My how things have changed

[cap235629]

Well I am home after spending a week at Little Rock Air Force Base for the 2011 Arkansas Wing Encampment. To all my veteran friends it pains me to say this, but the Air Force can now officially be called the military. In the 20 years since I was in the Army, the Air Force has actually stepped up their standards and terms like "Air Farce" and "Chair Force" are totally inappropriate.

Gone are the days of doing PT once a year, overweight and out of shape personnel, "pretending" to be hard core, never even seeing a weapon except in pictures, lackadaisical bearing and discipline, and the overall malaise that we all used to see.

I will say that they are of course completely inferior to the Army but we all know who the true warriors are  . I do wish the Army would take a lesson or two on the standard of living for personnel from the Air Force. They live well, that is all I am saying. I would even go so far as saying that if the Air Force would adopt a real dress uniform again instead of the "business suit" monstrosity they wear now that I would not have much to be critical of.

And before you jump all over me about the new Army Blue Service Dress , I HATE the white shirt for Class B wear! They should have stayed with the grey they started withand maybe even put the chevrons back on the sleeves. When I posted this on Facebook John Kachenmeister added what I thought was an excellent suggestion, go completely back to tradition and design a dark blue shirt to be worn as an outer garment. I would also venture that if the do, the chevrons and unit patch/combat patch be put back on as well.

Welcome back to the ARMED Forces

:clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:  :clap:

[JC004]

Man...I hope it doesn't spread to the Auxiliary.  I mean...CIVIL Air Patrol.  Radioman would FREAK if it did...

Kach is a smart man and you shouldn't argue with him because he wears a gun.  I've seen it.  Not good.  I actually think dark blue shirts are not a bad idea.  I guess they'd be hotter... The AF has air conditioning, though.

[abdsp51]

The Army superior to the AF? Yeah I don't think so.   

[cap235629]

The Army superior to the AF? Yeah I don't think so.

As I taught my cadets at encampment, there is a fourth verse to the Air Force song that goes a little like this:

We used to be
Part of the United States Army
They got sick of our crap
and kicked us out......

         

[abdsp51]

Eh still if anyone is inferior its the Army to the AF.

[titanII]

Well I like to look at it like this: USAF has nuclear ICBMs. US Army doesn't have any nukes to my knowledge. Your call.

Note: not my actual opinion. I have the same argument all the time with my Navy brat friend. I personally think that to compare Army to Navy to Air Force to Marines to Coast Guard is often like comparing apples to a certain citrus fruit.

[Flyinsarge]

This made me laugh, sir!

[MSG Mac]

Well I like to look at it like this: USAF has nuclear ICBMs. US Army doesn't have any nukes to my knowledge. Your call.

Note: not my actual opinion. I have the same argument all the time with my Navy brat friend. I personally think that to compare Army to Navy to Air Force to Marines to Coast Guard is often like comparing apples to a certain citrus fruit.

Both the Army and Marine Corps have low yield tactical nuke rounds for their artillary. It takes big ones to let one off within 10-20 miles. Takes an AF Officer to launch one 10,000 miles from 300 feet below ground

[PHall]

Well I like to look at it like this: USAF has nuclear ICBMs. US Army doesn't have any nukes to my knowledge. Your call.

Note: not my actual opinion. I have the same argument all the time with my Navy brat friend. I personally think that to compare Army to Navy to Air Force to Marines to Coast Guard is often like comparing apples to a certain citrus fruit.

Both the Army and Marine Corps have low yield tactical nuke rounds for their artillary. It takes big ones to let one off within 10-20 miles. Takes an AF Officer to launch one 10,000 miles from 300 feet below ground

Nuclear Field Artillary rounds have been gone for a number of years. Part of the START I treaty.

[davidsinn]

Well I like to look at it like this: USAF has nuclear ICBMs. US Army doesn't have any nukes to my knowledge. Your call.

Note: not my actual opinion. I have the same argument all the time with my Navy brat friend. I personally think that to compare Army to Navy to Air Force to Marines to Coast Guard is often like comparing apples to a certain citrus fruit.

Both the Army and Marine Corps have low yield tactical nuke rounds for their artillary.

Marines never had them. Army hasn't had them in decades. Takes a special very large caliber gun to launch one of those puppies.

