Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

USAF Counter-Terror Funds Buy "Comfort Capsules"

Posted by Soulskill on Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:19 PM
from the let's-buy-toys dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports, 'The Air Force's top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on "comfort capsules" to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world ... Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.' Congress told the USAF twice that they could not spend the money on this frivolous project, but they did it anyway."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:24PM (#24254629)
    I've read several articles and I still have no clue what the hell a "comfort capsule" is. Is it a whole plane? Is it an add-on to a plane? Is it one of those napping pods like you can find here [primidi.com]? Am I alone in this one?
    • RTFA mate? (Score:5, Informative)

      by atari2600 (545988) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:26PM (#24254663)

      Production of the first capsule -- consisting of two sealed rooms that can fit into the fuselage of a large military aircraft -- has already begun.

      Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.

    • Re:huh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by dontmakemethink (1186169) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:29PM (#24254697)
      There are pictures in the link in the OP [washingtonpost.com]
    • Re:huh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Loadmaster (720754) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:29PM (#24254701) Homepage

      It's just a unit loaded onto the plane. Former SecDef Rumsfeld had what was called the "Silver Bullet." It was a small oblong silver trailer type unit that was secured on top of pallets then loaded into the aircraft just like any other pallet train. Inside he had a desk, couch, TV (with sat) and a bed. Funny note, he takes his pants off while he's in there during flight. We, the flight crew, didn't get anything like that.

      • Re:huh? (Score:4, Funny)

        by megaditto (982598) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:50PM (#24254891)

        We, the flight crew, didn't get anything like that.

        Well, you weren't the ones selling your soul to the devil. The man needs to be compensated somehow.

      • Re:huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Oswald (235719) on Saturday July 19 2008, @01:31PM (#24255239)

        Funny note, he takes his pants off while he's in there during flight.

        Sad note, the older men get, the more sensitive their testicles get to pressure, and the more their mass drops into the part of the abdomen constricted by a belt. Business slacks become pretty uncomfortable for long periods of sitting. I'm 48, and I can already see where things are headed.

        Just something for you to look forward to (assuming you're male).

      • Re:huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sponge Bath (413667) on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:11PM (#24255585)

        ...the flight crew, didn't get anything like that

        No kidding. When I was in the army (early 80's) we flew on an air force C-130 from Frankfurt to Crete.
        The 'seats' were just web straps.
        The 'facilities' was a small, rectangular urinal (I assume it just flowed to the outside).
        I'm not sure what you are supposed to do if you need to take a crap on a long, slow flight.

        Has that improved any recently? It just seems like common sense to have a real bathroom. At the very least you don't want the pilot distracted by a large load he can't dump.

    • Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zeinfeld (263942) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:53PM (#24254921) Homepage
      The comfort capsule is essentially a module that they can load into the plane the same way they would load a shipping container. So they can convert a military cargo plane into a private jet for the top brass.

      I read the article yesterday and was disgusted. I suspect that we are going to see more than a few careers end over it. Every military promotion above a certain level has to be ratified by the Senate. Once the generals behind this boondoggle are identified they are going to find they don't see another promotion.

      • Re:huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Original Replica (908688) on Saturday July 19 2008, @01:52PM (#24255427) Journal
        So they can convert a military cargo plane into a private jet for the top brass...
        ...and certain civilians, like maybe Senators. No one in Congress or the Air Force brass is loosing any sleep over this. They just have stall until the next affront to the average tax paying citizen overshadows this one. Then the media/public pressure is off and the can go enjoy their fancy new hotel-room-in-a-plane. Trying to get any accountability out of today's government requires that you let ten offenses slide by, just you can finish addressing one offense. Good luck with that in today's ADD-like, sound bite ridden, OMG Amy Winehouse is a post-op transvestite!!11!
        What were we upset about again?
        • Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by hedwards (940851) on Saturday July 19 2008, @01:42PM (#24255337)

          Discharge? That's dumb, with all the decent personnel in Iraq or other combat zones, demote them down to private and relocate them to Iraq.

          The promote a few of the personnel from below that have been behaving in a professional and otherwise honorable manner.

          Or use that extra person to allow for a fraction of a day of R&R.

  • How? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quarrel (194077) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:24PM (#24254633)

    How does this happen?

    Who's actually in charge of how they spend it? Is it not Congress?

