New Weapons School patch

[Guest rapier01]

I think that about sums it up.

Edited January 6, 2009 by M2
Post pic instead of link

[abmwaldo]

While I realize the meaning behind the "patch" will remain the same but what is the Air Force's incessant need to reinvent itself? I could understand if the "patch" had a giant Eagle in the middle of it but the old one applied to all the new MWS without having to actually have the airframe on there.

I'm not sure of the history of the "current" i.e. now former patch but I know I've seen pictures (In Steve Davies' "Red Eagles" which date from the late 1970's with a version of that patch. The pictures are slightly blurry but it looks like the patch now with an aircraft superimposed.

I can rationalize the shoes screwing with service dress uniforms but this patch is something slightly out of the reach of your average shoe and I thought it would have stayed that way. Was there a push from current wearers to modify the patch?

An interesting question/photo essay to educate a younger guy. Does anyone have a link or the time to type out the transformation of the patch itself?

[StoleIt]

That is terrible. Looks like someone paid $20 bucks to a 15 year old with photoshop for designing that!

And what is that blob on the top right between E-3 and the F-15?

[abmwaldo]

And what is that blob on the top right between E-3 and the F-15?

Looks like sponge bob squarepants. I didn't know he was going through 09A.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

In attempting to make everyone feel "included", the Air Force has once again suceeded in creating a disgustingly gay invention yet again. My favorite...the satellite on the lower left-hand corner of the patch. Really?

[F-15E WSO]

And what is that blob on the top right between E-3 and the F-15?

I think it's an Intel Spook.

[Steve Davies]

Why are there two U-2s? Or is one of them meant to be Global Hawk?

[Guest Blu4]

I think Rapier is creating much ado about nothing. If you actually read the article, it specifically states that this is the new "Weapons School Group" patch. Since the USAFWS is functionally a "Group" under the 57Wing, this appears to me to simply be a new patch for the Group.

I highly doubt that the Weapons School Graduate patch will change.

There's way too much momentum and a veritable constellation of stars with that bit of legacy on their shoulder; it ain't changing any time soon.

[lloyd christmas]

If one of those gets in the egg a baby will be formed.

[ClearedHot]

I think Rapier is creating much ado about nothing. If you actually read the article, it specifically states that this is the new "Weapons School Group" patch. Since the USAFWS is functionally a "Group" under the 57Wing, this appears to me to simply be a new patch for the Group.

I highly doubt that the Weapons School Graduate patch will change.

There's way too much momentum and a veritable constellation of stars with that bit of legacy on their shoulder; it ain't changing any time soon.

Shack

It is just an updated group patch to reflect all the current WICs, they do this every few years.

The grad patch remains the same.

While I realize the meaning behind the "patch" will remain the same but what is the Air Force's incessant need to reinvent itself? I could understand if the "patch" had a giant Eagle in the middle of it but the old one applied to all the new MWS without having to actually have the airframe on there.

I'm not sure of the history of the "current" i.e. now former patch but I know I've seen pictures (In Steve Davies' "Red Eagles" which date from the late 1970's with a version of that patch. The pictures are slightly blurry but it looks like the patch now with an aircraft superimposed.

Again, confusion on your part. The Weapons School is the equivalent of a group with for the most part each WIC having it's own squadron. Prior to 2000 each WIC was a division which led to a division or MWS patch that instructors wore on the right shoulder and the standard graduate patch on the left shoulder. Examples below;

Edited January 5, 2009 by ClearedHot

[brickhistory]

By the way, an "official" USAF patch cannot have a depiction of any airframe (or space vehicle).

I forget the History and Lineage AFI, but it specifically states such. Gotta use the triangle-thing to represent an aircraft.

Somebody'd have to be willing to take on this windmill, but you do have backing as waivers have to take a 4 star signature, I believe.

[ClearedHot]

The USAF historian systematically killed all of the division patches off.

[Mickey]

That is terrible. Looks like someone paid $20 bucks to a 15 year old with photoshop for designing that!

