Kaman

Baffles my mind that an officer of such responsibility would forget the most important thing about being a warrior. The people that serve under your command are your most valuable asset.

Radial engines, stag bars, Beer call, khakis...Oh wait, that was my Dad's Air Force. He'd be very disappointed to see what has become of the USAF.

She sounds like an idiot. I used the F-Bomb on approx 69 million occasions. So what. I had the CFACC give me this order "Rainman, I am sending you in there on the ground to un###### this situation. Don't ###### this up." Loud and clear. I have screamed at the Top 3 (outside the combat ops tent so there was absolutely no way anyone 6.9 feet away inside the tent could hear) "You get on the ######ing radio and tell those goddamn pussies to quite worrying about a stupid ######ing band 3 fault on their ECM pod and put those ######ing machines in the air and get them over the ######ing enemy where they ######ing belong right ######ing now!" and no one quit or fired me. In fact, we laugh our asses off about that when we get together now. She got whacked because she was shitty. I think you're quite correct that she was relieved of her command because she was an ineffective leader that lost the confidence of her superiors. She had command of a ship with more firepower than some nation's entire navy, and that kind of responsibility demands more than what she brought to it. I wasn't there, but based on my own personal experiences I'd say that the best officers were the one's that maintained a professional, friendly and open-minded relationship with their subordinates. I have flown with HACs (Helicopter Aircraft Comamander) that would sometimes get pissed about something, but RARELY if ever berate anyone in the aircraft during a mission. We all realized that the only way we were going to be successful in our mission was to work together as a team. When you are really clicking during a CSAR or USW mission or even the more mundane utility missions we did, it's a beautiful thing. Given how much I love the Navy (I am Air Force brat, so always a VERY big place in my heart for the USAF), it really pissed me off that someone of this caliber made it that far. Being politically connected in the Pentagon appears to be more important than being a competent Surface Warfare Officer that can conn their ship and fight her in combat means so little. The warrior in me is disgusted, because being a warrior means more than war-fighting. A real warrior is considerate and has the interests of the people and material in their charge. This person (I will not call her an "officer") failed in that and when you lose your credibility as a leader of men/women...How can you possibly trust them in combat? Regards, ex-Navy Rotorhead and son of a retired USAF LCOL

We had an early generation of CBT training when I went thru the HS-10 SH-60F CAT I syllabus in 1990, and it hadn't changed much in 98' when I went thru as a CAT V. Anyway, I also did the CBT training designed by CAE for the CRJ-200 (OK, already enough with the acronyms) and I HATED it and didn't learn squat. I wound up having then basically teach myself the systems and went thru the motions to get thru the stupid tests...I can only imagine what the "next" generation of CBTs must be like...

I had an old Master Chief that was from Wisconsin and he told me that only four things mattered; Beer, Brats, Broads and Bowling...Not in that order of course! Are you from Wisconsin? LOL

Well, I guess I better surrender my ATP certificate considering I am in violation of just about every one of rotorhead's radio gaff criterion. However, you haven't lived until you have given the whole passenger announcement for descent or departure over the radio...Yup, I've done it and been unmerciful when another airline crew does it! As professional as the military is, sometimes it's borderline annoying listening to them on VHF because they sound like rookies trying to pick-up an IFR departure after abusing the runway with touch and goes at a civilian airport... Fly safe, come home dry... ex-Navy Rotorhead turned Slaab driver

