Letters

I Can See Clearly

Your title, “Eyes on the Boom …” [ January/February, p. 48] about the continuing problem with the KC-46 actually stated the solution to the problem, but the “high-tech” gurus of today insist on replacing the human eye with television. Let me relate a true story that will seem unrelated but proves my point.

At Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., in 1952, prior to my going to Korea, I was taught a dive-bombing technique in the F-80 Shooting Star. It was the technique in use at the time, but unfortunately it didn’t work. It required that dive angle, airspeed, altitude and cross-hairs on the target all came together at the time of bomb release. Unfortunately, all of those are variables and unknowns. Direct hits were rare. 

Later, in Korea with several missions under my belt, I met four F-84 pilots who had diverted to my base for the night. I asked them about an automatic bomb-release system that I heard they had and asked if it worked. They said they had it, and it had problems. It involved diving at a 45 to 60 degree angle with some depression in your sight. You signed up so that your crosshairs were below the target. As you dove, the crosshairs moved up to the target. At that point you pushed forward on the control stick until you reached one-half of one positive “G.”  

At that point you were flying the arc/trajectory the bomb would take from there to the target and the automatic system released the bomb when you reached that 1/2-G condition. It sounded great, but if you hit jetwash or turbulence while rolling in or overshot the target and pushed forward on the stick to bring the crosshairs back to it, the system released the bomb. The pilots told me that, as a result, they threw bombs all over the place.

I thought about that and said, “What if we take the computer out of the system?” The next dayI was able to get a practice mission with four 250 pound bombs. I went to the Suwan bombing angle and tried their system. It was simple and by the end of the fourth bomb run I had dropped three shack. I simply followed their procedure and cross-checked my G meter. When it read 1/2 G and my crosshairs were on the target, I hit the release button and “bull’s-eye!!” All I did was remove the technology and replace it with the human factor.

The same thing applies to the problem with the KC-46. Boom operators with thousands of hours experience have told you, time and time again, that television just doesn’t work. Television gives only a two-dimensional picture whereas the human eyes, two of them, give a three-dimensional picture with depth perception. That is vitally important if the boomer is going to do his job without punching a hole in the skin or windshield of the receiver. 

In short, if God wanted the boomer to use television, he wouldn’t have invented eyeballs.

 Lt. Col. Alfred J. D’Amario,
USAF (Ret.) 
Hudson, Fla.

I was heartened to read the four pages in the January/February edition of Air and Space Forces Magazine reporting that progress continues to be made on KC-46 deficiencies.  After all, it’s only been 12 years since the KC-46 was selected as the winner in the KC-X tanker competition (February 2011) and a mere 5.5 years after Boeing was required to deliver the first 18 “fully capable” aircraft to the USAF (by August 2017).  

Yea team, such progress!

 Although it has been a few years, I flew KC-10s and KC-135s for most of my flying career, and I believe I recall that even back in the “olden  days” we had refueling booms that refueled all receptacle-equipped receivers in the inventory, pallet locks that stayed locked, fuel system seals that sealed, and boom operator visual systems that enabled safe refueling day, night, and in the weather.  Maybe I misremember?  

 So what happened?  How did we get on this embarrassing (and apparently never-ending) journey that eschews proven concepts in favor of technical gimmickry?  And maybe more importantly, why are we still on it?  

 Not only is it a world-recognized embarrassment to Boeing, the USAF, and the citizens of the U.S., this fiasco has wasted years and untold piles of cash and has caused immense harm to our military capabilities over time.  We are collectively poorer in so many ways because of it. 

I won’t hold my breath while I continue to scan the news for the punishment of those responsible.

Brig. Gen. Thomas E. Stickford,
USAF (Ret.)
Burke, Va.

Your January/February issue still touts the KC-46. But since its first flight in 2014 and delivery four years later, it has been plagued with problems.  Time and money, years and billions, have been lost and are not recoverable and still we have problems. One “fix,” the RSV-2.0, is over three years away.

Tell Boeing to go back to the drawing board and to put a Boomer’s pod under the empannage and to leave the video games to the arcades.

