17D_guy Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 To 17Ds point, I think they need to bring back patches on the ABUs. I think it's a very small thing that goes a long way for our non-flyer force. It's ridiculous that we ever got rid of them. For those of us in the space ops world, the memories of flightsuits are still fresh. Though I completely supported space folks switching to ABUs, I still miss what was the best "uniform" I've ever worn. First, the myriad patch options significantly boosted morale; the distinctive unit nametags and morale patches that straddled good order and discipline just make it a fun uniform. First, apologies to Gravedigger, I asked Gen Shelton when we converted to "Ops" if we were getting bags soon. I know I wasn't the only one, but I'm sure that drove the "no bags for all" decision. Second, the patches thing is a big deal. We've got the Sq shirts now, and they're great. The Wing CC picks a unit for the Friday and rolls around base in that. Very cool. But the lack of patches and ability to be part of a group that has a distinct identity really sucks. Especially when we used to have it.
Dupe Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Second, the patches thing is a big deal. We've got the Sq shirts now, and they're great. The Wing CC picks a unit for the Friday and rolls around base in that. Very cool. But the lack of patches and ability to be part of a group that has a distinct identity really sucks. Especially when we used to have it. The ability to feel like you're part of a group is a big deal. It doesn't matter if its a letter for varsity athletes, a lab coat for med students, or fighter dudes cutting off the pencil tab from their bag -there's been numerous studies in the psychology/organizational behavior areas that show that making members feel like they are part of a group improves performance. The Army ACUs may not be the best uniform ever, but the idea of having the division patch from your current division and the one you went on your first deployment with is a good one. Edited January 28, 2015 by Dupe 1
sky_king Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Ugh, who gives a shit? Show up in jeans and an ironic graphic T if you want. Just do your job well, get your shit done, take your paycheck every two weeks and move on with life. 2
Ram Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Here at DLI, flight suits are only authorized in my squadron 2 days per week: Tuesday and Friday. Thursday is base-wide blues (or other service-equivalent uniform) day. If you do the math, here's what my week looks like: Monday: ABUs Tuesday: FDU Wednesday: ABUs Thursday: Blues Friday: FDU That's right...I wear a different uniform every day. I wonder why the bonus take rate is so abysmally low...hmm...
HeloDude Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 Here at DLI... That's right...I wear a different uniform every day. I wonder why the bonus take rate is so abysmally low...hmm... I'm assuming you specifically put in for a program that brought you to DLI? Or were you non vol'd?
zach braff Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 That's a huge change and that sucks about DLI uniform rules. Being there as an officer student was one of the most hands-off, big-boy programs I've experienced (2012-2013). Blues on Monday and help out with the occasional Airmen event...that was it. Any uniform was fine, no CBTs, hella 4-day weekends. Except for the classes being tough as hell the lifestyle there was the best I'd experienced up to that point. I wonder what changed (commanders probably). General Welsh is great. Sadly he has several not-so-great folks that work for him.
Ram Posted January 28, 2015 Posted January 28, 2015 I'm assuming you specifically put in for a program that brought you to DLI? Or were you non vol'd? ACSC in Korea at their version of Maxwell for in-res IDE. Not exactly what I expected when I got picked up for school, but it sure is...unique. Aside from being tough as hell to learn Korean, life in Monterey is pretty decent. This is an AETC pipeline base, and most airmen are fresh from tech school. Sometimes the leadership forgets that I am a full-grown man with 12 years of service under my belt. I have a low tolerance for mickey mouse BS. 1
mp5g Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) please dear god end this thread derailment! So, on the news today, it showed clips of Gen. Welsh and the rest of the Chiefs talking on the Hill about ending sequestration. Something he said really caught my attention, that "if the B-17 was flying in the 1st Gulf War, it would've been younger than three of our aircraft flying right now. The B-52, the KC-135, and ..." (Can't remember the last one he mentioned). I guess I just never really thought about how aged some of our fleet had become. EDIT: Autocorrect corrections. Edited January 29, 2015 by mp5g
Jughead Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 The B-52, the KC-135, and ..." (Can't remember the last one he mentioned). U-2 I saw that too. Hell of a point.... <*sigh*>....
