Talk:United States Air Force/Archive 1

blue on blue

somthing has to be said about this, the USAF is more known for it's frequent bombing of friendly forces and innocent civilians, not for being the largest or most advanced. why is this not even mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.80.248 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the best (though expecting the worst), the US Air Force has friendly fire incidents like all branches of any military. It is not unique to the Air Force and does not need to be mentioned directly here. Perhaps you should go to friendly fire? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it is more well known for it then any other AF and I believe should have a mention on the main page and no just the friendly fire page, which does mention this "The USAF is well noted for many friendly fire incidents in all wars including WWII and Vietnam. " No other branch is specifically mentioned. btw BQZip01, why are you suggesting i'm a troll when i've brought up a valid point? Seems very defencenive of the USAF to me, and you being a USAF officer that isnt suprising. You lack the neutral view point to comment on things like this in the main page, but so do I, hence why I brought up for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.80.248 (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The friendly fire "article" is one of the most POV and unencyclopedic in wikipedia. The suggestion made here is unsupported and entirely POV. And if you take exception to being characterized as a troll, quit looking, sounding, and acting like one.--Buckboard 19:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New Memorial

A section should be added to the article about the new Air Force memorial getting reading to open in Washington, D.C. From what I have heard and read, it will be something to behold and nearly all members of the Air Force from the top down are very happy with the final result. I would add the section, but I'm not a military aficionado like others. Reynoldsrapture 16:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the side of the article in the infobox, their is a link for the memorial that has been developed. DJREJECTED 22:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear first paragraph

First of all, I'd like to apologize for not knowing how I am supposed to bring this up; I'll try this way and hope that it's not too bad. So, the issue at hand: The first paragraph of the article states that the USAF was formed in 1947. It also states that "Since World War I, the USAF and its predecessors have taken part ...". I think it'd would be better to start of with the info about when the US first started to fly for military purposes, and then state that the USAF was formed in 1947. If somebody who knows this place better than me agrees, it would be nice to see it edited. Hope this doesn't cause too much trouble. /G_urr_A PS. Oops. That did mess something up. The text below is not written by me. And the numbers changed. Sorry.

In the section United States Air Force#Brief History, in its 'graph

In 1941, the Army Air Corps became the U.S. Army Air Forces. The USAAF reached status as a separate arm of the Army, with equal voice with the Army and Navy in 1943.

i am striking the S on "Forces" to match the article United States Army Air Force and some other WP uses.

If it was not simply a typo, i assume the S at the end of Corps, or in United States Armed Forces, caused confusion at a conscious or unconscious level. --Jerzy 19:01, 2004 Jan 9 (UTC)

"Corps" is not spelled any other way. (There is no English word "corp" of which I'm aware). The official title of the USAAF was United States Army Air Forces (plural), to go with Army Ground Forces, and Army Service Forces.--Buckboard 15:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Also I have undertaken the suggestion in the first paragraph above and have written articles on the historical antecedents from 1907 to 1918---I eliminated the previous "formation" paragraph because, first of all, it was both in error and confusing---and linked all six entities from 1907 to 1947. The rest of the "history" IMHO leaves much to be desired in so many ways---references, pertinent information, linking, completeness---that it requires a major overhaul.--Buckboard 10:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Staff Sergeants & Master Sergeant

Is there a reason why the USAF uses the titles of Staff Sgt and Master Sgt at one rank below the Army ranks of the same name? Being that the AF was spun off from the Army, they should have kept the rank titles the same (like they did with officer ranks). It would make a lot more sense and cause less confusion.