[MSG Mac]

Well I like to look at it like this: USAF has nuclear ICBMs. US Army doesn't have any nukes to my knowledge. Your call.

Note: not my actual opinion. I have the same argument all the time with my Navy brat friend. I personally think that to compare Army to Navy to Air Force to Marines to Coast Guard is often like comparing apples to a certain citrus fruit.

Both the Army and Marine Corps have low yield tactical nuke rounds for their artillary.

I was briefly assigned to a Marine Artillary unit M 4/10 between overseas assignments in 1969, We definetly practiced to shoot a nuke, during a FIREX  in Oct of that year.

Marines never had them. Army hasn't had them in decades. Takes a special very large caliber gun to launch one of those puppies.

[cap235629]

Well I like to look at it like this: USAF has nuclear ICBMs. US Army doesn't have any nukes to my knowledge. Your call.

Note: not my actual opinion. I have the same argument all the time with my Navy brat friend. I personally think that to compare Army to Navy to Air Force to Marines to Coast Guard is often like comparing apples to a certain citrus fruit.

Both the Army and Marine Corps have low yield tactical nuke rounds for their artillary.

I was briefly assigned to a Marine Artillary unit M 4/10 between overseas assignments in 1969, We definetly practiced to shoot a nuke, during a FIREX  in Oct of that year.

Marines never had them. Army hasn't had them in decades. Takes a special very large caliber gun to launch one of those puppies.

155's have the capability, Big Bertha wasn't the only one.

[bosshawk]

Anybody remember the Atomic Demolition Munitions: fit in a backpack and were designed to be emplaced by Special Forces guys.  Not likely that any are around anymore.

[Stonewall]

Gone are the days of doing PT once a year, overweight and out of shape personnel, "pretending" to be hard core, never even seeing a weapon except in pictures, lackadaisical bearing and discipline, and the overall malaise that we all used to see.

Sorry to break this to you, but those days are still going strong.

Wrapping up a deployment and helping the flight sergeants with awards recommendations.  Out of 19 Airmen (E4 & below), 9 are not qualified for awards due to failing the PT test prior to deploying.  These are 19,20, 21,... year old Airmen.  Some are obviously overweight, others are stick figures who can't push up their own weight.  Very disappointing.  I know this may sound mean, saying this in 2011, but I think the worse thing to affect Airmen (soldiers too, I'm sure) is the fact that we have internet over here.  Granted, some people like me can balance our time better, but Airmen are showing up for duty (12+ hour shifts) virtually half asleep after spending 5 hours on the internet after their shifts.  A few of the Airmen, maybe about 1/3, spend their time relieving stress and maintaining their fitness levels at the gym.  Of all the Tech Sergeants on flight (5) all of us spend about an hour in the gym every day and average about a 92 (out of 100) on the PT test.  I think it's a generation thing.

And this isn't a specific base or unit thing, we're comprised of Active, Guard, Reserve members from about 20 different bases/units.  To be quite honest, it's mostly AD folks lacking in the fitness area.  And as far as professional Airmanship goes, some have it, a lot don't.  And I'm mostly disappointed in the E-5s.  I've had to identify the fact that there is a difference between E-5s and Staff Sergeants.  In my opinion, here, some E-5s are simply average or below average Airmen that get paid more, but accept zero responsibility for themselves, subordinates or the mission.  Then there are the Staff Sergeants.  Motivated professionals in the profession of arms, who take the job seriously and stand up to lead whether they're in a 2 man mobile patrol vehicle or running an ECP with 3 or 4 other Airmen.

This deployment (my first AF deployment) opened my eyes and I haven't been impressed.

[PHall]

Well I like to look at it like this: USAF has nuclear ICBMs. US Army doesn't have any nukes to my knowledge. Your call.

Note: not my actual opinion. I have the same argument all the time with my Navy brat friend. I personally think that to compare Army to Navy to Air Force to Marines to Coast Guard is often like comparing apples to a certain citrus fruit.

Both the Army and Marine Corps have low yield tactical nuke rounds for their artillary.

I was briefly assigned to a Marine Artillary unit M 4/10 between overseas assignments in 1969, We definetly practiced to shoot a nuke, during a FIREX  in Oct of that year.

