he finishes his strategic review this spring. An early glimpse will come soon when the Pentagon must decide whether to continue to purchase more Lockheed F-22 Raptors. The Air Force is set to buy 183 of the next generation fighters, though it wanted 750, which would be enough to give the U.S. air supremacy over battlefields over the next three decades. Now the fighter may be prematurely mothballed. Weapons programs, such as missile defense or the Army's Future Combat Systems, are also in danger. Others have been ridiculously delayed. The Air Force flies refueling tankers from the Eisenhower era. Mr. Obama's own 30-something Marine One helicopter is prone to break down and technologically out of date. The Pentagon shouldn't get a blank check, though much of its procurement waste results from the demands made by Congress. Mr. Gates has also rightly focused on the immediate priority of irregular warfare and counterinsurgency. But history also teaches that a nation that downplays potential threats -- such as from China in outer space -- is likely to find itself ill-prepared when they arrive. The U.S. ability to project power abroad has been crucial to maintaining a relatively peaceful world, but we have been living off the fruits of our Cold War investments for too long. We can't afford another lost defense decade.

Exactly...

Step away from the computer, open a bottle of Maker's Mark, pour over ice, drink....repeat.

I was not suggesting we were going to purchase 700 (the actual original proposal was 750), I said that was the basis point for the cost when it was first proposed. That decision led to the enormous cost we see today. Actually the administration is quietly suggesting the USAF will get 60 additional F-22's, the President's tune changed when he got "The Brief". Look for movement on the F-22 decision this week, there is a looming decision ($90 Million to continue you the line), that must be decided....like today!

Shack!

Argh...you must all be 12. 700 was the the original buy when were still in the Cold War and the F-22 was called the ATF. The project was supposed to be a 1:1 replacement for the F-15. Regardless, that is what the original cost basis was planned on. If you want to use WOW figures go look at how many divisions and M-1's the Army planned on keeping at that point in time. Funny, I don;t recall an M-1 A2 ever being attacked by an enemy Air Force...

Yes...$350 Million each is based on a buy of 183 and all the sunk costs that have already been incurred. Every new F-22 purchased from now on will cost approximately $140 Million each. Had we completed the originally planned buy of 700+ the the total cost per plane would have been about 12% more than the F-15 in inflation adjusted dollars.

I am not willing to bet...

The "goal" is to have all "combat" forces out of Iraq by the third quarter of 2010...Anything strike you as funny about that statement? Assuming it to be fact, who do you think is going to stay behind and provide the fires portion. The USAF was raped by Clinton and Bush I gets a lot of the blame for creating the scenario. We flew OSW and ONW for 12 years...while the other services enjoyed the peace. Those operations used up 30-40 years of service life on our F-15's, F-16's, Tankers...etc. My prediction is another period of the Air Force carrying the load, without the credit, or more importantly, the funding.

Again slight of hand and typical of your nonsense...war costs are rolled in and they refuse toe tell us the amounts...real transparent. Make you a deal, when the FY10 inflation numbers post, you come back and eat crow followed by a life-time ban.

Just 46 years of history...

An increase less than inflation = a decrease.

Please tell me this is rhetoric... Carter???? He nearly destroyed the U.S. Military and he knew it. Carter himself discovered the consequences of those military cutbacks during the defining moment of his term--the Iran Hostage Crisis. When he asked how many B-52s the Air Force could muster for a strike against Iranian targets, Carter was told "four," and only if the necessary number of KC-135 tankers (for in-flight refueling) were available. Needless to say plans for a long-range strike against Iran were quickly scrubbed. Recent Democratic Presidents have an abysmal record with the military and national security. Both parties can certainly share blame for the 911 attacks, but under Clinton our national intelligence system was gutted, just like Carter did to the military. Carter and Clinton will not get love from me. You mean like how you are distorting the facts??? You mysteriously left out the next line in your quote, so met me help you give a truthful answer... The budget request includes 533.7 billion dollars for the main defense budget, which marks an increase of four percent over the main budget for fiscal 2009. Some war costs were shifted to the main defense budget, Pentagon officials said, but did not offer further details. The defense budget will grow at 4.0%, however, some of the war costs are now rolled into the budget (funny the transparency doctrine does not apply to how much is rolled into)....meaning goodbye supplementals. Take out the war costs and the military is in serious trouble...our equipment is worn out...and we will get less to replace it.

Funny...of all the countries you mention with smaller defense budgets....they are ALL against us, they ALL seek to undermine our influence, and they ALL work together to disrupt our forces, networks, technology.

Yes....and they always consider waivers...

When my old man gave up command of a squadron they gave him a travel pod converted into a working wet bar.

After only two posts you have figured out my background and how the world works? How about I had seven OSW/ONW deployments, a wonderful 120 day trip to Bosnia, as well as 2 X 120 deployments to Korea before there ever was a thought of OEF or OIF. Oh and guess what Einstein, I’ve done the OEF gig as well, from the start…shocking huh. All told, I bet I have more time deployed than you do in the USAF. You don’t like the “poop”, then don’t read it you fucking crybaby. Edit...forgot to at the wonderful vacation in Somalia.

At least herc guys put the gear down when landing in a hole.