Here is the most updated AF uniform, looks more like a bus driver's uniform to me than a postman.
But don't worry, the AF is going to do away with Tony McPeak's mistake.
Posted on 11/02/2007 1:36:49 PM PDT by DesScorp
Does the United States Air Force (USAF) fit into the post–September 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency? Not very well. Even the new counterinsurgency manual authored in part by Gen. David H. Petraeus, specifically notes that the excessive use of airpower in counterinsurgency conflict can lead to disaster.
In response, the Air Force has gone on the defensive. In September 2006, Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. published an article in Armed Forces Journal denouncing "boots on the ground zealots," and insisting that airpower can solve the most important problems associated with counterinsurgency. The Air Force also recently published its own counterinsurgency manual elaborating on these claims. A recent op-ed by Maj. Gen. Dunlap called on the United States to "think creatively" about airpower and counterinsurgency -- and proposed striking Iranian oil facilities.
Surely, this is not the way the United States Air Force had planned to celebrate its 60th anniversary. On Sept. 18, 1947, Congress granted independence to the United States Army Air Force (USAAF), the branch of the U.S. Army that had coordinated the air campaigns against Germany and Japan.
But it's time to revisit the 1947 decision to separate the Air Force from the Army. While everyone agrees that the United States military requires air capability, it's less obvious that we need a bureaucratic entity called the United States Air Force. The independent Air Force privileges airpower to a degree unsupported by the historical record. This bureaucratic structure has proven to be a continual problem in war fighting, in procurement, and in estimates of the costs of armed conflict. Indeed, it would be wrong to say that the USAF is an idea whose time has passed. Rather, it's a mistake that never should have been made.
(Excerpt) Read more at prospect.org ...
:-(
Seems there’s so many other things to do. I read more than post now.
A yes, this worked so well in Iraq, which is why the war is still dragging on. Funny that a lot of our best military minds raised such a ruckus about the fact our "let God sort them out" startegy that Bush finally fired Rumsfeld and his neo-imperialists and started to put in folks who had a slightly more enlightened approach to counter-insurgency.
But go ahead and learn nothing from history, beat your head against a wall, fail at your mission and destroy our good name in the name of beating the crap out of folks you don't like. Don't let me stop you.
A whole lot of supposition in that answer. Not even going to respond this time because you will read into it what you want to. Dont let me stop you.
Here is the most updated AF uniform, looks more like a bus driver's uniform to me than a postman.
But don't worry, the AF is going to do away with Tony McPeak's mistake.
“Japan lost a lot more than a few carriers to the USAAF.”
Really? Name them.
>> >> “Japan lost a lot more than a few carriers to the USAAF.”
>> Really? Name them.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
” “The fact is that USN politics will not allow the buy of a USAF aircraft, that is why the USN will not get a F-22N.””
Politics had nothing to do with it. Cost and bad experience did. The Navy had its own expensive Advanced Tactical Aircraft program to pay for, and they simply didn’t think they could afford both ATA’s and navalized F-22’s.
Second, the last time the Navy had an aircraft that was adopted from an Air Force variant, it was a horrible experience. I’m talking about the infamously bad F-111b. The Navy basically went before Congress and said they’d refuse to take the airplane, even if Congress appropriated money for it. It was simply impossible to take a medium bomber and turn it into a fighter. The money quote: “Sir, all the thrust in Christiandom wont make that airplane a fighter”.
As a result, the Navy developed the now-classic F-14 Tomcat instead.
And now we have the Joint Strike Fighter, and maybe....just maybe, it might work, because of advances in technology. But I bet some old hands are still watching it cautiously.
You can generally turn a Navy airplane into a great Air Force airplane. The Fury morphed into the F-86 Sabre, the F-4 was judged so superior to anything the Air Force was flying that it eventually took up 16 of the Air Force’s 24 fighter wings. When USAF became short on attack capability in the late 60’s, they adopted the Navy’s A-7. The B-66 Destroyer was simply a slightly modified Navy A-3 Skywarrior.
Name one front line Air Force bird that was adopted successfully by the Navy? Offhand, I can’t think of any.
“I think the Japanese admiral at the Battle of Midway would disagree with you, since he lost three carriers to US aircraft. And those carriers were neither unmanned nor obsolete.”
But they were destroyed in a massive battle from aircraft deployed from other carriers....which can stay closer to enemy fleets, and thus refuel and rearm faster. And the original point still stands....Billy Mitchell’s idea that you could send out a couple of bombers and sink any task force has been refuted over and over now.
>> >> “Japan lost a lot more than a few carriers to the USAAF.”
>> Really? Name them.
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And San Dimas football rules, I’m sure. Aside from the fact that atomic bombers turned two cities of people into carbon stains, you never did answer the question; which Japanese carriers did USAAF aircraft sink?
>> you never did answer the question
I think you misunderstood my comment regarding what Japan lost and how it was lost. I can see how it looked like I was referring to other vessels. Sorry for the confusion.
Maybe there will be a day when the Navy can accomplish what the Air Force has contributed to this day, but the events through the 20th Century really underscore the importance of the air power executed by USAF. If I’m not mistaken, it’ll be a few more years before the Navy has stealth aircraft ready for carrier based combat. But on the other hand, stealth tech has be in use for decades now in critical bombing campaigns. And the funding and engineering for stealth was through the AF branch, right?
I believe the research, innovation, and engineering for each branch combined might not be as valuable if it all fell under one bureaucratic process and budget.
DesScorp, I’ve gone as far as I can on this. I’m in no way expert on any of these things. I was just pointing to things that I accept as conventional wisdom. Regardless of how it’s accomplished, we need to continually improve the processes that provide the Military the technology it uses. Wasted resources and time have serious consequences for all of us.