And … if the receptacles were emplaced on the nose of our receiving aircraft as on the F-105 and the other Republic stalwart, the A-10, instead of above and behind our pilots our refueling would be a lot easier—easy to hook up and without the disturbing bow wave; ask any old Thud Driver. Because we liked the Boomers we would not denigrate them ever. But, with our receptacle right in front of our windscreens, we could have easily plugged in ourselves.

While I’m at it, two more notes. Where was the B-36 in your pictorial of our long-range strike bombers?  Wingspan of 230 feet, 10 engines, and 10,000 mile range! Finally, adding division to the tape measure may not reduce overweight, but it will surely improve posture as members suck in their guts and try to stand taller.

Lt. Col. John F. Piowaty,
USAF (Ret.)
Cape Canaveral, Fla.

Finally! A senior officer that is willing to stick his neck out and do something other than talking about the possible threat from China. Gen. Mike A. Minihan’s written directive to his command and commanders reminds me of the notice Halsey sent to his fleet regarding encounters with the IJN (Imperial Japanese Navy) prior to Dec. 7, 1941. General Minihan established a rock-solid deadline of Feb. 28, 2023, for reporting back to him. I wonder how that went.  Results of the weapons qualification are probably interesting as well.

I see once again, the Air Force is taking a bath on the KC-46 again. To wit:

Complex, unorganized cargo loading procedures. How is this possible? Remind me again just how long the Air Force has been loading aircraft. How is loading this aircraft more complex to load than a C-135?  After all, it was designed as a commercial aircraft first.

The other five issues bear similar serious review.  All of these issues results from poor planning and a lack of leadership.  Why has no one been fired?  All of this reflects poorly on the current Air Force leadership. Fire management in Boeing and the Air Force officials—both military and civilian now.

Issues with the boom are still not projected to be fixed anytime soon. No excuse for that. Any excuse offered is … well … just BS. Issues with the Remote Vision System are years away from being resolved? Again. No excuse.

Why, with this many issues, are the meetings of the deficiency board infrequent? Not poor leadership … just plain no leadership.
I hope that the individuals charged with the B-52 upgrades are reading the magazine and are planning steps and procedures to avoid similar situations with their program. There is that concept again—leadership, or a lack thereof.

Maj. Howard T. Whitehurst,
USAF (Ret.)
Prescott Valley, Ariz.

Advancement

In “Honorary Promotions,”  [March 2023, p. 54] stopping the inflation of honorary promotions is easy without raising interest rates or risking a recession! Just stop the practice of awarding general officer promotions outside the normal promotion process using various real and imagined loop holes in the regulations as was outlined in the article.

Replace the questionable practices with a straightforward way of recognizing exceptional contributions such as giving each Chief of Staff the authority to give special recognition to deserving individuals.  A limit on the number designated per year or per term as Chief would be necessary.

Col. Michael R. Gallagher,
USAF (Ret.)
Hillsboro, Ore.

F-16s in Ukraine

What is the end state for the war in Ukraine?  [“Will Ukraine Get F-16s?” March p. 44]  It isn’t going to be another agreement like the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in which the U.S., U.K., and Russia guaranteed the independence of Ukraine. That didn’t work. Ukraine is probably not getting in NATO. The likely alternative is arming Ukraine to the point where it will deter any future Russia attacks. Where is that point?  We don’t know, but it will certainly involve arming Ukraine with western aircraft such as the F-16.  

The USAF is probably retiring 50 F-16s this year, and it would be wise to give them to Ukraine. What difference could this make?  Currently, the press has noted the wide disparity between the number of artillery rounds fired by the Russians (about 20,000 daily) vs. the Ukrainians (4,000-7,000 daily.) Each artillery round weighs about 100 lbs, so the Ukrainians are hitting the Russians with 4,000 rounds x 100 lbs or 400,000 lbs per day.  This same weight of explosives could be delivered by 50 F-16s making two sorties per day with a load of 4 x 1000 lb bombs.  