17D_guy Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Plus he's having to deal with a 2-star saying Airmen discussing the A-10 with Congress are committing treason. https://news.yahoo.com/air-force-probing-alleged-treason-184856046.html "Post is reported to have told Air Force officers attending a recent weapons and tactics conference in Nevada that it is their duty to support the service's budget priorities by refraining from offering opinions inconsistent with those priorities" I'm sure Chang's pants got tight when word of this spread. Edited January 29, 2015 by 17D_guy
Majestik Møøse Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) U-2 I saw that too. Hell of a point.... <*sigh*>.... Utterly invalid point that assumes aircraft development is linear. These planes have been around for a long time for good reason. Operationally, the KC-46 will be more or less identical to the KC-135. It will carry marginally more gas, burn a bit less, and be able to get a little closer to a threat. All for the low price of $250m each. The KC-135 has been around so long because it works fine. A tanker doesn't need to be cosmic. The U-2 argument is shit because they were redesigned and built new in the 80s. The S-model today has a F-118, the cockpit is all glass, and the sensors are the illest shit around. The "newer" HAISR platform that the USAF spent the taxpayer's hard-earned money on is inferior in nearly every measurable category. The Buff can still end the world at a moment's notice better than it ever could, so there's never been much incentive to get new ones. Even after we buy $60B worth of LRS-Bs, we're still keeping the Buffs anyway. Did the chief mention that part? Edit: TLDR: The B-17 was inferior within 10 years of its first flight. The 3 aircraft above are still relevant and their replacements will either be similar in capes, a newer version of the same design, or not even required. Edited January 29, 2015 by Majestik Møøse 1
Fuzz Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Utterly invalid point that assumes aircraft development is linear. These planes have been around for a long time for good reason. Operationally, the KC-46 will be more or less identical to the KC-135. It will carry marginally more gas, burn a bit less, and be able to get a little closer to a threat. All for the low price of $250m each. The KC-135 has been around so long because it works fine. A tanker doesn't need to be cosmic. The U-2 argument is shit because they were redesigned and built new in the 80s. The S-model today has a F-118, the cockpit is all glass, and the sensors are the illest shit around. The "newer" HAISR platform that the USAF spent the taxpayer's hard-earned money on is inferior in nearly every measurable category. The Buff can still end the world at a moment's notice better than it ever could, so there's never been much incentive to get new ones. Even after we buy $60B worth of LRS-Bs, we're still keeping the Buffs anyway. Did the chief mention that part? I think the point had to do with the actual airframes not the MWS. Yes the platforms all still work great but we aren't making any new ones to replace the old ones, eventually something you can't fix breaks.
Warrior Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 And hobbit just started a new thread about buying new VC-25s to the tune of 1.7 billion over the next 5 years. So we're going to replace a 747 with a 747 because the old one is 25 years old. Nice…
Guest Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 And hobbit just started a new thread about buying new VC-25s to the tune of 1.7 billion over the next 5 years. So we're going to replace a 747 with a 747 because the old one is 25 years old. Nice… By the time it arrives though, the current aircraft will then be about 30. Considering the technological requirements for the aircraft's mission (not the actual flight capabilities, just what's in it's structure) and the argument that the new one will cost less to operate, seems to make sense to me. Now the fact that other aircraft aren't being prioritized for replacement is kinda ludicrous, but the argument for this seems solid enough. It looks like wacky budgetary priorities rather than true waste.
11F Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Gen Welsh just gave his "Air Force Update" at the AFA Symposium in Orlando - great speech as always. With Ash Carter as the new SecDef, expect Gen Welsh to replace Dempsey this fall. You heard it here first.
