Your chances are....(penalty box for those who can't help asking about their chances)

[whitman]

From the limited amount I've seen of the AFSOC guys, they seem to be in a similar boat, especially the helo guys. Far more flexible to get the job done and far more laid back/"un-Air Force like" because everyone else shits all over them for being helo guys.

AFSOC is definitely more mission oriented and less "Blue", they have to be. They don't always play by the rules. If they break a rule, as long as they can justify why it was broken it probably won't be an issue. I've seen that with most fixed wing guys as well as helo drivers.

 

[HuggyU2]

However, the statement above indicates why the perception is the AF is run like a corporation vice the way the military is run. 2 Captains fly a lot of money, 1 Captain leads 3 other Captains in a lot of money. Speaking of the "bottom line" just like in the Corporate world. Conversely, in the Marine Corps - 1 Infantry Captain commands a company of approximately 150 men. No monetary value needed.

Like it or not, these are "national assets" that Congress get very worked up about. A lot of backroom fights occur to procure these high dollar items from various Congressional districts. A lot of American resources go into these weapons systems. Same for a carrier. I can't imagine the fallout should we lose a carrier due to the error of the Captain-ship-driver-whateveryoucallthem. It's not that I sit here and look at the weapons systems as a bunch of dollar signs. But I do realized that these high costs bring a huge level of pressure and oversight. I can go cross country in my T-38 without any attention. That doesn't happen in the F-22.
And, yes, we all care about the lives of the 150 men in the Infantry Company. But we'll put those same men around these weapons systems, and expect them to give --- and receive --- deadly force to protect them. Yes, they might give their lives for these machines. Is that callous? No, these machines are critical to the nation's defense,... enough so that it is the opinion of many that they are worth far more than the 150 infantrymen.
In certain areas that I know of, it would be devastating to lose even 1 "national asset". Sort of like losing a carrier today. It's the reality of the situation.

 

[HeyJoe]

Like it or not, these are "national assets" that Congress get very worked up about....these machines are critical to the nation's defense,... enough so that it is the opinion of many that they are worth far more than the 150 infantrymen.
In certain areas that I know of, it would be devastating to lose even 1 "national asset".

Is that Kool-aid you're drinking? Congress has routinely held F-22 to task for its cost and delays in fielding and has restricted the number Air Force will get which argues against your assertion that they are critical to the nation's defense. If you mean defense of the homeland...where's the threat? If you mean contributing to the Dept of Defense portfolio of capabilites....yes, they are awesome air-to-air machines, but not needed in the theatres in which we are currently engaged. They are plenty of "national assets" out there in much more High Demand with much Lower Density being used daily in the Global War on Terror. Some are suffering due to attention given (as in funding priority) to the F-22.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Like it or not, these are "national assets" that Congress get very worked up about. A lot of backroom fights occur to procure these high dollar items from various Congressional districts. A lot of American resources go into these weapons systems. Same for a carrier. I can't imagine the fallout should we lose a carrier due to the error of the Captain-ship-driver-whateveryoucallthem. It's not that I sit here and look at the weapons systems as a bunch of dollar signs. But I do realized that these high costs bring a huge level of pressure and oversight. I can go cross country in my T-38 without any attention. That doesn't happen in the F-22.
And, yes, we all care about the lives of the 150 men in the Infantry Company. But we'll put those same men around these weapons systems, and expect them to give --- and receive --- deadly force to protect them. Yes, they might give their lives for these machines. Is that callous? No, these machines are critical to the nation's defense,... enough so that it is the opinion of many that they are worth far more than the 150 infantrymen.
In certain areas that I know of, it would be devastating to lose even 1 "national asset". Sort of like losing a carrier today. It's the reality of the situation.

This post reinforces the difference in mentality of the USMC vs. USAF. In the USMC, we view protecting the "asset" as important because it provides a capability to the grunts on the ground. So, in essence the 150 infantrymen aren't protecting a national asset, they're in a roundabout way protecting their fellow grunts.

I agree that there is a huge amount of congressional pressure and oversight that you guys feel, but my point was that the level of "responsibility" given to a Capt in each service is viewed differently by that service. A Capt in the Air Force is responsible for a multi-billion dollar aircraft. A Capt in the Marine Corps may be directly responsible for 150 lives. I can't even begin to imagine what the fall out would be if a whole company was wiped off the map, General Custer style.

In the Navy and even more so in the Marine Corps, we are constantly reminded the whole reason we're flying and fighting these multi-million dollar aircraft is to support a young 19 year old LCpl in bad guy land. Sometimes the AF gets so far removed from that notion that they're more concerned about the bottom line of their platforms, how much technology and capability they bring to the fight, without stopping to think about how that directly affects the life of a young guy on the deck.

