Talk:United States Air Force/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Article expansion[edit]

Can anyone add something to this, especially a photo? Thanx Joe I 08:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a photo in June when I get back from my deployment if no one has done so by then. Is there an article on "coining" or Air Force coins? I looks but didn't see one. Ah, found it at challenge coin. --Pmsyyz 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put up a picture of my Airman's coin in the article. This thread should really continue on that article's talk page. Bburton 22:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USAF Roundel[edit]

The USAF website confirms this is the "USAF" roundel (as oposed to some other service), but it is fairly common on USMC ans US Navy planes and helicopters. Can anyone explain? Simm 15:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This roundel is used by all the armed forces of the United States. Muj0 20:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, no service has its "own" insignia (the US term of reference).--Buckboard 18:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that "USAF Roundel" Refers to it being Roundel used by the USAF, not that the USAF is the only service to use it. Jonrose28782 13:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, what have we here?[edit]

"The USAF is widely considered to be the most technologically advanced military air power."

I'm surprised that nobody has complained about this statement yet. When viewing the discussion forums on Wikipedia for the other branches of the US military, whenever their technological prowess or fighting ability was lauded, the statement was immediately criticized and/or deleted. Such has not happened here, and hopefully, won't happen.Jlujan69 23:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see section of this page labeled Citation Needed? --rogerd 00:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though other branches don't want to admit it, they know that we are the most technologically advance military air power. I mean its obvious to anyone. Our job is air power, and we are the United States, so of course we are the most technologically advanced and of course its in air power. Every branch has its own area of expertise. (NucPhy7 00:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

If someone can find a study proving the USAF to be the most advanced all that then I won't complain, but otherwise.. it's just POV... an opinion. Tonerman (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of an arrogant opinion. 'We're the USA, so we is da best'. Since when did anyone but Americans believe that? 213.78.183.91 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sounds arrogant, and it is also probably true. But that is not what wikipedia is about. The writer's opinion, even though likely true, is irrelevant. If there is a reliable source, like Jane's or GlobalSecurity.org, that says it is the case, then we should cite it. Otherwise it should be removed. --rogerd (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly should be cited, but I concur that the USAF is the most technologically advanced air force. That is not to say they are the "best", but that their technology is superior to others. It could be argued that China's Air Force is larger or that Israel's pilots are better, but the technology on which both countries' air forces are based came after U.S. advances in technology. Either way, this still needs a source. Until a source is provided, a tag (i.e. {{fact}}) should be placed on that phrase. — BQZip01 — talk 22:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're so amazing, then how come the F22 (the 'top' USAF fighter) lost out to the Eurofighter Typhoon in testing and training exercises? And the ET was being chased by two F15s but managed to out maneuver and lock onto both of them in another exercise? The only advantage the F22 has over the ET is stealth - it costs thrice as much and is much less maneuverable. However, with the PIRATE detection system the stealth is completely useless. So the height of USAF technology is effectively three times as much as the European fighter, yet less effective. Right. Best in the world. 213.78.183.91 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the Typhoon was rejected by Singapore, and its radar is one of the most detectable in the world. EVERY system has its pluses and minuses and yours on the F-22 is a distinctly minority opinion.--Buckboard 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
how come the F22 (the 'top' USAF fighter) lost out to the Eurofighter Typhoon in testing and training exercises? No proof was provided to back up this bold claim. Furthermore, so many sources support the F-22's supremacy to the point that it's #1 status is common knowledge.
And the ET was being chased by two F15s but managed to out maneuver and lock onto both of them in another exercise? I've actually researched this claim, and again it appears to be another internet myth repeated by Euro fanboys without any actual support. I actually don't dispute the claim that the ET may be better than the F-15, it better be since it's so much newer. That doesn't really matter though, because the F-22 is also better than the F-15, but by a whole lot more (numerous sources stating that F-22s have beaten F-15s with ridiculous odds like 8:1 against the F-22).
The only advantage the F22 has over the ET is stealth That's a pretty BIG advantage. That one advantage is easily the deciding factor in BVR engagements.
it costs thrice as much and is much less maneuverable. F-22 per-unit costs are actually misleadingly inflated. Basically Congress slashed the production amount, greatly increasing the amount of R&D costs attributed to each plane. And again, what is your source for the claim that the F-22 is "much less maneuverable?" Just about everything out there says that the F-22 not only has excellent maneuverability, but can capably maneuver at a ceiling of 60,000 ft, something other fighters cannot do.
However, with the PIRATE detection system the stealth is completely useless. This is such ridiculously ignorant nationalist boasting. PIRATE is not some kind of magic super-sensor that easily renders billions of dollars in stealth technology useless. PIRATE is a passive infrared detection system, with a detection range less than plain old radar. Searching the internet I've seen 80-90 miles stated as PIRATE's optimal detection range, with 30-50 miles as a more reasonable number. The advantage of passive systems like PIRATE is that they don't broadcast the Eurofighter's position like radar would - PIRATE is not a trump card but rather a secondary option for when the Eurofighter would rather not give itself away. Furthermore, the Eurofighter supporter here seems ignorant of the fact that the F-22 was also designed for reduced infrared signature, something that goes back to much older stealth aircraft like the F-117. So not only does PIRATE see less than regular old radar, but I seriously doubt it would pick up the F-22 even at closer ranges.
So the height of USAF technology is effectively three times as much as the European fighter, yet less effective. Right. Best in the world. Less effective, "right." If the F-22 is less effective than the Eurofighter, then are you saying that the USAF spent countless millions on NOTHING? Why are F-22 exports to America's allies banned by law, if America's allies already have a supposedly superior aircraft in the Eurofighter? I find it hilarious how out of touch with common sense and reality nationalist internet fanboys can be. Go to any source, ask ANYBODY, and they will rightfully say that the USAF is the #1 air force in the world. Americans know it, America's allies know it, and America's enemies know it. But nationalist fanboys apparently don't. 72.76.238.48 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PT Uniforms[edit]

ADDED NOTE: The uniforms your talking about or the so called "New PT Uniform" are no longer going to be in service anymore as they failed actual use tests and an optional design is in effect talk about goverment spending gone down hill. By the way those going thru Air Force boot camp are forced to buy them until the new ones are in effect. As an airman myself there hot and trap a lot of moisture and there actually discontinuing the ones you show in the picture; so at this moment the new designs are unknown and base specific uniforms are in effect and the standerd white logo basic issues are still in effect. Your American tax dollars at work. (This note was added by 70.185.137.99 in the article. I have moved it here where it is more appropriate).

