Article

2008-06-05 Home Front: Politix

BREAKING NEWS: Top 2 Air Force Officials to Resign

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2008-06-05 13:30|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 While gordo england is inviting pisslamists to run the Pentagon, these two mooks probably did something really awful, like use the wrong fork at lunch in the Pentagon cafeteria...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2008-06-05 13:38|| 2008-06-05 13:38|| Front Page Top

#2 Now that our forces have shrunk so much since the end of the Cold War, maybe it's time to fold them back into the Army. Hmm?

Posted by crosspatch 2008-06-05 13:51|| 2008-06-05 13:51|| Front Page Top

#3 Wonder if this is a run up to the GAO's tanker contract decision......

Posted by USN, Ret. 2008-06-05 14:18|| 2008-06-05 14:18|| Front Page Top

#4 I wonder if this has anything to do with plans to bomb Iran. Perhaps these guys were too gung ho, or reluctant, so Gates is looking for leadership that will follow the plan.

Posted by rjschwarz 2008-06-05 14:24|| 2008-06-05 14:24|| Front Page Top

#5 While gordo england is inviting pisslamists to run the Pentagon, these two mooks probably did something really awful, like use the wrong fork at lunch in the Pentagon cafeteria...

Wow, Junior - it's your chance to show the puzzle palace what a military geenyus you are. Did you send in your resume?

It's a culmination from a lot of things. The Barksdale nuke screwup (among other 'nuke' issues), the tanker contract and other procurement issues, readiness issues regarding deployments, etc.

Looks like Gates wanted to send a message.

Posted by Pappy 2008-06-05 14:40|| 2008-06-05 14:40|| Front Page Top

#6 I was thinking along the lines of rjschwarz but then, all I know is what I read at Rantburg. Seems like a pretty dramatic move, though. The kinda thing that makes you wonder when the other shoe is gonna drop.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2008-06-05 14:52|| 2008-06-05 14:52|| Front Page Top

#7 Interesting. At least in the academic world, a change of leadership, when done for reasons of age, desire for change, or personality conflict is done with due regard for appearances. You really have to screw up to be asked to resign and clear your desk out (this happened to one of our department chairs not so long ago so I got to watch).

Not sure how it is in the military, but it seems to me, with what little I know, that either these two screwed the pooch in some big way, or they were standing in the road saying 'no!' when people above them wanted them to say 'yes, sir!'. I suppose the story will come out.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2008-06-05 15:00|| 2008-06-05 15:00|| Front Page Top

#8 Let's not forget the institutional resistance to having UAV manned and deployed with vigor. The AF has particularly been foot dragging in keeping its pilots in the driver seats while the other services have been using non-commissioned officers to fill the air.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-06-05 15:03|| 2008-06-05 15:03|| Front Page Top

#9 Bet it turns out to be a straw we don't know about yet. The AF would love to bomb Iran, they've gotten terrible press in this war. The Minot thing is weeks old and would be handled more gracefully. Sounds like something new was thrown on the camel's back.

I wouldn't want to be in Roughead's black shoes.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-05 15:14|| 2008-06-05 15:14|| Front Page Top

#10 i was thinking more along the lines of Pappy. Major procurement issues, back to that whole tanker leasing thing. Im sure other stuff we dont know about. From what I can gather this englund is a strong manager - not as willing to put up with each service doing its own thing as some were - but others here now far more than I do, I think.

Note, of course, management of the SERVICE is mainly about procurement and related support stuff. Stuff about actually fighting a war with the CINC's.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-06-05 15:31|| 2008-06-05 15:31|| Front Page Top

#11 Lemme run down a partial list:

Coziness of senior leadership with contractors. Contract and procurement irregularities. Issues with 'traditional USAF spending' (buy 'support' then go back for money to buy the weapons). UAV deployment, future UAV development. Personnel readiness, especially for deployment. Low morale in what used to be strategic defense.

I wouldn't want to be in Roughead's black shoes.

The Navy will be next.

Posted by Pappy 2008-06-05 15:57|| 2008-06-05 15:57|| Front Page Top

#12 More here.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-05 16:08|| 2008-06-05 16:08|| Front Page Top

#13 And Here

Despite reports you may be reading elsewhere, this firing was not about nukes or missiles, well-placed sources say. "Far and away the biggest issue was the budget stuff, not the nuclear stuff. The UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] fight, the F-22 deal... Gates really didn't appreciate it," one of those sources tells Danger Room. Now, with the botched missile and nuke shipments, "the SecDef [Secretary of Defense] has good cover to do something that suits him bureaucratically."