The US armed forces each have different distinguishing features from their sister services. It's no different than the Navy's rank of 'Captain' being equivalent to a Colonel in all of the other services; likewise a 'Captain' in the Army, Marines, Navy or Air Force is equivalent to a 'Lieutenant' in the Navy and an 'Ensign' in the Navy is the same as a 'Second Lieutenant' in all the other services... etc. Also, Air Force enlisted rank is basically inverted Army rank. Back to your original question, I am speculating that it is a way to recognize its origins from the Army in a way that is distinctly Air Force. Couppawn 22:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the chronology of the ranks between the services, but when the AF split from the Army in 1947 they both had the same NCO ranks. Over time they evolved separately, in slightly different directions. For example, the Army used to have a rank called Technical Sergeant (AF still does), but now it's known as Sergeant First Class. Nathanm mn 01:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becuse the Army and the Air Force once were the same they started out with the same rank. The Air Force used to have the Rank of 'Buck' Sgt. until I believe 1997, however a USAF Sgt was an E-4. It was something akin to the Specialist/Corporal gig in the Army. Promotion to E-4 as a Senior Airmen, which was not a NCO, was automatic after X amount of time, then after Y amount of time + completing Airmen Leadership School you where made a Sgt which was a NCO but still held the grade of E-4. After Sergeant the next grade was Staff Sergeant, just like the Army (only because a Air Force Sergeant was an E-4, and Air Force Staff Sergeant was an E-5). However the Air Force leadership, and on a personal note I agree with them, felt this was needlessly complex. I spent two tours attached to Army until during my time in the Air Force and I found the Specialist/Corporal mix to be uncalled for and needless. FLJuJitsu 00:16, 15 Sept 2007 (UTC)

The grade of Buck Sgt was removed on 19 March 1991 by General Merril McPeak, Chief of Staff of the Air Force. When he did this, the ratio of NCO's went from 77% to 52% which improved the balance within the ranks throughout the Air Force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh24 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Pilots

Were pilots always officers? Or were there at one time enlisted pilots early in the history of the Air Force/Army Air Corps? And if so, when was the change to officer pilots made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.28 (talk • contribs) 00:08, November 4, 2005

During WW II there were some flying sergeants (as they called enlisted pilots), but most were eventually made warrant officers or commissioned officers. --Rogerd 12:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was an exception because of pilot shortages. Was there ever a time enlisted pilots were the norm? E.g. Were pilots enlisted or officers before dogfighting existed? 205.174.22.28 02:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Even back in the days when the Wright Brothers were training military pilots like Lt. Thomas Selfridge and Hap Arnold, who would rise to 5-star General in WWII, they were, I think, all officers. --Rogerd 03:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time imagining officers flying crop dusters. It seems unnecessary to give a commission to someone just flying recon and drawing maps (pre-dogfighting days). 205.174.22.28 05:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back then, though, drawing maps was officer stuff. It required the kind of education that was available to officers, but wasn't that common amongst the enlisted ranks.--131.207.161.152 11:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even today the Army and Marines employ Warrant Officers who fly aircraft. They are in a distinct rank structure different than officers and enlisted, and as such are not technically commissioned 'officers'. Couppawn 22:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the sergeant question is No about it being the norm--the need for pilots in WWII outdrew the supply. All sergeants were eventually commissioned, as were "flight officers" (warrants). BTW, "officers" once referred to all three types (commissioned, warrant, and non-comissioned). In US usage NCO's are not considered officers per se, but warrants still are--they have all the privileges and perks of commissioned officers.--Buckboard 16:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone confirm?

If you look under 'Organization', the first link goes to 'Air Force' - which is a generic term for any flight-based military unit. This link doens't make sense if you read the caption under 'Organization' - "The USAF is made up of three components" (its not word for word, sorry).

I don't want to mess up the links (Since I didn't start this seciton), but I thought someone else could look at it and confirm that the first link does belong there.

You are correct

Also, that whole section is incorrect. that is the way the Air force used to be broken up. It has change quite a bit. I'll take a hack at reworking the opening. Mikeb 13:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

rv - NAF "Tyndall AFB"

The last person editing was correct in that Tyndall AFB falls under AETC. However, the First Air Force falls under ACC.

[First Air Force History] [Info on NAFs]

I will admit, the chart is confusing though. I'll try and think how it can be reworded to show that the MAJCOM column reflects who the NAF falls under, not who the base falls under.

Mikeb 13:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are "host" and "tenant" units, if that helps. The air base group that operates Tyndall is a host, the 1st Air Force unit is a tenant.--Buckboard 16:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Reorganise

I think all of the pages - US armed forces, US Department of Defense, and all the services (US Army etc.) need to be reorganised, First so that there is not uneeded overlap, and Second so that Army, Navy etc. are all set out the same way (eg. similar headings and article structure, just with different content.)

and maybe Joint Chiefs of Staff etc.

Air Staff

There is a section that talks about Air Staff, but there is also a seperate article for Air Staff. Are both necessary?

Both aren't necessary, but a sidebar explaining the functions of the leadership is certainly acceptable, IMHO

Restructure

I've attempted to tidy the article up, by expanding history, moving large lists to seperate articles, creating a USAF template, and adding a gallery of aircraft images. The history section still needs expanding to include Vietnam, Iraq wars etc. Astrotrain 14:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there THREE grades for "First Sergeant" ?!

