ClearedHot Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 CE commander says the runway is a "Weapons System." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CA Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 CE commander says the runway is a "Weapons System." Sure.... I can see that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoo Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord B Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) CE commander says the runway is a "Weapons System." Unfortunately, that phrase has become one of the many totally ambiguous pieces of military jargon to be utilized at every opportunity. Is this forum a "weapons system" ? Edited September 9, 2009 by Kdubz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Ugh. BTW - the CAOC/AOC is a Weapon System. No joke. It even has it's own AFI Vol 1, 2, and 3. I hear they're going to make the finance office and MPF Weapon Systems. Warriors!!! AAAARRRR!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoo Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Ugh. BTW - the CAOC/AOC is a Weapon System. No joke. It even has it's own AFI Vol 1, 2, and 3. I hear they're going to make the finance office and MPF Weapon Systems. Warriors!!! AAAARRRR!! Oh, finance is a system alright. A system designed to suck your will to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 Oh, finance is a system alright. A system designed to suck your will to live. Don't get me started...I PCSed 6.9 weeks ago and still have not been paid my DLA or my voucher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HercDude Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 AIRPOWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Barbarian Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 If we could get them to write a Finance -1,-2, -3 maybe we could finally hold them accountable for their crappy service. At least we could Q3 them, and send them back for remedial training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jollygreen Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 CE commander says the runway is a "Weapons System." When are they opening the Weapons School course for it? RRR, lighting TT&P, Rubber Removal, FOD prevention, BASH...potential for a very useful new thesis on proper airfield grass height in the next edition of the Weapons Review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerkDerka Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Ugh. It's common knowledge that airplanes need runways. But seriously, is it necessary to sit on camera and puke up buzzwords about how two miles of asphalt and paint is a "weapons system". Did anyone even think about how stupid that would sound on camera? All I want to know is when the Aerial Pavement B-Course is getting spun up. HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitaryToFinance Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Ugh. BTW - the CAOC/AOC is a Weapon System. No joke. It even has it's own AFI Vol 1, 2, and 3. I have no idea about the runway thing but this actually came about for a reason. Funding. I don't remember the exact details but the basic gist is that Congress approved a bunch of money for building/developing new Weapon Systems and they needed money for the CAOC so they made it a Weapon System so that it would qualify. At least that was how/why it was explained to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 What a jackass. My 2nd favorite quote from that story is "...and you can't fly if you can't land." Pretty sure I can fly for at least a 1.5. Landing is only recommended, not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stunna Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Ugh, I dunno about anybody else, but I think I would actually enjoy doing about 50 touch and go's and/or assaults onto that 'weapons system' that following Monday. I mean, seriously, thanks for the repave and repaint, here's some new rubber on you're shiny new 'weapons system'... We really need to change some of our vocabulary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cell Dweller Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I have no idea about the runway thing but this actually came about for a reason. Funding. I don't remember the exact details but the basic gist is that Congress approved a bunch of money for building/developing new Weapon Systems and they needed money for the CAOC so they made it a Weapon System so that it would qualify. At least that was how/why it was explained to me. Some facilities are managed as a grouping of equipment, and are considered systems. Engine hush houses are treated as a system, but the bare structure they are in/on is considered real estate. Military construction dollars buy and build real estate. A runway is real estate. This being said, anyone caught calling a hush house a 'weapon' system should be branded a tool. And anyone calling a runway a weapon system might as well call an outhouse a weapon system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butters Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hell, I thought Florida State was going to be a "Weapons System" in the ACC this year. Thanks for ruining my day CH! Can't an FSU grad catch a break. Oh wait, I did this is a CT of my spinal fracture last June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandal Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 CE commander says the runway is a "Weapons System." I will probably get flamed for this, but I see this as a continuation of the "False Warriorization" of the USAF. Everyone is a warrior, everyone is part of the fight, blah, blah, blah. We will call you a "warrior" to make you feel special. It begins by letting cadets in ROTC and the Zoo wear BDUs/ABUs to class and in BMT by letting everyone play with guns and pretend they are the Army for 2 weeks. There are very few actual warriors in the USAF. Finance, MPF, Services, Med Group and the like are not warriors. They are support and have no reason or excuse to wear ABUs during they day; I think they should be in Blues. Logistics, Sec. Forces, Combat Comm and of course the Aircrew, USAF Spec. Ops and PJs who get shot at daily downrange are the warriors of the AF, IMO. I can understand letting those who work, sweat and get dirty for a living wear the ABUs, coveralls, bags but that is a different thread altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toro Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I have no idea about the runway thing but this actually came about for a reason. Funding. I don't remember the exact details but the basic gist is that Congress approved a bunch of money for building/developing new Weapon Systems and they needed money for the CAOC so they made it a Weapon System so that it would qualify. At least that was how/why it was explained to me. That's exactly what happened, but the problem was that now that they made it a weapon system, everything within the "Weapon System" was modeled after real weapon systems. So the AOC has an FTU, an MQ program, a Form 8 certification (it's actually a different form number but the same concept with Q), CT requirements, a Stan/Eval shop, open / closed book testing, and an AFI 13-1AOC V1, V2, V3 (modeled after 11-2MDS series). The bigger problem is that once these programs are created they are vulnerable to things like UCIs, so for six months everybody runs around trying to make sure we're in compliance with these regs. Don't get me wrong - some of this