What would you ask a former Chief of Staff?

The A-10 issue hinges on the question of versatility. The A-10 is a great CAS platform but has limited utility in other mission applications. The F-16 is a multi-role aircraft. While it may seem simplistic, the logic of the argument was that we needed to preserve the most versatile capabilities for the resources available.

While I respect the argument of versatility, by that logic, we should retire the C-17 in favor of the KC-46 because it can carry cargo AND refuel. There is no other aircraft that can match the A-10 in CAS, and I think many of believe that the lives it saves makes the small amount of funding it requires worth every penny.

The F-35 is mentioned to take the place of the A-10. That airframe isn't even strong enough to take the hits a A-10 does and survive. THE a-10 IS CHEAPER TO BULD, AND COULD BE FURTHR MODIFIED TO STAY ISN SERVICE FOR YEARS TO COME.

Thank you for your time, General. I understand the point regarding the lack of versatility of the A10, however, many of my friends who are the boots on the ground would firmly stand by the A10 for its combat effectiveness. I know people personally who have benefited from CAS via the A10 and other aircraft and they were extremely grateful for the effectiveness of the A10. Also, the sheer intimidation factor of the aircraft is astounding. It is my belief that our military as a whole would be adversely effected by the removal of the A10 from our fighting force.

SrA Christopher Wright Thanks brother! #Airpower.

Good morning sir, thank you for your service. Why is it the med board take's so long to med someone out? I might be in that situation and I here sad stories about that. I have 15 years in with more active time than national guard time, and deployments. Now for the A10 great plane, keep it. Affordable, simple, basic that's what has made it great.

All technologies offer advantages and some liabilities. I don't think one can dispute the value of persistent surveillance for military missions. And, reducing the time from target acquisition to action on the target has military value as well. Given the proliferation of the technology, however, we need to think about both our own use and how others might employ such a capability against our on troops.

Commercial opportunities abound for remotely operated aircraft...large and small. Agriculture, package delivery, pipeline surveillance, bridge inspection, etc. The key will be to keep civil airspace safe from multiplying air platform conflicts.

I left the Air Force to join the Army because of the Air Force's lack of Warrant Officers. I was sad to leave after 9 years, but i felt it was the best way for me to have a positive impact.

Having Warrant Officers could also alleviate the problem of trying to maintain qualified UAV pilots.

I have always had the view that there is a place for a full-time aviator track in the AF...one that would be competitively selected based on skill, performance, commitment. I am not sure, however, if there is a need to proliferate additional grade structure through the return of the Warrant Officer.

Gen Norton Schwartz, thank you for your response to my question. How would you outline a full-time aviator/non-command track within our current dogmatic "up or out" promotion system? Looking at some of our allied nations with whom I have served one viable solution may be to plateau those not identified for a command track at captain for them to serve out their years. Also, how would this address enlisted fliers/UAVs as other posters are mentioning?

GEN McChrystal is one of the most provocative and innovative senior officers of my generation. I think there may be specific applications of direct hire for business-related activities in the Services. But, I would hesitate to suggest a direct hire from the private sector for a warfighting role.

Sir: Since todays enlisted are much better or more highly educated than in my day, why are they not taking over more officer positions which would save money and since the flying mission of the Air Force will greatly change soon, it would reduce the need for the officers in combat positions. We put so much stock into our education system, let it work.

There were two: a recommendation for the leadership to give needed attention and emphasis to the nuclear enterprise...the mission, people, machines and infrastructure. The second was to defer implementation of the change to Don't Ask Don't Tell. My concern at the time was disrupting on-going combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, a brilliantly conceived transition strategy by Sec Gates and Chairman Mullen allowed for assessment, communication and training to occur that produced the right outcome.

The push-ups, sit ups, and run standards are ridiculously easy.

Sir,

Aside from the obvious I don't believe this answers either question. However, I do agree with the first question but for every branch. The military needs a method of recognizing technical proficiency and competency amongst it's ranks, as well as a strong foundation to encourage it.

There are three reasons: first is the reality that fitness was a pre-requisite to steady Airmen performance in the environmental conditions and temperature extremes of the CENTCOM AOR. Second, was the common expectation for military appearance among the people we serve...American public. Third, was the reality that military and family health care in the DoD is a $55B+ expense. Fit Airmen and family members would be less likely to require extraordinary medical interventions...potentially freeing resources for other uses: training, procurement, installation maintenance, family support, etc.

I retired in 2012 from the Air Force Reserves in 2012, before you could do a 3 mile walk in-lieu of 1.5 mile run, then it went to a 1 mile walk with a Heart monitor in which was extremely difficult to pass, now I hear the Air Force went back to the 3 mile walk and got rid of the heart monitor. If it wasn't for the heart monitor walk PT I would have stayed longer. Can you honestly say this was not a tool used to put out more Airmen?

Thanks General! As we get more technical I believe there is a solid argument to bring Warrants back. Think 30 year, hands on AFSC expert.

And possibly senior enlisted could better concentrate on command.

Exactly, warrants would afford a 30 year aFSC career expert who is allowed to keep their hands in and on equipment unencumbered of supervisory duties, commanders special programs etc....want to lead and supervise go top 3, wanna work on equipment till you retire go warrant. Continuity of expertise!!

More than that depending on what the rank or tis requirement is to apply to be a warrant.

There are a number of software applications, Rally Point and LinkedIn among them, that offer the promise of "democratizing" the assignment process. I know the Services are looking at such applications to improve the individual preference and requirements match. There will always be less desirable assignments that AFPC must fill...but there are new tools at hand that can substantially improve the process and satisfaction the military member and family.

Sir, What role should individual commanders and supervisors play in any future assignment process? Should they be allowed more input?

Analysis is always dependent on entering assumptions and sources of info. I would use care before alleging that AF personnel "lied" to the Congress. Without intimate knowledge of the assumptions and sources of the work you cite, I am not prepared to render a conclusive judgment on the quality of the work.

With regard to stealth, low band radar may be effective in recognizing the presence of a platform, but these sensors cannot typically cannot ensure an effective end-game engagement of the target. I think stealth will continue to reduce the risk to penetrating aircraft (and maritime platforms) for some time to come.

General - many of us are veterans, and being older have a responsibility to get to the core of the matter. If in fact anyone lied to Congress, as is not uncommon (AO and GWI, bio/chem warfare, etc etc), then coming to the truth is essential in being able to determine appropriate paths of action. I am reminded of the Rangers during the Revolutionary War, who made up stories about enemy displacements that cost a number of lives. They were ultimately told they can lie to anyone else they want, but they must give the right information to those who needed it, and they have continued that mission ever since.
With all due respect to anyone holding senior rank, doing anything other than being a leader - executing our missions and taking care of our troops, is a fiduciary violation. Policy is not solely the domain of the military. The consequences of misinformation create failing policies that cost too many lives during service, and post service. And, they irreparably harm our economy and respect in the rest of the world.
Welcome to the civilian world, General. I hope you take my comments in the positive spirit in which that have been made. Taking care of the victims of our failed policies is a costly process for us all in so many different ways, and we open the door to many international scenarios that continuously bite us in the rear.

Generals speak candidly? In 20.5 I've only heard politically correct "non-answers". That's more the norm.

Sorry. I hope it doesn't move from the norm to the only answers.