Why is that. Have had kin who served in nearly all branches of the military. They've told me that they've seen some officers,etc. that like to pull rank. A good example is that there is a really BIG mess in one of the hangars, three personnel are there, this happens: "I'm a Captain, you clean this mess up, sergeant.", then the 3rd man says,"I'm a GENERAL, Captain, YOU clean this mess up NOW !" Imagine THREE First SERGEANTS, each one a different grade, pulling rank on each other. Do the grades also serve AS rank ? Should THREE USAF ranks have the SAME designation ? Should'nt two of these have seperate designations, like "Air Sergeant","First Air Sergeant" for instance ? Martial Law 02:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure, are you saying the information is wrong? Astrotrain 20:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the US Army there is only one rank that is First Sergeant (1SG). In the USAF "First Sergeant" is not considered a rank, so much as a job. So, a Master Sergeant, Senior Master Sergeant or A Chief Master Sergeant all could be a "First Sergeant" but, you wouldn't have more than one First Sergeant in the same unit. Does that make sense? Muj0 22:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. First Sergeant is a job title, not a rank. E7, E8, and E9 are Master Sergeant, Senior MS, and Chief MS. The First Sergeant in the view of the USAF is typically the highest ranking enlisted person in the unit.

Actually, they're not usually the highest ranking enlisted in an AF unit, although that's true for Army companies. In an AF unit, the 1st Sgt is usually a MSgt or SMSgt, doing an administrative job. There is also one or more superintendents (depending on the size of the unit) who are supposed to be the functional experts of the unit, usually a SMSgt or CMSgt. Nathanm mn 01:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Not necessarily... my first sergeant is a MSgt, but there is also a SMSGT & Chief in my squadron. (Almost every first sergeant I've seen is a MSgt.)

One must be an MSgt, SMSgt or a Chief to become a First Sergeant. There is special training involved, and it is possible to go to to any kind of unit, regardless of one's primary background. The First Sergeant is not necessarily the highest ranking enlisted person in a particular unit, but he is the only First Sergeant. There is nothing wrong with calling a First Sergeant by their name and true rank.

The First Sergeant is the person who advises the unit commander in reguards to enlisted issues. Other aspects that "First Shirts" deal with are trouble makers. Lets say you get a DUI, your Shirt makes recomendations to the commander in the best intrest of both the troop and the Air Force.

In the United States Air Force, First Sergeant is a position not a rank like it is in the Army or Marine Corps. In the Air Force the First Sergeant is an enlisted personnel who is responsible for the care and welfare of all the enlisted personnel in any given unit. Because it is a position and not a rank it can be held by any Senior NCO, MSgt, SMSgt or CMSgt. He/She basicly acts as the 'link' between the enlisted corps and the officer corps.FLJuJitsu 00:23, 15 Sept 2007 (UTC)

Broken redirects

A logged out user has created a whole stream of redirects without any targets. What should be done with them? Susvolans ⇔ 16:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are:

umm, correct them and create the articles they are supposed to link to? just an idea.... NDCompuGeek 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warrant officers

Why US Air Force has no warrant officers? --DimaY2K 20:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Force discontinued the warrant officer pay grades.--Buckboard 16:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What is USAF policies on ........

The USMC has a reg. called Gen. Order 9, and it depicts a UFO in the USMC Manual. It is intended to handle unforseen situations, thus the UFO pixes I've seen. Does the USAF have a similar set of regulations ? Martial Law 02:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Weapon

The US Air Force has, on 11-29-05, introduced a extremely interesting weapon. The link for this is: [http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/news/jdw/jdw051125_2_n/ USAF Introduces "Star Trek" 'PHASER' Energy Weapon].

