USAF Counter-Terror Funds Buy "Comfort Capsules" 429
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."
Smells Hammy (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're neglecting the other alternative:
Don't collect the money that will eventually be spent on pork.
Then its definitely local.
That's sillyness. (Score:3, Funny)
By that logic, we should dramatically increase the budget of the Department of Window Breaking.
Or the Department of Hole Digging and Filling.
Money that gets spent locally - but for which we get no benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd prefer pork not getting spent by the government at all. Then I can buy myself some local goods that I want.
Re:Smells Hammy (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's 20 inches more than you need on your monitor
More Screen = More Data Displayed = More better work.
and a full-length mirror
When your profession requires a uniform or suit with a strict attention to detail that seems like a given for someone highly paced in such organizations.
Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have 3 20" monitors, and they're used entirely to display data.
And I just code. Seems perfectly reasonable that someone in charge of military planning might have a good use for lots of screen real estate - like battlefield maps, for example.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends what the use profile is. If they're setting these things up with sofas, they may be designed for more than one person, in which case 37" would be helpful for collaboration, since they probably are not going to also have conference room pods.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Resolution maxes out, but a bigger display allows you to use max resolution without everything being tiny. (I had to move from a 15 inch to a 19 inh display myself, so that I could actually see at a higher resolution).
That said, the problem doesn't really seem to be what they are buying, as much as where the money is coming from.
Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:4, Insightful)
beds, couch, tables, even mirrors are all pretty cheap... Even a 37" flat TV is justified because these are pretty cheap and you need news/data in the air for 12+ hours. The idea of a box they can stuff in a cargo plane to add just 1 office rather than chartering a separate passenger plane is also a good thing.
But the whole point is that they won't buy "hotel" grade stuff like all these business hotels buy up for $100/nite business-class rooms, they'll have each unit with custom, high-end everything inflating the price to executive office levels... and the pod will be assigned by ranks, jobs, so they won't be "common use" they'll be flown around EMPTY most of the time to get the Pods to the "appropriate" people.
Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are other possible legitimate uses for something like this as well.
It could be used for secure and clandestine meetings with foreign VIPs. Some don't take well to sacrificing comfort and ostentation in the name of secrecy. This would allow such meetings to remain secret without ruffling feathers.
Say for example said VIP is meeting with a foreign head of state (or other high profile figure). The meeting needs to be top secret (no publicity or press knowledge). Said foreign VIP goes to visit airbase (US plane with our VIP and comfort pod is there waiting). While out of site of press in secure area, hops into Comfort Pod which looks like generic cargo container and is loaded into plane. Plane takes off and flies around for meeting to maintain security then returns to airbase. Foreign VIP is happy with comfort level and feels special while security is maintained.
VIP aircraft stand out. A cargo plane on a military airbase does not. When you don't know whether or not the other side is watching, make it harder for them to spot what they are looking for.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Except that if you RTFA, these things cost more than a million dollars each ($7.6M for 7, assuming no further overruns). They spent $68,240 just to change the leather seat upholstery from brown to blue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And there is an entire FLEET of VIP jets, from biz-jets up to 747-class birds for them to use.
Converting a CONEX container to a flying office, with a couple of bunks and a worktable, that's reasonable. Even comm hookups make sense.
But there's a massive difference between a comfortable work environment you can roll into the cargo bay of an airlifter, and this boondoggle. . read the details: 68K for change of ta
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> Honestly, I think 68k for a change of that nature is quite cheap if you look at all of the things involved
If you know the change will cost $68,000... don't you think you could live with brown leather instead of blue?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, and I've seen this so many times even in private industry it makes me want to scream, those who order these kind of changes often don't realize the expense that goes into them.
In an ideal world such accounting issues would be brought forward, but often logic seems to fall apart on some of the most stupid of issues.
I don't think that this ought to result in a court martial or other such nonsense for the officers involved, but it is an unfortunate waste. I've seen worse waste of government spe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The cost/silliness is really the issue.
The same goal for seating pallets could have been accomplished by modding heavy-duty pallets with reclining airliner seats and other accessories, and it could have been done "local manufacture" by any major AFB Fabrication flight.