"The problem seems to be a philosophical difference between Gates and the USAF [U.S. Air Force], not anything to do with nuclear weapons," another adds. And Moseley and Wynne may not be the last to go. Rumors are swirling of more top-level Air Force officers getting the axe. Stay tuned.

ht: In from the Cold - reunification?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-06-05 16:22|| 2008-06-05 16:22|| Front Page Top

#14 I've noticed a few things driving around Peterson AFB lately that may privide a bit of insight. There are too many general officers, and the Air Force staff has been reluctant to trim at the top, where it's needed. General Moseley is a TAC Air guy, and doesn't really relate much to the strategic side of the picture. With the break-up of SAC, there have been a long string of "mishaps" from the strategic fleet, culminating with the Barksdale affair and Minot's failure of their last Security Inspection. Progress on next-generation fighters, bombers, and reconnaissance aircraft hasn't gone as well as they should have, and expenses have increased significantly. The need for rapid response to innovations from the field have not been met, while there has been significant foot-dragging about a dozen or so different projects that are simply bogged down in paperwork. Finally, too many of the military's top officers want to fight the current war with lawyers instead of bombs. We may be in for a MAJOR house-cleaning, from the top down.

I've been through three of these. One, when I was in New Mexico, resulted in everyone above the rank of Major being fired and transferred out. The Air Force leadership, both military and civilian, can be brutal when there's a major screw-up - even moreso when someone dies because of it.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2008-06-05 16:27|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2008-06-05 16:27|| Front Page Top

#15 I've noticed a few things driving around Peterson AFB lately...

Stay away from building one then.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2008-06-05 17:01|| 2008-06-05 17:01|| Front Page Top

#16 Update:
Apparently this is because somebody accidently shipped some nuclear fuzes to Taiwan.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2008-06-05 18:42|| 2008-06-05 18:42|| Front Page Top

#17 The US NPE = "powers that be" in Washington DC must be confident that ISLAMIST IRAN + JIHADISM -TERRORISM WON'T GO NUKLAR AFTER 2010.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-06-05 19:09|| 2008-06-05 19:09|| Front Page Top

#18 They just found out that they had exceded their level of incompetance and would have to be moved up to politics.

Posted by Chief 2008-06-05 19:37|| 2008-06-05 19:37|| Front Page Top

#19 Seems the fighter mafia may be getting a house cleaning.

Big issue from the Army side is the USAF attempt to grab control of ALL UAV - and when that was curtailed, they didnt want to dedicate any of their budget to support the Army in a timely fashion nor budget sufficient amounts. Tasking USAF UAV assets is difficult at best.

Or so I heard.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-05 20:59|| 2008-06-05 20:59|| Front Page Top

#20 I'll suggest they are hopelessly addicted to manned combat aircraft that are enormously expensive and rapidly becoming obselete.

If the Israelis use their long range UAV bomber against Iran and I suspect they will, then we will know for sure that there is nothing a manned aircraft can do that can't be done by a UAV.

Posted by phil_b 2008-06-05 21:05|| 2008-06-05 21:05|| Front Page Top

#21 Bombing is one thing, an unmanned fighter is another.

They're coming, but I'm just sayin' ....

Posted by lotp 2008-06-05 21:41|| 2008-06-05 21:41|| Front Page Top

#22 lotp agreed, but starving the UAVs to maintain fighter seats and golf coruses at bases... And then being slow to Army requests, and trying to rob the Army of its direct asset UAVs...

Well, lets say that brass needs to un-ass the command chairs and get someone in there that isnt beholden to the flight suit crowd.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-06-05 22:02|| 2008-06-05 22:02|| Front Page Top

23:22 Pappy
23:07 gorb
23:02 Procopius2k
22:51 Procopius2k
22:30 Alaska Paul
22:26 lotp
22:21 Besoeker
22:19 Pappy
22:19 Besoeker
22:17 Spike Uniter
22:16 Besoeker
22:15 Spike Uniter
22:03 Besoeker
22:02 OldSpook
22:01 scpatriot
22:00 OldSpook
21:57 OldSpook
21:53 Besoeker
21:51 OldSpook
21:41 lotp
21:40 lotp
21:38 Besoeker
21:37 M. Murcek
21:32 g(r)omgoru