stuff is essential. For example, the AOC can train folks in house, but the FTU does a much better job of that. But a Vol 1, 2, and 3? At one point there was even a Dash 1 complete with chapter 3 emergency procedures on things like procedures for evacuation of the AOC. I shit you in the negative. There are also folks who - forgetting that the lifeblood of the AOC is the people who cycle through it with ongoing tactical knowledge - have tried to create an AOC weapon school. No joke, and I think I just heard ClearedHot puke in the corner. Somebody (I believe Mosley) came up with a loophole to get the AOC funding that worked to its benefit. Then somebody else just took the concept waaaay too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 What a jackass. My 2nd favorite quote from that story is "...and you can't fly if you can't land." Pretty sure I can fly for at least a 1.5. Landing is only recommended, not required. I know my helo brothers will join in me saying--We don't need a freakin' runway! However, on a serious note, I give CE more props on the non ops side than I do most of the other fields. In a lot of their jobs they work long hours and it's pretty physical. Plus those dudes are deploying fairly often. Also, doesn't EOD fall underneath CE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hueypilot812 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I don't think anyone is saying CE doesn't work hard, or that their work isn't important. Hell, I like my air conditioning. Despite the fact that CE works hard and has a fairly important function on base, it's still really gay to resort to these buzz words that waters down the often tragic sacrifices the real warriors operating real weapon systems make in real combat. Also, anyone else notice how glaring the contrast those ABUs have with the European outdoor scenery? I mean, the ABU semi sorta works ok in Iraq or Afghanistan (not really, but if there's a place they will work ok, it's there). But in greenery of western Europe, full of conifer forests, the ABU stands out like a sore thumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F16Rooster Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I have no idea about the runway thing but this actually came about for a reason. Funding. I don't remember the exact details but the basic gist is that Congress approved a bunch of money for building/developing new Weapon Systems and they needed money for the CAOC so they made it a Weapon System so that it would qualify. At least that was how/why it was explained to me. Which serves to point out that at the root of a great many of the Air Force's problems is the whole "colors of money" concept. We end up having to game the system to get shit we need. At my base, they're tearing down perfectly acceptable housing to build more. (Actually they're donating the old housing to a local Indian Reservation where they will inevitably be decrepit and derelict within 2 years but that's another issue) Why? Cause they have the money. Meanwhile, we literally have raw sewage dropping down our elevator shaftways (missileer) because they can't afford to fix the broken pipes. Maybe instead of spending millions of dollars to replace completely acceptable housing, we could use that money a little more effectively to buy more parts and/or fix shit that's broken. And this certainly isn't a localized problem. There are countless examples of this all across the Air Force. But why worry about it, we have an endless supply of money right? /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrooster99 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 And anyone calling a runway a weapon system might as well call an outhouse a weapon system. At least you can squeeze out a warhead in an outhouse. Seriously, what is the deal with everyone being a warrior...like someone else said, I have a hard time seeing most of the AF as "Warriors", myself included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheBull Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Well - after periodically checking BaseOps for RUMINT over the last few year I guess I should make a post... You really can't fault the BCE for calling it a weapon system - it's just the buzzphrase passed down from the Air Staff and was probably prep'd to him by PA who was doing the story. He's not the first to coin the phrase and won't be the last who has to say it. Honestly though, I haven't heard the runway itself referred to as a weapon system before, but rather the airfield (encompassing POL, airfield pavements, barriers, NAVAIDS, aircraft shelters, etc). Basically all the parts that are no-shit key to launching and recovering aircraft. If you don't have the airfield - you don't have Air Superiority. We made a conscious decision back in the 1960's/70's to sacrifice robust landing gear on our aircraft in exchange for lighter and more maneuverable airplanes in contrast with the Soviets who very much decided to buy jets with more substantial landing gear to compensate for crappy runways. The trade-off was much more specialized and strict standards for airfield pavements or you tear gear off jets - and obscenely expensive Autobahn-airfields in West Germany capable of landing jets in case the Soviets cratered our bases. So unless you have jump-jets (USMC & RAF), you're screwed without a runway. Really though: there are quite a few non-flying systems that would make waging an air war pretty tough without them - even heard the phrase "Money as a Weapon System" in Iraq (which in context of the COIN strategy was very valid)... but yeah, calling everything Weapons Systems is pretty gay. Going and calling the guy a tool misses the mark completely. Critical systems would probably be a more appropriate term, or just "juicy, crippling target." As for the whole "warrior" thing - really watch where you tread. There are plenty of AFSCs that could use some criticism, but be wary of heaping it on to a career field in Band E, picking up a lot of the Army's slack and sending people out on PRTs and ETTs... I don't think CE's a significant contributor to the faux-warrior movement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrooster99 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) As for the whole "warrior" thing - really watch where you tread. There are plenty of AFSCs that could use some criticism, but be wary of heaping it on to a career field in Band E, picking up a lot of the Army's slack and sending people out on PRTs and ETTs... I don't think CE's a significant contributor to the faux-warrior movement... Not sure what an ETT or PRT is, but you illistrated my point exactly (I think). I don't think anyone would argue folks actually in the AOR getting shot at and dodging IEDs aren't fighting the fight and could be called warriors...like our combat truckers. However, a lab tech in a rear base is not a warrior, whether that rear base is in the AOR or not. But then I don't consider what I do as qualifying me for warrior status either. So, using my criteria, I'll tread all over that sucker. Edited September 10, 2009 by zrooster99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoo Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 If we could get them to write a Finance -1,-2, -3 maybe we could finally hold them accountable for their crappy service. At least we could Q3 them, and send them back for remedial training. Sounds great, take away the one day they aren't "closed for training"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now