Jump to content
If you posted something on 21 Feb 21, it likely didn't stick during the server migration. -DFRESH ×

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just as I would never trivialize the sacrifices or challenges our airmen faced in Vietnam or WWII, I would expect our officers to not trivialize the sacrifices and challenges our military has faced si

So the draft outline for the script for Top Gun 2 has leaked (probably Trump and/or Russians.  Same thing, right?):     "TOP GUN 2:  This Time It's Non-Gender Specific"   Having be

I'm deployed and busy. I still check the forum to see what's new. I'm tired of reading posts from whiners who continue to bitch and moan about not being required to get an AAD until Col. Drama quee

Posted Images

14N vis recce shenanigans

 
*super angry that a 14N can’t tell a USAF single engine from Russian twin-engine*
 
Edited by SurelySerious
Trying to rescind a quoted excerpt, and deleted whole post. Stand by righteous indignation about simple vis recce. Those responsible for rescinding have been sacked.
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an email that was previously sent back in January to a number of different recipients, both at Dover, the AF Historian and heraldry folks, as well as CSAF.

Apparently none of those folks are concerned about the symbolism of Flankers flying over our military dead and our folded flag enough to fix it.

 

 

 

117435722_576219616380780_2049250079982066081_n.jpg

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

*Cliff Claven voice to ON:

 

As a former reserve USAF historian, official unit emblems/patches cannot display specific MWS (there are historical, and approved exceptions from WWI/WWII).

The no specific aircraft rule is why we have the goofy triangular thingie on various badges, i.e., ABM badge and wings, et al, and on various squadron patches.

Most likely, this isn't/wasn't designed with specific silhouttes of a Flanker, just either a bad drawing sent to the manufacturer by the unit originator and/or a bad production of said design.

 

Is this really what we have to worry about today in "What's wrong with the Air Force?"

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d say it just adds to the list. Some Lt Gen just sent me another survey to fill out; I love more material. 
 

I actually think the cultural “only pilots need to know if that’s a Russian airplane” is equally disturbing.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

I’d say it just adds to the list. Some Lt Gen just sent me another survey to fill out; I love more material. 
 

I actually think the cultural “only pilots need to know if that’s a Russian airplane” is equally disturbing.

True story, I'm at OAMS and I have a new guy I send out to C-5 to ask a pilot if everything is good and if they will be leaving on time. He went out to a IL-76 . Yes knowing the correct MDS is important, you can't park 4 KC-10s in the same space as 4 KC-135's.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
True story, I'm at OAMS and I have a new guy I send out to C-5 to ask a pilot if everything is good and if they will be leaving on time. He went out to a IL-76 .


Uh, Prosuper, I uh, talked to the pilot.

He was smoking, he was coughing, he didn’t smell very good and he was wearing a tight blue flight suit. He didn’t speak much English but I think he said they would be leaving on time.
  • Like 3
  • Haha 8
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Most likely, this isn't/wasn't designed with specific silhouttes of a Flanker, just either a bad drawing sent to the manufacturer by the unit originator and/or a bad production of said design.

Is this really what we have to worry about today in "What's wrong with the Air Force?"

But it *is* a specific aircraft silhouette -- a Flanker -- and even if it weren't the front-line fighter of our peer-state enemies, it would be in violation of the "rule" in that it *does* depict a specific airframe.  It should have never made it past the initial design review for that to begin with.

Of course it wasn't intentional, but the fact that the mistake made it through multiple levels of review is what is disturbing.  Even worse, the apathy shown toward fixing the error (and, bizarrely, the doubling down on the mistake and digging in of heels to *not* fix it) is a *real* cultural problem, yes.

In a culture that is steeped in symbolism -- as in, nearly everything the military does has symbolic meaning -- having an organizational emblem with Flankers overflying the graves of dead American soldiers and a folded American flag is a Russian or Chinese propaganda victory if there ever was one. We should *all* find that disturbing and offensive and massively disrespectful to those who've given the ultimate sacrifice, the very people that organization purports to treat with dignity, honor, and respect.

Would you be okay if, say, the "mistake" was putting a folded Chinese flag on there instead of an American flag?  Or if a casket came back with a Liberian flag over it by accident?  Ludicrous.  I guess "excellence in all we do" is just as empty a saying as "Dignity, Honor, Respect".