Hmm. This link has been removed, I don't know why. I will research it though; military aviation is an important topic. --The1exile 22:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See 2018 Bomber --FLJuJitsu 00:25, 15 Sept 2007 (UTC)

F-117 operational usage

There's some, at least to me, conflict in operational deployment of the F-117 Nighthawk while the article mentions first usage in the Iraq War, Operation Just Cause mentions F-117 taking part in the operation, this information having become declassidfied a little while ago? Should the article be amended about this? Iraq War of 1991 is probably the first 'war' that the plane was deployed to, but does Just Cause supercede that? --131.207.161.152 11:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first combat use of the F-117 was in Panama--was publicly acknowledged. Your surmise is correct.--Buckboard 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Joining the USAF

A whole website devoted to recruiting people to the air force, [1] and not once does it mention requirements of nationality. For example, do you need citizenship or nationality to fly in the USAF, or can you be a foreign national and still serve? --The1exile 22:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship is necessary to become a commissioned officer, and all pilots are commissioned officers. But you can enlist without being a US citizen. Csprague 00:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that statement. Couppawn 22:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good friend of mine is Irish and enlisted in the USAF and has served proudly for 15 years now.Jsdask 14:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how true that statement is about having to be a citizen to become and officer, athough I'm not one to challenge it because it may very well be true. Either way the Air Force makes it incredibly easy to gain your citizenship. (NucPhy7 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I believe you do not have to be a US citizen to become an officer. We had a banked pilot in one of my squadrons who was a Canadian citizen and he had his butter bars... Maybe he had some dual citizenship.

The only officers I know are US citizens or have dual citizenship. I realize I am a mere Captain, but I am also at a combined-nations training school. See my page. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFO conspiracy and coverup accusations

As part of the vast secret organisation to cover up UFOs in the US military - I must insist that this section be removed immediately, lest our masonic/jewish/muslim/UN brotherhood be exposed ! - But seriously. It's not exactly encylopedic - "highly rumoured..." - They are weasel words at best. I propose that the section be removed, perhaps leaving a link to UFO conspiracy theories. And remember to keep the tinfoil wrapped tight around your heads.... Megapixie 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following text from the article - because

It does not cite sources WP:CITE
Any sources it cites aren't going to be reputable - as defined by wikipedia
Uses weasel words all over the place.

I'm quite happy to leave a link in place to the main UFO article. But I don't see why this xfiles crap should leak over a FACTUAL article about the USAF.

Please respond here before reinserting the text addressing the 3 points above.

It is highly rumored that the Air Force has been involved in the many UFO cover-ups. Many lines of UFO supporters have accused the USAF of keeping information secret. Air Force personel have denied this and claim to have lost all interest in UFOs. Supporters of this conspiracy argue that the Air Force is keeping their discoveries hidden from the public in an effort to aviod mass hysteria or panic among the nation.
A seemingly high amount of evidence has been put foward to support this theory. On February 28, 1960, former CIA Director Vice Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter signed a statement that read,

"It is time for the truth to be brought out... Behind the scenes high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.... I urge immediate Congressional action to reduce the dangers from secrecy about unidentified flying objects."

In his detailed The UFO Book, Jerome Clark writes,

"... the strangest and most convoluted UFO stories ... from various sources, some of them said to be connected with military and intelligence agencies, that the U.S. government not only has communicated with but has an ongoing relationship with what are known officially as extra terrestrial biological entities or EBEs ... These unsubstantiated claims have given rise to nightmarish conspiracy claims that some call Dark Side theories."

There are also major events support this proposition, some of which have accuired alot of publicity. The most famous recorded event was the Roswell UFO crash, in which the USAF itself issued a press release stating that a "flying saucer" had crashed in William "Mack" Brazel's ranch, situated near Roswell, New Mexico. Within an hour of the press release, the head of the Eighth Army Air Force in Fort Worth, Texas, Brigadier General Roger Ramey, began changing the story. Ramey stated that the object had been a weather balloon. Later on, United Press reported that Ramey would not let anyone see the debris or photograph it because a "security lid" had been placed.
When Brazel was later interviewed, he stated that the after the USAF let him see the debris, it "did not in any way resemble" what he had first seen. It seemed that the USAF switched the original evidence with a real balloon in an attempt to have everyone believe their story.
Another popular incident was the Kecksburg UFO crash, which occured in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania. A large, brilliant fireball was seen in the sky by thousands in at least six states and Canada on December 9, 1965. The press assumed that it had been a comet or meteor; the USAF quickly supported this. However, residents of the crash site reported seeing the object crash and emit an odd blue smoke. When local fire and police departments arrived at the scene, reports of writing resembling Egyptian hieroglyphics was engraved at the base of a metal acorn-shaped object about the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. When the military arrived at the area, they quickly ordered both civilians and emergency units out of the area. Witnesses further reported a flat-bed military truck entering the site and leaving with the acorn-shaped object covered in sheets. At the time, the military claimed they searched the woods and found nothing unusual.
There are also some official UFO investigation groups. The Majestic 12 is an alleged secret committee of high-level scientists, military leaders, and government officials, supposedly formed in 1947 at the direction of U.S. President Harry S. Truman. One intriguing place is Area 51, a remote tract of land in southern Nevada containing an airfield apparently used for the secret development and testing of new military aircraft. UFO conspiracy supporters theorize that here is where the USAF studies the debris from the many UFO crashes/sightings.

