Jump to content

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

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

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

Posted Images

That’s probably because there are no actual weapons in AMC - hence why the Weapons Instructor Course in AMC is STUPID!!
I forgot that we’re all warriors in today’s USAF though, so maybe I’m the stupid one...
I agree with the sentiments on some levels, but i thought the "weapon" was from the MWS acronym.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

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

That’s probably because there are no actual weapons in AMC - hence why the Weapons Instructor Course in AMC is STUPID!!

I forgot that we’re all warriors in today’s USAF though, so maybe I’m the stupid one...

Wtf are you talking about? Weapons School isn’t about “weapons” it is about creating expert tacticians who are proficient at integrating effects, you know, what we do when we actually go to war.  Also, many AMC assets fly in the same MEZ as the pointy nose bretheren, so it makes sense to have proficient tacticians who understand how to mitigate those threats.  So yes you are the stupid one for making that comment.

Unfortunately, AMC leadership does horrible job at properly utilizing its patches.  I’ve seen some improvements but still too many Wing Exec Patches. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dream big said:

Wtf are you talking about? Weapons School isn’t about “weapons” it is about creating expert tacticians who are proficient at integrating effects, you know, what we do when we actually go to war.  Also, many AMC assets fly in the same MEZ as the pointy nose bretheren, so it makes sense to have proficient tacticians who understand how to mitigate those threats.  So yes you are the stupid one for making that comment.

Unfortunately, AMC leadership does horrible job at properly utilizing its patches.  I’ve seen some improvements but still too many Wing Exec Patches. 

 

Don't feel bad... The CAF also turns our patches into execs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning:  Nerd level bitching ahead.  Discovered after a long deployment and lots of time in front of a govt computer.

Go to the USAF bios

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/

Scroll down and click on a random letter in the last name search.  Look for bios with an old-ish looking picture and pilot wings.  Then check out the total hours and what that person did.  

Then look for some more recent bios and note the drastic difference. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, snoopyeast said:

Warning:  Nerd level bitching ahead.  Discovered after a long deployment and lots of time in front of a govt computer.

Go to the USAF bios

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/

Scroll down and click on a random letter in the last name search.  Look for bios with an old-ish looking picture and pilot wings.  Then check out the total hours and what that person did.  

Then look for some more recent bios and note the drastic difference. 

 

Examples? I went in thinking I would find one thing, but ten minutes later I'd still only clicked on Generals with 2,700 to 3000+ hours, new and old.

I did see a difference in combat hours. The oldest bios don't even seem to track that metric. Can you fault a guy for not having a lot of combat time when there wasn't a lot of combat?

Really, the biggest difference I saw was the mustaches. Glorious mustaches. Those were the days.

Question: Do AMC guys log Combat Support towards Combat Time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dream big said:

Wtf are you talking about? Weapons School isn’t about “weapons” it is about creating expert tacticians who are proficient at integrating effects, you know, what we do when we actually go to war.  Also, many AMC assets fly in the same MEZ as the pointy nose bretheren, so it makes sense to have proficient tacticians who understand how to mitigate those threats.  So yes you are the stupid one for making that comment.

Unfortunately, AMC leadership does horrible job at properly utilizing its patches.  I’ve seen some improvements but still too many Wing Exec Patches. 

 

Weapons School isn't about weapons?  

Man, we must really suck at naming things! 

Here I thought it was about realizing our fighter pilots weren't trained well enough to maintain the 10:1 kill ratio from Korea, and trying to fix that.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Why do we need a wing commander to fly that doesn’t really care enough to be proficient in his wings primary mission?

Well, when I said that I was alluding to my own particular experience of 8 years in BUFFs where of my AD wing commanders I had many B-2 pilots, 1x B-1 pilot, and 1x B-1 WSO. Didn't have a BUFF wing king until I became a Reservist. Just switched to Reserve B-1s and my wing king is the same BUFF dude as before (because GSU of same Reserve wing), and the AD wing/CC is... a BUFF guy. In any case, they have all been proficient in the bomber mission... Just not our particular bomber. Not like AMC with tanker dudes commanding mobility wings and vice/versa.

