BQZip01

They are completely different internally, no doubt, but most people don't ever see a C-135 (or variant) internally. Consequently, I think it is holding them to a ridiculous standard to expect them to readily tell the difference if they are nothing more than a towel folder at the gym (or did we get rid of towels?...). I would expect someone in the Air Force to be able to recognize that it is a -135 type airframe at a bare minimum though. That's what she said [/sophomoric comment]

Sounds like leadership is starting to get the hint (only took 8 years...)

VERY glad to hear it. Moderators, perhaps you could add this information and the date to the tagline?

I wouldn't cut the guys too much slack on this one, but I'd sure as hell WANT to know what other airframes do, so perhaps these were more requests for information than being idiots. I would cut the KC-135 guy a little slack as he may not be familiar with your particular mission or where/if you deploy. I'm at a missile base where our helicopter folks DON'T deploy (at least for the most part), so it isn't an entirely stupid question. Moreover, most aircrew generally don't discuss which specific assets are available for CSAR...perhaps we should do that a little more. The C-21 IP asking what your mission what could have been an opportunity for you to educate him and perhaps he wanted to genuinely hear more about your job and learn something. Just because I'm not an expert on the subject and I want to know more, doesn't mean I'm a d-bag. The 1st LTC was being insulting and stereotypical, dismissing your mission as unimportant (if he wasn't, he was damn ignorant) and the guy writing the 11-202v3...kinda scary

I'll be the "ignorant" d-bag on this one: aren't they the same airframe. I mean obviously one is a military cargo plane (or a variant thereof) and the other is a passenger plane built for civilians, but they are the same basic airplane, right? I think it is pretty reasonable to think they are the same airplane from a non-flyer perspective. (FWIW, I know that the C-135 was developed BEFORE the 707 (basically they let the military pay for the R&D costs))

I know! Exactly what I was thinking... You were mocking me...

Hold on a minute. It WAS influenced by the Cold War, but that was considered the dominant threat at the time. Did they make appropriate choices for air-to-air fighters? No, but they weren't looking at that option. They were looking at interceptors to take down waves of incoming Ruskie bombers. I agree they were not designed for combat in a conventional-type conflict, but those programs (i.e. the A-12/SR-71, B-70, etc) led to victory in the Cold War. The bombers constantly being on alert sure as shit contributed heavily to the victory in the Cold War, but it wasn't the only party on the block. The Air Force of today simply doesn't have the reach and sheer numbers it did in 1991. I would argue that any foe that has significantly upgraded/improved their numbers and basic technology since then would pose a greater threat than in 1991.

2 for the most part, but I think saying "SAC sucked" is an overgeneralization. It was EXCEPTIONAL in the nuke world and served as a credible deterrent for 40 years. That excellence came at a cost and I think we all have different (but valid) perspectives on whether that cost was too much. Overall though, excellent historical analysis/perspective. I think having nukes in a separate command is a good idea to make sure they are not again neglected, for now. I can see them being appropriately re-integrated in the future or being absorbed into STRATCOM. AFSOC under SOCOM is an absolute necessity. I think when ACC replaced SAC as the dominant arm of the Air Force, they didn't learn from their lessons as the little guy and made the exact same neglecting mistakes as their predecessor.

I'll concur on the F for effort (I'm withholding the F- because they actually managed to find a plane instead of putting some picture of people failing a PT test...), but EPIC fail overall. I'd Q-2 the poster since he can simply edit his post and correct the problem, but perhaps I'm just too lenient. As for calling it a DFAC, I've been in 7+ years and I finally bothered to look up what a DFAC was: Dining Facility (I usually just call it the "chow hall", "choke & puke", etc). Leave it to someone in the Air Force to come up with a 4 letter acronym for a two word object. However, I've now seen the light and will compromise: I will now simply say I am "using the facilities" instead.

I tried this the other day and all the planes showed up except one. That ONE was putting out strange lines in the sky! EVIDENCE OF CHEMTRAILS! THE CONSPIRACY IS REAL!!! [/psycho rant] someone will claim this.

Same at Minot. It isn't the drinking that is promoted as much as the camaraderie. 1. I think we differ on our definitions of wall-to-wall counseling. 2. Agreed 3. Hold on a minute there. ACC is the only one who ever had missing nukes. Taking pride in developing procedures to maximize effectiveness in a SIOP plan and intimidating the hell out of the Ruskies and win the Cold War is something positive. Yes, there were indeed problems with a "there is ONE correct way to do XYZ" mentality, but those problems exist EVERYWHERE. Robin Olds perspective is tainted by SAC's Vietnam years (piss poor, but that was limited to <8 years of involvement and SAC was around for MUCH more than that time). He omits the number of personnel lost in TAC just because guys were showing off. Until they put a stop to that kind of behavior, there were some pretty serious losses in TAC due to showboating. Please don't compare AFGSC to SAC; while there are similarities, the differences are vast.

wall-to-wall counseling Enough money/personnel to do proper maintenance/training SAC (just the good parts) People who cared about national pride and being #1 (too many people more interested in whether something interferes with their Halo tournament vice getting the mission accomplished) U!S!A! U!S!A! U!S!A! U!S!A! U!S!A! PME in-residence was "something to do", but not required People who could brief without Powerpoint (even briefing a 4-star!) A time with less shoeclerks (I know this has ALWAYS been a problem with the military, I just wish people were empowered to DO something about it)

DAMMIT! Knew I forgot something!

I am. Also a UPT nongraduate. I'm not going to pretend to know what it takes to graduate, but I certainly relate experiences that have a bearing on the subject at hand (in this case, ridiculous FAIPs). 6...but there there was the intro slide, an overview...

Powerpoint 97!!! j/k The benefits of a Powerpointless AF far outweigh any negatives

FIFY

It strikes me that that belts seem to be more about control over the masses and showing they have the power (i.e. beating down their spirit) than actual safety. I would like to see the statistics that show any decrease in safety due to non-reflective belt usage.

Good advice

Reminds me of the FAIP who tried to tell me how it was in the "real Air Force" (5 years and 2 Middle East deployments prior to UPT); this little pissant JUST finished becoming a FAIP and had been in "not quite 2 years". Good news, I pulled him aside later and had a quiet conversation. He was one of those guys who could accept criticism and we're still friends to this day.

Good luck in UPT/FWQ. I think your extra experience will prove invaluable, just don't flaunt it and you'll be fine. If someone asks about your wings, be matter-of-fact about it, don't make a big deal about it, play the game, and soon you'll be in "the club". If someone thinks you haven't earned them, tell them they "can kiss your hairiest nut (that would be the left one according to your mom)." You earned those wings and shouldn't have to justify wearing a properly earned military rating. Take classes seriously and you'll be fine. Where are you going for UPT?

2