El Cubano 01:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

Having a look at the current external links I realize this section is too large, I propose we cut it down to the official sites plus a few very reasonable externals to that. If anyone has any comments about the current linkes and whether they should be kept or not please let me know. I removed two links today that were just added yesterday because one of them was refering to a chinese defense or something along those lines, nothing to do with USAF in the title of the link.

Is this article getting too big?[edit]

I've noticed that this article has been growing steadily for a while now. There are, especially, a lot of pictures.

  • Do we really need two pictures of the F-15 in the image gallery?
  • Are all of the pictures in this article necessary?
  • Is the level of depth in the sections of this article necessary? Could we break out some the info into other articles?

Any thoughts?

Awards and badges[edit]

In keeping with the idea that Air Force qualification badges also often serve as awards (e.g., pilot wings, astronaut wings, etc.), I propose that this page's section formerly titled "Common badges" be upgraded to honor the importance of these important Air Force awards. Hence, the new suggested title: "Awards and badges." Jack Bethune 20:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of Enlisted?[edit]

What are the advantages of Enlisted and Officers? Why would someone choose to join as enlisted when they can attain much higher rank as an officer?Jamesino 04:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most enlisted members do not attend/graduate college before joining. Also there are fewer officers then enlisted. The enlisted folks also tend to be the more hands on members of the force.Sir hugo 12:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about differences between their salaries? Would a Lieutenant earn more money than a Sergeant Major?Jamesino 14:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on rank, look here http://www.airforce.com/careers/paychart/index.php.Sir hugo 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Jamesino 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRUs[edit]

Separated the two major DRUs from the MAJCOMs. AFDW and ANG are not considered MAJCOMs and do not hold MAJCOM status within the Air Force. DRUs are units with missions similar to MAJCOMs but more limited in scope. ELH50 10:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABU's[edit]

The ABU is nothing like the MARPAT. It was designed from the ground up by Tiger Stripe for the Air Force. It is also based on a different camouflage concept.

"Un Ab Alto"?[edit]

"Un Ab Alto" most definitely does not mean "One Over All". It appears to be a bastardized French-Latin mixtrure, with basic meaning "One out of the depths". AnonMoos 14:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mors ab alto means "death from on high"; it was a motto of the Army air corps. Dunno about un ab alto. I googled it and didn't get much. I think it should be changed to mors ab alto. Rwflammang 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airman Battle Uniforms[edit]

I think someone should add this to the uniforms since they are soon to be issued to members deploying in the next set of AEF's and going to be issued to trainees at Basic Training at Lackland AFB.

Minimum Requirements for Enlistment[edit]

I was wondering if anyone could add this. There's probably some official method somewhere to ask, but I don't feel like looking around right now. I know that you have to be off all medications for at least a year and there are weight requirements, but otherwise, I have no clue. Just H 21:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

auxiliarists?[edit]

The opening paragraph of this article has numbers of active duty and reserve members and ends with "...and 57,000 auxiliarists". Does this refer to the Civil Air Patrol? If not, what does it mean? I don't think CAP numbers belong here. --rogerd 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Planes?[edit]

I removed references to two Russian Aircraft (SU-27 and Mig 29) which the USAF may own specimens of but has not fielded (currently)active units. --Wootonius 14:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "units", do you mean squadrons? If so, this is true; we have no MiG-29/Su-27 squadrons. However we have a few. "Of the 21 Fulcrums the United States bought, 14 are the frontline Fulcrum C's...from Oct. 20 to Nov. 2, 1997, loadmasters and aerial port experts squeezed two MiGs apiece, sans wings and tails, into the cargo holds of C-17 Globemaster III transports from Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. The Charleston airlifters delivered the MiGs to the National Air Intelligence Center at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. If the NAIC can discover how the Fulcrum works, Air Force pilots might gain an edge if they face the Fulcrum in future combat." In addition, it is no secret that the 6th Special Operations Squadron at Hurlburt Field flies the Mi-8 and An-32. Don't be so hasty in eliminating blocks of text without further research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.17.129.22 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

