Gen Welsh - USAF Chief of Staff

[Guest]

Upset

Again, upset is the wrong word. Bewildered is what I said.

Anyway, plenty techs and docs do wear scrubs (at random bases, not everywhere), but that's more common in Family Health, not flight med. Reason for that is ambulance duty, which gets shifted around constantly at a FM clinic. Scrubs are very common in dental. Blues are retarded and I'll burn all but one set when I get out. Realistically, ABU's are essentially camo colored casual wear, so I think that's appropriate for the office work in a clinic. Call me crazy, I don't care very much about this topic.

Wait, you don't like that? You want to wear your ABUs while you sit in an air conditioned office from 0730-1630? Copy, it's not about pragmatism or form fitting function. It's about your flightsuit envy. Grow the fvck up and worry about something important, like doing your job.

Take it down a notch there, bud. I think you're inflating this to a straw man position.

[Seriously]

Funny this thing about flyers wearing the bag but I've never heard "I wish that TACP/PJ/CRO/SERE/Security Forces guy wouldn't wear his beret, it makes me feel like he doesn't represent me". Why is the bag the only distinct uniform non-flyers seem to get butt hurt about? If you need a fellow Air Force officer to wear a set of ABUs to make you feel like he represents you then I'm truly sorry your view of your fellow airman have come down to their clothes.

That's exactly what happened in the army. Someone was butthurt about Rangers having berets, so they gave everyone a black beret. Naturally, the Rangers then changed theirs to tan.

It's exactly the same shit.

[busdriver]

So sidebar story: wearing ABUs/ Camo two piece things enabled working with the Army ground types, they didn't immediately lump me in with their perceived zipper suited sun god view of the Air Force. It doesn't matter that their perception was wrong, I was a communicator, the only thing that mattered is if I was effectively passing the message to the receiver. If I have to change my approach to passing the correct message to ensure my intended receiver understands correctly, that's what I'll do. It's no different than changing your instructional approach to get through to a student.

You can bitch and moan that the non-ers are pussies or that Army Infantry officers are fucking idiots, but at the end of the day if you could have made things better by changing your approach, who's really at fault for fucking things up?

[BFM this]

I'll wear blues if I'm not going to fly/sim.

Uhhhm, no. No you would not. We proved that during the last CSAF era (double down SEPTS in the sim for all my friends on Mondays!

I agree with you in principle, but in practice...at least pretend to be intellectually honest.

Grow the fvck up and worry about something important, like doing your job.

That's the root of the problem. Whether it's patches or hats or ABUs or bags, we're bitching about some really trivial shit. (Have to implicate myself, I bitched about and/or notched blues mondays with the rest).

[ViperStud]

DD - first, please don't mistake my sarcasm for true anger. Second, never tone down sarcasm - it breeds weakness. I get it, I had a tone. That was on purpose.

Should I have to wear blues when not on the schedule? Hell no. But I bring it up as an example of having some logic (not flight suit envy) dictate UOD. I have to wear a bag most days. Do office workers have to wear ABUs? Either apply some type of objective criteria across the board or shut up and color. Insecurity and hurt feelings are poor foundations upon which to build policy.

Culture and leadership are the two main reasons I separated. Chalk this up to a sub- bullet under culture. I don't bitch about berets, badges/tabs, cords, weapons that I am not authorized to wear. I chose my path and live within the confines of that path. This is the military (not Boy Scouts) and we cannot/should not cater to insecurities. I get why senior leaders may mix up uniforms and there is a reason for it that logic does not apply to the masses.

Want a beret? Finance isn't for you. Want a gun? Be a sky cop. I went through a longer schoolhouse than most other career fields go through. Want to wear a bag? Earn it. When I was at Vance, we had 1COs that had wings made. Didn't wear them obviously, but had them sitting on their desks. Full-up radiator badges. How does that look to the dude that washes out in phase 3? Out-processing and seeing some 1CO with the wings you couldn't earn on her desk. Or how about the grads? You work your balls off for a year to earn something and see that?

Sure, that's a little dramatic. I get it. My point remains - if you want something then earn it. If you aren't willing to walk the walk, then why should we take away something from those that do, just to level the playing field? It's another example of the PC everyone gets a trophy mindset that is weakening our culture.

[17D_guy]

To 17Ds point, I think they need to bring back patches on the ABUs. I think it's a very small thing that goes a long way for our non-flyer force. It's ridiculous that we ever got rid of them.

For those of us in the space ops world, the memories of flightsuits are still fresh. Though I completely supported space folks switching to ABUs, I still miss what was the best "uniform" I've ever worn.