AAR Corp make most of the containers used for USAF air transport, and could have easily whipped up a "capsule" based on existing ISU container designs. It is basic fabrication, not brain surgery.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I imagine your assessment is at least mostly correct. I suspect that there was extra funds dumped into the luxury part that shouldn't have been. And then also that whole being told no you can't use that money for it.
Re:F that. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's not about tough. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's about productive.
There are generals. Presumably, they're generals because they have important shit to do.
If you are flying your general around, do you want him able to work, or do you want him twiddling his thumbs in an airplane seat?
The idea behind the capsules is that you can fly generals around WITHOUT it having to take them 'out of action'. They can be on the plane and doing all the things they could do if they were not on the plane.
Hell, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars making sure the President can be productive on his 747. A few hundred thousand for the next level down in the command chain doesn't seem unreasonable.
Decision makers should be elitists. (Score:3, Insightful)
A tired grunt gets himself and maybe his buddies killed.
A tired general gets hundreds or thousands of grunts killed.
You're also missing another aspect.
Your general is going to be making mission-critical decisions on-arrival, or maybe even on the plane. The people 'actually doing the job' have buffer time between when they arrive and when they are in mission-critical environments.
Or put another way, when the 'people doing the job' get off the plane, they get a chance to get a night's sleep before they're in
Re:Actually, this really could be legitimate... (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. Troops fly military charter (airlines like World Airlines, ATA, etc....flying B747/767/etc.) to Kuwait, and then C-130 or C-17 from Kuwait to Iraq.
It is illegal for US troops to fly on foreign-flagged aircraft (DOD policy). It is also illegal for US-flagged commercial/charter operators to fly into Iraq (FAA policy)).
I've personally flown on just about every kind of aircraft in and out of Iraq/etc., including non-US flagged crappy old Russian charters, commercial non-US airlines, and all manner of military aircraft.
It's true that charter is about cost savings OUTSIDE Iraqi airspace. It's also about limited tactical aircraft asset availability, and keeping them for cargo and other critical missions.
(military cargo ALSO/often flies in on Russian aircraft, operated by charter carriers; it's just PAX and special cargo (munitions, sensitive items, bodies, etc.) which have to fly on US flagged aircraft)
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA mate? (Score:5, Informative)
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:RTFA mate? (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.american.edu/IRVINE/sarahg/capsule2.jpg [american.edu] - Yep that's it.
Re:huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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
C-130's haven't changed at all, of course. They're still the 1950's cracker boxes they've always been. I flew 14 hours on a C-141 to Saudi back in 1990 for Desert Storm. Sling seats, sitting with your knees interlocked with the person across from you... nightmare [att.net]. In 2001 I got to make almost the same flight on a C-17... quite a difference [wikimedia.org]. You can walk down the center! It has a real aircraft lavatory! The seats... well, the seats are still sling seats, but they're much better designed with a more sophisti
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Funny note, [Donald Rumsfeld] takes his pants off while he's in there during flight. We, the flight crew, didn't get anything like that.
Yeah, we didn't get 70-year old male strippers in the Navy, either.
Re:huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
...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: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, every military promotion above a certain level has to be ratified.
That is everybody at or above the rank of 2nd Lieutenant and Ensign (O-1).
Most of these are read off at the end of each daily congressional session and ratified without even a voice vote (the Senate chair says something like "are there any objections?" and then considers the appointment to be ratified), and there are some noted exceptions for things like battlefield promotions, but every military officer does get "confirmed" by the Sena
Re:huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Promotion? How about a kick ass demotion to corporal (or the equivalent) followed by a dishonerable discharge?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that officers receive a commission directly (well, in theory) from the President and couldn't be demoted to the enlisted ranks. They could have that commission revoked by POTUS but I'm not sure that Congress could do it -- though they could hold-up/refuse promotions over this as somebody already pointed out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Pelosi's House, it results in a sternly-worded letter.