(Of course, I started my career in AWACS with a wing commander from... The B-1. So there's that.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hacker said:

I'm a frequent critic of AF leadership being so self-indoctriated that they're thoroughly unable to even recognize that there is a problem, much less have the capability to solve that problem.

Given those circumstances it makes sense that the source for both might come from the outside, who is able to see things how they are rather than how they want things to be.

However, that outside view doesn't necessarily automatically convey some kind of clarity, as evidenced in the very first paragraph:

Uh, says who?

Okay, I'm sure Jerry doesn't have any institutional biases of his own with that pedigree.

Yeah, I'm sure he comes to the table with biases as we all do but I would not completely discount his point.

Bio and background info I found on Hendrix to give more context to his article and point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_J._Hendrix

https://www.cnas.org/people/dr-jerry-hendrix

Classic argument of airpower, destroy his fieled forces vs. his centers of gravity.  Tactical vs. Strategic.  I would argue it is possible to do both simultaneously with the right mix of sensors/networks/platforms/weapons now.  

Deep Strike vs Air Superiority is false choice but his point has more merit than we in the current incarnation of the AF might want to admit.  Our enemies have built themselves to defeat us as we are now, a change of course may be necessary in force structure.

Makes the enemy spread himself too thin:

By attacking or presenting the capability to attack both levels of targets simultaneously we will force the enemy to spread his AF/IADS/A2AD resources allowing for greater possibilities of exploiting a gap or weak point in his forward or rear defenses.  A significant Deep Strike capability allows for this ability to "prep the battlefield" by forcing the enemy to posture himself in a way we prefer before we go offensive.  

We may have to:

A peer adversary would never let us fight how we have been fighting over the past 30 years in conventional conflicts with steady build up of nearby MOBs to be followed by a massive air campaign ala Desert Storm, Allied Force, etc... with strike assets supplied and enabled close to the target areas...long range, deep strike with as little strategic or tactical telegraphing as possible maybe the only possibility in conventional peer force on force conflicts in the future with the expanding capabilities of the latest A2AD systems and the inherent deterrent effect of holding all of the enemies targets at risk, not just his forward deployed forces.

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.

Hard first hit stops an aggressor before the fight gets out of hand:

Deep Strike capable assets whether used Strategically or Tactically could deliver an unexpected bloody nose that might stop a fight before it starts also.  If in one night, X-hundreds of targets are struck and even if the enemy could still fight, his leadership might give pause...

That was just a list of what I think supports part of Hendrix's argument (that Deep Strike is more important than the AF has valued it of late) but I'm not 100% on board with his idea that that should be the focus of the AF either.  

But in practical terms, buy more B-21s, retire the B-52 & B-1to afford it and consider a survivable, reduced signature stand off arsenal platform to round out Deep Strike capabilities.

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Klepto said:

Examples? I went in thinking I would find one thing, but ten minutes later I'd still only clicked on Generals with 2,700 to 3000+ hours, new and old.

I did see a difference in combat hours. The oldest bios don't even seem to track that metric. Can you fault a guy for not having a lot of combat time when there wasn't a lot of combat?

Really, the biggest difference I saw was the mustaches. Glorious mustaches. Those were the days.

Question: Do AMC guys log Combat Support towards Combat Time?

No

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yeah, I'm sure he comes to the table with biases as we all do but I would not completely discount his point.

Bio and background info I found on Hendrix to give more context to his article and point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_J._Hendrix

https://www.cnas.org/people/dr-jerry-hendrix

Classic argument of airpower, destroy his fieled forces vs. his centers of gravity.  Tactical vs. Strategic.  I would argue it is possible to do both simultaneously with the right mix of sensors/networks/platforms/weapons now.  

Deep Strike vs Air Superiority is false choice but his point has more merit than we in the current incarnation of the AF might want to admit.  Our enemies have built themselves to defeat us as we are now, a change of course may be necessary in force structure.

Makes the enemy spread himself too thin:

By attacking or presenting the capability to attack both levels of targets simultaneously we will force the enemy to spread his AF/IADS/A2AD resources allowing for greater possibilities of exploiting a gap or weak point in his forward or rear defenses.  A significant Deep Strike capability allows for this ability to "prep the battlefield" by forcing the enemy to posture himself in a way we prefer before we go offensive.  

