We love letters! Write to us at letters@afa.org. To be published, letters should be timely, relevant and concise. Include your name and location. Letters may be edited for space and the editors have final say on which are published.
Full Stop
Stop pretending we’re going to be buying F-35s in 15 years. The early, virtually artisanal, copies are already obsolete and it’s not inconceivable that the whole fleet will be by 2040. If you really believe in the platform, upgrade the ones we have and buy as many as you can, as quickly as you can, and move on.
Stop pussyfooting around the A-10 issue. If anyone besides the Tucson Chamber of Commerce believes these antiques are relevant, let them have ‘em. Maybe the Army wants them for organic close air support and believes we will be fighting folks whose air defense is throwing rocks. Otherwise, shut that operation down and shift the resources to the F-35.
Stop mollycoddling Boeing on the tankers. You keep adding bells and whistles to an aircraft that still cannot perform its basic function. Make them finally fix their screw-ups and maybe consider buying some Airbus tankers off the shelf. We don’t need the most exquisite Swiss Army knife of an airplane but we do need workable 21st century tankers to replace the KC-135s, which are actually older than the A-10s.
Stop trying to invent everything yourselves and sending out RFPs to the usual suspects. Instead, let’s figure out the effects we want to accomplish and turn the brightest minds in academia and the commercial world loose on the problem. Then take the risk of giving them some real dough quickly so that we might actually get the jump on our competitors.
Richard A. Holt
San Antonio
Name Change
The summary presented regarding the logo and name change to our association was well written, “Editorial: The Air Force Association is No More, but AFA Lives On,” May, p. 2]. As we move forward in our mission scope and duty performance we must welcome such advancements as being reflective of what we are truly all about. Air & Space Forces Association really says it all, however, shouldn’t our logo capture this movement and the significance of our progress?
Should we consider altering the letters from AFA and use ASFA as being all inclusive? This logo variant will serve us with great distinction for another 70-plus years and still be “in style” with the combined missions! Please ‘Aim High’ on this one!
Col. Joseph L. Cordina,
USAF (Ret.)
Parker, Texas
Holy Engines, Batman
Enjoyed the articles on the CERP for the B-52 [“New Power for the B-5s,” April, p. 38].
Why eight vs. four engines? Was eight a frozen holy number as seems the case?
For example, the Rolls-Royce engines, pylon and nacelles from a 757, would have a cleaner solution, with fewer parts, proven design, less weight, and benefits of increased power available. Changes or upgrades to that combination would provide a much quicker answer. The same with Pratt & Whitney or GE Aviation engines.
If the F130 were truly a “plug and play” for TF 33, the choice might make sense but [not with] 60 years of technology, different companies, different engine controls, etc. The need for new nacelles indicates that isn’t true.
Charlie McCormack
Danville, Conn.
Diversity in the Ranks
In the 2022 Air and Space Force Almanac issue, Lt. Col. (USAF, Ret.) Marshall Miller basically states that “diversity for diversity’s sake” is not necessarily a good thing, because the overarching goal is a more capable military force. He goes on to say that a continued diversity push without any indication (derived from metrics) of positive impact to the mission would be a shame. After reading the letter multiple times, the only logical conclusion I could reach from his article is that leaders should develop a metric to determine if diversity (i.e., minorities and women) is helping to meet the mission; and if metrics do not show a positive mission impact, we should drop the diversity push … and just stick with the White men majority. I sincerely hope that military and private sector leaders in positions to really make a difference do not subscribe to Lt. Col. Miller’s position. I can’t think of any circumstances in which pushing for diversity by pursuing very capable minorities is a bad thing.
CMSgt. Allen R. Cherry,
USAF (Ret.)
Universal City, Texas
I am an ‘old’ Air Force, Vietnam/Cold War-era veteran, and I consider myself a stakeholder in the Air Force and the United States of America. After reading my January/February Air Force Magazine, specifically the editorial statement, “Russia, China, and Air Power Politics” and several articles in “World: USAF Aircraft Availability On Long Downward Trend,” “Unapproved Religious Exemptions Could Force Out Up to 10,000,” and “Pentagon Releases New Rules to Control ‘Extremist’ Activity,” I became increasingly upset.
How can the Air Force (and other military services) afford to undertake a ‘Great (mandated woke ideological) transformation’ and departure from its heritage, traditions, and martial values when we are confronted by peer-to-peer, superpower competition and potential armed conflict with Russia (the former Soviet Union) and Communist China? What is the point of focusing on notional, ‘feel good’ stuff like diversity, inclusion, and equality and hyper-vigilance to root out military extremists, when the No. 1 priority should be preparation for a war that promises to be radically different from the “sandboxes” of Iraq and Afghanistan?
As far as I recall, during the 45-year Cold War, our armed forces were on their A-game as the defense of the United States and preservation of our way of life was paramount because of the ever-present threat of a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union. “Fly, Fight, Win” was the mission and focus of the Air Force. This became more clear when I was assigned to SAC; the legacy of Gen. Curtis LeMay lived on in terms of standards, discipline, uniformity, and cohesion. There was no forgetting that “Peace was our Profession” and that it was a byproduct of “Peace Through Strength.”
I visited www.af.mil and saw where the Air Force “unveiled a new mission statement in April 2021. The addition of “Airpower, Anytime, Anywhere” to the original “Fly, Fight, and Win” statement will likely not deter Russian or Communist Chinese aggression if they don’t believe that a ‘balance of power’ really exists.
MSgt. Mark A. Bernhardt,
USAF (Ret.)
Orlando, Fla.