Like pretty much everyone military or civilian I really don't enjoy training/checking events. In the military we were required to memorize and know so much crap that I sometimes wonder how I managed to survive it! In fact, I ultimately used to be an aircrew instructor in the aircraft and WST. I never liked having to give check-rides or worse still have to sit on a board might determine that a aircrewman under training will be either set-back or dropped altogether. At the fleet, we had deployments, work-ups and evaluations by higher headquarters looming. To top it off the C.O, breathing down our neck to get all mission quals completed, so we could report in a mission-ready deployable status. The airlines are FAR worse when it comes to the checking and training environment and honestly I truly dread recurrent training. Or as some call it, "you bet your job" every 6 months. Plus line checks annually. All it takes is a badng day in the sim a couple of TP's and whammo! You get dequal'd. Ironically, at one time I was even a check airman (not any longer, thank goodness!) and enjoyed teaching in the sim. However, it is a different world at my airline now. I still facilitate CRM/TEM, but no longer in the training dept. Anyway, if I was to say I had any "tricks or rituals"...Not really, it's just a matter of PREPARATION, STUDY and DEDICATION. I find that I have to work much harder in the books than I did at 19 when I learned to fly. The military taught me a lot of self-discipline and to do things correctly. I also had the benefit of flying with some of the BEST pilots and officers in the world, and was privileged to serve as a Naval Aircrewman/Rescue Swimmer. Take pride in what you do every flight, critique yourself and how you can improve, accept constructive criticism and have fun!

I am a pilot based at IAD (Washington-Dulles) and operate in the "A" terminal for those familar with IAD. In the past 2 years I have seen every paygrade from E-1 thru O-7 in their BDUs or ACU's (whatever they call them nowadays). I was Navy, and when I travelled on government orders we were frequently, if not exclusively authorized civilian attire on our TAD orders. I was always told that this was for "force protection" issues, and in one command we were issued official passports. Anyway, I have been retired for almost 10 years and I am sure the rules have changed on wearing uniforms off-base. As for the whole flight-suit envy thing...Some things just never will change.

Where do I sign-up for that outfit! She can be the "morale NCOIC". My Dad equally hated the "mailman" uniform after they did away with wash khakis, which were much more practical than the blue-suit. I don't know the history for the change, but having served in the Navy I can understand your aggravation. The Navy by-far has the most jacked-up uniforms of all the branches, and to make things even more annoying they seem to enjoy doing a complete change in the uniforms every 3-4 years. I'd vote to bring back the khakis in the Air Force, I beleive that they were popular with officers and enlisted alike.

Thats a very good question considering that Westover and March are also AFRC bases and Westover is now a joint reserve base. My brother-in-law was stationed there in the early 80s flying B-52s and it was a great place to visit.

Yes sir, I lived on Otis AFB in Falmouth, Massachusetts. Named for a member of the Mass National Guard who was killed piloting an observation aircraft. My Dad was assigned to the 551st AEW&C Wing flying the EC-121H, and we lived on the corner of Tinker and Vandenburg in family housing. Ate many a meal in the Shaw mess hall too! Used to ride along with the APs and snowplows as a little fella. Our neighbor was commander of the AP sqdn. and another was a Base CE commander. I was very lucky growing up. No sir, I didn't say either Creech or Onizuka were bad choices. LCOL Onizuka served his country with honor and distinction make no doubt that I agree with that. General Creech was the father of the modern Tactical Air Command and would have been CoS of the USAF and he was a combat pilot. This isn't meant as a slight at all, but I believe that Onizuka AFB was a political decision in the wake of the Challenger disaster. You're right about honoring those of more current conflicts, but we have truly ignored Viet Nam. Just my opinion.

My logic is that we stopped naming AFB for USAF fallen after Korea, and only named one base McConnell. So, Viet Nam is the next major conflict that the USAF was involved in. I guess my thought process is that we can do better for our past heroes as well as the currently serving members of the military. We are so easy to forget...So quick to push aside the seemingly irrelevant for the pressing issues of the day that we no longer can see the forest for all the trees.

