Ouch! More busted planes and worse pilots/crew when hours dry up and commitments remain the same.

I'm sure the maintenance guys are loving this... they always said those planes wouldn't break so often if you didn't fly them so much. (only slightly TIC)

And they all have huge overweight (rank wise) staffs, which won't be cut at all. It's only sequestration if it's your rice bowl that gets smaller....

F-22; F-15 C/D; F-15E; F-16 C/D; A-10C; HH-60G; B-1B; B-2; B-52; E-3B/C/G; SE-4B; EC-130H; OC-135B; RC-135S; RC-135U; RC-135V/W; TC-135W; WC-135C/W

Not one UAV (sorry RPA...I think), tanker, or slick transport type listed. Does that mean modern air combat is now favoring these types of aircraft?

Please don't take it personal if you have flown/are flying these types. I'm just asking a big picture question. Things are changing. The latest issue of Naval Aviation News reports X-47 carrier deck handling tests, an old sister squadron of mine now flying P-8's, and the "Big E" has decommissioned.

Civil Air Patrol has a new program called, "Cyberpatriot". 20 years ago, I soloed a CAP Cessna during a solo orientation camp. Today, the organization is focused on: "CyberPatriot is the premier national high school cyber defense competition that is designed to give hands on exposure to the foundations of cyber security."

We are now living yesterday's future.

"Not one UAV (sorry RPA...I think), tanker, or slick transport type listed. Does that mean modern air combat is now favoring these types of aircraft? ".

Nope. What it does mean is that our ongoing ops never seem to have enough log support. Probably wouldn't take mobility units down until the footprint downrange shrinks further.

From the tanker side, training sorties have been cut. Now down to operational (TACC tasked) missions and SIM's. Can't cut the tasked sorties because the world would grind to a hault. Still, the cost to bring those stood-down units back up will be huge. Not money savings, just passing the buck to next FY. Sad.

C-130s drastically reduced JAATTs/SAAMs but enough local flagpole flying to stay proficient....just not enough hours to upgrade our co-pilots without some longer hauls....thank god we deploy back out in Fall :)

And leave the "we" out of it, because "we" aren't doing it to ourselves.

One person/party is doing it.

After all, the way to bring down the Soviet Union was to bankrupt it in an arms race. And if one wanted to do the same thing to the USA (ie. bring it down) the best way to do that would be the same...to bankrupt it.

So, we get no budget cuts while spending 100x what we can afford. This is fact. This is also, I maintain, intentional. And treasonous too, if the person doing it is a citizen.

This will not be a popular suggestion.

Do you think we need this big of military? Do you think we can train just as hard in the simulators and be just as effective?

I know in the heavy world we could move most of the training into the simulators (if it hasn't been already) and remain safe and mission capable. We should not be burning 18,000 lbs and hour for a KC-10 to be conducting instrument approach training.

I know many people will disagree with me. But I think it could be done -- at least for the short term.

Depends on what they want us to support? 1 front war? 2 front? Low threat ops like the current war, or high threat?

Not in my community. The sims are awesome and provide some great training in certain missions, but it's still nothing like the jet.