    If Congress says no, is this a "we think that's frivolous, bad dog, no biscuit", is it a "you will be breaking the law", or are congressional meetings about this stuff just for fits and giggles?

    --Q

  • WTFOMGBBQ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:26PM (#24254669) Journal
    I was worried that these capsules might leave our betters and brass fatigued when they arrived at their destinations, until I saw that the vulgar and degraded brown leather had been replaced with suitably dignified blue, and the wooden fittings replaced with cherry, restful to the eyes and mind of the higher orders. The DVD player, also, will be of incalculable military utility, I have no doubt.

    Seriously, I can understand the logic of having people be able to sleep on the flight, so as not to waste time at the destination; but how could anybody possibly justify this level of ostentation(or, for the amoral weasels who just don't care, how could they possibly believe that they could get away with this level of ostentation(erm, besides a quick assessment of what people have been able to get away with these days, that is, never mind about that one))?
  • by shiftless (410350) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:26PM (#24254673) Homepage

    ...doesn't surprise me at all

    • by dreamchaser (49529) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:32PM (#24254745) Homepage Journal

      Nor does it surprise me that Congress told them they couldn't to it, yet Congresscritters have NO problem spending tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on expensive travel and live quite ostentatiously while doing so. Case in point: Barack Obama's 'fact finding tour', funded by taxpayers. It's just a campaign trip and the costs for security and the nice living he and his three press secretaries (Couric, Williams, and Gibson) will enjoy while along for the ride will all be paid by people like you and me.

          • by oodaloop (1229816) on Saturday July 19 2008, @01:52PM (#24255431) Homepage
            I don't have any personal experience with Congress, so I don't know how bad it is. I was in the Marine Corps during the Clinton years when money was scarce, equipment was old, and we had to go without most things we needed. I've since worked in many commands, most of them Joint or Combined, where they literally had more money than they knew what to do with. Waste, Fraud, and Abuse is rampant in the larger commands, and the Air Force is the worst of the services. Its bases are nothing but manicured lawns, its offices full of leather chairs, hell their barracks in Qatar were practically 4-star hotels. Having lived in condemned WWII barracks in the states, I just find it all appalling.

            I agree with the GP; doesn't surpise me at all.
  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:28PM (#24254689) Homepage

    The USAF doesn't report to Congress. Since their Commander in Chief treats Congress like a jizz rag, it's unreasonable to expect anyone in the armed forces to show them any respect. They won't cut budgets, and the most that they every do is write Sternly Worded Memos, or go running to the courts like little snivelling bitches, wailing "Pretty please make everyone obey the law."

    I swear, the USA is one lost staring contest away from a bloodless military coup. I mean, if it hasn't already happened. How would we tell the difference?

  • What about fluoride filters for the generals' water? Did you ever think of that?
  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:31PM (#24254725) Homepage
    Did anybody else read the headline and think cyanide pills?
  • by denzacar (181829) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:39PM (#24254789)

    "comfort capsules"..."aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.

    Dear USAF,
    For the last time - NO, you CAN NOT use taxpayers money to fund your personal fuck-rooms.
     
    Sincerely yours,
    US Congress

    Lt. Col. Brilliant: "General, I have an idea! Lets call them "comfort capsules" instead."
    Gen. Protection Fault III: "Comfort capsule...? CC... umm... catchy... BRILLIANT Brilliant! Write that down and start ordering. I'll be in my f... in my comfort capsule."

  • by goodmanj (234846) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:47PM (#24254851)

    You pay me $16.2 million.
    I go down to the local RV salesman and buy a couple 30-foot travel trailers [dutchmen-rv.com].
    I spend another couple thousand to paint UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on the side.

    You roll 'em right into your planes and lash 'em down.

    I pocket $16.0 million.

  • by Barkmullz (594479) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:54PM (#24254931)

    Obvious question:

    Does the comfort capsules come with a companion cube?

  • Fire Them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by camperdave (969942) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:59PM (#24254959) Journal
    So congress told the Air Force not to guild these things, twice, and they went ahead and did it anyway? Obviously, the Air Force thinks it is in charge. Now, either congress has to discipline them, harshly, or the Air Force really is in charge. If the Air Force is in charge, then you've got the beginnings of a military state on your hands.
    • Re:Fire Them (Score:4, Insightful)

      by monopole (44023) on Saturday July 19 2008, @01:36PM (#24255295)

      ...then you've got the beginnings of a military state on your hands.