As an addendum...Look back into history at the names of many USAF bases that were "re-named" for points of geography (ex: Limestone AFB=Loring AFB, Muroc AFB=Edwards AFB XB-47 test pilot killed at Edwards) to a fallen USAF hero. Seymour-Johnson I believe was named for tow different Army Air Corps aviators from the pre-WW1 era. The Navy system names airfields for honored Naval personnel (ex: NAS Pensacola=Sherman Field, Moffet Field is the one station that is actually named for a Naval Aviator from the Lighter-than-Air program of the 30's). I don't profess to be an historian, but I do alot of reading sitting around the crewroom. Last USAF base named for a USAF combat veteran that was killed in action was McConnell AFB in Kansas. Ironically, McConnell was the F-105 RTU during the 60's and it's where Lt. Richter completed his F-105 training and was selected to ferry an F-105 from McConnell to Korat RTAFB, and was immediately flying combt missions as a part of "Rolling Thunder".

Interesting replies thus far. For the record, I am well aware of the names of most USAF bases both current and those that have closed. I understand that many of the bases are named for men that served with valor in all conflicts, except for Viet Nam to present day. I DO NOT support re-naming of any USAF bases that do not have a name that denotes it's current location. All my examples cited some of those bases, and the USAF didn't begin to actively name bases for USAF personnel into the 50's. I am well aware of the career of General Creech, indeed I do need to research more into this whole process. However, for the record General Creech was killed in the crash of a T-39 if I am wrong, please correct me. There are numerous un-named heroes that deserve to be honored. However, naming a base for Lt. Karl Richter is a step in the right direction for honoring all those USAF personnel that made the ultimate sacrifice over the skies of North Viet Nam. Also, for the record I wasn't slamming the USAF or anyone tha served or is currently serving in the USAF. My father served in the USAF for 26 years, flew combat in two wars and served in Viet Nam as a DoD civilian, so I think that the person accusing me of any "slamming" is way out of line. I wasn't comparing anything that the Navy did or engaging in some ridiculous parochial dialogue about how the Navy does a better job honoring it's fallen. The Navy simply has a different system for naming it's ships and stations than the Air Force. I GREW UP on USAF bases and not only do I KNOW the names, but I know what the names represent and who those men were. I challenge anyone to tell me that my intent was anything, but honorable and it often takes putting yourself out there to get something done. Frankly, my father would be rolling in his grave if he knew what has become of "his" Air Force and the one that I loved as yong boy/young man watching, talking to and listening to combat veterans. Karl Richer is only the beginning...What about Captain Lance P. Sijan? Do you remember who he was? I DO... Doesn't make me special, it means I care about what these men sacrificed, so I can fly around and bitch about our wonderful airline industry. Respectfully, ex-Navy Rotorhead sfitzpatrick59@hotmail.com

I am a Navy veteran, Air Force brat and avid enthusiast for airpower of all branches. I was privelged to serve in the Navy as an enlisted aircrewman in helicopters, and everything I learned there I have applied to how I conduct myself as a civilian and as an airline pilot now. I grew up as a "70's" child looking thru fences, standing on the flightline or riding my bike to the end of the runway. My heroes were all pilots, mostly Air Force at the time. The Viet Nam era was winding down when I started high school, and I recall vividly the POWs returning from North Viet Nam. I read about the F-105 pilots that flew over North Viet Nam, and the obstacles that they faced beyond just ingressing, attacking and egressing. Not only were they fighting for their lives and their strike team members lives, but also fighting the very leadership that ordered the strikes from the White House on down the chain-of-command. The point of this message is a question...Why is that the United States Air Force has NEVER honored any Air Force personnel with the re-naming an Air Force Base in their honor? This is a travesty in my opinion and exacerbated by the naming of Creech AFB and Onizuka AFB in recent years. Brave and honorable men that served their country with distinction. However, we have ignored Viet Nam as a place where USAF warriors fought and died. Perhaps many people don't know, don't care or don't want to know who First Lieutenant Karl Richter was. Well, I do and I remember alot of his comrades. This is the way I was raised and the way I am raising my daughter. We enjoy the freedoms and way of life because of people like Lt. Richter. The opportunity exists to re-name a number of Air Force bases to honor Lt. Richter. Altus, Minot, Little Rock, Grand Forks, etc... I am going to start a petition to try and honor our USAF Viet Nam veterans. The precedent is set by the Navy naming Destroyers for it's fallen in all wars up to including Iraq and Afghanistan. Please foward me your support via this forum to proceed with this effort. I am just one person, but I have been pondering this for a long time and I finally decided to act. Thank you for your attention... Fly safely, ex-Navy Rotorhead

