What's wrong with the Air Force?

[raimius]

18 hours ago, Homestar said:

Agree that what AMC does should probably be renamed Advanced Tactics School. I have no problem with them wearing a fighter pilot’s patch tho. 

Probably stated my opinion in a better way than I put it.

 

It is partially semantics.  Unarmed infil/exfil, Intel gathering, refueling, etc. are all important functions, but I would argue that they are not employing weapons to fulfill those functions.  I can see EW and offensive cyber, as they can disable enemy systems directly. 

Calling a school that teaches tactics for an unarmed aircraft/system that does not have direct effects on the enemy a "weapons school" rings hollow to me.  I call it political posturing because that is how you get the tactical experts in some communities to be taken seriously (e.g. people look for patches).  The patch and title of "weapons school grad" gives a base level of commonality and familiarity across communities.  

Yes, when I meet AMC dudes who have a patch, I assume they are good at their jobs.  What I don't think to myself is "wow, what an impressive weapon" when I look at a KC-135.

To me it fits in with the "everyone a warrior" idea.  Not everyone is a warrior.  That doesn't diminish their value.  We need docs, logisticians, engineers, network admins, etc, etc.  If you are in uniform, you should have training in combat skills, but that's for contingencies in most AFSCs.

Edited January 13, 2019 by raimius

[Prozac]

6 minutes ago, raimius said:

What I don't think to myself is "wow, what an impressive weapon" when I look at a KC-135.

 

That’s not what your mom said. 

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, HU&W said:

Not all weapons create kinetic effects.

Effects Based Operations for Air Force Bands. 

[Breckey]

2 hours ago, raimius said:

Having tactical experts is a great idea.  Calling all .mil aircraft "weapons" and having "weapons schools" for each muddies the waters, IMO.

There is a reason the final block of USAFWS is called Integration. That is the biggest thing a patch brings to the fight. A tanker patch may not be flying the night one vul up to the refueling track but you had better believe that they are intimately involved in the fuel plan for the push (if they're not editing PRFs for the Wg/CC). ICBMs have patches. It's not because they need tactical experts to employ their fire-and-forget missile, but because they are ostensibly experts at planning and integrating the available assets and target from the NTO into the OPLANs directed by JCS.

A Huey Weapon School (proper) would not work at this stage because there is not that integration. Yes, weapons are employed and tactics are used but outside of Security Forces nobody is integrated with (unless you add the AFDW mission but you know that they don't like to play nice with outside agencies). Any talk of it is just an OPR circle jerk by officers that want to put their name on things.

[Champ Kind]

Probably stated my opinion in a better way than I put it.
 
It is partially semantics.  Unarmed infil/exfil, Intel gathering, refueling, etc. are all important functions, but I would argue that they are not employing weapons to fulfill those functions.  I can see EW and offensive cyber, as they can disable enemy systems directly. 
Calling a school that teaches tactics for an unarmed aircraft/system that does not have direct effects on the enemy a "weapons school" rings hollow to me.  I call it political posturing because that is how you get the tactical experts in some communities to be taken seriously (e.g. people look for patches).  The patch and title of "weapons school grad" gives a base level of commonality and familiarity across communities.  
Yes, when I meet AMC dudes who have a patch, I assume they are good at their jobs.  What I don't think to myself is "wow, what an impressive weapon" when I look at a KC-135.
To me it fits in with the "everyone a warrior" idea.  Not everyone is a warrior.  That doesn't diminish their value.  We need docs, logisticians, engineers, network admins, etc, etc.  If you are in uniform, you should have training in combat skills, but that's for contingencies in most AFSCs.

Your position on the topic is obvious. For context, would you mind sharing your aircraft and if you graduated from WIC?

[Hacker]

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Deep Strike vs Air Superiority is false choice

Yes, and when your entire thesis is based on a logical fallacy (either false dichotomy or begging the question, take your pick) it creates major doubts about the actual credibility of whatever points are made within it.

[Chuck17]

2 hours ago, raimius said:

Probably stated my opinion in a better way than I put it.

 

It is partially semantics.  Unarmed infil/exfil, Intel gathering, refueling, etc. are all important functions, but I would argue that they are not employing weapons to fulfill those functions.  I can see EW and offensive cyber, as they can disable enemy systems directly. 

