Jump to content

What's wrong with the Air Force?


Catbox

Recommended Posts

We are not in combat. Not to take anything away from the good work we have done over the last 10+ years, but it ain't combat.

When there's a real question of whether you or your wingman will come back from a sortie - that's combat. The reason for all the queep and lack of focus is because there are very few individuals left in the Air Force who have experienced that.

Pretty sure the guys who have dodged bullets and missiles in the current conflicts, and ESPECIALLY those that returned without their wingmen, would tell you to go fuck yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that escalated quickly.

The matter has been professionally resolved (thank you for that). All just a misunderstanding...expect no email on Monday, you'll need to find your entertainment elsewhere.

That said, I would have +1'ed all the "Cripple Fight" comments if I wasn't out of upvotes. Nothing to see here...back to debating the combat nature of combat.

Bendy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure the guys who have dodged bullets and missiles in the current conflicts, and ESPECIALLY those that returned without their wingmen, would tell you to go ###### yourself.

Easy now, bro. I said I'm not taking anything away from those that have done good work in the shit, and especially those that have paid the price. But how many enemy-caused combat losses have we had in the last 10 years?

My point is that the intensity of combat for the Air Force in the aggregate has been relatively low in comparison to WWII, Korea, Nam, and Desert Storm. As a result, we've had plenty of time to become the queep machine that the Air Force is today.

We will continue to be lost in the wilderness until the next no-shit shooting match happens. It will cost lives as we shrug off the decades of risk-aversion and shit-can the queep-master weenies who have no place in a fighting force, but we will quickly regain our focus and morale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The matter has been professionally resolved

Jesus, how does an embarrassment (kindest word I could come up with) of that magnitude get "professionally resolved"? Did the offender offer to commit seppuku...?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight....a Lt Col sees a post on a civilian interweb forum, gets butt hurt because he thought someone was talking shit about him, so he tries to pull rank and makes threats to expose someone?? REALLY? That is professional?!? Makes sense. These are the kinds of "get-your-feelings-hurt" types we have in our military...such a sensitive Lt Col. (where in the fuck do we find these people??)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight....a Lt Col sees a post on a civilian interweb forum, gets butt hurt because he thought someone was talking shit about him, so he tries to pull rank and makes threats to expose someone?? REALLY? That is professional?!? Makes sense. These are the kinds of "get-your-feelings-hurt" types we have in our military...such a sensitive Lt Col. (where in the ###### do we find these people??)

If you/we do it, it's unprofessional and out of line. If they do the same thing, it's leadership.

egaju2a7.jpg

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just have a sensitive force these days....

I wonder how that "mass e-mail" would have gone over. I've seen a Jr FGO try to embarrass a new LT with a mass e-mail for a mistake the LT made...it did not end well for the Major.

If the Lt Col was even remotely offended or thought the comments were directed at him, he should probably take a look in the mirror. Most professionals I know would have blown those comments off...especially coming from a civilian interweb site nonetheless. The real leader would have taken the mentorship path instead of pulling rank and making threats. If you have to pull rank to get your point across, you are not a leader...you're just higher ranking than the person you're talking to, and by today's standards it doesn't mean much.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got in trouble back in school because I wrote a blog at the time, and included a post describing AFPC in a derogatory manner (we were a couple weeks out from commissioning and no one had received EAD orders yet). Fast forward a couple of days and I had multiple O-6s calling for my head due to, in the words of my spineless Det/CC, my "unprofessional profanity laden tirade."

This all got brought to light because someone from a randolph.af.mil domain searched the phrase "AFPC sucks" and that blog post happened to be within the top couple of hits. So yes, AFPC has someone who sits around googling the phrase "AFPC sucks" to smoke out people bitching about their incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight....a Lt Col sees a post on a civilian interweb forum, gets butt hurt because he thought someone was talking shit about him, so he tries to pull rank and makes threats to expose someone?? REALLY? That is professional?!? Makes sense. These are the kinds of "get-your-feelings-hurt" types we have in our military...such a sensitive Lt Col. (where in the fuck do we find these people??)

I had some E-9 (who thankfully retired) Gunship SO on Air Staff personally call me over what I said on a USAF Humor Group on Facebook, chew me out for 20-minutes and end the conversation with "I'll be out there", then send PDF snapshots of my comments to my Chief and Sq/CC. In his email he quoted how I violated the week old AFI 1-1 section of "Social Media."