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
some military types have no respect even for the constitution or their own rules of conduct ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html [cnn.com] ), so what makes you think they'll listen to congress when it comes to spending money on luxuries for themselves?
Re:How? (Score:4, Informative)
Coming up on the end of my 7th year in the Navy, and I can't recall any instances of religious discrimination. I'm an agnostic myself, and in my experience people just "do" (ie, complain about) their jobs regardless of their affiliation with Atheism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, etc...
Personally, I found the evidence presented in that article to be fairly weak. When asked to sit somewhere else at Thanksgiving, was it because he was being obnoxious about his belief rather than just sitting there silently while other people did their thing? How is being asked if he believed in Jesus after a near death experience evidence of discrimination?
I've had hours and hours of training in religious tolerance and whatnot, I can't imagine that the Army is much different. But this is America, so if people want to make fun of his atheism, he's more than welcome to make fun of their prostrations to FSM so long as it does not affect anyone's job, evidence of which I did not see in that article.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I ran into one instance back arround 1978 or 79, none since and I retired in 1998. The Military is big and diverse, you'll run into anything you'll run into in society there yet for the most part the military is more progressive than society in general.
Watch Yes Minister (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be mandatory viewing because among other things it shows how little real power politicians have.
After all, how long does a general serve compared to a senator? And the general doesn't have to fight a war every 2 years and defeat his rivals.
Congress has control over spending (Score:4, Interesting)
Congress has full control over spending. "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law." - U.S. Constitution, Article 1, section 7.
Congress can exercise detailed control over spending when they so choose. Sometimes bills will contain language like "No federal funds shall be expended upon...", and that's binding on the executive branch. It's not unusual for Congress to explicitly turn off some project in this way.
Beowulf Cluster F^(k (Score:3, Insightful)
Pork Barrels v Comfor Capsules (Score:2)
WTFOMGBBQ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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))?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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))?
Basically, just about every political appointee and other federal elected official thinks (rightly or wrongly) that he/she is entitled to better than first-class treatment when the
Re: (Score:3)
(Imaging riding for 8 hours in a C-17 sitting on a jump seat like a paratrooper instead.)
I'd rather do that than deal with the anal-probing TSA officers that we get to contend with when we fly civil aviation.
In fact, I'll bet that some of the people in congress who sought to deny the Air Force the permission to spend the funds that way are some of the very same people who have complained or berated Air Force crews about the accommodations.
That still doesn't justify the military ignoring a lawful mandate from Congress. Particularly when we are fighting two wars and running up massive deficits to do so. I don't know how much these things cost but I do find it pretty disgusting that the USAF is going to spend money on them when we are having problems getting enough equipment (body armor anyone?) to our troops on the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case I assume they'll say, "Oh, well, there's nothing we can do. By the way, Air Force, I want to take a 'tour' around Iraq and Afghanistan, prep a C-17 with a comfort capsule on it. These capsules aren't just for Air Force personnel they are for any DV. These people who are saying no to the spending will be the same people using it next month.
Re:WTFOMGBBQ? (Score:5, Funny)
Coup d'ottoman?
As a previous member of the Air Force... (Score:5, Informative)
...doesn't surprise me at all
Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
so ? (Score:3, Interesting)
barack obama, is a very high chance, your next president. EVEN if he is not, he is practically the top democrat in the nation, and therefore can probably replace any other democrat in their duties, being the leader of the party that holds the majority in the congress.
you better be fu
Re:As a previous member of the Air Force... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the GP; doesn't surpise me at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
he costs should be borne by their campaigns.
I'd agree with that in the context of Obama's trip to Europe but I have no problem with taxpayer dollars going to send him (or McCain) to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
Do you really see it as a waste of taxpayer dollars to give the candidates (or our other elected officials for that matter) a view of the war that they will have to contend with once in office?
Congress told them? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of this stuff is absolutely necessary! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Some of this stuff is absolutely necessary! (Score:5, Funny)
Ambiguous Headline (Score:5, Funny)
...and a full-length mirror (Score:5, Funny)
"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.
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."