Again, I can see the points you're raising as the Marine Corps doesn't get too much into the "national asset" game. However, all I was saying is that's why the "perception" about you guys is that you're corporate run. And you still wear scarves

 

[A4sForever]

"NATIONAL ASSET" my ass .... WE'RE the friggin' "national assets" ....

I'm late to the party ..... BUT since we're talkin' AF vs NAVY .......... :sleep_125 .......and some are even considering applying a moniker of "national asset" to a single "fighter" ... I always subscribed to the thinking behind this post .... an AW's "oldie but goodie" .... :

Air superiority is only a means to an end. The AF has finally learned that and the F-22 is now the F/A-22 with the capability to drop bombs. The Tomcat was much more effective as a strike fighter than as a pure A-A machine. In USN service, the Tomcat has only 5 kills (4 Libyans and an Iraqi helicopter in the first Gulf War). The mission today is power projection.

To sum it up:

The Mission - Attack​

1. The mission of the aircraft carrier is to put ordnance on target. Everything else such as Indian Country, unreps, "the grid", SSC, and anything else starting with F- is simply support for the attack mission. There have been CV's, CVE's, CVL's, CVA's, CVAN, CVS's, CVN's; there will never be a CVF.

2. You win the war by killing the bastards by the thousands, not one at a time at twenty thousand feet.

3. In peacetime, DCM is something the attack pilot uses to rejoin off the range.

4. In wartime, DCM is something the attack pilot uses to turn and shoot some asshole in the face who's trying to stop the attack pilot before he destroys his high value target.

5. There is no such thing as "defensive" DCM. I become offended when someone jumps me enroute to my target, and much offense is intended when I have to take the time to blow his ass off.

6. Concerning the tally of Medal of Honor winners in southeast Asia, the score tells it all: Attack - 5, Fighter - 0.

7. In wartime, our POW's were not released because the enemy sent representatives to sit smugly at "peace talks". They were not released because domestic antiwar groups unwittingly played into the hands of the enemy, and tied the hands of their countrymen at arms. They were not released because the enemy lost five aircraft to a select few called "aces". They were released because brave men took their bombers downtown and spoke personally to their captors in the only language the enemy understands: Iron bombs raining down on their heads.

8. These lessons have been forged in blood and steel by all those attack pilots and bombadiers who have gone before you; back when happiness was flying Spads; back when jets were hard-lightin' and mean, and only quiche-eatin' airline pukes flew fans; back when Spads roamed valleys and spit death to those who would try to stop them; in an earlier time when the biggest cadillac in town was called BUFF and when men took pride in decorating their leather flight jackets with "I've been there" patches, and the enemy hid every 1 + 45 because he knew the next cycle of the attack carrier was headed his way. Times change, technology changes, but the men in the cockpit must be the same brave warriors every age has counted upon in time of peril.

9. Finally, and this is the bottom line, real men fly attack because they understand the most fundamental law of wartime negotiations; you negotiate with the enemy with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat.


We may call them strike fighters, F/A, etc but:

The reality is that the mission is ATTACK.

Bombs on target, pure and simple.

"Meat" - A-6 B/N 1992-1995, EA-6B ECMO 1996-2004

 

[HackerF15E]

while we may bust your balls (c'mon, you wear scarves)

Do you actually know any AF guys who wear scarves (outside the Thunderbirds)? I don't.

 

[Nose]

it is the opinion of many that they are worth far more than the 150 infantrymen.

Not anyone worth a shit.

 

[A4sForever]

Do you actually know any AF guys who wear scarves (outside the Thunderbirds)? I don't.

Or ascots??? I do, no matter what you want to call 'em ... but then, to quibble over whether they're "scarves" or "ascots" would be very, very gay ....

The Nellis Fighter Weaps boys ALL wore 'em in the '80's (I suppose that doesn't count) when we regularly humbled them in our old A-4's and still older bodies ....

 

[HackerF15E]

I always subscribed to the thinking behind this post .... an AW's "oldie but goodie" .... :

An oldie but goodie stolen from an Air Force pilot, I'm afraid. Originally written by Brian Shul (the SR-71 pilot who wrote Sled Driver) in the 1970s when he was a Lead-In Fighter Training instructor. Looks like "Meat" the A-6 BN Navy-ized it and called it his own.

The Mission: Air to Ground

1. The mission of the Air Force is to put ordnance on target. Everything else such as the personnel unit, Base Exchange, finance, fuel trucks, and Air to Air is simply support for this mission.


2. You win the war by killing them by the thousands, not one at a time at twenty thousand feet.

3. In peacetime, BFM is something air to ground pilots use to rejoin off the range.

4. In wartime, BFM is something the air to ground pilot uses to turn and shoot some asshole in the face who’s trying to stop him, before going on to hit the target.

5. There is no such thing as “defensive BFM.” I am “offended” when someone jumps me enroute to the target, and much offence is taken when I have to take the time to blow his tits off.