While I understand your concerns on this issue, possessing planes for research does not mean that these planes are in operational usage. If every plane the USAF used for research was included, the list would have to include a variety of planes which might make the list unwieldy. I was not hastily removing these planes, I was considering the fact that they are not in active operational usage on much more than a research role. If you would like to provide source material that these planes are in use on more than a research basis, I'd agree that they should be added to the list with citations. Also, in the future, it would be helpful for you to sign your posts on talk pages as its difficult to carry on an intellectual conversation with an anonymous party. Thanks :) --Wootonius 19:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but your definition of "operational" is a bit misleading. What are you saying? Do aircraft flying CONUS mission only not count? Do they have to fly combat? Do they have to be used only for war support? What about training aircraft? These aircraft are as operational as any other. Even though they are used exclusively for research, they are still part of the inventory "on the books." BQZip01 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think operational aircraft would be an aircraft that has been assigned an identifier in the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system, except for aircraft that have a status prefix of G, J, N, X, Y or Z. --rogerd 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would be excluding many foreign aircraft, not the least of which are the An-32 and Mi-8. And why not include any manned "X" aircraft that are being actively tested by the Air Force. While the X-15 is not currently in use and the X-43 is unmanned, why not include them. It seems a bit arbitrary. Not all aircraft used by the Air Force fall neatly into the status prefix BQZip01 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly my point. Those "X" and "Y" aircraft are only flown by test pilots, and not operational units. But all operational aircraft do fall neatly into the tri-service designation system. Test and operational are two different things. --rogerd 20:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you might expect, I'd tend to agree with rogerd an official designation in the tri-service designation system should be the criteria for inclusion here. But I'm open to discussion on this.--Wootonius 01:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the "rule," but it seems arbitrary and not consistent with the system the Air Force actually uses. I'll admit that the MiG-29 and Su-27 aren't "on the books" in any active squadron of which I am aware, but I know for a fact that there are several aircraft with Russian designations that ARE actively being used on a daily basis, namely the Mi-8 and An-32. There are no redesignations within the tri-service designation system for these aircraft. How do you propose including/excluding them? On top of that, why not include any known, active X-series aircraft? I don't know of any, but if we are testing a new airframe and it has reached production to the point of being in posession of the USAF and being tested, why not include it? They are in the "system," they are manned, and are on the books. We do lots of research on F-15s and F-16s. Many different airframes are being used for testing (i.e. A-10C, some F-15Ds, etc.) Do those units not count? If so, why? They are actively assigned to operational units and are accounted for in the grand totals of manned aircraft for the USAF. Your definition of "operational" seems misguided too. As far as I know, if a unit has orders to exist and has a commander (usually done in , it is "operational." If it is only a detachment of a larger unit, then it is not operational, even though it may have aircraft. Those aircraft, however, would be assigned to the larger unit. There are many operational units that do not all have the same type of aircraft too, though most are testing or training units. By the way, the list already includes several G and Q-series aircraft and IMHO should also include the YAL-1 and any drones we actively use.
In short, I think that we need to include any manned aircraft or significant unmanned aircraft that are actively assigned to an Air Force unit. If it can be verified as to what unit it is assigned, then it should be included.BQZip01 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top of article[edit]

The top of this article is a little bit to cluutered and confusing graphicly. I will not have the time, but could someone please fix this up a little bit? Move the info boxes, pictures or content boxes around a little so they are not all clustered in one spot Thank you. --Robin63 02:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the USAF and the United States Department of the Air Force the same?[edit]

(Note: I'm collecting discussions from three user talk pages (my mistake not starting the conversation here); participation by all is invited. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Conversation 1[edit]

Mike - Regarding your edit summary for your edit of United States Department of the Air Force - needs its own article, doesn't it?, I believe the answer is no, that the United States Air Force (to which the article redirects; I've put that back) are in fact one and the same thing. I'm certainly open to any facts showing that they are different organizations, but I believe there are one and the same, based on the facts in the (stub) article that I replaced with a redirect (e.g., same logo, same legislation creating them, same office in charge - Secretary of the Air Force).

If you do find some evidence that the two organizations being separate, please post it one or both talk pages. Also, if you do that, I strongly recommend that you revert the USDAF article to an earlier version of that article: although it was a stub, there was much more information in the previous version than what you just wrote. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Air Force is a military service. It has a command structure and a civilian leadership. That civilian leadership is provided in operational matters by the President and the Secretary of Defense and his civilian deputies with the Department of Defense, and in matters other than day to day operations by the Secratary of the Air Force and his civilian deputies within the Department of the Air Force. Just as the Secretary of the Army is not in the Army, but in the Department of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force is not in the Air Force, but in the Department of the Air Force.
As far as Wikipedia goes there are two issues here
1. The USAF and the Department of the Air Force are not the smae entity; hence I edited the USAF article.
2. Just as there are separate articles for the Army and the Department of the Army, so there should be separate articles for the Air Force and the Dpeartment of the Air Force. But I will look through former Department of the Air Force articles to find ones more inofrmative than the one I created. -Mikedelsol 00:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the DoD offical website I just accessed, "Congress, in 1947, established a civilian, Cabinet-level Secretary of Defense to oversee an also newly created National Military Establishment. The U.S. Air Force was also created, along with a new Department of the Air Force." -Mikedelsol 01:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm coming across as difficult here; if so, I apologize. I read the The U.S. Air Force was also created, along with a new Department of the Air Force." to mean The U.S. Army Air Forces were completely separated from the U.S. Army, and the separation included creating a department-level organization equal to that of the Army to run the Air Force.
To be more constructive: I'd settle for something (anything) that says "The USAF, as well as X, Y, and Z, are components of the Department of the Air Force", or "Position X, which heads the USAF, reports to the Secretary of the Air Force". Or an organization chart which shows the USAF and the USDAF as separate things. I hope that isn't seen as excessive. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, check out letter from SECAF and CSAF which has two flags, representing IMO two organizations. -Mikedelsol 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those two flags are are personal flags of those two positions/people. --Pmsyyz 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation 2[edit]

This link shows the DoD org chart. The most accurate description is to say that the USAF is an element of the Department of the Air Force, which itself is a subordinate division of the cabinet-level Department of Defense. --Ntmg05 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to the DoD organization chart. Unfortunately, the chart does not show what you stated in your posting on my talk page - that the USAF is an element of the Department of the Air Force. If that was the case, I would expect to find the USAF and the USDAF in separate boxes. But the USAF is not - in fact, it doesn't appear anywhere on the chart. Rather, "Air Force Major Commands and Agencies" report to the box titled "Department of the Air Force", with nothing inbetween.