Well, I don't know if any of you will find this funny, but it was amusing to think about after the fact. A couple or so years ago I was a Captain on a Beech 1900, and flying from some town in West Virginia no one has heard of to Washington-Dulles on what was then the "Jasen 4" arrival. I think we were behind schedule and I requested to direct Linden VOR. Typically, they usually approved this request about 95% of the time, however this day fell in the other 5%. A rather curt "unable" was the reply from Washington ARTCC. I got a little annoyed and kinda...sorta...under my breath mumbled something like...That's ######ing bullshit! Oops! No further transmissions from Wash. ARTCC were given except to contact Potomac Approach. I thought that my F/O was going to have Pepsi come out of his nose he was laughing so hard...Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Actually, we need to keep the heat on the Chinese and condict more exercises with the Japanese and Taiwan. No reason to feel we need to back down to the Chinese. They have designs on the Spratley Islands and want the oil that lies under the sea flooer nearby. The Chinese needs to know we KNOW where ALL their Naval units are, and especially know we can interdict their merchant fleet at times/places of our choosing. We need to keep their submariners aware of our presence and understand that they are a 2nd rate Navy with limited ability to counter the US Navy even it's own backyard. All my rhetoric is merely to beg the question. Do we still have the capabilty to conduct these operations, and do we have the political will to back-up this strategy by sending a clear message to the Chinese that we will protect our interest, defend our allies and citizens on the high-seas.

This is just a reflection of where the military is heading...

Personally, I prefer having military personnel as the sentries at the gate. This is the first thing that people see when they roll thru the main gate, and some of the representation mentioned in this thread doesn't really put the best image of the USAF or DoD. That's just my personal opinion, and like the rest of society we are slowly creeping toward apathy. I am retired Navy, and Air Force brat. There was something safe, secure and comforting about going thru the gate and seeing a sharp SP with the nicklel-plated, ivory-handled .38 saluting as we passed thru. I've seen what you have described on some trips to USAF bases, and it just makes you wonder what the hell the brass is thinking about besides saving a few bucks...

I think it is important to recognize that everytime you take the runway you are facing an abort scenario. Conversly, everytime you land you are facing the possibility of executing a go-around or rejected landing. Cres often brief abort criteria, but don't always follow it when faced with a malfunction or botched landing. So, we must try to mitigate the hazard by using good planning and decision-making before we even sign for the airplane. We have all been faced with pressures to complete the mission, hop, flight, etc... And, pilots are no less suceptible to "get-home-itis" than the rest of the population. Knowing your airplane is also a key to understanding the difference between having a flyable airplane and one that requires a dangerous high-speed abort. I am not a military aviator, but I did fly as an enlisted aircrewman for 20 years in the Navy. Currently, I fly a SAAB 340 on a 121 certificate and have also been a check airman on the Beech 1900, so my perspective is going to be different than a heavy driver or tactical jet pilot. I have really learned alot on this site and enjoyed reading this thread.

I agree that there are some maritime roles that a UAV platform can perform better and cheaper than a manned platform. However, I think that USW will require a manned aircraft for the near and distant future. As many times as it has been tried to come up with algorythims to classify undersea contacts. A trained and experienced operator working in concert with an equally trained and experienced tactican is a necessity. I think there are many possible solutions, but it seems that USW is hardly on the RADAR of the Pentagon these days. Japan is producing an indigenous designed jet that looks like a cross between a P-3 and a four-engined E-175. Regards, ex-Navy Rotorhead (AW) Be-1900 Captain now.