Marines never had them. Army hasn't had them in decades. Takes a special very large caliber gun to launch one of those puppies.

155's have the capability, Big Bertha wasn't the only one.

The 8 inch howitzers could fire them too.

[sarmed1]

In my opinion, here, some E-5s are simply average or below average Airmen that get paid more, but accept zero responsibility for themselves, subordinates or the mission.  Then there are the Staff Sergeants

I made this same notice (non deployment) when I went from green to blue..... E5 in the Airforce is more like the SPC4 of the Army.  You have some that are hard charging, taking responsability and being the NCO of thier small little world/group; and the rest are just there getting a paycheck.  The first group gets the praise, the second....we'll nobody seems that bothered by it.

mk

[AngelWings]

Gone are the days of doing PT once a year, overweight and out of shape personnel, "pretending" to be hard core, never even seeing a weapon except in pictures, lackadaisical bearing and discipline, and the overall malaise that we all used to see.

Sorry to break this to you, but those days are still going strong.

Wrapping up a deployment and helping the flight sergeants with awards recommendations.  Out of 19 Airmen (E4 & below), 9 are not qualified for awards due to failing the PT test prior to deploying.  These are 19,20, 21,... year old Airmen.  Some are obviously overweight, others are stick figures who can't push up their own weight.  Very disappointing.  I know this may sound mean, saying this in 2011, but I think the worse thing to affect Airmen (soldiers too, I'm sure) is the fact that we have internet over here.  Granted, some people like me can balance our time better, but Airmen are showing up for duty (12+ hour shifts) virtually half asleep after spending 5 hours on the internet after their shifts.  A few of the Airmen, maybe about 1/3, spend their time relieving stress and maintaining their fitness levels at the gym.  Of all the Tech Sergeants on flight (5) all of us spend about an hour in the gym every day and average about a 92 (out of 100) on the PT test.  I think it's a generation thing.

And this isn't a specific base or unit thing, we're comprised of Active, Guard, Reserve members from about 20 different bases/units.  To be quite honest, it's mostly AD folks lacking in the fitness area.  And as far as professional Airmanship goes, some have it, a lot don't.  And I'm mostly disappointed in the E-5s.  I've had to identify the fact that there is a difference between E-5s and Staff Sergeants.  In my opinion, here, some E-5s are simply average or below average Airmen that get paid more, but accept zero responsibility for themselves, subordinates or the mission.  Then there are the Staff Sergeants.  Motivated professionals in the profession of arms, who take the job seriously and stand up to lead whether they're in a 2 man mobile patrol vehicle or running an ECP with 3 or 4 other Airmen.

This deployment (my first AF deployment) opened my eyes and I haven't been impressed.

One of my buddies was telling it can varies from AFSC to AFSC on who's fit and who is not and the ratio of fit to fat. If it is something like desk jockies, they'll typically have more fat or out of shape people than physically fit, compared to a very active and physically demanding job, like being a F-22 pilot. The USAF has a more intelligence first type of mentality than a fit first mentality is what he was telling me, which is why the USAF is behind other services.

[cap235629]

Gone are the days of doing PT once a year, overweight and out of shape personnel, "pretending" to be hard core, never even seeing a weapon except in pictures, lackadaisical bearing and discipline, and the overall malaise that we all used to see.

Sorry to break this to you, but those days are still going strong.

Wrapping up a deployment and helping the flight sergeants with awards recommendations.  Out of 19 Airmen (E4 & below), 9 are not qualified for awards due to failing the PT test prior to deploying.  These are 19,20, 21,... year old Airmen.  Some are obviously overweight, others are stick figures who can't push up their own weight.  Very disappointing.  I know this may sound mean, saying this in 2011, but I think the worse thing to affect Airmen (soldiers too, I'm sure) is the fact that we have internet over here.  Granted, some people like me can balance our time better, but Airmen are showing up for duty (12+ hour shifts) virtually half asleep after spending 5 hours on the internet after their shifts.  A few of the Airmen, maybe about 1/3, spend their time relieving stress and maintaining their fitness levels at the gym.  Of all the Tech Sergeants on flight (5) all of us spend about an hour in the gym every day and average about a 92 (out of 100) on the PT test.  I think it's a generation thing.