I welcome further information on the matter. Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message on my talk page. Read the chart again. First, you'll notice that the boxes "Undersecretary and Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force" and "Chief of Staff Air Force" are both listed below "Secretary of the Air Force." It would be illogical to assume that either of those posts is equal to the Secretary of the Air Forc, thus it's clear that the boxes do not necessarily need to be separate to establish hierarchy. Second, the term "United States Air Force," while not explicitly printed on the chart, is most commonly associated with the uniformed service, not the civilian appartus. On that chart, the uniformed service is represented by the highest ranking uniformed officer, the AF Chief of Staff, and all subordinate commands... all of which are listed below the Secretary of the Air Force. Also, compare the organization for the Air Force Department to the Navy Department. Using your argument that the term for the uniformed service within each department is interchangeable with the name of the department, the Marine Corps could be called the Navy! --Ntmg05 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to ruin your fun here, but the Marine Corps is a department under the Department of the Navy (...it's the mens department, or so the joke goes). If you want to refer to the services by Departments under DoD, there is the Air Force, Army, and Navy (no USMC since it falls under the Navy). If you want to refer to our service BRANCHES, then there are 4.BQZip01 16:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I said. The Navy and Marine Corps are not synonymous despite being in the Navy Department. --Ntmg05 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the terms ARE used (in some cases) interchangably. If someone in the Pentagon states, "The Navy wants more money and it's coming out of my budget!" it could mean either the US Navy proper or the Department of the Navy. The Marine Corps is special and would NOT be mistaken as being "the Navy" however, they are a component of the Department of the Navy. In short, when one refers to the Air Force or the Army, the distinction is minute and only needs to be clarified in rare cases (the terms are interchangeable). It would be rare for someone to say, "The Air Force wants XYZ," and clarification be needed. In the case of the US Navy and USMC, "Navy" is not so clear-cut. In short, Air Force refers to both the Department of the Air Force as a whole and the US Air Force; rarely does a distinction need to be made. The case of the Navy is a different situation. Anyone else have any thoughts?BQZip01 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then a disambiguation page is needed. The term "United States Air Force" should come directly to this article since that term refers most often to the service branch, not the department (and the original edit language should remain deleted). A disambiguation link to the "Department of the Air Force" article should be included in this article. Similar disambiguation pages/links should be created for the Army and Navy service branches and their respective civilian departments (if they don't already exist). The Marine Corps article should be edited include a reference to its position in the Navy Department (if needed) but should not be redirected to the Navy Department page; it would be illogical to think a search for "United States Marine Corps" or a derivative would actually seek "Navy Department." This solution will satisfy all points, and thus I propose that this issue be closed once implemented. --Ntmg05 00:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do itBQZip01 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me - thanks for suggesting this. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USDAF vs USAF[edit]

  • This entire discussion of USAF vs USDAF is a bit misleading. The US Air Force falls under the Secretary of the Air Force. The only elements of the Department of the Air Force of which I am aware that do NOT fall under the US Air Force are the SecAF's Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and his staff, and direct reporting units. To refer to one's self as "I am in the Air Force" one does not necessarily need to be a serviceman, you can also be a civilian in the Department of Defense who is assigned to an Air Force Unit. The Air Staff is subordinate to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and serves primarily as an advisory role to the SecAF, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the SecDef/President. De jure, the CSAF has little command authority over troops, but has a large role as far as policy and direction of the Air Force. De facto, the CSAF leads the USAF in conjunction with the SecAF.
"The National Security Act of 1947 became law on July 26, 1947. It created the Department of the Air Force, headed by a Secretary of the Air Force. Under the Department of the Air Force, the act established the United States Air Force, headed by the Chief of Staff, USAF." source http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/rso/birth.html
and
"Headquarters US Air Force (HQ USAF): The senior headquarters of the Air Force, consisting of two major entities: the Secretariat (including the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary's principal staff), and the Air Staff, headed by the Chief of Staff, USAF. Major Command (MAJCOM): A major subdivision of the USAF, directly subordinate to Headquarters United States Air Force (HQ USAF). They are assigned a major segment of the Air Force mission and possess the full range of staff functions needed to perform required tasks. Direct Reporting Unit (DRU): A subdivision of the Air Force, directly subordinate to the Chief of Staff. A DRU performs a specialized or restricted mission that does not fit into any of the MAJCOMs. A DRU has many of the same administrative and organizational responsibilities as a MAJCOM." plagarized from http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/rso/organizations.html BQZip01 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mikedelsol is technically correct, but to not add some caveats is misleading. The primary point of contention seems to be proper terminology. USAF is led by the Department of the Air Force. As a whole, the public generally does not disassociate an entity from its leadership, hence the term "Air Force" implicitly includes the Department of the Air Force. The distinction lies only in the difference between the civilian leadership and the de jure entity USAF. It is both right and proper to include the SecAF when talking about the Air Force. I think it is best phrased as the article is now. Add a separate part if you wish for the Dept. of the AF BQZip01 17:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

  • In this article, in the "Organization" section, there are subsections for SECAF and Air Staff. Is that wrong - should these be only in the USDAF article? Or in that and the SECAF article?
  • This article say that the SECAF "manages" the USAF, and why does the United States Secretary of the Air Force article say that the SECAF is responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the United States Air Force? (That seems a bit different from saying that the USAF is a "component" of the USDAF.)
  • Looking at the DoD organizational chart, are the under secretary and assistant secretaries of the Air Force considered to be part of the USAF, or are they outside of/above the USAF?

Thinking about this, perhaps the confusion is that for someone to say "I'm in the Air Force", he/she would need to be servicemember (that is, an uniformed officer or enlisted member). By contrast, a civilian, including the SECAF, would say "I work in the Department of the Air Force". I'm not at all sure how to make that clear. Does anyone else think that point does in fact need to be made somewhere in the article?