See also: List of major UFO sightings and [[:Category:UFOs]]

[[Category:UFOs|UFO related articles]]

Megapixie 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree- I was thinking about moving it myself! Astrotrain 23:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hole in the history

Anybody else noticed that there is a gaping hole in the history section between the last reference in the cold war (1948) and the Bosnia/Kosovo crisis (1994)? It's as if the USAF did nothing in the intervening period! Anybody feel competent to fill a few details (per decade!) in this section? It feels incomplete as is.

I just added all the Humanitarian Op's and will add more as time permits.Jsdask 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed?

Is it just me, or is the "citation needed" thing in the first paragraph seem unnecessary? The pages about the other branches don't have this "citation needed" thing. Is this a serious request or just a case of someone who doesn't like the usaf too much? (i.e branch rivalry?)

And is there a way to cite a magazine such as "Airman Magazine"? (For the person who doubts how many personnel are in usaf) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someaznguyny (talk • contribs) 21:43, February 25, 2006 (UTC)

I think the citation request was for "The USAF is widely considered to be the most technologically advanced military air power", but I don't know how anyone can dispute that statement. I don't think it is needed. I think when someone puts something like that in the article without elaborating on the talk page is looking to have it removed. --rogerd 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "size" or budget of the Air Force in any one year, Air Force Magazine, a publication of the Air Force Association, publishes an almanac every May updating the figures as of September 30 of the preceding year. The figures come directly from DoD and DAF and are the most reliable anywhere.--Buckboard 10:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at this paragraph just now and thought that the sentence that "Rogerd" quoted also seemed a bit POV (thought most likely true). If the USAF magazine states this fact then I'd like to see it cited with a footnote - Wikipedia needs FAR more citation. JD79 03:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that reads like weasel words. I'm not disputing that it is the most technologically advanced - but if it was changed to read something like - "The USAF is the worlds largest airforce, with XX thousands personnel, XX thousand aircraft, and an annual budget of XX million dollars." Every single one of those statements could be verifably sourced. If someone could find a quote from Jane's (or something similar) they could add - "Jane's describes it as 'the most technologically advanced airpower in the world'. Just my 2c Megapixie 01:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Blue Book

It is a known fact that the United States Air Force had conducted a investigation into UFO sightings from 1947 to 1969. Why is this not stated in the USAF history section ? Martial Law 09:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Why is there even a section covering the "UFO" projects? There is no section covering all their other projects. Put them all in or take them all out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.104.231 (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and References -- PLEASE READ

After noticing the poor quality and lack of uniformity in referential links, I've added the standard "Notes and References" section to this article. Please utilize this feature by using the ref tags. For more info see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Bburton 17:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While not disagreeing with you at all, some of us have yet to develop the skill to footnote. Some like me however did learn to read once and assume that anyone here knows how to read too, and therefore I cite my sources in "References" until I learn the mechanics of footnoting wikipedia.--Buckboard 10:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also again not disagreeing (because of the nature of the internet beast), I have yet to see a paper encyclopedia footnoted.--Buckboard 10:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. The style in which the citation appears is not as important as just having some sort of citation, rather than none at all. If you know how to cite sources in APA (or another) style, just put the citation directly after the text it cites, then surround it with ref tags. It will automatically appear in the references section. See the existing references for examples. Bburton 18:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Knock It Off' etymology

Anyone know the origins of the (I suppose) USAF expression for exercise termination "Knock It Off"? Is it official? Was it used in that role before becoming widespread? --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of it's history, but "knock it off" is an official joint service brevity code. Bburton 21:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In USAF Security Forces, we don't use "Knock it off," its "Terminate." We will "terminate" exercises.

I am also not sure of it's history, but "knock it off" is used as an official command in flight. In short, it means stop everything you are doing, shut up, and get the aircraft into a safe flight regime. (No user name, Henley) 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)