Edited by Azimuth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight....a Lt Col sees a post on a civilian interweb forum, gets butt hurt because he thought someone was talking shit about him, so he tries to pull rank and makes threats to expose someone?? REALLY? That is professional?!? Makes sense. These are the kinds of "get-your-feelings-hurt" types we have in our military...such a sensitive Lt Col. (where in the fuck do we find these people??)

If some nebulous, non-specific comment on a message board (douchebag, etc) is something that someone reads and immediately takes personally and assumes it applies to them, then there is a better-than-fair chance that the comment was somehow spot-on, and they realized it. Otherwise, what normal sane person would immediately take something so personally? Unless they are just incredibly thin-skinned and anything/everything triggers some victim status in them.

To me, his candyass "I'm going to expose who you are!" response proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that said LtCol is indeed a douchebag O-5 ADO. Just took something like this to expose him from the woodpile.

Feel free to mass email whoever you like from your desk at whichever RS there at BAB.

Edited by MD
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy now, bro. I said I'm not taking anything away from those that have done good work in the shit, and especially those that have paid the price. But how many enemy-caused combat losses have we had in the last 10 years?

My point is that the intensity of combat for the Air Force in the aggregate has been relatively low in comparison to WWII, Korea, Nam, and Desert Storm. As a result, we've had plenty of time to become the queep machine that the Air Force is today.

We will continue to be lost in the wilderness until the next no-shit shooting match happens. It will cost lives as we shrug off the decades of risk-aversion and shit-can the queep-master weenies who have no place in a fighting force, but we will quickly regain our focus and morale.

You actually are taking away from those who have served in combat during the past 12+ years. Sharpen your message because it sounds like you think we haven't taken any combat losses in the past ten years. I think you mean fighters shot down. Combat intensity may be low for C models but it has been quite for virtually every other combat unit. How about you focus on the next "no-shit shooting match" with realistic training and high end equipment while many of us continue to perform the vital airpower missions our leaders ask us to perform in the defense of our nation. Your community may be lost in the wilderness but many aren't. Edited by Liquid
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You actually are taking away from those who have served in combat during the past 12+ years. Sharpen your message because it sounds like you think we haven't taken any combat losses in the past ten years. I think you mean fighters shot down. Combat intensity may be low for C models but it has been quite for virtually every other combat unit. How about you focus on the next "no-shit shooting match" with realistic training and high end equipment while many of us continue to perform the vital airpower missions our leaders ask us to perform in the defense of our nation. Your community may be lost in the wilderness but many aren't.

I agree with you that the AF mission in GWOT is vital and not without risk. I've been on a few sporty ones myself both in Iraq and Afghanistan, but always in the mighty Viper and not in the C model as you assume. Did you see a photo of me in Cosmo or something?

Combat loss = directly attributable to the enemy (shot down, crashed while engaging enemy)

Number of manned aircraft combat losses in GWOT 2001-2008 = 3 (1 x A-10, 1 x F-16, 1 x MH-53). Not sure how many we've lost '09-present but I'm pretty sure there's a couple more.

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/January%202009/0109world.aspx

Number of manned aircraft combat losses in Vietnam 1964-1973 = 2,251

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

Would you really look a Thud or Jolly Green driver from 'Nam in the eye and tell him your missions during GWOT were "intense"? I wouldn't.

Combat, real combat, hardens a fighting force and makes it very focused on just one thing: killing the enemy. We are not, despite your objections to the contrary, engaged in this type of combat, nor are we focused on killing the enemy.

The Air Force is focused on SAPR, diversity, inclusion, CBTs, SOS, masters degrees, VSP, BRAC, and sequestration. Seriously, go to www.af.mil and you'll see what we're focused on. It's going to take real vision and leadership to regain our fighting focus. Gen. Welsh may be able to swing the pendulum a bit, but he's one of the few that get it and he's having to fight his own people to get it done.

I'm incredibly proud to be in the Air Force. But if we're not careful the next war may catch us with our pants down.

  • Upvote 14
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post Flaco.

Liquid, what we are doing today can't compare in intensity to flying in RP6 or the first several days of Desert Storm (i.e. Stroke Flight). That is not a criticism nor does it minimize what our current aircrew are doing and have done in the current conflict.

I don't remember experiencing anything but a focus on the mission while flying C-130s in theater during Desert Sheild/Storm. My Dad, who flew Thuds out of Korat, and other vets I flew with often, never mentioned to me any silliness such as sock checks during their time in Vietnam.

I flew C-17's into Afghanistan and Iraq from 2002-2004. The threat couldn't have been that great (relatively speaking), otherwise we wouldn't have been allowed to go. The terrain combined with poor WX and/or crew fatigue was the biggest threat for us.

