Spare me the faggot crack, you rear-rank field music panty-waist pussy. I've known F-16 drivers at Hill, OV-10, V-22, F-4 pilots at Cherry Point, Beaufort, Santa Ana, and good and bad program managers on any number of DoD TACOM and aerospace projects.
I stand by my comments.
Pilots=killers=notadministrators
You really jumped the shark.
So now Billy Mitchell, Hap Arnold, Jimmy Doolittle, Robin Olds, Jimmy Stewart, and practically every modern-era commander is a killer — and even worse — a “non-adminstrator” (which frankly sounds like a complement in my view). ROFL
So of the 215 four-star generals in the USAF, tell me how many were not rated (wears aircrew wings, in case you’re from Rio Linda)?
Go to this page and see the photos — how many DON’T have wings on their uniforms? Are there any?
There might be, but I didn’t see any at a glance. Because the glorified clerks you admire so much are NOT IN THE RUNNING FOR COMMAND the vast majority of the time. Because they are CLERKS not LEADERS.
I did enjoy the weak “you rear-rank field music panty-waist pu$$y” remark, that was really funny — like a foreigner trying to tell an American joke that instead ends up sounding like parody. HA HA!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Air_Force_four-star_generals
----
There's been some discussion here as to why the Air Force prefers officers vice NCOs as pilots, even in its UAV ("drone") force. It has to do with how it develops its future leaders.
It's widely acknowledged that the Army has great NCOs. It takes a great deal of time, training, and experience to grow them, and they do a fantastic job of leading young troops. But even though the NCOs are very effective at the small unit level, the Army still places junior officers down at the front-line platoon and company level, especially in the infantry, artillery, and armor units. Why "waste" an officer slot if the NCOs are so good? Because the Army expects its junior officers to grow up to become senior officers. And due to their experience at the small unit level, these lieutenants and captains get their fingernails dirty, see blood, and smell cordite, and thus gain an appreciation for what the troops are being asked to do. They take this experience with them as they rise through the ranks to colonel and general. It makes for better leaders and better decisions.
The Air Force is organizationally different, but they have the same mindset. For the Air Force, their "front lines" are cockpits, missile launch control centers, satellite operations facilities, and yes, UAV operations centers. Junior- and mid-level officers gain their experience "hands on" in a weapon system. They take their experience -- and appreciation for what it takes to do the job -- with them as they rise up to more senior positions. Just as in the Army, it makes for better leaders and better decisions down the road.
The Army puts NCOs as its UAV operators because UAV operations are, for the Army, an ancillary activity to the main event of fires and maneuvers performed in their combined arms paradigm using infantry, armor, and artillery, aided by their organic aviation. The Army's future leaders come primarily from those combat arms branches; they do not expect a UAV operator to grow up to command a battalion (as noted, it's an ancillary job). However, for the Air Force, their "combat arms" experience involve the hands-on operation of weapons systems. You could put NCOs in the cockpits and UAV ops centers, but NCOs do not command squadrons, groups, and wings; officers do. It takes 20 years to grow a senior leader (defined as an officer), and those senior leaders will then not have an appreciation for what goes on in their front-line units, because the front-line experience will stay in those units and rise no further.
And some work on a staff somewhere *is* important; it exposes pilots (and other officers) to other parts of the Air Force and thus helps them understand how other parts of the Air Force come together to produce air power. Otherwise, you will grow technicians who only know one job. It's called "professional development." (I can see eyes rolling at that.) I acknowledge it's not evenly applied, or even appreciated by all those receiving it. But it is necessary for a professional force.