11F Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 https://www.af.mil/mobile/News/tabid/252/Article/566082/af-chief-of-staff-shares-random-thoughts.aspx
Vertigo Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Utterly invalid point that assumes aircraft development is linear. These planes have been around for a long time for good reason. Operationally, the KC-46 will be more or less identical to the KC-135. It will carry marginally more gas, burn a bit less, and be able to get a little closer to a threat. All for the low price of $250m each. The KC-135 has been around so long because it works fine. A tanker doesn't need to be cosmic. The U-2 argument is shit because they were redesigned and built new in the 80s. The S-model today has a F-118, the cockpit is all glass, and the sensors are the illest shit around. The "newer" HAISR platform that the USAF spent the taxpayer's hard-earned money on is inferior in nearly every measurable category. The Buff can still end the world at a moment's notice better than it ever could, so there's never been much incentive to get new ones. Even after we buy $60B worth of LRS-Bs, we're still keeping the Buffs anyway. Did the chief mention that part? Edit: TLDR: The B-17 was inferior within 10 years of its first flight. The 3 aircraft above are still relevant and their replacements will either be similar in capes, a newer version of the same design, or not even required. You ignored the increased cargo carrying capacity. Granted that's not a tanker's primary mission... but the 46 is a vast improvement from the 135 in that aspect.
ThreeHoler Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 You ignored the increased cargo carrying capacity. Granted that's not a tanker's primary mission... but the 46 is a vast improvement from the 135 in that aspect. Completely incorrect. Formatting height means centerline pallets only. Lack of aft lavatories means it has problems with flying pax too. Hello comfort pallet that must be moved up to the cargo door every stop to be serviced. The KC-10 is a tanker/transport machine. The KC-135 is a great tanker. The KC-46 is overall ok.
Vertigo Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Completely incorrect. Formatting height means centerline pallets only. Lack of aft lavatories means it has problems with flying pax too. Hello comfort pallet that must be moved up to the cargo door every stop to be serviced. The KC-10 is a tanker/transport machine. The KC-135 is a great tanker. The KC-46 is overall ok. 18 pallet positions vice 6...
deaddebate Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) You can listen to Gen Welsh's "Air Force Update" (and the other speeches) at 2015 AFA Air Warfare Symposium at:https://www.airman.af.mil ): The future of the United States Air Force rests on the degree to which we can continue to recruit, retain, and develop individuals committed to the profession of arms and USAF Core Values.Break apart that sentence. The PACE can really only affect the last third of their own vision, which is Developing Airmen. Recruiting and Retention are primarily dependent on individuals determining the value of their benefits and weighing them against their patriotism. Obviously Recruiters have some discretion in who they process and send to MEPS, and Commanders have authority to separate folks at the end of their terms. However that can only remove the bad, it doesn't keep the good. (see these threads for more discussion: And ). So PACE's own program for molding Airmen into the Profession of Arms / Warrior Ethos leadership mentality subconsciously acknowledges their limitations in benefits and then ignores it. This is the pinnacle of an Air Force that fails to understand its' Airmen. Thankfully, these ideas live in a small corner of AETC, and I hope they continue to only live there. Everything I wrote above evaluates only one significant part of his speech, but it is not the majority. He also talks about modernization, current conflicts, budget challenges, technology development, total force restructuring. Essentially, it is what he said he wanted to talk about--the mission. It is a good speech with extreme relevance to todays' Air Force, but my takeaway was what I wrote. CMSAF Cody also spoke, but it didn't have anything ground-breaking so I've got nothing to comment that hasn't already been said about the various programs. SECAF James spoke this morning but the recording hasn't been uploaded yet. Edited February 13, 2015 by deaddebate
ThreeHoler Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 18 pallet positions vice 6... And you can't put a single ISU 90 into any of those pallet positions, unless you restrict it to centerline only.
Vertigo Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 And you can't put a single ISU 90 into any of those pallet positions, unless you restrict it to centerline only. Even 1 isu 90 is 100% more than you can put on a 135.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now