Regards, RF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Air Force crews have not experienced anywhere near the losses we did in previous wars, but our military has suffered sufficient losses to not be marginalized by reminiscing of better times when fighter pilots felt more appreciated. We shouldn't hope for the times when air to air combat and incredible losses resulting from ground to air fires define our Air Force's worth, contribution and legacy. We should be proud of the asymmetrical advantage we provide our nation as we engage this enemy during this time. And we should be very careful about marginalizing our military's most recent combat experiences to our joint partners. Our Air Force exists today, with significant investment of taxpayer dollars, so we don't have to experience the challenges and losses that we experienced in WWII and Vietnam. It is foolish to wish for "real air combat" and losses to fix our problems and define our worth.

My Dad flew Huey gunships during two tours in Vietnam and my grandfather flew B-17s in Europe. There was plenty of admin bullshit and useless bureaucracy then. Robin Olds rebelled against the same. Don't view the past through rose colored glasses and think we are so much worse than we were in the good old days when aircraft were shot down, ground forced needed Beyer air support and morale was high. Especially when it pisses off those who sacrifice, kill and serve.

  • Upvote 28
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Air Force crews have not experienced anywhere near the losses we did in previous wars, but our military has suffered sufficient losses to not be marginalized by reminiscing of better times when fighter pilots felt more appreciated. We shouldn't hope for the times when air to air combat and incredible losses resulting from ground to air fires define our Air Force's worth, contribution and legacy. We should be proud of the asymmetrical advantage we provide our nation as we engage this enemy during this time. And we should be very careful about marginalizing our military's most recent combat experiences to our joint partners. Our Air Force exists today, with significant investment of taxpayer dollars, so we don't have to experience the challenges and losses that we experienced in WWII and Vietnam. It is foolish to wish for "real air combat" and losses to fix our problems and define our worth.

My Dad flew Huey gunships during two tours in Vietnam and my grandfather flew B-17s in Europe. There was plenty of admin bullshit and useless bureaucracy then. Robin Olds rebelled against the same. Don't view the past through rose colored glasses and think we are so much worse than we were in the good old days when aircraft were shot down, ground forced needed Beyer air support and morale was high. Especially when it pisses off those who sacrifice, kill and serve.

Nothing I have said trivializes any of our service, including my own. I'm quite proud of it, actually.

My concern is the prevention of losses in the next major conflict. Since we don't have the tempering process of intense combat to keep us focused, we will need bold, forceful leadership to cut through the bullshit that has filled the vacuum during 10+ years of a low-intensity conflict and keep us focused on fighting and winning the next war. Right now we are failing at that, miserably.

If you can't see the bullshit that I speak of, perhaps it is you that is wearing the rose-colored glasses.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 since 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Air Force crews have not experienced anywhere near the losses we did in previous wars, but our military has suffered sufficient losses to not be marginalized by reminiscing of better times when fighter pilots felt more appreciated. We shouldn't hope for the times when air to air combat and incredible losses resulting from ground to air fires define our Air Force's worth, contribution and legacy. We should be proud of the asymmetrical advantage we provide our nation as we engage this enemy during this time. And we should be very careful about marginalizing our military's most recent combat experiences to our joint partners. Our Air Force exists today, with significant investment of taxpayer dollars, so we don't have to experience the challenges and losses that we experienced in WWII and Vietnam. It is foolish to wish for "real air combat" and losses to fix our problems and define our worth.

My Dad flew Huey gunships during two tours in Vietnam and my grandfather flew B-17s in Europe. There was plenty of admin bullshit and useless bureaucracy then. Robin Olds rebelled against the same. Don't view the past through rose colored glasses and think we are so much worse than we were in the good old days when aircraft were shot down, ground forced needed Beyer air support and morale was high. Especially when it pisses off those who sacrifice, kill and serve.

Thanks for the re-cage Liquid. These are dark times for our service/military/country as a whole, so it's easy to lose the big picture. Like the others, I find myself hungry for some great flying, a clearly defined mission, and a no-kidding focus on its execution. While you are undoubtedly right about the BS and admin in past wars, I can say that in my 10 years of service, the garbage has snowballed considerably. I don't think that folks want the combat of years past. They want the focus in the right place. General Welsh is trying for sure, but there is a lot to fix. Flaco makes some great points. I for one still love my job, but you must admit that our beloved service has become somewhat wussified and distracted in recent years. I would imagine our Joint brethren feel much the same about their own services. Edited by WheelzUp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...