And this isn't a specific base or unit thing, we're comprised of Active, Guard, Reserve members from about 20 different bases/units.  To be quite honest, it's mostly AD folks lacking in the fitness area.  And as far as professional Airmanship goes, some have it, a lot don't.  And I'm mostly disappointed in the E-5s.  I've had to identify the fact that there is a difference between E-5s and Staff Sergeants.  In my opinion, here, some E-5s are simply average or below average Airmen that get paid more, but accept zero responsibility for themselves, subordinates or the mission.  Then there are the Staff Sergeants.  Motivated professionals in the profession of arms, who take the job seriously and stand up to lead whether they're in a 2 man mobile patrol vehicle or running an ECP with 3 or 4 other Airmen.

This deployment (my first AF deployment) opened my eyes and I haven't been impressed.

One of my buddies was telling it can varies from AFSC to AFSC on who's fit and who is not and the ratio of fit to fat. If it is something like desk jockies, they'll typically have more fat or out of shape people than physically fit, compared to a very active and physically demanding job, like being a F-22 pilot. The USAF has a more intelligence first type of mentality than a fit first mentality is what he was telling me, which is why the USAF is behind other services.

Not when thay pass a silly rule like the waist SHALL NOT EXCEED 38 inches with no leeway or waivers. Good people who can pass their PT tests are losing their careers over this. If you have not hit the majic 18 year mark you are SOL.

So in addition to the uniform fiasco they need to fix that as well before I have nothing left to criticize.

[Parsifal]

Anybody remember the Atomic Demolition Munitions: fit in a backpack and were designed to be emplaced by Special Forces guys.  Not likely that any are around anymore.

Officially, Atomic Demolitions Munitions (ADMs) were dropped from the Army inventory when the Cold War ended. I'm not sure of current policy on their use or if they are still stockpiled somewhere or have been dismantled.  I haven't kept up with changes in nuke policies and capabilities. I was a  Chem-O (NBC specialist officer) in the Army and trained as a Nuclear Target Analyst. As AEO in my last squadron, I lectured on nuclear warfare and weapons (historical emphasis with a focus on the Cold War).

Back during the Cold War, the military developed a series of ADMs: relatively lightweight, low-yield nuclear devices which were manportable or transported by motor vehicle or team. In the event of war, combat engineers and SF would use the low-yield nukes to destroy bridges, dams, and other key infrastructure to delay or deny enemy advances or destroy facilities that might be used by the enemy. There was once an Army engineer MOS 12-E: Atomic Demolitions Munition Specialist.

I probably still have a hip-pocket guide for the employment of ADMs. It was a cartoon-style booklet in which an old bearded prospector advises the ADM specialist how to blow up dams and bridges. (Back in the 70s and 80s, the Army issued dumbed-down training guides and maintenance pubs that resembled comic books. I recently found an instructional booklet featuring a silly striped cat who provides instruction on land navigation. Any ex-dogfaces remember those two hotties Bonnie and Connie from the preventive maintenance guides?)

----
I served at the Arkansas Wing Encampment at Little Rock AFB with Bill. The Air Force personnel I met or observed seemed more "hard core" than I remembered 20 years ago. Years ago, at Ft Bragg/Pope AFB and Tyndall AFB (where I spent 6 months), I observed the Air Force being run in a business-like manner with better chow, facilities, and other amenities than the Army provided. At Tyndall, the Air Force always provided me with timely and effective material support and services. But the airmen I met back then seemed "less military" than the Army or Marines. To me, their bearing, courtesy, and appearance seemed lax. Many appeared physically unfit. I observed quite the opposite at Little Rock AFB last week.

I can't make present comparisons with the Army, but the Air Force still seems to take great care of its airmen and appears to operate like a corporate enterprise, albeit with a more discernible "fighting edge." Judging from some of the comments from current AF folks in this thread, my observations from Little Rock AFB are not generalizable to the Air Force as a whole.

[abdsp51]

There is plenty the Army needs to fix  , and payback if they haven't done so.  The AF has come along way in fixing it's PT standards and taking action on those who do not meet said standard.  Uniforms eh to many hands in the pot on that one.  However a good chunk of AF deployments are JET taskings to the Army anyway since 05. And there is a huge inconsistency in training with the Army.