I gotta get into military contracting. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
The USAF used to use an Airstream trailer (Score:3, Interesting)
The previous VIP container, called "Silver Bullet" [typepad.com], actually was an Airstream trailer, minus the wheels and with an aircraft pallet base added. The new "Steel Eagle" [pogoarchives.org] thing was designed based on an aircraft-qualified shelter module, which is basically an empty metal box on a pallet base. Then the USAF had to engineer an aircraft interior into the box, with lighting, HVAC, comms, and furnishings. It was a tight fit (the Airstream was bigger) and much custom engineering was required to cram everything in.
Re:I gotta get into military contracting. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, but it's bulletproof paint.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And it's made in America.
Obvious question: (Score:5, Funny)
Obvious question:
Does the comfort capsules come with a companion cube?
Fire Them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fire Them (Score:4, Insightful)
...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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We've already hit the point of comfort women [dailymail.com]. Nothing surprises me now.
Oh give me a fucking break. You are comparing three women who were raped by their co-workers to the Japanese comfort women [wikipedia.org] of WW2? Were those women kidnapped by our military and forced into that role with the approval of our Government? No? Then it's a bullshit comparison and little better than a bad Nazi reference [wikipedia.org].
Hypocrisy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Write your congrescoundrel. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like a case of scope creep (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The Psychology of Generals (Score:5, Informative)
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.
why don't (Score:3, Informative)
When the plane reaches flight altitude, open up the back and let the capsule slide out.
Re:How is this News For Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that, because it is regular practice, we should ignore these transgressions? Shouldn't the fact that this happens all the time be all the more reason to spread awareness? Your post makes little sense to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with both of you, to be honest. It's hugely important that government and military, or indeed any expense paid for with tax-payers' cash, is highlighted and examined. Particularly when that expenditure was for something so pointless. Generals want nice, comfortable quarters on a plane? Fair enough, make the military planes comfortable for everyone, don't buy a 'pod' that's presumably removable (I haven't RTFAd) so's they don't have to share it with the commoners. I have this strange notion that the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, the s/n ratio keeps getting worse and worse here. News flash: government wastes money. Next.
What's really stupid here is that this isn't a waste of money. You think general staff and VIP politicos are going to ride down in the slings with the infantry? Fuck no! They're going to make the Air Force fly them around in C-40's [af.mil] or the like. Ponying up $1.5M for a box they can load on a C-17 is much cheaper. On top of that, when you look at the Air Force's budget, a few million is chump change. The only part of this that's even remotely dodgy is them trying to pay for it with "anti-terrorism" money. It h
Re:USAF... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Only Reason Congress... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Only Reason Congress... (Score:5, Insightful)
"...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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I suspect that, somewhere out there, there's a quote by one of the guys that helped write the U.S. Constitution warning that this sort of thing is one of the dangers of having a standing military in peacetime.
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.
Hell, I was there and saw that stuff in person, and I still forget to add a prohibition against it when I espouse the opinion that the military should have the resources it needs to do its job.
Re:The Only Reason Congress... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Pay increase for going from soldier to non-soldier should be only a lower risk of life, nothing else."
Brilliant career soldier retention move there...
The move up in hassle and responsiblity is no joke, be it from junior enlisted to mid-level enlisted or through officer career progression. The bennies that go with rank, such as they are, are cheap compared to civilian executive compensation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Class warfare, read up on it.
The soldiers' job is 100% to protect and further the advantageous lifestyle of their 'betters'. Stop idealizing the soldiers, they're just tools, and stop believing their masters, they just want the tools to have good morale so they'll be more productive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget the ear plugs and the cold. Yeah, I've been there.
The worst ride was a C-141 with four rows of web seating and having my knees interlocked with the Marine on either side....for 6 damned hours.
Then there was the ride back form Iraq to Kuwait in a C-130 after the end of the war in 2003 (at least the formal war); the pilot was hooking and jinking to avoid potential ground threats while Marines around me puked into their kevlar. I would rather sit in human feces than accept another ride from my "
Re:The Only Reason Congress... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:Mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I really hate it when the summary gets /.'ed. Thanks for mirroring that for us AC!