It also didn't help that United States Department of the Air Force doesn't have a wikilink to this article; would someone mind adding that? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm in the Air Force" can mean either USDAF or USAF. Civilians can use either and still be correct. As stated above, the public generally does not disassociate leadership and an entity, hence "Air Force" is good for either entity. Air Staff is merely the staff of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and IS a component of the USAF.BQZip01 17:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization and Hierarchy (T/D)[edit]

I'm working on a new article specifically dealing with the organizational structure of the Air Force (although to be honest it was originally User:Tdrss's idea). Would it be prudent to link that article to the section dealing with this subject, and possibly combine the information into the new article, or would it be better to merge into the USAF article?

In other words, should I keep the new article, or merge the information into the USAF article?

Just wonderin'.... - NDCompuGeek 23:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usaf, Turkısh Air Force and Israel Air Force doing a new project about F-17Taı-gw19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.127.191 (talk • contribs)

Info boxes[edit]

Guys, we have to come up with a solution to this info box situation. It seems that every time somebody makes a change, someone else reverts it. I don't really care which info box is at the top of the article, as long as the Air Force Seal is at the top. This is mainly because every other military organization article has the seal at the top.

I swapped the pics so that the airplane picture was located in the USAF template. Apparently someone has reverted that also so that the seal appears in it. Now we have two seals... Bburton 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with putting a different image at the top of the {{USAF}} template is that it is used in several other article, where that Desert Storm image would not really be appropriate, like Air Force Materiel Command, or National Museum of the United States Air Force. --rogerd 03:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about consolidating all of the data into a single info box? Bburton 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{USAF}} isn't an infobox, but a collection of links to related articles. The United States Army and United States Navy articles do not use {{Infobox Military Unit}} at all, but they use, respectively, {{United States Army}} and {{US Navy navbox}}, which are similar to {{USAF}} and have their service's seals. I think there is good information in the infobox that is currently in the article. Perhaps the solution could be to have {{USAF}} accept an optional parameter to override the image with an alternate image, and only use that alternate image in the United States Air Force article, while allowing other uses of the template to default to use Image:Seal of the US Air Force.svg. Do you think that could work? --rogerd 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit over-complicated. I suggest taking one of these two routes: 1. Simply swap the boxes so that {{USAF}} is at the top, or 2. Consolidate all information into the other infobox while discontinuing the use of {{USAF}} altogether. Bburton 04:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up[edit]

Lots of changes have been made to this page and some people think it needs to be cleaned up. I for one don't see much of a problem with the page, but I'm new at this. I think that if someone has the time to point out that it isn't "up to standards" then that person should be specific about what should be cleaned up; kind of a drive-by insult to those of use working on the page. IMHO, I'd be happy to help, but I need guidance on exactly what is wrong. BQZip01 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, instead of just attaching a cleanup tag based on what "some people think," it would be wiser to judge the state of the article itself and make any improvements based upon what you think should be done as observed from Wikipedia's standards. An article like Turkish Air Force is in much more need of a cleanup. Other than the size of the article itself (which has already been pointed out) it is in OK shape. C.J. 18:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten lead[edit]

Can someone familiar with this topic and this article please shorten the lead? It's way too long. Typically, it's pretty easy to just move much of the material into new or existing sections but I don't feel comfortable doing that myself on this article. --ElKevbo 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvements[edit]

This article could use more information about the USAF budget, various bases, and its history. Other areas seem overly detailed: Humanitarian Missions, grade structure, uniforms, core values, and vocations. Overall the article seems to focus too much on the culture of the Air Force and not enough on its overall role in the US and the world. I was thinking I'd try to reduce and compile some of these sections into a "Air Force culture" section or something similar. Does anyone have any counter-proposals or other thoughts? johnpseudo 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some good points. However, there is a history of USAF article, so there's no need to duplicate that here. I'm not sure about a "Culture section" as these kinds of issure are usually covered on the main page in other armed forces article. That doesn't mean some sections couldn't use some cutting back, especially if there are articles already on the subject (grads, for instance). - BillCJ 00:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Core Values Section[edit]

What information does this add to the article? How is it notable? Do we list company ethics codes or values on corporation wiki articles? These values are no different than the values implicit in any military or corporate organization. If the values indicated something you wouldn't expect, this might be notable. Maybe this information would be notable in the context of the Air Education and Training Command. Would anyone object to moving it there? johnpseudo 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break out uniform to a new article[edit]

In the interests of keeping the article to a reasonable size, I suggest that the information on USAF uniforms is moved to a new article like United States Air Force uniform. A short summary with a link could be retained in this article. Greenshed 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, tho we need to research carefully to make sure such an article doesn't already exist under another name. - BillCJ 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing I found was Airman Battle Uniform. I recommend moving that page to the proposed new article, and then adding in the new info. That way you keep the history of the ABU page, and not just make it a redirect. - BillCJ 20:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I did not find any other articles on USAF uniforms apart from the ABU one. Greenshed 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to keep the ABU page separate as it appears to be detailed enough to warrent its own article.Greenshed 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current inventory[edit]

Does a current inventory of the USAF exists on wikipedia? (with the exact number of the aircraft). If yes, where can I find it?Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 20:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism[edit]

Someone might want to check this edit; it looks like potential vandalism. · AndonicO Talk 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam? Or a light hearted view?[edit]

I thought I'd clarify a link (www.chairforce.com) that was added by myself and subsequently removed by one BillCJ. There's an Air Force casual site many of you may know of named Chairforce.com run for and by those that are serving and have served. I put it in the External Links section so that people could see some of the funnier moments of being blue. From the website itself:

THE NAME "CHAIRFORCE.COM" <- credit goes to the site of the same name... Within this Web site (CHairforce.com), the name "Air Force" has, in some instances, been changed to "CHairforce." This is not meant as a disparaging term. It is simply a word used to draw attention to the fact that most Airmen fight wars while maintaining a seated position -- whether it's behind a desk, behind the wheel of a vehicle, or inside the cockpit of an ass-kickin' killing machine. The term CHairforce does not define Airmen as weak, harmless, pencil-pushing desk jockeys. Everyone knows U.S. Air Force personnel almost single-handedly won the past two U.S. wars. Whether an Airman has four stars on his shoulder or one stripe on his or her sleeve, whether they're a fighter jock, a grease monkey or a Services troop handing out basketballs at the base gym, CHairforce.com will treat all "bluesuiters" with admiration and respect ... until you prove otherwise, in which case you will be taunted and ridiculed.

It was tagged as [i]linkspam with an agenda[/i] (which does not appear in WP:EL btw) by a BillCJ. I read through the talk section (this) and realized that the External Links section had been crowded and chosen for reduction. Had I known this I would have removed it myself (I should have check the discussion area first), which clarifies the reason for the External Links section being small. If you serve, previously served, thinking about serving, then the site is a good place to hear from those at home and abroad and share some laughs with them.

In the future I would suggest to people to sit back and take a look at it first. Hell, even just click on the big Disclaimer on the front page to see what it's about. Those that serve and have served enjoy sites such as the one linked and those that will serve will have a chance to hear about the Air Force via something other than an official site or press release. Had he quoted the External Links discussion instead of calling it [i]linkspam with an agenda[/i], then I would've left it alone. By calling it spam with an agenda, he disregarded those that serve and contribute to the news on the site (making light of some situations during a very serious war). I'm even curious what he thought the agenda was. Anyhow, some people will want to know, hence this post.

- CyberNigma 06:35, 10 June 2007 (CST)

Sorry if I offended you. It was late at night, and "linkspam with an agenda" was the best I could coume up with. I looked for the relevant protion of the guidelines today with that phrase, and OF COURSE I couldn't find it! Anyway, from actually looking at the site last night, I don't think the link is appropriate, per This page in a nutshell: Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article from WP:EL. I have no problem soliciting other opinions here, and if the consensus is to include it, that's fine. - BillCJ 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Displaying Rank[edit]

display of air force rank is in ascending order, as shown in AF-PAM 36-2241 pg 462 & 463, Display of Military ranks. i believe that is how it should be displayed on wiki as well. think of it this way... if an country displays its flag a certain way, would it be accurate if wiki showed the flag upside down? Robkehr 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Every Navy and Marine Corps publication I recall being issued, reading, or owning also displays ranks and rates in ascending order. I left the service several years ago so my memory could be wrong but it is unusual for me to see them displayed otherwise. --ElKevbo 03:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, I'm in the Air Force, and i believe it should be in ascending order. Robkehr, you stated something that I makes sense with the flag.-- DJREJECTED 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiousity, what order is used in a vertical chart? I have usually seen General listed at the top of the chart and First Lieutenant at the bottom in other publications. Is that considered the norm on a vertical chart? - BillCJ 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I recall seeing it, too. --ElKevbo 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in an organizational chart the rank order would be descending to show position of the individual. however when a rank history for an individual is diplayed, low ranks are at the top and higher ranks at the bottom.

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6545 <-- example the offical AF biography of the CSAF, notice his rank history, in vertical order beginning with 2dlt at the top, and gen at the bottom. and its like that with all af individuals, if your in the af and dont believe me, check your rank history in vmpf, youll see. under duty history --> promotions. Robkehr 04:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another take on this is that you ascend in rank, not descend (unless you get in trouble.) -- DJREJECTED 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)agreed Robkehr 05:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the example but I don't think it (a chronological listing of an individual's promotional record) is applicable to this situation. --ElKevbo 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was just another example of how rank is displayed, in case someone else may have had a question after seeing rank displayed in this manner. same as how someone had a question when they saw it displayed in another way. Robkehr 05:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia section EXPLODING[edit]

Once again, the section detailing the symbols worn to demonstrate rank has exploded to 2-3 pages in length. In the grand scheme of things, this is not very important, and the entire insignia section can be relegated to a sub-page. johnpseudo 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - BillCJ 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it already was.... (a sub-page, that is) - NDCompuGeek 04:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was, but a lot of the information from those sub-pages had been copied verbatim back onto this page. A real mess. johnpseudo 17:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well intentioned (but somewhat flawed) editing, or POV pushing (I want this in the main article and I'm going to put it there no matter what consensus says)? I noticed the information creep a few weeks back, but (slapping head with 2x4) didn't do anything about it at the time.... - NDCompuGeek 05:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-117[edit]

The F-117 is no longer part of the Air Force - it has been retired ans as such should be removed from the gallery

  1. Please sign your posts.
  2. Swing and a miss. They will be part of the Air Force until approximately 2008. — BQZip01 — talk 06:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


the f117 page says it is decomissioned

The link of the source given there is dead. Elsewhere in the text, it says 6 F-117s were retired in March, but makes no metion of the rest of the fleet. I'm assuming the person who added the reirement and decommissioning date thought it meant the whole fleet. - BillCJ 06:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The F-117 is still flying at Holloman Air Force Base, you can call and ask them. -- GoDawgs 06:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yea i think they are simply in the process of retiring them, it has not finished yet. they will be replaced with f22's.