C-130, F-16N, T-38 to name a few.
Although it didn't make it to the front lines, the YF-17 morphed into the F-18.
IMHO:
I really like Navy Crackerjacks because they are so traditional, sharp and distinctive. The junior enlisted dungaree uniform is awful. The Officer’s Dress Khaki was the best, but of course they got rid of that (Aviation Greens were great, but also were deleted). The Service Dress Blues, gunfighters, and khaki are OK, the Mess Dress is excellent and the Chokers are OK if you have enough on you shoulder boards and chest to offset the sea of white.
When the army went to that awful light green uniform they lost out. They just don’t have a nice uniform. They look best in combat gear. Their WWII khaki was a good uniform.
The USAF blue is better than the army, but its never struck me as distinctive or sharp. The light blue shirt is part of it.
The USMC is the hands down winner, simply because they never messed with their pre-WWII uniforms the way everyone else did. Of course a junior officer has to take out a massive loan just to make the purchase.
As for wasting money, it would be interesting to compare costs on personnel spending. If the USAF isn’t spending a lot more, then the Army and Navy should be investigated for fraud. When I took my family to Williamsburg this summer, I got a room at Langley AFB, vice any of the local Navy bases. Damneck has very nice beach front lodging, but it would have been too far away. Langley was tops, very nice overlooking the bay, and I got to watch the F-22’s flying around to boot.
“C-130, F-16N, T-38 to name a few.”
None of those can take off or land on a Carrier. There’s a proposal to put floats on a C-130 and try it out as a seaplane, but it went nowhere. The Navy only uses the T-38 in its test pilot school. The F-16N is only used for aggressor training.
“Although it didn’t make it to the front lines, the YF-17 morphed into the F-18.”
True, but the resulting aircraft was totally different. The YF-17 was actually a better (and faster) pure fighter in my opinion, but totally unsuited to carrier ops with its light airframe design. There’s a reason they gave the Hornet a different designation....it was a new airplane, similar in appearance only.
On a side note, I always thought USAF and Navy should have bought a small run of F-17’s (maybe 150 or so) for aggressor training.
“Maybe there will be a day when the Navy can accomplish what the Air Force has contributed to this day, but the events through the 20th Century really underscore the importance of the air power executed by USAF.”
Love that Air Force mentality. Accomplishments? The Navy has a 200 year head start on military accomplishments, and had a long history of being this nation’s first line of defense. From John Paul Jones on down, the Navy had a long and glorious history before the Air Force was even a dream. Accomplishments? USAF has had many great ones, but you’re still the new kid on the block. So coming off like the Air Force outweighs the Navy (or any other service) in terms of accomplishments is wrong.
The Navy was using a form of stealth.....hiding under the water....long before the Air Force ever dreamed of the concept. And the Navy hasn’t completely bought into aircraft stealth because they’re wary of putting all their aerial eggs in one basket. History shows that its pretty foolish to rely on a single technology for military victory. Military secrets are the shortest lived secrets of all, and USAF is on its way to totally relying on aircraft stealth tech (that is, special paints, matierials, and aircraft shapes) to defeat radar. What happens when an enemy defeats that technology (as the Australians and Chinese have already claimed to)? USAF retired all their jamming aircraft, and now rely on Navy Prowlers for that capability. The Navy certainly doesn’t think the need for jamming is going away...they’re buying a new dedicated wild weasel bird (the EF-18 Growler) for that purpose. USAF continues to put all their eggs in the stealth basket. Stealth should be but one facet of strategy, not the end all and be all of airpower policy.
“I believe the research, innovation, and engineering for each branch combined might not be as valuable if it all fell under one bureaucratic process and budget.”
I’ll agree with that, but no one was advocating a Canadian style “one service” org.
Well one of the reasons that the AF takes care of it’s bases and therefore looks “nicer” as opposed to Army posts is that the AF, for the most part, fights from it’s bases. It’s bases and accompanying infrastructure are vital for mission accomplishment. The Army on the other hand is a more mobile force, their job in war being not to stay in one place. In fact the AF is in Iraq and other places now, helping the Army maintain it’s posts, since they are finished with capturing territory. I would say Navy bases are more like AF bases in this respect. Although I know you guys fight from ships, you can’t stay out there all the time. You need a place to come into port and refit. Naval bases do that nicely.
On Navy bases, you still have many buildings in use that are over 100 years old, and the majority of hangars on Naval Air Bases were built during WW II. Sometimes its historically quaint, and sometimes its just run down. Most Naval ship yards have that eclectic feel of a very old working class neighborhood, that has stuck new houses in whenever they were needed, and patched up the rest.
Although I know the Air Force inherited many bases from the Army, they still are primarily products of the Cold War, and have the look and feel of being planned out with their current use in mind. In contrast, NAS Jacksonville operated a large number of seaplanes and was built with large boat ramps running down to the river. All completely obsolete after the mid 50’s.
“To a man, my Army friends, past and present, think USAF does a lousy job of air support in ground combat situations because they think the mission isn’t sexy enough.”
It’s no good if it isn’t “multi-mission”....That’s the mentality of the current Airforce.
They want the F-22 to have the capability to drop bombs, and yet still want to persue the stealthy “bomb truck” F-35.
They want to do away with all of their single mission aircraft to include the A-10, and it’s been congress that has been forcing the Airforce to keep the A-10 despite it’s “unsexy” single mission role and lack of gee whiz gizmos.
The problem with multi-mission aircraft is that they can’t do either mission their “designed” to do effectively.
Huh??
True, but the resulting aircraft was totally different.
No different from the FJ-1 Fury to the F-86 Saber.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.