Air Force Community - Air Force Times

Letters

Put muscle into PT

I don’t like weekly Air Force physical training sessions. They’re too easy. I want what Capt. Thomas Worden [“Capt: PT test should measure combat fitness,” April 20] and the Marine Corps’ Concept for Functional Fitness call for because they are what I call “life” exercises — ones that will keep you fit for life and may save your life.

They challenge you to get physically fit, not just pass a test that gives too many points for running a short distance, too few points for real strength exercises and relies on an outdated 1996 study from the Netherlands, which no two doctors can agree on, for abdominal circumference.

We need to concentrate on strength. That all-out sprint to the foxhole is far more important than a 1.5-mile run that doesn’t even qualify for cardio training because it doesn’t require enough time actually running. Speed and explosion are what we need.

Get rid of abdominal and body mass index measurements altogether. Check the stats: When one grows older, bone grows thicker and if one does a lot of back and sit-up exercises, the muscles build outward, not inward, therefore the waist measurement will be larger. They also doesn’t take a person’s bone structure into account. Proper abdominal measurement should be in another program, such as standards of appearance.

Concentrate on strength like Worden said. That is the voice of reason, especially since he backed it up with real research.

-- Lt. Col. Eric Johnson, Burlington, N.J.

Abu Ghraib unfairness

I agree with the theory of the appeal that attorney Charles Gittins has filed on behalf of former Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr. [“Torture memos spark Abu Ghraib appeal,” May 18], who was convicted with several other troops of abusing prisoners in Iraq.

At the time of the trials, I marveled that these junior enlisted personnel, with little training in the proper care of prisoners, were being court-martialed for abusing prisoners while at the same time others were using even more harsh “legally sanctioned” tactics.

None of the court-martialed guards were lawyers, and I do not believe any were college graduates either. How can they be held to know the law when there is still a raging debate by war experts as to whether waterboarding and other techniques are torture or otherwise violate the Geneva Conventions? What the convicted guards did pales in comparison to what certain Justice Department attorneys approved.

If the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces does not reverse the convictions of all those who were convicted from Abu Ghraib, then President Barack Obama should give them all full pardons.

-- Cmdr. Wayne L. Johnson (ret.), Alexandria, Va.

F-22A is no legend

I have read many publications in which top Air Force officials use the term “war fighter” to describe the F-22A Raptor.

How can anyone realistically call the F-22A a war fighter while in the 18 years it has been flying it has not fired a single bullet, missile or rocket, or dropped a bomb or flown a reconnaissance mission in combat? Fellow fighter stablemates such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and F-117 have flown thousands of combat missions in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Troops on the ground also really salute the A-10 Warthog and the pilots who fly it.

It might be said the F-22A is intended to be only an air-to-air superiority fighter, and this mission doesn’t exist in these two war theaters. This is true, but Air Force leaders have always said the F-22 also has a ground-support role. To emphasize this point, the Air Force changed the designation of the F-22A to F/A-22A from 2003 through 2005, and then quietly redesignated it to F-22A. I think designating it as F/A fighter in midcourse of its development was an attempt by generals to sell the mission to Congress, other military branches and the public.

At a ceremony at Langley Air Force Base, Va., in December 2005, the four-star commander of Air Combat Command declared that the F-22A was combat ready and will take its rightful place on a long list of “legend” Air Force fighters.

How can anyone put the F-22A on any list of “fighter legends of the air” when, as noted, it has never flown a single combat mission? My own list of Air Force legend fighter airplanes would certainly include the aircraft that fought in combat during their respective wars and conflicts.

The 187 F-22s that the Air Force will have is, I think, more than sufficient for future war-fighting needs. Let’s not forget that the F-22 is not the only fighter for the future, as the Air Force plans to buy 2,443 F-35s.

The F-22A simply has been missing in action.

-- Master Sgt. Norman E. Jukes (ret.), Burlingame, Calif.

Joint Air power

This is to all the airmen out there who need to win arguments with our sister services regarding the independent, relevant Air Force.

Whenever a Marine, soldier or sailor says to you, “We don’t need you, we have our own air power,” remind them that they have their own air power only because of the existence of the Air Force.

Without us, aviators from other services would have to first establish air superiority before being able to support surface forces. In other words, they would have to become the Air Force.

Because of the Air Force, other services are free to develop and procure aircraft that uniquely support their own forces.

-- Lt. Col. Geoffrey F. Weiss, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.