First, the myriad patch options significantly boosted morale; the distinctive unit nametags and morale patches that straddled good order and discipline just make it a fun uniform.

First, apologies to Gravedigger, I asked Gen Shelton when we converted to "Ops" if we were getting bags soon. I know I wasn't the only one, but I'm sure that drove the "no bags for all" decision.

Second, the patches thing is a big deal. We've got the Sq shirts now, and they're great. The Wing CC picks a unit for the Friday and rolls around base in that. Very cool. But the lack of patches and ability to be part of a group that has a distinct identity really sucks. Especially when we used to have it.

[Dupe]

Second, the patches thing is a big deal. We've got the Sq shirts now, and they're great. The Wing CC picks a unit for the Friday and rolls around base in that. Very cool. But the lack of patches and ability to be part of a group that has a distinct identity really sucks. Especially when we used to have it.

The ability to feel like you're part of a group is a big deal. It doesn't matter if its a letter for varsity athletes, a lab coat for med students, or fighter dudes cutting off the pencil tab from their bag -there's been numerous studies in the psychology/organizational behavior areas that show that making members feel like they are part of a group improves performance.

The Army ACUs may not be the best uniform ever, but the idea of having the division patch from your current division and the one you went on your first deployment with is a good one.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Dupe

[sky_king]

Ugh, who gives a shit? Show up in jeans and an ironic graphic T if you want. Just do your job well, get your shit done, take your paycheck every two weeks and move on with life.

[TheGuardGuy]

So, how bout' that Welsh guy......?

[Ram]

Here at DLI, flight suits are only authorized in my squadron 2 days per week: Tuesday and Friday.

Thursday is base-wide blues (or other service-equivalent uniform) day.

If you do the math, here's what my week looks like:

Monday: ABUs

Tuesday: FDU

Wednesday: ABUs

Thursday: Blues

Friday: FDU

That's right...I wear a different uniform every day.

I wonder why the bonus take rate is so abysmally low...hmm...

[stract]

please dear god end this thread derailment!

[HeloDude]

Here at DLI...

That's right...I wear a different uniform every day.

I wonder why the bonus take rate is so abysmally low...hmm...

I'm assuming you specifically put in for a program that brought you to DLI? Or were you non vol'd?

[zach braff]

That's a huge change and that sucks about DLI uniform rules. Being there as an officer student was one of the most hands-off, big-boy programs I've experienced (2012-2013). Blues on Monday and help out with the occasional Airmen event...that was it. Any uniform was fine, no CBTs, hella 4-day weekends. Except for the classes being tough as hell the lifestyle there was the best I'd experienced up to that point. I wonder what changed (commanders probably).

General Welsh is great. Sadly he has several not-so-great folks that work for him.

[Ram]

I'm assuming you specifically put in for a program that brought you to DLI? Or were you non vol'd?

ACSC in Korea at their version of Maxwell for in-res IDE. Not exactly what I expected when I got picked up for school, but it sure is...unique.

Aside from being tough as hell to learn Korean, life in Monterey is pretty decent.

This is an AETC pipeline base, and most airmen are fresh from tech school. Sometimes the leadership forgets that I am a full-grown man with 12 years of service under my belt. I have a low tolerance for mickey mouse BS.

[mp5g]

please dear god end this thread derailment!

So, on the news today, it showed clips of Gen. Welsh and the rest of the Chiefs talking on the Hill about ending sequestration. Something he said really caught my attention, that "if the B-17 was flying in the 1st Gulf War, it would've been younger than three of our aircraft flying right now. The B-52, the KC-135, and ..." (Can't remember the last one he mentioned). I guess I just never really thought about how aged some of our fleet had become.

EDIT: Autocorrect corrections.

Edited January 29, 2015 by mp5g

[Jughead]

The B-52, the KC-135, and ..." (Can't remember the last one he mentioned).

U-2

I saw that too. Hell of a point.... <*sigh*>....

[17D_guy]

Plus he's having to deal with a 2-star saying Airmen discussing the A-10 with Congress are committing treason.

http://news.yahoo.com/air-force-probing-alleged-treason-184856046.html

"Post is reported to have told Air Force officers attending a recent weapons and tactics conference in Nevada that it is their duty to support the service's budget priorities by refraining from offering opinions inconsistent with those priorities"

I'm sure Chang's pants got tight when word of this spread.

Edited January 29, 2015 by 17D_guy

[Majestik Møøse]

U-2

I saw that too. Hell of a point.... <*sigh*>....

Utterly invalid point that assumes aircraft development is linear. These planes have been around for a long time for good reason.