Specifically, this would be 50 F-16 x 2 sorties x 4 x 1,000 lb = 400,000 lbs. While the press has noted the difficulty in getting another 4,000 rounds to Ukraine because of artillery production limitations, the problem could be solved by using F-16s. Operationally the F-16s could fly in low, zoom to 15,000 ft in 20 seconds, release the 1,000 lb bombs on the Ukrainian side of the front line and dive down to treetop level again in 10 seconds which would be too fast for Russian anti-aircraft to react. The glide range of the 1,000 lb bombs (especially if they were JDAM-ER) would be beyond the Ukrainian artillery range. This is just one example of what the F-16s could do to help even the odds and there are many other missions as well.

William Thayer
San Diego

Legacy of Valor: The Tuskegee Airmen
In reading the article “The Tuskegee Airmen, Heroes of War and Peace” by Daniel L. Haulman [January/February, p. 41], I was surprised and disappointed to see such a lack of credit for the accomplishments of Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. in it. Our First Flight Society inducted General Davis Jr. as the 2022 Honoree of our Paul E. Garber Shrine at the Wright Brothers National Memorial at Kitty Hawk, N.C., on Dec. 17, 2022.
An important part of our decision to recognize him as the Honoree was the part he played not only as a combat leader, but for being an outstanding leader in the integration of the U. S. Air Force beginning in 1948 when he played a key role. Then-Colonel Davis served as an adviser to both the Air Force DCS/Personnel on their study on USAF racial policies and practices, and the Fahy Committee to establish the formal Air Force integration policy. Thereby playing a key role in the Air Force becoming the first branch of the Armed Forces to integrate. 
In “Makers of the United States Air Force” by John L. Frisbee which focuses on the 12 Leaders “whose careers spanned the life of the Air Force and who filled with distinction a variety of roles in its evolution,” he is one of those 12. One of the things it points out is that it was not a “War Department study” that allowed the Tuskegee Airmen to stay in combat but the testimony of General (then Colonel) Davis Jr. before a committee that did. 
“Davis’ articulate defense helped convince the committee, and through it the highest U.S. Army leadership that the Tuskegee Airmen deserved more time to prove themselves. General Marshall agreed that the 99th should not be removed from combat on the little evidence presented by the Army Air Forces.” This author concludes that on the integration of the Air Force, “Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. can claim a larger measure of credit for inaugurating this critical reform than any other person. For that pioneering accomplishment, America stands in his debt.”
As to Haulman’s, “It is very possible that one reason the 332nd Fighter Group lost fewer bombers to enemy airplanes than the other escort groups is that its pilots were ordered not to leave the bombers to go chasing after enemy fighters;” I had the honor of spending quite a bit of time with Brig. General Charles McGee, who was unequivocal on the discipline laid down by General Davis Jr. to stay with the bombers and getting back to them after driving off attacking German fighters until they were clear of further potential attacks. There was clearly a reason that General Davis’ P-51 carried the name “By Request.”
Haulman nears the end of his article transitioning to, “Many of the Tuskegee Airmen elected to remain in the Air Force after 1949, some of them flying combat missions in Korea and Vietnam” and failing to cite any of the postwar accomplishments by Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. at all, let alone his key role in integrating the Air Force as previously cited.
We were proud to have a video message from Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr. for our event in which he paid honor to the leadership of General Davis Jr. both as an inspiration to him and for his part in leading the integration effort within the Department of Defense. Our keynote speaker for the event, Gen. Mark D. Kelly, Air Combat Command Commander, commented that “No Airman embodies the idea of thriving in the warrior spirit of our Air Force with a past or present more so than our honoree today, Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. I think General Davis is the epitome of what we call today ‘empowered Airman,’ and in turn, he empowered other Airmen to give us the competitive edge we still enjoy over our adversaries.” I think that these current Air Force leaders get what both the Tuskegee Airmen and Gen. Benjamin O. Davis Jr. meant to today’s Air Force.
For myself, and only myself, I finally take issue with Haulman’s supposition at the close of his article that, “We should remember the Tuskegee Airmen story as a Black and White story, a story of American military personnel who served their country and furthered the great principle that all men are created equal.” Returning to “Makers of the United States Air Force” on the postwar integration of the Air Force, the author cites, “Even after integration took place, Benjamin O. Davis Jr.’s career was still shaped by race, for no one would expect that all prejudice stopped when the Air Force formally ended segregation. 
“The official sanctions and discriminations ended, but the Air Force was composed of thousands of people whose attitudes had been conditioned by prejudice, and although institutional bigotry ended, personal prejudice was much harder to uproot. Unquestionably race played a role in General Davis’ post-integration career. Both he and Mrs. Davis enjoyed overseas assignments where they met less racial discrimination than in the States. But it was overseas, most importantly, that the Air Force was willing to use Davis as a commander. 
All of his commands after Air Force integration were overseas, despite his outstanding record as a commander. The Air Force apparently believed that the time was right for senior Black commanders, but not in the United States.” My reading of his autobiography, “Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.: American,” is that clearly his early, voluntary Air Force retirement was a result of asking for a more demanding job of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and being offered nothing—so it was time to move on. 
For the Tuskegee Airmen that continued in the Air Force, it continued to be a “Black and White story” of their determination to excel and is probably best reflected in both Benjamin O. Davis Jr. and Charles E. McGee receiving promotions deserved only after their retirement.