6. Concerning the tally of Medal of Honor recipients in Southeast Asia, it shows the score: air to ground 5 and air to air 0

7. In wartime, our POWs were not released because the enemy sent representatives to sit smugly at “peace talks.” They were not released because domestic anti-war groups unwittingly played into the hands of the enemy and tied the hands of their countrymen-at-arms. And they were not released because the enemy lost 5 airplanes to a select few called aces. They were released because brave men took their fighters and bombers downtown and spoke personally to their captors, in the only language the enemy understands, iron bombs falling on their heads.

8. You can shoot down all the MiGs you want, but when you return from the mission to find an enemy unit in your main briefing room, you’ve lost the war.

9. These lessons have been forged in blood and steel by all those air to ground fighter pilots who have gone before you; back when happiness was flying a Hun; back when jets were hard lightin’ and mean, and only quiche-eatin’ airline pukes flew fans; back when Skyraiders roamed valleys and spit death to those that would try and stop the Jolly Greens; in an earlier time when the biggest Cadillac in town was called Thud and TAC patches were twice the size of every other commands’; and the enemy knew the tip of the sword had been sharpened to a fine edge. Times change, the technology changes, but the man and woman in the cockpit must remain the same brave warrior every age has counted on in peril.

10. Finally real men and real women fly Air to Ground because they understand the fundamental law of wartime negotiations. You negotiate with the enemy with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat.

 

[HackerF15E]

The Nellis Fighter Weaps boys ALL wore 'em in the '80's (I suppose that doesn't count) when we regularly humbled them in our old A-4's and still older bodies ....

Well, gramps, that was the 80s. Not the case today.

Noted that the A-4 was a cool aircraft...would've loved to have flown a scooter, but I don't think I'd fit!

 

[A4sForever]

An oldie but goodie stolen from an Air Force pilot, I'm afraid..... Looks like "Meat" the A-6 BN Navy-ized it and called it his own.

I wouldn't know about that --- and if so, then chalk it up to one more AF pilot who has come to Jesus ... ... and that's a GOOD thing.

But, like I said: I always subscribed to the thinking behind Meat's post .... I don't care who the author is .... and it's an AW's "oldie but goodie" .... and "GUNS KILL, comin' out your 6 on the starboard side" seemed to be a regularly heard call over the frequency and in the (B)Eagle drivers' headsets in Gramp's timeframe ... ... a.k.a. a preview of "real" fighter/attack ....

But still: XOXOXOXO, Wily Bogey ....

 

[HueyCobra8151]

And, yes, we all care about the lives of the 150 men in the Infantry Company. But we'll put those same men around these weapons systems, and expect them to give --- and receive --- deadly force to protect them. Yes, they might give their lives for these machines. Is that callous? No, these machines are critical to the nation's defense,... enough so that it is the opinion of many that they are worth far more than the 150 infantrymen.

This floored me...definitely illustrates the difference in mentality.

In the Marine Corps many people feel that the infantryman is the main effort - and everyone who isn't is support.

Maybe in the Cold War Era it was different, but it strikes me that nowadays the boots on the ground are the main effort (I think Dora Farms is a good example).

Another example of the difference: I read a story about an Army Cavalry Squadron near Faysailiyah which came under attack. The commander ordered a danger close CAS mission from A-10s. He said a few minutes later there was a knock at the door to his humvee...the AF FAC (or whatever the equivalent acronym is) had gotten out of his vehicle and ran under fire to the commanders vehicle in order to get his name, rank, and SSN so that if the cas mission went south they would know who to blame it on.

Maybe I am wrong, but I can't imagine something like that happening in the Corps.
--
I would also agree that everywhere I have been leadership is pushed down to the lowest levels. The "tell them what to do, not how to do it" idea.

 

[Tactical387]

Well, gramps, that was the 80s. Not the case today.

gramps? really? *sigh*

 

[bunk22]

Alright, I'll agree that I'm a bit ignorant on the subject.

Agreed.

From MY limited experience in the CAP

I know I'm late to this thread and to be honest, don't care a whole lot but this was an awesome quote....like others have pointed out. I think it would have been better if you had just started out...back when I used to blow goats.... it would have come off better (no pun there).

 

[phrogpilot73]

The commander ordered a danger close CAS mission from A-10s. He said a few minutes later there was a knock at the door to his humvee...the AF FAC (or whatever the equivalent acronym is) had gotten out of his vehicle and ran under fire to the commanders vehicle in order to get his name, rank, and SSN so that if the cas mission went south they would know who to blame it on.

I haven't read the JCAS pub recently, and I'm a little rusty - but I seem to remember that Danger Close requires the commanders' initials be passed to the attacking aircraft. So that piece is required regardless of service, although I don't know a Marine FAC out there that didn't have his BC's initials memorized...