      Um, you've not been following the news much. We're in the degenerate luxury phases of a military state at this point. We've already hit the point of comfort women [dailymail.com]. Nothing surprises me now.

  • Hypocrisy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sniper98G (1078397) on Saturday July 19 2008, @01:17PM (#24255097)
    I find it kind of odd that congress told the Air Force that when a four star general flies to the AOR they cannot make use of a higher class accommodation on board a military aircraft but whenever a member of congress flies their they get their own personal high class commercial aircraft. I'm not saying that the Air Force is right here, I don't think any of our public servants should be getting first class rides at taxpayer expense.
  • by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Saturday July 19 2008, @01:18PM (#24255105)
    It's not only a waste of money, it's horrible leadership. Any officer in the military pushing for this kind of thing should be immediately railroaded out of the military - being a good military leader and seeking this kind of fluff are absolutely mutually exclusive. Some pig high ranking General lavising in luxury while ordering people to risk their lives and live in cramped air carrier quarters is fucking disgusting.
  • Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HalAtWork (926717) on Saturday July 19 2008, @01:20PM (#24255125)
    What about war is comfortable exactly? And why are we trying to shield officers and civilians from reality (even further)? Why isn't this being spent on the comfort and (psychological/physical) well being of our troops?
  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Saturday July 19 2008, @01:51PM (#24255425)

    Reading from the story, the original idea was good but things got out of hand when people start deviating from the original objectives. The Air Force saw that there was a growing need for top brass and government officials to work and rest on long military flights. They have some planes for this purpose but in some areas for the world (and for security reasons), it would be more practical for these officials to fly on military transports like C-17s. Transports can be fitted to carry troops and personnel but they have the most basic of seats. So modules could be built and put into these transports like UPS or Fedex modular containers but are not made for packages but personnel.

    With the idea of a traveling office in mind, some basic elements are probably necessary. Chairs and table for work. Bed for sleep. The module should probably be sound proof/vibration proof as much as possible because these transports have no shielding from either. For communications, the module might need to be plugged into the airplanes communication or its own separate feed. The module probably requires some modest power for equipment. Everything should be bolted down for obvious reasons.

    After basic requirements, then it got out of hand. Certain generals wanted leather upgrades to match color. The chairs went from being standard commercial airline chairs to ultra-luxurious first class. TVs and DVD players were added. While a TV/monitor might not be a stretch if used to convey information (video uplinks), it is frivolous if used for entertainment.

  • by jamrock (863246) on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:21PM (#24255673)

    Generals and admirals are a peculiar breed, but USAF generals in particular seem to be afflicted with a sense of entitlement. It mostly appears to affect those officers typically derided as "careerists", whose personalities and actions are focused on their own advancement above all else, and once they reach general rank, they grab with both hands at the privileges denied more junior officers. That's when some of them begin to display genuinely eccentric behavior, as well as cultivating the attitude that no mere civilian can tell them what to do.

    I highly recommend that everyone here read "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War", Robert Coram's superbly-written and excellent biography of Col. John Boyd [wikipedia.org], the maverick officer whose theories reshaped the U.S. military's warfighting strategy. Boyd was one of the great original thinkers of the 20th Century. His Energy-Maneuverability Theory of aerial combat is the foundation on which all modern fighter jets were designed, and he has been called the father of the F-15, the F-16, and the F/A-18. He was also the creator of the OODA Loop [wikipedia.org], a decision-making tool with great utility to any organization, and is largely credited with devising the strategy that liberated Kuwait during the first Gulf War.

    The most interesting parts of the book to me, were those that dealt with Boyd's stints at the Pentagon, and the eye-opening look at the inner workings of the military bureaucracy. The comparisons of a general's staff to the "court of a pasha" are quite humorous, as well as the details of some of the eccentricities and personal foibles of some of the Air Force's (unnamed) senior officers of the time.

    - There was the general who decided that he didn't like the fact that all the stop signs at his command seemed "incomplete", so he ordered that the backs of all of them be painted brown;

    - For some reason, another couldn't abide facial hair, so none of his subordinates were allowed to grow a mustache (he couldn't legally enforce this requirement, but his authority was never challenged);

    - Then there's the one who would wear different uniform headgear throughout the day, and required his staff to follow suit for the sake of uniformity. His staff were never notified beforehand when he was going to change his hat, so they were all forced to bring to work all their headgear so they could change them at a moment's notice.