Lt. Col. R. William Douglas,
USAF (Ret.)
Holly Springs, N.C.

I enjoyed reading Daniel Haulman’s short history of The Tuskegee Airmen and the 332nd Fighter Group in the January/February issue. I was disappointed, however, in Haulman’s choice of words describing what really was Lt. Gen. James H. Doolittle’s  8th Air Force alternative strategy for protecting the bombers by ranging out and away to engage the attackers directly. 

To say that the 332nd pilots were ordered to remain glued to the bombers and not “to go chasing after enemy fighters” conjures up the image of maverick fighter pilots going off in search of glory. On the contrary, most post-war assessments, including that of the chief of the German fighters himself, Gen. Adolph Galland, concluded that it was Doolittle’s very strategy that established air superiority for the Allies and hastened the destruction of the Luftwaffe.

 Recognizing the correctness of this approach, that is, to clear the skies ahead of the bombers, takes nothing away from the bravery and excellence demonstrated by the Tuskegee Airmen, who rightly deserve an honored page of Air Force history.

Col. Ron Schloemer,
USAF (Ret.)
Oxford, Ohio 

I just finished reading the article on the Tuskegee Airmen in the January/February issue. I’d like to thank the members of the 99th Fighter Squadron’s Tuskegee Airmen for protecting my dad, Sgt. George Mathys, 45th Infantry Division, 160th Field Artillery Battalion, over Anzio, Italy in 1944. As a Patriot Guard Rider, I’ve met and stood honors for quite a few Tuskegee Airman. 

Thank you ALL.

Maj. Dan Mathys, 
USAF (Ret.)
Fort Worth Air Power Council
Arlington, Texas

I wish to commend Daniel Haulman for his thorough article on the Tuskegee Airmen and their revered exploits in both the 332nd/477th Fighter Groups and associate units during the Second World War. This piece has to be the most informative one I’ve read detailing their role and mission, along with their path to realizing an integrated USAF (the first DOD branch to do so).  

I, among many other Airmen, had the privilege of serving in the 332nd AEW (AFCENT) during the Iraq War, in multiple phases. As we too generated and sustained vital airpower for ground troops, we also came to learn more about those we were commemorating. 

Also, some of my fellow Airmen deployed to Balad Air Base, Iraq, had the pleasure of meeting three charter Tuskegee Airmen: Col. Charles McGee, Lt. Col.’s Lee Archer and Herbert Carter, along with four other fellow Red Tails, during the operational midpoint to share their own stories (talk about rugged warriors, gearing up, and visiting an active war zone on a morale tour in their (then) 80’s!

I will always admire these men and what they from this Greatest Generation were able to accomplish as aerial warfighters as well as brothers in arms, Black and White, against a common enemy, to use Haulman’s words. Yes, we should all learn from the injustices committed, but I believe we should also remember them best for their role in accelerating positive social change through their demonstration of skilled and disciplined Airmanship. That in my opinion is the highest honor we could ever bestow as a nation.