Operationally, the KC-46 will be more or less identical to the KC-135. It will carry marginally more gas, burn a bit less, and be able to get a little closer to a threat. All for the low price of $250m each. The KC-135 has been around so long because it works fine. A tanker doesn't need to be cosmic.

The U-2 argument is shit because they were redesigned and built new in the 80s. The S-model today has a F-118, the cockpit is all glass, and the sensors are the illest shit around. The "newer" HAISR platform that the USAF spent the taxpayer's hard-earned money on is inferior in nearly every measurable category.

The Buff can still end the world at a moment's notice better than it ever could, so there's never been much incentive to get new ones. Even after we buy $60B worth of LRS-Bs, we're still keeping the Buffs anyway. Did the chief mention that part?

Edit: TLDR: The B-17 was inferior within 10 years of its first flight. The 3 aircraft above are still relevant and their replacements will either be similar in capes, a newer version of the same design, or not even required.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Majestik Møøse

[Fuzz]

Utterly invalid point that assumes aircraft development is linear. These planes have been around for a long time for good reason.

Operationally, the KC-46 will be more or less identical to the KC-135. It will carry marginally more gas, burn a bit less, and be able to get a little closer to a threat. All for the low price of $250m each. The KC-135 has been around so long because it works fine. A tanker doesn't need to be cosmic.

The U-2 argument is shit because they were redesigned and built new in the 80s. The S-model today has a F-118, the cockpit is all glass, and the sensors are the illest shit around. The "newer" HAISR platform that the USAF spent the taxpayer's hard-earned money on is inferior in nearly every measurable category.

The Buff can still end the world at a moment's notice better than it ever could, so there's never been much incentive to get new ones. Even after we buy $60B worth of LRS-Bs, we're still keeping the Buffs anyway. Did the chief mention that part?

I think the point had to do with the actual airframes not the MWS. Yes the platforms all still work great but we aren't making any new ones to replace the old ones, eventually something you can't fix breaks.

[Warrior]

And hobbit just started a new thread about buying new VC-25s to the tune of 1.7 billion over the next 5 years.

So we're going to replace a 747 with a 747 because the old one is 25 years old.

Nice…

[Guest]

And hobbit just started a new thread about buying new VC-25s to the tune of 1.7 billion over the next 5 years.

So we're going to replace a 747 with a 747 because the old one is 25 years old.

Nice…

By the time it arrives though, the current aircraft will then be about 30. Considering the technological requirements for the aircraft's mission (not the actual flight capabilities, just what's in it's structure) and the argument that the new one will cost less to operate, seems to make sense to me.

Now the fact that other aircraft aren't being prioritized for replacement is kinda ludicrous, but the argument for this seems solid enough. It looks like wacky budgetary priorities rather than true waste.

[11F]

Gen Welsh just gave his "Air Force Update" at the AFA Symposium in Orlando - great speech as always.

With Ash Carter as the new SecDef, expect Gen Welsh to replace Dempsey this fall. You heard it here first.

[11F]

http://www.af.mil/mobile/News/tabid/252/Article/566082/af-chief-of-staff-shares-random-thoughts.aspx

[Vertigo]

Utterly invalid point that assumes aircraft development is linear. These planes have been around for a long time for good reason.

Operationally, the KC-46 will be more or less identical to the KC-135. It will carry marginally more gas, burn a bit less, and be able to get a little closer to a threat. All for the low price of $250m each. The KC-135 has been around so long because it works fine. A tanker doesn't need to be cosmic.

The U-2 argument is shit because they were redesigned and built new in the 80s. The S-model today has a F-118, the cockpit is all glass, and the sensors are the illest shit around. The "newer" HAISR platform that the USAF spent the taxpayer's hard-earned money on is inferior in nearly every measurable category.

The Buff can still end the world at a moment's notice better than it ever could, so there's never been much incentive to get new ones. Even after we buy $60B worth of LRS-Bs, we're still keeping the Buffs anyway. Did the chief mention that part?

Edit: TLDR: The B-17 was inferior within 10 years of its first flight. The 3 aircraft above are still relevant and their replacements will either be similar in capes, a newer version of the same design, or not even required.

You ignored the increased cargo carrying capacity. Granted that's not a tanker's primary mission... but the 46 is a vast improvement from the 135 in that aspect.

[ThreeHoler]

You ignored the increased cargo carrying capacity. Granted that's not a tanker's primary mission... but the 46 is a vast improvement from the 135 in that aspect.

Completely incorrect. Formatting height means centerline pallets only. Lack of aft lavatories means it has problems with flying pax too. Hello comfort pallet that must be moved up to the cargo door every stop to be serviced.

The KC-10 is a tanker/transport machine.

The KC-135 is a great tanker.

The KC-46 is overall ok.