    - This is the one that killed me, and in my opinion this man had mental problems. This general was so determined to control who saw him that whenever he left his office, he'd press a button that flashed a red light in the outer office. This was the signal for the entire staff, including those walking the corridors around his command suite, to vacate the area and find themselves behind closed doors immediately. That way, when the great man emerged, he was met with absolutely empty offices and corridors and no plebes around to sully his presence with their eyes.

    I served in the Army, and even the greenest recruit could immediately spot the difference between the careerist officers, and those who put their responsibilities above all else. These were the men, including generals I've met, who bunked with their troops in the woods during wargames, stood in the chow lines and used the communal showers, along with everyone else. The careerists were those who segregated themselves from the enlisted men and more junior officers, and seemed more concerned with enjoying the perks that their positions allowed them. Three guesses which ones the troops would follow to hell. If the mindset and culture pervading the upper echelons of the Air Force is that of the careerist, it should come as no surprise that something as minor as "comfort capsules" was authorized in direct defiance of civilian oversight.

        • Re:USAF... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Loadmaster (720754) on Saturday July 19 2008, @12:36PM (#24254773) Homepage

          Bullshit, the USAF does NOT build golf courses first. They build the O-Club first then whatever money is left goes to the golf course. They delay the runway and other necessary ops till the Army has to have them and pays for 'em.

    • by WED Fan (911325) <akahige.trashmail@net> on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:02PM (#24255509) Homepage Journal
      The only reason Congress is upset with this is they didn't think of it first. When I was in the USAF, we routinely hosted VIP's that included top civilian employees (GS15+), political figures and aides, and of course, senior military officials. Some of the Generals would eat what we ate on the flights, "boxed nasties", usually a box lunch of a sandwich, chips, fruit, drink, and some dessert (Hostess or Little Debbie). None of the political people would even stoop to the level of eating what us lowlies had to eat. And don't get me started on "demanding". As a crew chief, I'm not an in-flight steward, but they treated all of us, including the flight crew as if we were their hired servants rather than the other way around, with them as our elected servants.
      • by Devout_IPUite (1284636) on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:12PM (#24255593)

        "...to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule..."

        It always bugs me how the military treats the 'senior military officials' better than the soldiers even though the soldiers are the ones putting their lives on the line. Pay increase for going from soldier to non-soldier should be only a lower risk of life, nothing else. What makes it worse is all these 'support our troops' and 'spend money on the military' types don't even realize that the troops are getting shit on.

        • When I was in the Marine Corps we had nothing but ancient rifles and flack jackets, and we are the ones who die.

          You post really well for someone who died.

          Look, when I first went in Carter was President and we had crap for equipment. I was part of a new doctrine and provided what was call Air Base Ground Defense. This was the USAF way of taking care of the "other side of the perimeter", an Air Force infantry, if you will. My M16 was Vietnam era, and may have actually been in the thick of it. My flack vest was from the same era, and when I was issued my gas mask, I was told there were no filters available. I had an old steel pot helmet and all the vehicles we were driving started with a "72-" number or lower (BTW, International made one Hell of a pick up that would take all kinds of abuse.

          Reagan came into office, despite my voting for John Anderson, and we got tons of money. I was issued a new M16, newer but still era flack vest, and my gas mask was new, and we had tons of filters. If I needed or desired training, my orders were cut and funded before I could finish asking my Flight Chief. As a result of the increased recruiting, I ended up at the Basic Training School pushing troops through.

          I cross trained into aircraft maintenance, first as a gun specialist on the A-10, then into Avionics. After the Gulf War, I ended up on the transports and took over my own aircraft.

          George Bush started to cut funding and closed bases. It started to get difficult to feel confident about sending the aircraft out. When Clinton came into power, it became damn near impossible to get spare parts and I was beginning to have my doubts about signing off the red X's.

          I got out under Clinton because it was no longer a functioning military that I was part of. Between him and his congresses, including the Republicrats, the USAF had been gutted. The pointy end of the spear we worked so hard to maintain had become an unreliable dried brittle poking device.

          We had a few politician Generals and Admirals out there, but the true problem were the plain politicians.

    • Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dave420 (699308) on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:24PM (#24255709)
      So the only reason you don't rape someone is because you'd get arrested? Does the concepts of "right" and "wrong" mean nothing to you, only "can do" and "can't do"? Jesus.
    • We're talking about high-level military executives here. Guys who have to make Really Big Decisions.

      Now let's say you have one of these Generals in Washington, and they need to go to Iraq.

      How do you get them there?

      Do they fly commercial? Probably not very regular commercial service from DC to Baghdad.

      So you fly them military.

      Now, do you fly them in the jump seat of a cargo plane?

      That might work for your average soldier, but do you really want the guy in command of all your forces arriving somewhere absolutely tired? Do you want to provide them with a work area for the 12-24 hours they're going to be in the air?

      Regular troops have the luxary of not having to go straight from getting off the plane to directly into the battlefield. Generals are high-level decision-making executives who have to be effective all the time.

      Capsules give those personnel a work-area where they can be productive on planes, and a sleep area so that when they do get wherever they're going, they're not running on a day of no or crappy sleep. There's a reason that in the commercial sector businesses pay thousands of dollars for business class seats that employees have a chance to sleep in isntead of hundreds of dollars on a coach seat. If they're flying their staff to someplace, it's important, and they don't want their staff operating on poor rest when they arrive.

      So, what makes more sense: Spending millions of dollars on aircraft for moving around top military personnel, or spending tens or hundreds of thousands on some pods that can convert any standard-issue cargo plane into a flying office?

      Give the guy in charge of keeping 150,000 people in Iraq alive a bed and a desk when he's got to spend 20 hours in the air. That's not a waste of money. And it sounds like building pods might actually be the least expensive way to provide those facilities.

      • by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:12PM (#24255597)

        If we send the guy right to the front line, I'm all for your idea. With more top level Generals where the fighting is, we'll probably have fewer wars in the long run.

        Thinking about it, we could send some hothead politicians there, too!

      • by Devout_IPUite (1284636) on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:17PM (#24255645)

        I seriously hope you're joking...

        Bed, table, okay...

        But: beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror... That's 20 inches more than you need on your monitor, a lot more mirror than you need, and definitely more couch than you need. How about you give them a bed, small table, and spend the rest on the troops.

        • by Gorobei (127755) on Saturday July 19 2008, @04:50PM (#24256711)

          A high-level air force officer can easily waste 5 or 6 hours a week trying to get a good hookup with his secretary.

          This fuck-capsule idea is brilliant, and cost-saving to boot. It's got the bed, the porn-screen, and the full-length mirror. Just need a carry-on for the DVDs, lingerie, and booze.

          This is the sort of outside-the-box thinking that made me happy to vote Bush the last two elections.

      • by Maxmin (921568) on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:50PM (#24255899)

        You don't join the military for a life of luxury, you join to serve your nation. Luxury accommodations are out-of-scope. A poor example for those under your command, and a bad precedent for where the U.S. command is headed.

        The question isn't jump-seats versus a luxury suite. First-class airliner seats [ebay.com], six to ten grand, and that they already have. Mil-spec, hardened laptops [industcomputing.com], five, six grand, standard equipment. Good quality food and drink, gronk.

        Multi-million dollar traveling accommodations? Quit the government, join the corporate world, and earn your way up to rewards that come from generating profits, not being a tax-paid decision-maker. The senior officers I've admired most are the ones who drive their own cars, and don't try to lead the pampered life on the taxpayers' dime.

        • Re:F that. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by CrazedWalrus (901897) on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:51PM (#24255913) Journal

          Maybe, but I have to think that Generals tend to be in their 50s and 60s rather than late teens and early twenties. I'm only approaching 30, but I find that my body isn't quite as good at bouncing back after a bad flight or short night's sleep as it used to be. In twenty more years... I say give the guy his comfortable quarters.

          The thing I *Don't* like is that they're using funds that they were explicitly forbidden to use.

          I also question how much terrorism danger this country is really in if they figure the counter-terrorism funds can be better used on window dressing. That's why Congress is mad (other than because they were ignored): The military is shooting the cash cow.

        • by Shakrai (717556) * on Saturday July 19 2008, @02:08PM (#24255561) Journal

          I don't remember Congress getting upset when Homeland Security funds were being spent by cities and towns on such things as new garbage trucks and redecorating the mayors' offices.

          Don't you see that if we are driving around in old garbage trucks that the terrorists have won?