Calling a school that teaches tactics for an unarmed aircraft/system that does not have direct effects on the enemy a "weapons school" rings hollow to me.  I call it political posturing because that is how you get the tactical experts in some communities to be taken seriously (e.g. people look for patches).  The patch and title of "weapons school grad" gives a base level of commonality and familiarity across communities.  

Yes, when I meet AMC dudes who have a patch, I assume they are good at their jobs.  What I don't think to myself is "wow, what an impressive weapon" when I look at a KC-135.

To me it fits in with the "everyone a warrior" idea.  Not everyone is a warrior.  That doesn't diminish their value.  We need docs, logisticians, engineers, network admins, etc, etc.  If you are in uniform, you should have training in combat skills, but that's for contingencies in most AFSCs.

Youre going to have to explain what you mean by “direct effects.”

If I take an 29 ship of C-17s loaded with a brigade from the 82d, wrap them in a gorilla package of SEAD/Strike/CAS/ISR, and send them north of the DMZ to seize an airfield, that has “direct effects” on the enemy. They teach that at the WIC...

Or do you mean “weapons effects” when you say “direct effects”? If so, I’d say that limiting the WIC education to the employment of guns/bombs/missiles/radars is a Blue-4 level of understanding of the employment of airpower. The WIC is not about that (beyond Core One/Two academics...) it’s way more.

Your post is littered with double speak and lack of understanding of not only what the Weapons School teaches and produces but of the operational-level employment of American airpower. But it takes time and experience to comprehend how much one doesn’t know, especially about other MWS’s, employment, tactics, etc. and I’m far from an authority... Just trying to give you a view of what the WIC sees - take it or leave it.

It’s already been said - the WIC isn’t all about weapons employment. If the name is all that matters to you, I don’t really know what to tell you and you certainly don’t want to hear it from me.

Chuck

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by Chuck17

[osulax05]

Chuck nailed it as usual (sts). 

My observation as a MAF black border is that anyone who believes the non-CAF bros don’t belong at the USAFWS or somehow are less deserving of the patch have not spent time at Nellis truly integrating across the WPS’. 

 

 

[JeremiahWeed]

15 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

More done per sortie, capabilities per sortie not possible except in a bigger platform:

Another potential advantages of Deep Strike assets vs. Tactical Strike assets and thus an argument to increase their share as portion of the force is their range/persistence/payload inherent in a larger platform.  A platform able to linger while searching or waiting to be cued from the network or a partner's sensor, deliver more PGMs over one mission and not require as many (or possibly any) support events (AR, EW support) factor towards the Deep Strike, IMHO.

I'm certainly not a "strike" expert, never mind "deep strike".  But, doesn't deep strike generally mean penetration into contested, probably highly defended airspace in a non-permissive environment?  Also, depending on how "deep" we're talking, the striker may not have other support assets like A/A, EA/EP, etc. 

Talking about "lingering" in such an environment doesn't seem to mesh with the classic "deep strike" scenario, especially if the striker has brought along some support assets.  Isn't the idea to employ weapons and GTFO ASAP?

[raimius]

11 hours ago, Champ Kind said:

 

Your position on the topic is obvious. For context, would you mind sharing your aircraft and if you graduated from WIC?

 

UH-1s.  No weapons school for that.

 

Also, concur with Breckey.  AFGSC Huey's don't have the course we should have, but a full-up Weapons School probably is not the right answer at this time, either.

 

[raimius]

9 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Youre going to have to explain what you mean by “direct effects.”

If I take an 29 ship of C-17s loaded with a brigade from the 82d, wrap them in a gorilla package of SEAD/Strike/CAS/ISR, and send them north of the DMZ to seize an airfield, that has “direct effects” on the enemy. They teach that at the WIC...

Or do you mean “weapons effects” when you say “direct effects”? If so, I’d say that limiting the WIC education to the employment of guns/bombs/missiles/radars is a Blue-4 level of understanding of the employment of airpower. The WIC is not about that (beyond Core One/Two academics...) it’s way more.