MSgt. Thomas M. Ruffing,
USAF (Ret.)
Bountiful, Utah

Alarmed

I was interested to read Col. Budura’s letter to the editor [“False Alarms,” March 2023] about his experience in the False Missile Warning of Nov 9, 1979. I have never read anything about this event, but on that day I was a first lieutenant pulling five-minute air-defense alert in the F-106 at McChord Air Force Base, Wash. As we were having breakfast (Air Defense Command squadrons had dining halls), completely out of the blue came an announcement “ALL AIRCRAFT FLUSH” over the intercom.  “FLUSH” was a wartime survivability measure whereby we would disperse our F-106’s in pairs to different civilian airfields around the northwest.  

Being new to ADC, I was vaguely familiar with the concept, but it was not something we ever practiced. The pilots all looked stunned for a moment, then jumped up, raced to life support to grab a parachute and helmet, and headed out to the ramp to find an aircraft. Because I happened to be on alert, I went post-haste out to the alert hangar and jumped in my jet—all the while thinking that this must be an exercise. This was reinforced by the fact that the visibility was nearly zero-zero in a dense Tacoma fog, and so I was convinced we could not possibly really be going to launch since there was no way we could land back at McChord once the exercise was over.  

As I pulled into the arming area, I found several other aircraft lined up, with one already on the runway, when, just before he released brakes, the FLUSH order was canceled.
Upon my return to the squadron, I discovered that “no,” the FLUSH had been real-world! The other pilots all said that they had thought that WW III had somehow started and it was the end of the world! There were plenty of stories that followed—one of the pilots, seeing all the aircraft on the ramp spoken for, went to the maintenance hangar, where an F-106 was up on jacks under heavy maintenance.  

About six to eight maintenance guys came out, physically pushed the aircraft off the jacks, and starting putting every third screw back into the panels that had been removed.  He was about to start the engine when the FLUSH was canceled, and it was a good thing because he said the hangar floor was covered with screws and pieces of the airplane. 

I took some deserved grief for not being the first airplane to the runway, since my jet was already cocked and loaded, and it turned out that a couple of Canadian F-101’s on alert at Comox Air Force Base, Canada, actually did get airborne, but beyond that we never heard anything more about the event, except that it had been a “false alarm.”

Lt. Col. Dale Hanner, 
USAF (Ret.)
Loveland, Colo.

Two of A Kind 

With regard to “Letters” [January/February, p. 5], I concur with Lt. Col. Dale Hanner, USAF (Ret.). One magazine for each the Air Force and the Space Force. If I’m interested in either, I will buy that magazine.
    

SMSgt. Leonard N. Schaefer,
USAF (Ret.) Azle, Texas

B-36 Peacemaker

In the January/February issue I read the article “B-21 Shape of the Future,” [p. 34]. On p. 36, there was a graphic presenting “Long-Range Strike Though the Years,” which showed the USAF bombers with the greatest range of their era, from the B-17 to the B-2. My question is: Why wasn’t the Convair B-36 Peacemaker shown as well?
The omission of the B-36 I hope was an error. To not show this aircraft is a slight to all of the aircrew and maintainers that operated this aircraft in SAC from 1949 to 1959.
The B-36 held the Line and kept the Peace while deterring aggression until the newer jet aircraft could come into service with the USAF.
The B-36 deserves better than what You’ve just done to it.

Gary A. McIntosh,
GS-7 (Ret.)
Niagara Falls, N.Y.

Reunion Notice:

14th Air Force (Space Numbered Air Force), for the 30th anniversary of the stand-up (July 1, 1993). We are targeting getting people together at Vandenberg Space Force Base, Calif., on June 22-25, 2023, with particular focus on the “Plankholders” who were the initial cadre during the years of 1993-1997.  
Unit members from any year are welcome, but we are looking to bring the original members back together. Contact: Rod or Melinda Reed 
(isurocket@gmail.com) (805-588-9616).