Can we get rid of Combat Camera?

[ClearedHot]

So on the AF.MIL website they have a story celebrating the 50th anniversary of the T-38. For some reason our USAF PA folks decided to use a copyrighted picture from Jo Hunter (below), does that mean that after operating the jet for 50 years we could not find a suitable picture of our own? Time to close Combat Camera in the name of efficiency.

[MKopack]

Have a friend that's an ANG crew chief on the 16's out of Atlantic City. On their last Balad deployment he was able to get a photo pass out of his unit and ended up with a dozen or more "cover" photos on the Balad website and AF.mil. The Combat Camera guys were pretty hot about a flightline guy getting their 'press' - and getting some excellent shots. (http://www.balad.afcent.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123203787)

Back during Desert Storm we had the only two-seat 16 in the Gulf. "Balls 47" sat as a cann bird for the first few weeks of the war while our assigned CC guys really pushed to be able to fly. One day the Col. said to put her together. When we rolled her out, there were suddenly a lot of concerns about maintenance, scheduling, regulations, etc. In the end she got in a lucky thirteen missions and a good portion of the air-to-air video on TV was taken from 86-0047's back seat. (If the Combat Camera guys hadn't finally taken the seat, you know that I'd already volunteered myself and my camera for it...)

Pretty well known video that our CC guys put together with a

couple of camcorders and VCR's all wired together.

Just like everything else, I've worked with some great Combat Camera guys over the years - others who are mostly there filling up a spot.

[Pitt4401]

So on the AF.MIL website they have a story celebrating the 50th anniversary of the T-38. For some reason our USAF PA folks decided to use a copyrighted picture from Jo Hunter (below), does that mean that after operating the jet for 50 years we could not find a suitable picture of our own? Time to close Combat Camera in the name of efficiency.

Allow me to be the nit-picker...While it was published by SAF/PA on the website, it was written by Defense Media Activity. Yet another money-saving BRAC measure to make each service's PA/news gathering/COMCAM functions more efficient.

You are talking about an already incredibly small community. 1 CTCS in Charleston and two other SQ's (@ Hill, and strangely enough in Lackland). I dont think you can squeeze much more blood from the stone.

So if you liked this week's reporting, stay tuned for next week.

[Hacker]

At least someone took up my idea of going back to the white jet paint scheme in the name of "heritage", heh heh.

Next: smurf paint on IFF jets!

[TacAirCoug]

While I'm usually among the first to advocate cutting useless spending (looking at you, TIB), I will say CC has some value, when utilized appropriately. Last year they flew with the Herks in OEF and got some great day/night HD video of several of the fields we go to over here. Since then, we've used those clips in pre-mission briefs for crews going into those fields for the first time. While the AF will never derive PR value from any of these clips, they have provided direct support to deployed Airmen delivering the beans & bullets.

[HuggyU2]

At least someone took up my idea of going back to the white jet paint scheme in the name of "heritage", heh heh.

Next: smurf paint on IFF jets!

Too bad they decided to put the white "retro" paint job on a -C model and it's ugly-ass intakes, GPS blister, and VHF penis.

... not that I'd vote to paint any of OUR 13 -A models and their black paint jobs.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Huggyu2

[BQZip01]

While I'm usually among the first to advocate cutting useless spending (looking at you, TIB), I will say CC has some value, when utilized appropriately. Last year they flew with the Herks in OEF and got some great day/night HD video of several of the fields we go to over here. Since then, we've used those clips in pre-mission briefs for crews going into those fields for the first time. While the AF will never derive PR value from any of these clips, they have provided direct support to deployed Airmen delivering the beans & bullets.

CC has always provided valuable stock footage, training materials, historical perspective, etc, some of it at the classified level. These pictures and video are invaluable and to blame them for someone else's shoddy (not to mention copyright-infringing) journalism does them a disservice. If they've done something worthy of condemnation, I'm all ears, but I'm just not seeing it.

[ClearedHot]

Sorry my rhetoric did not properly transmit...what I should have said was get rid of USAF PA.

[pbar]

Two. Let's get rid of PA. Too damned reactive and focuses too much on "A1C Snuffy pumped 124K of fuel this week" stories. What really bothers me is counterpropaganda is doctrinally their mission/responsibility but they refuse to do it. So the Taliban eats our lunch with their propaganda about us bombing wedding parties, etc. and PA does little to effectively counter it. Yet when the IO folks step in to do it properly, PA throws a hissy fit about it not being in IO's lane...

[SCRIMP]

I personally think CC has its own place. They know better than to actually fly with us in combat (very often), but they did set up our helos with some pretty nice cameras. I felt they did a very good job capturing the lives we saved this last summer. I have no issues with them.

I personally think CC is needed. They know better than to actually fly with us in combat (very often), but they did set up our helos with some pretty nice cameras. I felt they did a very good job capturing the lives we saved this last summer. They documented the best and the worst of times in the back of our helicopter. I have no issues with them.