AF Talking Points get defensive

[pkober]

Half right. While many of the individuals in the AF are outstanding, as an organization they are a poor team player with a superiority complex and little regard for the Army and Marines on the ground who do the heavy lifting.

This opinion was formed through the experience of working with them.

OK, stop the whining. Now get back to shining my boots while I go to the country club and eat caviar.:laugh:

Don't lump all of us into one group. We in the ANG/AFRC Herc community bend over backwards to help our Army and Marines on the ground. We do every thing we can to get the drops off or get them in and out of where they need to be. Plus, allot of USAF guys, along with many good Marines and soldiers, have done the heavy lifting with there lives over the past wars

 

[dtfl]

Lemme do my best to steer this just a bit off topic:

Several years ago we had some sort of "sensitivity" briefing, I forget what it was called, where a social actions type came in and tried to talk about that sort of nonsense. She honestly said, and I am not making this up, that one of their goals was to have the base population reflect the local area's ethnic makeup. One of our more outspoken guys asked what exactly this had to do with putting bombs on a target. He stated that the Air Force's mission is to put bombs on target and asked how exactly this grand vision would make the USAF more effective at that mission. To the AF's credit that was the last time that presentation was given, at least at our unit.

Any bets on when the bomber they want by 2018 will actually be operational?

An AC I flew with in gunpigs critiqued the hell out of TQM - said it was worthless (it had some decent points...but the course was not tailored to the mil) and he got called into the WG/CV office and chewed out. For a critique..of a 1-time training requirement...WTF???????? Someone stuck a gun up the CVs &ss and told him TQM was the fad of the week?!?!?

Whats the quote by the old general or flyer? I'll mess it up but - "In my day we drank whiskey and screwed women..now they drink diet coke and screw each other"

Yup. Hey - go by the Hurlburt Class 6 and pick up some beer..ooo better wait. NO alcohol sales from 2300-0800. It's evil. There is no way on EARTH the airmen would drive out the gate to the Circle K 1/4 outside the gate for beer. How DARE they.

There was an article on Tue or Wed early bird about problems with troops drinking in Iraq...where it's "already illegal" yet they do it..and then RAPE and PILLAGE and COMMIT CRIMES...oh the humanity.."

I predict, RIGHT NOW, some General has mentioned GO #1 to be imposed on ALL troops. The WG CC at HRT (old one) asked if he could. He ended up imposing it on ANY TDY. ANY..SOS? Dry. WIC? dry. Red Flag? Dry.

4 years and counting..........

whew..that felt good.

I should move to Khazakstan. I hear they have the most superior potassium.

 

[bssthound]

dtfl opines:

I should move to Khazakstan. I hear they have the most superior potassium.

All other countries have inferior potassium.

 

[Pistlpetet]

No such thing as "them." You obviously worked with INDIVIDUALS, not the shadowy, nefarious "organization" you call the AF. If you didn't like them, fine. I'm sure they didn't like you either. I've worked with many SOF forces, most of them are good dudes. Some of them have serious attitude - as in "I'm a super soldier and you're here for me so you better shut up and color" type attitude. Which one are you? Maybe YOU were the cause of your bad experiences, not the aircrew you worked with. Self-reflection is a powerful tool, maybe it can help you out. And maybe answer the question of why a SEAL is constantly berating people on an aviation message board. Isn't there some other website you can patrol?

That is because this guy Dave Griffin has been exposed as a fake/imposter SEAL, and he does not have the moral fortitude to admit it. Dishonoring the many who have actually earned the Trident.

I have his PM's that tell me he is an over 50 ex-SEAL, yet I also have some of his posts that say he went to the Naval Academy in the early 90's.

I would give his opinion on ANYTHING as being totally worthless. He continues to stir the pot, and definately has an AF axe to grind. I would guess you are right about him being a UPT or BUD/S washout. In the end he is just an internet troll with a keyboard.

 

[SoundBarViolatr]

Half right. While many of the individuals in the AF are outstanding, as an organization they are a poor team player with a superiority complex and little regard for the Army and Marines on the ground who do the heavy lifting.

This opinion was formed through the experience of working with them.

LOSER.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Back on topic:

What exactly is wrong with having "talking points"? Am I missing something? If a commander (includes civilian authority over commanders) wants the team on-message, why is a bad thing to provide a reference for the message?

Where's the fire?

The priorities make sense to me.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Back on topic:

What exactly is wrong with having "talking points"? Am I missing something? If a commander (includes civilian authority over commanders) wants the team on-message, why is a bad thing to provide a reference for the message?

Where's the fire?

The priorities make sense to me.

The real question to ask is: Why does the AF thinks it needs to provide Talking Points to keep its team on message that the AF is doing its part?

With the release of the latest COIN Ops manual, the AF has found its role diminished to second tier status. They are also very concerned about losing budget.

The Fighter Jock Zoomie culture that has been running the AF for the past 30 years doesn’t want to lose strategic status or budget to the Army and Marines, the guys doing most of the work. Though they want to remain at the tip of the spear, it looks like a PR campaign, represented by the Taking Points, is the only way they can figure to counter their loss of status.

If they had built more C-17s and funded development of a real replacement for the A-10, maybe the Army and Marines would view the AF as a more valuable player to keep on first string offense.

 

[Mud Eagle]

If they had built more C-17s and funded development of a real replacement for the A-10, maybe the Army and Marines would view the AF as a more valuable player to keep on first string offense.

Man, I don't understand why the AF spends so much time and effort to send their officers to schools to learn about aerospace power. What a waste --

You've obviously got it all figured out when so many others who have spent their entire careers studying airpower have got it so wrong.

You're a serious airpower strategist. Respect!

 

[XShipRider]

My brother served 20 years in the Air Force so I refuse to jump on the put-down bandwagon. He garnered a Purple Heart by being blown up in the Khobar Towers bombing. It only took two surgeries to get his shoulders back to pseudo-normal but he still does not have full range of motion.

That said, I question why they're restructuring the workforce to accommodate the F-22. Who will maintain these birds? Contractors? Or is this a ploy to get what they want now then ask for a personnel increase down the road?

Mud Eagle, in reference to your post above: I freely admit I too am no air power strategist. I'm not denigrating the AF by asking my force level question. I simply don't understand the logic of their proposed personnel cuts.

Yeah, I know.. I'm a bit off topic.

 

[Mud Eagle]

I don't claim to completely understand the ins and outs of the CSAF's decisionmaking process, but I do get his rationale behind cutting manpower to modernize the fleet. It's not about the F-22...it's about the replacement tanker, a replacement CSAR helo, and several other aircraft, too. The overall age of the USAF fleet is unprecedented, and SOMETHING had to be done to throw a stake in the ground toward fixing the problem.

The AF mortgaged modernization of the fleet in the early 90s by counting on a "peace dividend" that would eventually open the flood gates to new money and new airframes. Well...that money never showed up, and here we are 15 years later with nothing significant to show for it.

So, I don't claim to know HOW the shrinking manpower of the force is going to be used as taskings continue to grow, but I do understand the dollars-and-cents rationale for needing to modernize the aircraft fleet across the board.