And what is that blob on the top right between E-3 and the F-15?

It looks like a TPS-75 which is the radar used by the CRC guys. It makes sense because it is in with all the other 8 WPS MDS.

[Skitzo]

I've never seen the old school weapons school grad patches before now. I just have to say thanks to the USAF historian for preventing the exclusion of others because the space weapons school patch wasn't as cool as the others. BRAVO!!!

[ClearedHot]

I've never seen the old school weapons school grad patches before now. I just have to say thanks to the USAF historian for preventing the exclusion of others because the space weapons school patch wasn't as cool as the others. BRAVO!!!

Dear god, we really do have a reading comprehension problem on here.

AGAIN, those were not grad patches. They were division patches for the folks that taught in that specialty at the school, an attempt to generate morale.

The graduate patch is THE SAME AS IT EVER WAS....THERE WAS NEVER A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE IT!

[ACCBoomer]

The patch shown above has been out since June here at the WS. It was time for an update as the last version had airframes that are no longer around such as the F-117 and added the new Wics such as the F-22 and us fat kids. The Grad patch remains the same...

[brickhistory]

Dated, but one of the best descriptions I've ever heard in busting on WIC (FWIC back in the day):

"Patch Davidians."

Any others?*

Meant as banter. I wasn't a patch wearer, have no problem with patch wearers (except a couple of tools who would be tools with or without the patch), and fully support the concept and need for the school.

[BlackKnight]

If one of those gets in the egg a baby will be formed.

That, my friend, is funny.

[RASH]

Dated, but one of the best descriptions I've ever heard in busting on WIC (FWIC back in the day):

"Patch Davidians."

Any others?*

Meant as banter. I wasn't a patch wearer, have no problem with patch wearers (except a couple of tools who would be tools with or without the patch), and fully support the concept and need for the school.

Back-pedal...back-pedal...back-pedal (nice disclaimer)

Seriously though, I'm 100% in agreement--it depends on the patch. Some divisions definitely have more tools than others, though...

[disgruntledemployee]

Damn,

Its about time they recognized the super secret "Pizza Slice" aircraft. Now I can offically state I fly the "slice."

Out

[Butters]

By the way, an "official" USAF patch cannot have a depiction of any airframe (or space vehicle).

I forget the History and Lineage AFI, but it specifically states such. Gotta use the triangle-thing to represent an aircraft.

Somebody'd have to be willing to take on this windmill, but you do have backing as waivers have to take a 4 star signature, I believe.

Not entirely true! 459th AS, T-39 on the patch.

[brickhistory]

Please don't confuse me supporting the policy vs. stating what the AFI says.

That patch could be an exception to the AFR (back in the day). More likely the patch either never caught the eye of an HO dweeb with a hard-on to banish such things as in cleared hot's example.

Not all historians go out of their way to be the no-fun police.

[Guest Smoke_Jaguar4]

That is terrible. Looks like someone paid $20 bucks to a 15 year old with photoshop for designing that!

And what is that blob on the top right between E-3 and the F-15?

Nah, someone got jiggy with the powerpoints. With the military clipart collection, I could build this in 5 minutes.

And the blob is clearly a Cisco 12816 series 1.28 terabit IP/MPLS router in a 16-slot, 40 Gigabit/slot full rack chassis. You know, for the Cyber guys.

SJ4

[Butters]

Please don't confuse me supporting the policy vs. stating what the AFI says.

That patch could be an exception to the AFR (back in the day). More likely the patch either never caught the eye of an HO dweeb with a hard-on to banish such things as in cleared hot's example.

Not all historians go out of their way to be the no-fun police.

Actually, the pach was changed... had a dragon on it instead of a T-39. Then a certain Chief of Staff made everyone go back to their historic patches, and this is what the AF Historians told us to go back to. I will never figure all this crap out.

[Guest rapier01]

It always makes me wonder: why get rid of people who contribute to the mission (i.e mx crews ect) when there are useless people like historians who don't who could be culled instead? They serve no useful purpose in a fighting force- especially in one strapped for cash.