What's wrong with the Air Force?

[M2]

6 hours ago, ItnStln said:

Are they still pushing the false narrative that they never lost a bomber?

https://www.tuskegee.edu/Content/Uploads/Tuskegee/files/EscortedBombersLosttoEnemyAircraft12.2011.pdf

https://www.dafhistory.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-141118-047.pdf

On March 10, 1945, the respected and widely read Liberty magazine published Dark Angels of Doom, an article by influential black journalist Roi Ottley about the 332d Fighter Group in combat. Ottley wrote “in more than 100 combat missions in which the Red Tails have given escort cover to their "Big Friends"--the long-range heavy bombers--they haven't lost a single ship to enemy fighters!”

By then the 332d Fighter Group had flown more than 130 bomber escort missions, and had lost bombers on only six of those missions.

But the group did not fly 100 missions before losing a bomber. In fact, the group had lost bombers within the first few missions.

Despite that fact, readers might have falsely concluded that the 332d Fighter Group had flown more than 100 bomber escort missions and that it had never lost a bomber on any of them, when in fact it had lost bombers on at least six of more than 130 bomber escort missions by March 10, 1945.

The “never lost a bomber” claim already circulated before a War Department press release dated June 21, 1945, announced that Colonel Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., who had commanded the 332d Fighter Group, was taking command of the 477th Bombardment Group. 

Undoubtedly based on the preceding newspaper article, the press release claimed that “On February 28, 1945, Colonel Davis‟ group had completed 200 missions with the 15th Air Force and had served as escort to heavy bombers without losing a single bomber to enemy fighters.” 

This was probably the first time an official Air Force document repeated the “never lost a bomber” claim.

[lloyd christmas]

The idea that the AF is trying to erase the history of or not teach about the Tuskegee Airmen is one of the most ridiculous stories I’ve ever read.  I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at the number of people I know that have bought into this garbage.  The amount of laziness it takes to fall for something like this is astounding.  The AF literally has at least two current units that I know of that have a direct lineage to the Tuskegee Airmen.  The Alabama Air Guard F-35 unit has a tail painted red.  Those units represent and honor the service and sacrifice of the Tuskegee Airmen every day.  And we all should honor them. Their story is one of the most powerful and inspiring stories in the history of our USAF.  

There is a huge difference in getting rid of DEI curriculum that discussed the Tuskegee Airmen and trying to erase their history.  It’s not hard to understand with just a minimal amount of effort.  

[brabus]

SECDEF is all over it (per his recent X post). Agree with everything above, but now I'm starting to wonder beyond the cut with an axe reasoning I stated earlier, if there was some politically motivated decision making going on, hoping to draw the type of out-of-context/no critical thought reactions we've seen. It is very clear erasing any of this history is not remotely the intention or goal of the DEI EO, nor DoD or AF leadership. I hope it's simply just classic govt bureaucrat action (immediate wide-spread action without thought) that will get resolved quickly, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a bit of subterfuge at some lower level going on. The rot is everywhere.

Edited Sunday at 10:16 PM by brabus

[HuggyU2]

It would be hard for me to imagine AF leadership putting new programs into place... making drastic cuts based on what they perceive is being changed... and getting something wrong in the process. 

They don't make mistakes.

That's why they are Generals.

[reloder]

7 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

They don't make mistakes.

That's why they are Generals.

Sure...that and a 3 ER is promotable.

[McJay Pilot]

21 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

It would be hard for me to imagine AF leadership putting new programs into place... making drastic cuts based on what they perceive is being changed... and getting something wrong in the process. 

They don't make mistakes.

That's why they are Generals.

Oh shit, did Chang hack Huggy’s account?!

[LookieRookie]

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/950666/air-force-standards-update-tabs-gen-david-w-allvin-air-force-chief-staff
 

what a joke. Preaches a team and not being individualized with his nerd GO lightweight embroidered jacket with a nickname.

[kaputt]

8 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/950666/air-force-standards-update-tabs-gen-david-w-allvin-air-force-chief-staff
 

what a joke. Preaches a team and not being individualized with his nerd GO lightweight embroidered jacket with a nickname.

What a friggin nerd. Also that’s the same logic the Army used to can flight suits for pilots back in the day. 

[DirkDiggler]

Tab 2 - Jan 25 CSAF Update to DAFI36-2903.pdf

I usually try to give people correcting uniform wear the benefit of the doubt since it aggravates me when I see people who look like a bag of ass in uniform.  That being said, I didn’t think I’d ever see the CSAF pushing official guidance on gig lines.  We really must have all the big problems in this organization figured out if this is what the top dogs are focusing on…..

[M2]

Quote

Video by Staff Sgt. Cheyenne Lewis Roberts, Staff Sgt. Alexander Merchak, Staff Sgt. Anthony Nin Leclerec, Tech. Sgt. William OBrien, Tech. Sgt. Joel Pfiester and Tech. Sgt. Lance Valencia

Seriously, it took this many NCOs to put together this shitty little two-minute video?!?

Secondly, those "duty identifier patches" are a fucking joke (although I do like the one that says 'Dirt!'  WTF is that all about?).  Isn't that what career badges are suppose to represent?  Do you really need a billboard on your shoulder stating you work at Finance?

[M2]

God bless the dirty heathens of the US Army, nothing says "I don't give a shit about anything!" than dropping cases of MREs at 100' AGL!! 

[MCO]

39 minutes ago, M2 said:

Seriously, it took this many NCOs to put together this shitty little two-minute video?!?

Secondly, those "duty identifier patches" are a fucking joke (although I do like the one that says 'Dirt!'  WTF is that all about?).  Isn't that what career badges are suppose to represent?  Do you really need a billboard on your shoulder stating you work at Finance?

Career badges are impossible to decipher. Give rated wings, kill all the other badges and give them basic tabs not broken out but broad. CE, WX, SF, ATC, etc. don’t make 10 different identifiers for each career field. Gives people pride and makes it easy to see what they do. Pilots do it with flight suits, let everyone else have a little morale and pride as well, within reason. 

[Swizzle]

45 minutes ago, M2 said:

God bless the dirty heathens of the US Army, nothing says "I don't give a shit about anything!" than dropping cases of MREs at 100' AGL!! 

 

They're designed to be free fall-airdropped! And its fun!! Its is, or was, one of those pesky design, not-so-gold-gold-plating requirements of MREs.

Ask any good Herk Bubba for a beef stroganoff or chili-mac (or choice) MRE as the training drop if you find yourself DZCO. PI for better tasting airdrop, if recoverable. Hit the RAM PI if it has lemon poppyseed poundcake. 

Also, some MREs look like BLU-97 or CBU-87. They're not so fun to eat, inshallah.

 

 

Army was probably dropping 'Frankfurters, Beef, Menu #6' MRE - gross. Those are the IDGAF airdrops. Drop score...off DZ, unrecoverable.

[nsplayr]

15 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

That being said, I didn’t think I’d ever see the CSAF pushing official guidance on gig lines.  We really must have all the big problems in this organization figured out if this is what the top dogs are focusing on…..

^this

We are challenged at the strategic level with near-peer competitors, technological disruption, our acquisition system is too slow and doesn't give us deep magazines or depth of forces/platforms, and our end strength is likely too small to effectively do what is being asked of us by Congress...these are challenges that the CSAF can lead the charge on.

What "CSAF #23" is focused on lately is *so* far below that level, it's literal navel gazing. Worrying about f*cking gig lines when you are the senior ranking officer in the entire service, YGTBFSM. That "problem," if you can even call it that, can be solved effectively at about the E5 level; O10s need not spend a single solitary moment on that one.

We will apparently gaze at our own navels while we continue to fall behind where we need to be to fight and win against America's foes.

I once heard the canary in the coal mine of impotent leadership is that when they know they can't actually positively affect the big stuff, they start focusing on the small stuff, because at least then they can look and say, "Look here, I did that."

We need to get #23 some god damned Viagra.

This letter is focused on many of the right things. The latest one and all of it's associated PDFs and videos badly, badly missed the mark.

Edited 9 hours ago by nsplayr

[dream big]

19 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Tab 2 - Jan 25 CSAF Update to DAFI36-2903.pdf 26.82 kB · 11 downloads

I usually try to give people correcting uniform wear the benefit of the doubt since it aggravates me when I see people who look like a bag of ass in uniform.  That being said, I didn’t think I’d ever see the CSAF pushing official guidance on gig lines.  We really must have all the big problems in this organization figured out if this is what the top dogs are focusing on…..

Dude exactly, when the E-9s push this crap, especially in a deployed environment, I tell them I assume that everything else must be going great, otherwise you have your priorities completely jacked up. 

When you are an E-9 or Commander, you only have so many “swings at the bat” to make meaningful impact, if you just wasted it on uniform wear then…

Finally, and this instance is proof, E-9s only push this crap because they are enabled by their Commanders. 

Finally, I’m all about correcting folks if they look like a bag of a$$ in uniform, that doesn’t need command level guidance especially from the CSAF.