Your post is littered with double speak and lack of understanding of not only what the Weapons School teaches and produces but of the operational-level employment of American airpower. But it takes time and experience to comprehend how much one doesn’t know, especially about other MWS’s, employment, tactics, etc. and I’m far from an authority... Just trying to give you a view of what the WIC sees - take it or leave it.

It’s already been said - the WIC isn’t all about weapons employment. If the name is all that matters to you, I don’t really know what to tell you and you certainly don’t want to hear it from me.

Chuck

 

By "direct effects" against the enemy, I mean that the weapon/system used kills bad guys or breaks their things.  

 

I try to avoid double-speak, but I'll yield on your other points.  It's a big AF, and I'm not an expert on your job.

Edited January 14, 2019 by raimius

[HossHarris]

6 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

I'm certainly not a "strike" expert, never mind "deep strike".  But, doesn't deep strike generally mean penetration into contested, probably highly defended airspace in a non-permissive environment?  Also, depending on how "deep" we're talking, the striker may not have other support assets like A/A, EA/EP, etc. 

Talking about "lingering" in such an environment doesn't seem to mesh with the classic "deep strike" scenario, especially if the striker has brought along some support assets.  Isn't the idea to employ weapons and GTFO ASAP?

If the bad guys don’t know you’re there .... or can’t do anything about it if they do know ... you can linger as long as you like, or as long as fuel allows for an air breathing asset. 

[Day Man]

32 minutes ago, raimius said:

By "direct effects" against the enemy, I mean that the weapon/system used kills bad guys or breaks their things.  

 

I try to avoid double-speak, but I'll yield on your other points.  It's a big AF, and I'm not an expert on your job.

A B-2 flying from SZL to a range in South Korea absolutely has a 'direct effect' on the enemy (and our allies). Acquiring various MiGs for the Red Eagles programs had 'direct effects'. A Mud Hen doing a low-level show of force during a TiC leading to the enemy breaking contact is a 'direct effect'...

[Clark Griswold]

19 hours ago, raimius said:

Question: how often has a large conflict been stopped/contained by a large initial strike?  It seems the popular psychology is that the bigger the hit, the more anger and demand for a strong response occurs.  I'm not sure taking out x-hundred targets on day 1 will give pause.  (Granted, if you are going to fight, taking out a lot of enemy capability at the start is a good move.)

To be honest, not to my knowledge.  The military value/effect of first wave heavy strike would likely matter more than the political/psychological effect.

11 hours ago, Hacker said:

Yes, and when your entire thesis is based on a logical fallacy (either false dichotomy or begging the question, take your pick) it creates major doubts about the actual credibility of whatever points are made within it.

I hear your point but I don't think he built his entire argument on that foundation, maybe half the house but not all of it.  

I agree with him that a change in force structure and organizational core function focus, etc. is needed but can't follow him on his dismissive view of "short range fighters".  A reasonable change not a radical one would be prudent, exactly what that is is the 69 billion dollar question. 

7 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

I'm certainly not a "strike" expert, never mind "deep strike".  But, doesn't deep strike generally mean penetration into contested, probably highly defended airspace in a non-permissive environment?  Also, depending on how "deep" we're talking, the striker may not have other support assets like A/A, EA/EP, etc. 

Talking about "lingering" in such an environment doesn't seem to mesh with the classic "deep strike" scenario, especially if the striker has brought along some support assets.  Isn't the idea to employ weapons and GTFO ASAP?

Yeah, I would agree with that idea, that Deep Strike is independent for the most part of support for the entirety or at least majority of its mission and that it is done before Air Superiority/Threat Suppression is complete.

As to lingering in a non-permissive, agree again with you that it is not part of the classic conception of deep strike but methinks it will become part of deep strike & aerial interdiction as some/more strategic/theater (AI or DAS type targets) will be mobile, have decoys and be harder to detect in the peer/near peer fights in the future.  Lingering will be required sometimes to find-fix-finish a mobile/evading target, be cued from another platform/sensor or re-attack immediately.  Not saying this will be a preferred tactic just that I think it will be required as the targets/threats will present themselves for short windows of opportunity.

[Champ Kind]

UH-1s.  No weapons school for that.

Copy. Your remarks make a lot more sense now.