aircraft nicknames[edit]

whats the diff between and "official" nickname and a regular nickname? Robkehr 21:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An official nickname is authorized by the Secretary of the Air Force as the given name for an airframe. For example, the T-37 is called the Tweet officially, but unofficial nicknames include "TWA" (That whiny airplane), "A 7000-pound dog whistle", and "A 7000-pound Air Education Training Command training device which converts fuel to noise". Other examples include the B-52 Stratofortress being called the BUFF (Big Ugly Flying Fucker), the B-1B Lancer being called the Bone (getting the B-1 is considered getting Boned), and the F-16 Falcon being called the Viper. — BQZip01 — talk 06:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so does the DOD have a list of official names? and why do AF websites and AF article refer to the T-43 as the T-43 Gator if its not the official name? Robkehr 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the USAF's factsheet on the T-43, and there's no mention of the word Gator, period. As far as I know, the T-43 has NO official name. There is a PDF list of DOD designations on a DOD site, but I don't have a link to the latest one. - TomKat222 23:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for info here is a 2004 list [1] - for the popular name for the T-43 is says None. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm about to start training on the T-43. I'll ask once I start. — BQZip01 — talk 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's the case of the aircraft that had no official nickname during its entire operational history, only to have its unofficial nickname bestowed upon it at its retirement as its official nickname: F-111 Aardvark.--Buckboard 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On the Dutch language Wiki[edit]

Hello! Could someone help me? On the Dutch language Wikipedia there was some news, about a few people who didn't follow procedure and got fired. There isn't a single source for this news on Dutch news websites, nor on any (news) channel. This was the actual part:

  • 20 oktober - De Amerikaanse luchtmacht ontheft drie kolonels, een luitenant-kolonel en 66 andere manschappen van hun posten voor een reeks van fouten die maakten dat een B-52-bommenwerper op 29 augustus met zes nucleair geladen kruisraketten onder de vleugels van Noord-Dakota naar Louisiana kon vliegen. Het incident is een van de ernstigste schendingen van kernwapenprocedures in tientallen jaren.

Roughly translated:

  • October 20th - The American air force has discharged three colonels, a luitenant-colonel and 66 other men of their posts for a series of mistakes that led a B52-bomber on the 29th of August, armed with six nuclear missiles under ist wings, to fly from North-Dakota to Louisiana. The incident is one of the wordt violations of nuclearweaponsprocedures in several years.

Alright, the sentence seems a bit off, but that's the best I could do. The original sentence isn't that good altogether... Anyway, has there been such an incident? Any news? Because right now, I'm thinking I should just focus on the English wiki, since the Dutch version seems to be run by idiots. --Soetermans 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on his talk page. For those interested read this. — BQZip01 — talk 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign aircraft[edit]

Does the USAF own any foreign made air crafts such as Mig or Mirage or any others ? if yes , shouldn't be included into the article ?  A M M A R  14:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have a large number of one-off and experimental aircraft as well as captured and otherwise acquired foreign aircraft that are not operational aircraft and are not part of the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system. Many of them are probably secret and do not have verifiable references, so they can't be included here. --rogerd (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...however, some do and have been included. The 6th Special Operations Squadron (and yes, this is all unclassified) flies the Mi-17 and the An-26. They are included on the list of aircraft. Reference: [2] — BQZip01 — talk 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, the Israeli IAI Kfir (F-21) was used for training, I believe. Some MiG-29s were acquired but eventually not used. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh im actully talking about the russian MIG-29 , I believe since the early years of Cold War and the USAF trying to simulate such technology rather than Buy them.
Anyways , Just one more question ; About the Irani F14s , How they get their spare parts if they are in conflict with the manufacturer country ?  A M M A R  09:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please remeber that talk pages are not general discussion forums or topic forums, but are to be used for improving artilces.
That said, the short answer is: Through cannibalization and reverse engineering. For the long answer, ask at Talk:F-14 Tomcat; it's really a good question for the F-14 page. There is a mention of this in the last 2 paragraphs at F-14 Tomcat#Iran, but it could be covered more throroughly in the article. - BillCJ (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have some Canadian DHC-6 Twin Otter for training purposes. The C.29 calibration and light transport jet is a British design (Bae 125). Both are mentioned. The IAI Kfir was used by the US Navy/Marines Chwyatt (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AF Cyber Command[edit]

The listing on of the different MajComs, "Air Force Cyberspace Command" should read "Air Force Cyber Command (Provisional)". Reference for this is a memorandum dated 01 Nov 2006 from CSAF to LtGen Robert Elder, 8AF/CC Titled 'Operational Cyberspace Command "Go Do" Letter'. This memo is available on the AF Portal. I have tried to change it myself, but cannot find the textbox on the edit page. Gawain VIII (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it from "one of the most largested airforces" to "the largest". The USAF is the largest in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amb8819 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide an edit summary next time so you don't have to explain here... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for some help... Swiss Air Force history[edit]

Hello dear colleagues, yesterday I've translated the World War II and the Cold War sections of History of the Swiss Air Force. As a non-native English speaker, I would appreciate any help in correcting language errors and comments on factual accuracy. Thank you very much and I hope it makes for an interesting reading. You can remove this section after enough people have contributed to "my" article :-) --Keimzelle (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've undertaken the task--it's actually quite well-done--with some tweaking a few additions to flesh out when, how and why the Mirage III was added to Swiss service. I will work on the first half of the article and welcome anyone else to improve my edits.--Reedmalloy (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Reedmalloy (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Remove[edit]

This quote should be removed and has no business in this article.