 

Edited by Hacker
  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

And if it didn't have the dildo poking out the back, it'd be an F-15-ish silhoutte.(sp?)  Kinda, sorta, but generic enough.

Of course, if this was intentional, it's terrible.

I just know how government, including ours, works.  And would put money down that there's an unintentional goof in the pixels that either were sent or translated by the manufacturer (unless, of course, it was a Chinese company, then full marks to them for taking the effective shot at Uncle Sam and bad on us for not catching it before distro).

As to the rest of your comparison and asking if I'd be ok, there's an Anglo-Saxon phrase that fits.  But I don't think you really meant your question as trying to impugn my respect for our Service's fallen and our Nation's honor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

I just know how government, including ours, works.  And would put money down that there's an unintentional goof in the pixels that either were sent or translated by the manufacturer (unless, of course, it was a Chinese company, then full marks to them for taking the effective shot at Uncle Sam and bad on us for not catching it before distro).

My suspicion is it wasn't an issue on the manufacturers part. The exact silhouette shown (depending on your browser / search engine) would often be the first response on a search of "fighter jet silhouette"

The issue is laziness and a lack of effort from the Air Force Historians, Air Force Historical Research Agency, and The Institute of Heraldry. Each of which had a role in creating this propaganda...albeit, I suspect unintentionally.

As Hacker said - their defending of the patch now is the larger issue. Like whining in a debrief. There should be no tolerance for defense of such ignorance.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

As to the rest of your comparison and asking if I'd be ok, there's an Anglo-Saxon phrase that fits.  But I don't think you really meant your question as trying to impugn my respect for our Service's fallen and our Nation's honor.

No, it was a generic "you", not *you* specifically.  Really I meant "The AF".

This has been the organizational emblem of USAF Mortuary Affairs Operations since 2014.

Is 6 years not long enough for the AF to un-fornicate a logo? Is it incompetence or apathy?  Or worse?  Literally a symbol of "what's wrong with the Air Force."

Edited by Hacker
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tell mortuary affairs that you are a lesbian former Russian transgender male who came to America to transition to a dolphin and the sight of that patch triggers feelings of oppression to your gay/trans/aquatic lifestyle at the hands of the Russian patriarchy and it’ll change in about 5 minutes.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The train will not be derailed for the golden children!

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/08/19/inspectors-said-her-toxic-leadership-was-worst-seen-20-years-she-just-became-1-star.html?

 

Quote

Investigators interviewed more than 60 witnesses, according to the report obtained by Military.com. The inspector general substantiated three complaints made about Grant: that she created an unhealthy work environment, failed to treat people with dignity and respect, and improperly accepted a gift from a subordinate.

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't challenge her intelligence. I don't challenge her vision and her direction she wants to take the wing," one person testified. "... Col. Grant has definitely made this wing a better place in terms of its warfighting capability for the joint command downrange. However, [her] leadership style has limited her ability to take the wing to where it could have been."

 

So is this posted because of the pissing and moaning of subordinates or her leadership style? They became better at their primary mission even if some feelings got hurt. I know I'm old, but that was standard ops back 30 years ago. I acknowledge that people don't have to be dicks to get the job done and there is a middle ground on holding idiots accountable and/or being a total prick vs. helping people achieve and excel through encouragement and mentorship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bfargin said:

"I don't challenge her intelligence. I don't challenge her vision and her direction she wants to take the wing," one person testified. "... Col. Grant has definitely made this wing a better place in terms of its warfighting capability for the joint command downrange. However, [her] leadership style has limited her ability to take the wing to where it could have been."

 

So is this posted because of the pissing and moaning of subordinates or her leadership style? They became better at their primary mission even if some feelings got hurt. I know I'm old, but that was standard ops back 30 years ago. I acknowledge that people don't have to be dicks to get the job done and there is a middle ground on holding idiots accountable and/or being a total prick vs. helping people achieve and excel through encouragement and mentorship.

I think you get a pass on being a jerk if your name is Patton or LeMay. Some random space wing CC has no reason to be a doosh. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would’ve loved to see climate surveys on Curtis LeMay and SAC back in the day. 
 

I know nothing about this woman and her command style. But as an American citizen, when I hear that she “definitely made the wing a better place in terms of its war fighting capability”, then I am a fan of it. Completely agree that you don’t need to be a jackass to get results, but I swear in today’s military that being “mean” is viewed as worse than letting your warfighting capability slip. I don’t get it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...