We may have to:

A peer adversary would never let us fight how we have been fighting over the past 30 years in conventional conflicts with steady build up of nearby MOBs to be followed by a massive air campaign ala Desert Storm, Allied Force, etc... with strike assets supplied and enabled close to the target areas...long range, deep strike with as little strategic or tactical telegraphing as possible maybe the only possibility in conventional peer force on force conflicts in the future with the expanding capabilities of the latest A2AD systems and the inherent deterrent effect of holding all of the enemies targets at risk, not just his forward deployed forces.

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.

Hard first hit stops an aggressor before the fight gets out of hand:

Deep Strike capable assets whether used Strategically or Tactically could deliver an unexpected bloody nose that might stop a fight before it starts also.  If in one night, X-hundreds of targets are struck and even if the enemy could still fight, his leadership might give pause...

That was just a list of what I think supports part of Hendrix's argument (that Deep Strike is more important than the AF has valued it of late) but I'm not 100% on board with his idea that that should be the focus of the AF either.  

But in practical terms, buy more B-21s, retire the B-52 & B-1to afford it and consider a survivable, reduced signature stand off arsenal platform to round out Deep Strike capabilities.

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.)

Edited by raimius
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Tank said:

...maybe I’m the stupid one...

Ignorance is bliss.

As for the rest... feel free to PM me, happy to pass the elevator speech on why having people in all communities who are experts in their MWS - as well as know a thing or two about how everyone does their job to support and integrate their MWS - is an Air Power force multiplier for the USAF. If you don’t think that’s a good idea, yeah, I’d say you’re stupid.

I’ll even back it up with historical examples of ops where fighter and bomber guys tried to plan mobility operations and fucked it all up... because “it’s just moving cargo / dropping paratroopers / air refueling.” (AKA “admin”, so how hard can it be, right??) 

And... for the record, there was a separate Air Mobility Weapons School run outta the Expeditionary Center at McGuire. Gen Jumper - a fighter pilot - closed it and rolled it into the WIC in the mid 2000’s.

Chuck

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

As of 4-5 years ago, AF UH-1s had zero mounted weapons, just armed pax.  We had plenty of tactics to make that work.  Having a "Weapons School" would have been a misnomer.  Having a school to teach and refine those tactics would have been nice though.  

Having some sort of place to teach tactics is a good thing, I just think it's dumb political posturing that every community wants a "Weapons School" to do that.  IMO it dilutes the seriousness of the task when transport and ISR communities have to argue that they are weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.  

As of 4-5 years ago, AF UH-1s had zero mounted weapons, just armed pax.  We had plenty of tactics to make that work.  Having a "Weapons School" would have been a misnomer.  Having a school to teach and refine those tactics would have been nice though.  

Having some sort of place to teach tactics is a good thing, I just think it's dumb political posturing that every community wants a "Weapons School" to do that.  IMO it dilutes the seriousness of the task when transport and ISR communities have to argue that they are weapons.

You’re gonna have to explain what you mean by “political posturing” brother. 

Your post says having experts is good, having schools is good, but you’re hung up on the “Weapons” piece of it? Then you loop in the quip about ISR... and it tells me you don’t know what youre taking about.

And there’s no argument. The really interesting one is cyber. Those guys can have devastating effects... does what they employ classify as a weapon? Should they have a Weapons School? You’ll be hard pressed to find a warfighting commander willing to go to war without them...

As a commander I want to be able to have go to guys there when the shit hits the fan. I can look at the squadron/AOC/Staff, see the patches and universally across the USAF it’s understood what the patch means, what those guys do, what those guys know. From personal experience, when ops were being planned and despite the expertise in the squadron, I pulled in the patches first and everyone else second. 

Thats all we are talking about, and it’s the only piece about going to the WIC that matters.

Getting hung up on the “Weapons” piece of Weapons School is missing the forest for the first tree seen.

Chuck

Edited by Chuck17
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by raimius
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...