[Ed_Brad86]

Apparently as of yesterday Friday patches/shirts/name tags are officially banned in the 1 SOW per the wing commander at Hurlburt. Wonder if this is a sign of the bullshit to come with Slife taking over AFSOC soon...

[raimius]

On 1/13/2019 at 11:43 AM, Chuck17 said:

Youre going to have to explain what you mean by “direct effects.”

If I take an 29 ship of C-17s loaded with a brigade from the 82d, wrap them in a gorilla package of SEAD/Strike/CAS/ISR, and send them north of the DMZ to seize an airfield, that has “direct effects” on the enemy. They teach that at the WIC...

Or do you mean “weapons effects” when you say “direct effects”? If so, I’d say that limiting the WIC education to the employment of guns/bombs/missiles/radars is a Blue-4 level of understanding of the employment of airpower. The WIC is not about that (beyond Core One/Two academics...) it’s way more.

Your post is littered with double speak and lack of understanding of not only what the Weapons School teaches and produces but of the operational-level employment of American airpower. But it takes time and experience to comprehend how much one doesn’t know, especially about other MWS’s, employment, tactics, etc. and I’m far from an authority... Just trying to give you a view of what the WIC sees - take it or leave it.

It’s already been said - the WIC isn’t all about weapons employment. If the name is all that matters to you, I don’t really know what to tell you and you certainly don’t want to hear it from me.

Chuck

 

In all sincerity, thanks for reminding me I don't always have all the details.  My argument is really a legalistic/nitpick of naming conventions (a ship that already sailed).   

 

Champ Kind, don't judge Huey crew dogs by my late-night arguments.

[MooseClub]

17 hours ago, Ed_Brad86 said:

Apparently as of yesterday Friday patches/shirts/name tags are officially banned in the 1 SOW per the wing commander at Hurlburt. Wonder if this is a sign of the bullshit to come with Slife taking over AFSOC soon...

Slife the Knife!  Get some 

[matmacwc]

18 hours ago, Ed_Brad86 said:

Apparently as of yesterday Friday patches/shirts/name tags are officially banned in the 1 SOW per the wing commander at Hurlburt. Wonder if this is a sign of the bullshit to come with Slife taking over AFSOC soon...

We’ve seen this in the fighter community, it’ll change, most likely some douchebag commander doesn’t like it.

[viper154]

20 hours ago, Ed_Brad86 said:

Apparently as of yesterday Friday patches/shirts/name tags are officially banned in the 1 SOW per the wing commander at Hurlburt. Wonder if this is a sign of the bullshit to come with Slife taking over AFSOC soon...

They have been banned at Cannon for awhile now. Been there 3 years and never had Friday patches or tags. We used to have shirts that were just tan with our logo, our CC “took” those away when the big blue AFI came out for OCPs and didn’t state that it allowed them. Right around that time 27 SOG peeps that deployed were “not allowed” to wear OCP baseball hats. 

[Danger41]

I’ll never understand some of the AFSOC leadership that are so opposed to the Friday shirts, callsigns, etc. Dudes love showing off their squadron and having a little fun in their jobs. IMHO, this sort of thing is in direct contradiction to Goldfein and his “revitalize the squadron” initiatives.  

I’m sure some people don’t like them under the guise of “professionalism” or something but miss the forest for the trees.

[SurelySerious]

48 minutes ago, Yong said:

Anyone here an F-16 mechanic or pilot?

Looking for some photos, (nothing good on google) nothing I couldn't take myself at an airshow, just no airshows near me anytime.

This seems like the right discussion thread to ask that question in. Not today, China. 

[M2]

1 hour ago, Yong said:

Anyone here an F-16 mechanic or pilot?

Looking for some photos, (nothing good on google) nothing I couldn't take myself at an airshow, just no airshows near me anytime.

No good pics of F-16s on the old Interwebz?!?

Here's a good one...

[Danger41]

Watch a documentary about F-16 ops titled “Iron Eagle” and focus primarily on Hades bomb employment.

[MooseAg03]

Watch a documentary about F-16 ops titled “Iron Eagle” and focus primarily on Hades bomb employment.

Now on Netflix.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk