An different article on a USAF leader

[71KILO]

WTF are you talking about? Blinded by the blue? Because I'm an academy grad and like to support my alma mater? You've got to be kidding me dude. I have insisted on here multiple times that currently there are plenty of strong, positive things going on with our leadership and our service, both AF active duty, guard, and reserve. Are there some issues and does some crappy leadership get through? Of course. But currently we're the top fighting force in the world and that just doesn't happen by magic. It's the hard work of the enlisted force, the junior officers, and of course the leadership that directs them in that direction. I think you're blinded - blinded by pessimism. Continuous negative people as yourself are the problem, and the jerk is you! Look for positive aspects in both your leadership and your career or get out, we don't need dudes like you to get to a leadership position...we need optimism.

I thought about reponding point-by-point but what's the use? My career is doing great due to my optomism, hard work, dedication, and especially the great Os and Es in my unit despite the lack of quality leadership. I'm optomistic about the new uniform. Sure glad someone had so much time on there hands while I was TDY. Shut-up zoomie! You are a tool. nuff said. stow the boom

 

[milplt]

Scrapdog - so why are you ANG instead of AD?

By the way, you were half right - we are the best fighting force because of those doing the fighting - period. And we haven't gone against the powerhouses, yet. That is despite the leadership. The leadership that makes our fighting forces do countless hours per year of mandatory on-line training (AF Records management, suicide prevention, computer security, etc. - what are all of the other ones). Despite the leadership that prefer criminal charges against those that make honest mistakes in the fog/friction of war. (By the way, FEB's are for gross errors as an aircrew - criminal charges are for criminal intent). Speaking of criminal intent - despite the leadership that rewrite (actually, have the board president rewrite - it's allowed) safety reports to scrub any findings damning to the establishment. Despite leadership that prevents upgrades a few years ago to the Eagle to make the F-22 look that much more necessary. Despite the leadership that allows pilots to continue flying with 13 Q-3's in an FEF. Despite leadership that makes it impossible (ok, 99.9% impossible) to wash a single UPT student out. Despite leadership that allows every support office to build their very own castles out of their support shops - makes the book Catch-22 look like a case study in today's USAF. Despite the creation of the RAP system to make sure we stay proficient, then the blatant fat-pencil logging to prevent the next level up knowing how bad our sortie count really is (so, how many JMO's did you all log vs. how many your flew). It's either important enough to stay on the list and fly, or not important enough to be off the list - either way, we can't have shortfalls going to the numbered AF every quarter. Despite the AMC leadership more worried about the patches, scarves, and take-off times than about the crew who will do whatever it takes to get the gas to the receiver. We're good, but is not because of the leadership. It is because of us (or actually those younger than me, now), and we need to recognize that and run our own "training program" to make sure that the standards stay high despite the actions of the top. At least there were a few vocal dudes at Dover when they were deciding who was going to get the next IP slot, although it would have been nice had they been a little more vocal and gotten the leadership to go their way.

 

[Scrapdog]

Scrapdog - so why are you ANG instead of AD?

By the way, you were half right - we are the best fighting force because of those doing the fighting - period. And we haven't gone against the powerhouses, yet. That is despite the leadership. The leadership that makes our fighting forces do countless hours per year of mandatory on-line training (AF Records management, suicide prevention, computer security, etc. - what are all of the other ones). Despite the leadership that prefer criminal charges against those that make honest mistakes in the fog/friction of war. (By the way, FEB's are for gross errors as an aircrew - criminal charges are for criminal intent). Speaking of criminal intent - despite the leadership that rewrite (actually, have the board president rewrite - it's allowed) safety reports to scrub any findings danging to the establishment. Despite leadership that prevents upgrades a few years ago to the Eagle to make the F-22 look that much more necessary. Despite the leadership that allows pilots to continue flying with 13 Q-3's in an FEF. Despite leadership that makes it impossible (ok, 99.9% impossible) to wash a single UPT student out. Despite leadership that allows every support office to build their very own castles out of their support shops - makes the book Catch-22 look like a case study in today's USAF. Despite the creation of the RAP system to make sure we stay proficient, then the blatant fat-pencil logging to prevent the next level up knowing how bad our sortie count really is (so, how many JMO's did you all log vs. how many your flew). It's either important enough to stay on the list and fly, or not important enough to be off the list - either way, we can't have shortfalls going to the numbered AF every quarter. Despite the AMC leadership more worried about the patches, scarves, and take-off times than about the crew who will do whatever it takes to get the gas to the receiver. We're good, but is not because of the leadership. It is because of us (or actually those younger than me, now), and we need to recognize that and run our own "training program" to make sure that the standards stay high despite the actions of the top. At least there were a few vocal dudes at Dover when they were deciding who was going to get the next IP slot, although it would have been nice had they been a little more vocal and gotten the leadership to go their way.

Mil - interesting points, and indeed a lot of the stuff you say is pretty close to being on the mark! I hate filling out my rap sheet over and over, or doing my suicide prevention crapola online, or worrying about scarves and patches (more of a factor when I was on active duty). However, we have to do a lot of mundane things for accountability. The rap sheet is for filling training squares to ensure each flyer gets his currency to be ready to fight. The decision to pencil whip it is up to the individual pilot, that's where integrity comes into play...and if a squadron commander is forcing you to do something unethical, then that's where you need to use your gut feeling and professionalism that makes you an air force officer and take it up the chain of command. Anyway, I won't address each point you mention, but they are good points. My opinion is while a lot of the system is not ideal, there has to be a system there for some type of accountability. We can't just go out on the ramp, start the jet, and go fly. Now, I challenge you to change the system if you're not happy with it, and that's the beauty of it - with good leadership (which we have a lot of), they will listen to your ideas and our system of accountability will continue to improve. I know, now I'm waxing philosophical...

On a seperate note - no matter how many upgrades the F-15 got, it will NEVER be close to an F-22 (that's where the stealth, supercruise, etc...comes into play and that's for another day and on another thread). Trust me on this, I just finished 3 weeks of doing red air support with them. When an F-22 is on its game, there is absolutely no comparison between an F-15 and an F-22, no matter how many upgrades you throw on the mighty Eagle.

Me personally - I was AD, but palace chase'd early to the Guard for family reasons.

 

[milplt]

The whole F-22 vs. the F-15 is a completely different matter. Obviously, the F-22 is an outstanding machine and we need it against an emerging threat. My point was that the leadership sacrificed our combat capabilities in the late '90's by preventing upgrades (other than software) to the Eagle to make the F-22 look more needed. Lives were potentially risked for a political goal. We could have bought the Python IV and a new CMD system much earlier. They were sending us to combat with APG-63's, AIM-9M's and 24 flares when better systems were readily available.

Now, I do have a problem with scrapping 500 of our front-line fighters for 100 F-22's. There are obviously still (and will be) low-intensity conflicts where numbers are good. If we are running our high numbers of aircraft into the ground now, wait until we fly a smaller number of aircraft even more.

I think the senior leadership does the most damage with their acquisition purchases (Tanker lease, etc.). And it isn't just the USAF, every service has it's gold-plated systems. I would love to see a single USAF senior leader that treats the taxpayer funds as if it were his own. Look at how much money we are wasting in the middle of a war with these BRAC moves. I know that BRAC is above our USAF leaders, but they only enacted a bunch of the recommendations that the USAF passed up. I am not anti-USAF, I am still in it, and if I didn't care it wouldn't bother me. But, I think that we need to recognize that it can be better than status-quo. The first step in fixing a problem is recognzing that you have one.

By the way, their are plenty of good officers, but too few are willing to fall on their swords to do the right thing. Perhaps the most under-rated officer in the modern AF is John Boyd. Not only was he the best fighter pilot of his time, he sacrificed it all to do what is right. That man is the stereotype of the officers I wish we had more of - if you are in the AF and haven't read his story, you need to. By the way, it took the USMC to give him the credit that was due. - they recognized the warrior in him and not the threat to staff officers that the AF saw him as.

 

[71KILO]

Scrapdog - so why are you ANG instead of AD?

By the way, you were half right - we are the best fighting force because of those doing the fighting - period. And we haven't gone against the powerhouses, yet. That is despite the leadership. The leadership that makes our fighting forces do countless hours per year of mandatory on-line training (AF Records management, suicide prevention, computer security, etc. - what are all of the other ones). Despite the leadership that prefer criminal charges against those that make honest mistakes in the fog/friction of war. (By the way, FEB's are for gross errors as an aircrew - criminal charges are for criminal intent). Speaking of criminal intent - despite the leadership that rewrite (actually, have the board president rewrite - it's allowed) safety reports to scrub any findings danging to the establishment. Despite leadership that prevents upgrades a few years ago to the Eagle to make the F-22 look that much more necessary. Despite the leadership that allows pilots to continue flying with 13 Q-3's in an FEF. Despite leadership that makes it impossible (ok, 99.9% impossible) to wash a single UPT student out. Despite leadership that allows every support office to build their very own castles out of their support shops - makes the book Catch-22 look like a case study in today's USAF. Despite the creation of the RAP system to make sure we stay proficient, then the blatant fat-pencil logging to prevent the next level up knowing how bad our sortie count really is (so, how many JMO's did you all log vs. how many your flew). It's either important enough to stay on the list and fly, or not important enough to be off the list - either way, we can't have shortfalls going to the numbered AF every quarter. Despite the AMC leadership more worried about the patches, scarves, and take-off times than about the crew who will do whatever it takes to get the gas to the receiver. We're good, but is not because of the leadership. It is because of us (or actually those younger than me, now), and we need to recognize that and run our own "training program" to make sure that the standards stay high despite the actions of the top. At least there were a few vocal dudes at Dover when they were deciding who was going to get the next IP slot, although it would have been nice had they been a little more vocal and gotten the leadership to go their way.

AGREE AGREE AGREE. Dude you said it! Sounds like Dover and my tanker base run about the same way. What is it about AMC?

 

[71KILO]

they will listen to your ideas and our system of accountability will continue to improve. I know, now I'm waxing philosophical...

Mister negativity here: Get real! That is the most ideological thought I've ever heard. Lets take a poll. How many of you guys got your squadron commander, OG, or WG/CC to actually listen? (crickets chirping...) They are all trying to keep away from contreversial issues so they can get promoted. It's pathetic. The quality guys depart the fix prior to the EFC 99% of the time.

 

[milplt]

Too late for me to edit my last post, but I have a link to a good, quick rundown on John Boyd: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c455.htm.

 

[Gorilla]

Too late for me to edit my last post, but I have a link to a good, quick rundown on John Boyd: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c455.htm.

John Boyd is one of the most fascinating characters to have ever worn the uniform. There is no denying his brilliance. He has been compared to Sun Tzu and Clauswitz. There is a memorial to him at one of the major Marine land-war colleges... think of that, the Marines paying homage to an AIR FORCE officer!

That said, Boyd was wrong in one critical area. Despite what people say, history shows he had a streak of Luddite in him. His idea of the ultimate fighter was something that could turn up it's butt, equipped with simple systems and a gun, maybe some heaters. He had no faith in technologies lke Radar, AMRAAM, RPV's, etc.

We need to focus on several spots on the technology spectrum. I personally think a mix of 3 fighter types would be best. Have a small core of super-capable F-22's and F-35's. The next type would be Boyd's machine, the original super-dogfighter like the YF-16. The third needed type would be an A-10 CAS/FAC type of aircraft. Boyd promoted very specialized platforms, and I agree with him there. Trying to make an AC "do it all" doesn't work well. Remember "Jack of all trades, master of none." There is a grain of truth there.

 

[milplt]

Boyd's technical claims are not why I appreciate his service, my appreciation of Boyd lies in his willingness to do what was right. No one claims that he was 100% absolutely correct in his opinions, but absolutely no one can claim that he did anything solely to advance his career. He didn't latch on to any golden system or concept for advancement - his ideas were borne 100% by the desire to do what is right and win wars, the same as Billy Mitchell. His concern was ensuring the fewest US lives were lost in future conflicts, that's it.

As far as his reluctance to embrace technology, I believe that he was slow to acknowledge emerging technologies. Today, proven technologies would have probably found a place in his theories. And I also feel that Boyd's approach to technology was way ahead of his contemporaries who were too quick to embrace the newest gadgets - and subsequently put no gun in the F-4 in favor of the almighty missile, etc. Even McPeak was quoted as saying that one of his regrets was that he let himself be talked into putting a gun in the F-22. A gun is a great weapon (albeit of last resort for the F-22) for strafing an appropriate target of opportunity such as troops in contact and no one else is around to help.

 

[fishalaska]

got to sit in on a OG staff meeting a couple of months ago, 2+ hours to give a 5 minute brief on aircrew training. Of that two hours there was the five minutes for my brief, about 10 minutes and two slides on what aircraft/crews were flying what missions and their status, and the rest of the time was spent on OPR/EPR and awards and decs.

Trend item. Same meeting different base.

 

[Gorilla]

Boyd's technical claims are not why I appreciate his service, my appreciation of Boyd lies in his willingness to do what was right.

Absolutely true, and I honor him for that. That's also why he never made General. "The Man" couldn't stand his honesty.

As far as his reluctance to embrace technology, I believe that he was slow to acknowledge emerging technologies. Today, proven technologies would have probably found a place in his theories.

The problem here is that there is no way to prove technology outside the acid test of combat. If Boyd had his way, those tests would never have occurred.

And I also feel that Boyd's approach to technology was way ahead of his contemporaries who were too quick to embrace the newest gadgets - and subsequently put no gun in the F-4 in favor of the almighty missile, etc. Even McPeak was quoted as saying that one of his regrets was that he let himself be talked into putting a gun in the F-22. A gun is a great weapon (albeit of last resort for the F-22) for strafing an appropriate target of opportunity such as troops in contact and no one else is around to help.

IMO the gun on the F-22 is a waste, and the space and weight should be replaced with fuel. If we are in such a conflict that we have to use the F-22 in a CAS role, we are toast. That implies once again we are taking what should be a pure air-air machine and trying to please congress by calling it an F/A/C-22, and making it do stuff that it wasn't designed to do. I think if Boyd was alive, he'd say "Add more missiles or fuel to the F-22. Leave the CAS to the A-10." We haven't had an air to air gun kill since Viet-Nam except for the A-10 helo kills. The bulk of the AA kills in GW1 were AIM-7. If we want an air to air machine, given what we know of technology, and the pK of modern missiles, we'd have a platform optimized for the carriage of missiles.

With all that, I still think a lot about Boyd, as will anyone reading about him, especially Coram's book. Guys like Boyd come around once every century or so. I'd rank his thought processes and personal courage and integrity right up there with Mitchell, Doolittle, and the heros of old. And that's what's really odd, very few people have ever heard of him, because he "didn't work well with others." That is the death knell in today's military. Screw honesty, intelligence, and integrity, we want you to be a team player above all else, even if that means sacrificing your soul.

All military pilots should read about Boyd.

 

[AlbieF15]

Gorilla,

I agree with you most of the time, but I think you are wrong on the F-22 gun.

The goal in air supremacy is the ability to rid the skies of the thread. Missiles can be decoyed and jammed--the gun cannot. It is the "weapons of last resort...", but it is a vital weapon regardless.

Why? Several reasons.

First--the warrior mindset. Explain to me how to train to fight and kill and do BFM without the ability to max exploit the capabilities of my fighter. It forces us to train to BEST our enemy in a maneuvering fight without the high tech tools. If I am going to send you into combat to kill or die (remember--air combat is the ultimate zero sum game)...I want you to KNOW that regardless of what happens you can kill, survive, and return victorious. While a better measure of combat in the air to air arena is probably how do your run an 8 ship verses how is your offensive BFM, I have met few guys who were GREAT BFM'ers that weren't good at other stuff too. Conversely, guys who couldn't do solid BFM seemed to struggle in other areas. The ability to do sound BFM and kill creates an aggressive mindset that permeates all other tactics.


If I am swirling around with amraams that won't guide and aim-9s that won't track, what do I do? What about when my radar hiccups and quits working? What do I do when I'm out of missiles and a threat aircraft or cruise missile is headed towards my home? The gun provides that last ditch weapon. It is also a surgical weapon--think about how you would use it if you were launched to prevent another 9/11 attack? A gun would provide options a missile might not...

Finally--history has proven every time we go "high tech" in war we end up longing for some old tech tools. Soliders in Vietnam hated the M-16, and many used M-1 Garands and even Shotguns to augment the poor reliability of the weapons. Above them--the aim-9 and aim-7 were proving that kills weren't "automatic". Knowing I've got a solid, proven weapon in the heat of the battle...whether its a Remington 870 with 00 buck or a vucan 20mm cannon--allows me to make aggressive decisions that can turn the tide of battle. Going in "hoping" my missiles will guide or my M-16 won't jam "this time" won't create the kind of aggessive spirit we'll need to win the next big one.

So...you just merged with a Su-27. You shot your 3 aim-120s and got 3 kills...and an aim-9x just splashed another Mig-29. However--the Flanker is now lead turning your wingman who is in a defensive break turn. What would you rather have right now--400 extra pounds of gas or a gun?

Just one Eagle Driver's opinion...

 

[MarineGrunt]

I had more leadership training in my 13 weeks of Marine boot camp than I have had my 2+ years as a guard officer. Not deliberately busting on the guard, but nothing will grow if you don't plant seeds....

United States Marine Corps 12 Leadership Traits (not limited to just Marines!)
1. JUSTICE - Giving reward and punishment according to merit in the case in question. The ability to administer a system or rewards and punishment impartially and consistently.
2. JUDGEMENT - The ability to weight facts and possible solutions on which to base sound decisions.
3. DECICIVENESS - The ability to make decisions promptly and announce them in a clear, forceful manner.
4. INITIATIVE - Taking action in the absence of orders.
5. DEPENDABILITY - The certainty of proper performance of duty.
6. TACT - The ability to deal with others without creating offense.
7. INTEGRITY - The uprightness of character and soundness of moral principle; includes qualities of truthfulness and honesty.
8. ENDURANCE - The mental and physical stamina measured by the ability to withstand pain, fatigue, stress and hardship.
9. BEARING - Creating a favorable impression in carriage, appearance and personal conduct at all times.
10. UNSELFISHNESS - Avoidance of providing for one's own comfort, and personal advancement and personal advancement at the expense of others.
11. COURAGE - The mental quality that recognizes fear of danger or criticism, but enables a man to proceed in the face of it with calmness and firmness.
12. KNOWLEDGE - Understanding of a science or an art. The range of one's information, including professional knowledge and knowledge of your Marines.
13. LOYALTY - The quality of faithfulness to country, the Corps, the unit, to one's seniors, subordinates and peers.
14. ENTHUSIASIM - The display of sincere interest and exuberance in the performance of duty.

 

[Gorilla]

Albie, my heart totally agrees with you. As an ex F-15 guy, the thought of giving up my beloved gun would have made me nuts. I bet if you did an individual poll of air-air jocks, 95% would want one. The reasons you gave are sound, and there will undoubtedly be situations where a gun would make the difference.

Unfortunately my head says "missiles". I'm thinking like a general here, even though I never came close. When looked upon from a strategic view, additional fuel or maybe another pair of heaters makes more sense, purely IMO. We know what the pK of the Sidewinder is, and the current crop of radar missiles are excellent. If I was king of the AF, I would have a decade ago created a crash-program to design a super-heater, with 3X the maneuverability, smaller size, and sacrificed range if necessary. Our seeker technology, both IR and contrast, is superb, and we could easily field a missile that pulls 40 to 80 G's and an envelope that easily overlaps the gun.

Even without a new missile, though, the current Sidewinders are very, very good. The Brits in the Falklands took 22 of 24 argentines, and that was an AIM-9L patch to the Sea Harrier with no range cues, break-X, no symbology whatsoever besides the tone.

It'll be a sad day but I believe the days of the gunfighter are waning. I know I'm in the minority here. Feel free to pummel me if we ever meet! Look at it this way - when we are toothless and gumming a shot of whiskey, we'll be able to say "back in MY day, we had a BIG F*&^^%G GUN; a man-weapon!" and the new lootenants will be envious.

 

[JimNtexas]

If an F-22 ever gets within gun range of a threat then the U.S. Air Force has already suffered a huge loss. That airplane has no business maneuvering with anything.

I understand exactly why the air-to-air guys want a gun, and I'm sure I'd say the same thing in their shoes. But the fact is that if our technology breaks down to the point where advanced missiles don't work, then the F-22 won't work either.

To justify the incredible cost the F-22 must engage many threats at once. If we are down to F-22 gunfights then the other side has already won the war.

The F-22 is too valuable to risk in visual dogfights. We have F-16s for that.

Were there any gun kills in Desert Storm?

 

[AlbieF15]

You are missing the point. If a Mig 29 HAD showed up alive at the merge, what do you think would have been the outcome against an F-15 or F-16 that had honed their dogfighing skills doing DACT?

Conversely--how well will a Raptor pilot fight if he thinks that if does show up with at a visual merge he is at a disadvantage? He's a killing machine outside 10 miles--but inside that he feels "threatened?" How aggressive will that guy really be?

Its moot anyway--the leadership HAS invested in a gun. They probably hope we never get to need it. However--rest assured--as long as Raptor pilots get hard-ons thinking about gunning that dumb SOB who was lucky enough to get by an amraam with a bad fuze, we'll own the skies. When our fighter pilots think "(gulp)...hope I don't ever have to go mano vs mano verses a Sukoi/Mig XXX"....we have a serious problem.

Remember--we need WARRIORS, not just technicians. The gun forces us to keep our warrior focus.

I'm right. Cease babble. Everyone just needs to agree with me and nod their heads...

 

[CWGrizwald]

Gun Kills

Were there any gun kills in Desert Storm?[/quote]

2 helos were killed by the mighty GAU-8!

 

[Gorilla]

Albie, I've always thought that the fighter pilot "I'm big, bad, and larger than life" mindset is important, and wins battles. Sadly, that attitude is frowned upon these days.

I'm trying to think of an analogy. Here's a stupid one. Let's say a grunt can carry either a set of night vision goggles, or a knife, but not both. The troops love the knife, train for it, and it gives them confidence. In the big picture, though, the NVG's are vastly more useful and will result in more enemy dead.

OK, that really sucks. It is hard to quantify the "killer spirit" that is necessary to win. All of your points are valid, but by definition the gun is a day VMC weapon that takes a looong time to use correctly. The pilot is asking to be shot in the belly by the enemy's wingman. The gunfighter cannot help but focus almost 100% on his target, while unfortunately there are usually other enemy aircraft swirling about. You and I both have shot dozens or hundreds of guys with heaters while they're trying to gun somebody. Wouldn't it make more sense for the F-22 to attempt a separation?

I still like the idea of a micro-heater, something very cheap, short ranged, and agile, as a gun replacement. You can foster an aggressive mindset when you've got a missile that needs <2500' slant range.

I think we've beat this to death. I can only dream of getting back into a fighter. I remember when the Eagles were "only" $20 million or so each, and we treated them like a national treasure. I have a tough time thinking of a $200 million F-22 trying to solve a gun track in the midst of a swirl of MiG-21's, any one of which can smoke him while he's totally vulnerable and predictable.

<sigh> I've got a turn to Mexico; no more fighters for me. Pull some G's for me today, would you? I'm glad you're an F-15 IP. Teach those young pups what it's all about.

Edit - Idea: How about a single barreled 30mm automatic cannon? Something 1/3 the size and weight of the M-61. Lower ROF, longer-ranged, something the bad guys MUST still respect when the F-22 is saddled up on him.

 

[Gorilla]

I had more leadership training in my 13 weeks of Marine boot camp than I have had my 2+ years as a guard officer. Not deliberately busting on the guard, but nothing will grow if you don't plant seeds....

United States Marine Corps 12 Leadership Traits (not limited to just Marines!)
1. JUSTICE - Giving reward and punishment according to merit in the case in question. The ability to administer a system or rewards and punishment impartially and consistently.
2. JUDGEMENT - The ability to weight facts and possible solutions on which to base sound decisions.
3. DECICIVENESS - The ability to make decisions promptly and announce them in a clear, forceful manner.
4. INITIATIVE - Taking action in the absence of orders.
5. DEPENDABILITY - The certainty of proper performance of duty.
6. TACT - The ability to deal with others without creating offense.
7. INTEGRITY - The uprightness of character and soundness of moral principle; includes qualities of truthfulness and honesty.
8. ENDURANCE - The mental and physical stamina measured by the ability to withstand pain, fatigue, stress and hardship.
9. BEARING - Creating a favorable impression in carriage, appearance and personal conduct at all times.
10. UNSELFISHNESS - Avoidance of providing for one's own comfort, and personal advancement and personal advancement at the expense of others.
11. COURAGE - The mental quality that recognizes fear of danger or criticism, but enables a man to proceed in the face of it with calmness and firmness.
12. KNOWLEDGE - Understanding of a science or an art. The range of one's information, including professional knowledge and knowledge of your Marines.
13. LOYALTY - The quality of faithfulness to country, the Corps, the unit, to one's seniors, subordinates and peers.
14. ENTHUSIASIM - The display of sincere interest and exuberance in the performance of duty.

This is a superb summary of what makes a soldier great. John Boyd took 12 out of 14 and ran them off the scale. Two of them he took deep into the negative side... TACT and BEARING. Especially Tact. Such as poking a general in the chest with a lit cigar, and setting his tie on fire, while telling the general "You are full of $hit!!" :nuts:

He made a LOT of enemies, and at the same time he had a core of disciples that were there with him through it all. Maybe some of the older guys remember the Fighter Mafia at the Pentagon. That was Boyd, the father of the F-15, F-16, and the entire modern theory of Energy/Maneuverability.

 

[milplt]

I'm withAlbie on the F-22 gun - you go to war expecting the worst - and you have to assume that if we fight the hordes (sp?) the F-22's will have shot all of their missiles and still have some killing to do.

Grunt - how about self-defense (close quarters combat) skills in the guard? Non-existent, huh? I think that training would go a long way towards getting us into the correct mentality - a little reminder that we ARE the military, not to mention the acquisition of some useful skills. It's sad that FedEx has better CQC training than the USAF for most of it's personnel.

Jim, I think the point is that we train for the worst and hope for the best. It may not be probable, but in the big one it could easily happen - with the numbers of F-22's we are gaining, fighting outnumbered is going to be the norm and missiles are a finite resource. Same with the CQC drills, that crewmember may never need it, but there is a .001% chance that they may.

And Gorilla, just to play devil's advocate: if the marine knew that he was going in with his squad for an indefinite amount of time without support, he may choose the knife over the NVG's. Batteries die, electronics fail, and without the support chain become useless eventually. But the knife will never fail him. Probability, low: possibility, yes - and when training for combat, you account for all known possibilities.