On 5 June 2008, in a move called "unprecedented" by one Air Force-related journal, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, accepted the resignations of both the Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne, and the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, in effect firing both men for "systemic issues associated with declining Air Force nuclear mission focus and performance". The forced resignations followed an investigation ordered by Gates into two embarrassing incidents involving nuclear weapons, and were also the culmination of a long-running series of disputes between the Air Force leadership and Gates.[9]

This is an information article about the USAF, not a current events page. While the above quote is ture, and yes, this did happen, it has no business being in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.26.236.226 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The firings paragraph does not seem that out of place. It is current info like the reduction in force effort. It probably should be shortened. Where should that info go if removed from this article? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USAF Band Program[edit]

The fine USAF band program deserves to be mentioned. The Air Force Band began with Glenn Miller in WWII. Today, the USAF has its premier symphonic band based (last I heard) at Bolling Field and a dozen or so subsidiary bands based across the United States and overseas. It also has musical groups that perform in various other genres. These groups make a significant contribution to Air Force life, morale, recruitment, and public relations. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USAF units and Afghanistan 2008[edit]

Greetings. Does anyone have a summary of USAF units in Afghanistan/supporting ops in Afghanistan in 2008? I want to update this section… Coalition_combat_operations_in_Afghanistan_in_2008#United_States Cheers Chwyatt (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USAF CODES[edit]

TYPE CODES

A = Attack or tactical support B = Bomber C = Transport E = Electronic airplane F = Fighter H = Helicopter O = Observation P = Patrol S = Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW) T = Trainer U = Utilitarian V = Vtol X = Experimental

FUNCTIONS CODES

D = Not manned device (remote controlled) E = Electronic warfare H = Search and Rescue K = Tanker L = Cold weather operations M = Permanently modified N = Designed for special tests Q = Not manned device R = Recognition V = VIP transport W = Weather recognition Y = Service tests Z = Project

And the digits after the prefix are the project number and the last word is the developed model number.

Example: The MH-53 Pave Low is a permanently modified helicopter and is the fifty three project. Example: The Boeing RC-135 is a recognition transport and is the one hundred thirty five project. Example: The KC-135R Stratotanker is a tanker transport and is the one hundred thirty five project and is the eighteen developed model of the series.

Observation: I don't know all the codes because today they created more codes to describe the new USAF devices.

--Daniel Souza (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (Portuguese Wikipedia Member)[reply]

The designation system is described better at United States Department of Defense aerospace vehicle designation (linked in this article) and 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system (current system with details). R = Reconnaissance, Y = Prototype, etc (see Tri-Service page for more). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! --Daniel Souza (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Wynne and T. Michael Moseley firing[edit]

While their firing effected the Air Force, this statment does not directly pertain to the Air Force as a whole; it directly pertains to Michael W. Wynne and T. Michael Moseley. Neovu79 (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rare and notable event in AF history for both AF secretary and AF chief of staff being fired at the same time. Cut back the content, sure. This article really needs a history section. That's all in the 'lead' now. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the issue with the nuclear mission is covered there as well. That directly pertains to the Air Force, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but this should not be placed at the top of the article; bad formatting. If you be placed in it's own subcategory under "History"; possibly under "Current events" or something along that lines. Neovu79 (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some section like that, sure. Update: moved that paragraph and the reduction in force paragraph to a Recent history section. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F-18 Missing?[edit]

Should the F18 not be listed under fighter aircraft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.12.230.131 (talk • contribs)

No. This is an Air Force article and the F/A-18 Hornet is a US Navy strike fighter. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Army "November 4, 1952" Air Force[edit]

I did a google search for Army "November 4, 1952" Air Force, and found out that-

"...A definitive agreement between air force Secretary Finletter and Army Secretary Pace on November 4, 1952, established a fixed wing weight limit of five thousand pounds empty, but weight restrictions on helicopters were eliminated..."


(Source/Link Here)


Does anyone know if and how much of this agreement is still in effect?
i.e.- Could the Army build the two seat version of the A-10???
LP-mn (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-47[edit]

The C-47 was added back in as an operational aircraft for the US Air Force. Included was a comment to read the linked article before deleting. I did read the linked article and did not see where it said that the C-47 was operational within the US Air Force. I did find these 2 items that but I do not read them to mean that their are currently any C-47s operation in the US Air Force

The US Air Force continued to use the C-47 for various roles, including the AC-47 gunships—code named Puff the Magic Dragon[1] or Spooky—and the EC-47N for electronic reconnaissance during the Vietnam War.[2]
Postwar, thousands of surplus C-47s were sold and overhauled and modified for civil airline use, some remaining in operation in 2009.

The first one says they were still operational during the Vietnam war, but since that ended over 30 years ago, it does not say that they are operational today.

The second one says that C-47s are operational in civil airline use, but it does not talk about use within the US Air Force. I am removing C-47 from the list of active aircraft. If I missed something in the article please explain here. A new name 2008 (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there was a story about a C-47 that was restored by Air Force personal or something AF related. But that is not active service. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Encarta Encyclopedia:[edit]

Re.: US Air Force, Re.: Project Bluebook. This should be placed. Powerzilla (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the Air Force from Jan.1972 to Aug.1987. I was in a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program in Lakinheat England in 1981.While in there I saw a movie intitled I Will Quit Tomorrow. That movis got me on the road to recovery. I am now a certified Drug and Alcohol Counselor. And have searched for that movie to no end but have not located it. Could someone assist me in locating the movie,(VHS,DVD).

Thank You, carlp@voaky.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.64.4.74 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force[edit]

I've never edited before but I cannot find it in the edit page. Whoever knows how to change it... can you correct the Vice Chief of Staff to General William M. Fraser III? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicool2 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

largest?[edit]

By what type of aircraft? Strategic? Should probably distinguish between the types of aircraft, because by strategic ones, russian is largest and in fact newer than that of US. Special:Contributions/99.231.50.118|99.231.50.118]] (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.[reply]

I need help[edit]

Hi there! I have tried hard to obtain some information on a WWII item we found in eastern germany. As there were no or just negative replies, this is my last try. My friend runs a little museum in eastern germany where this item is displayed next to remainders of american, english, german and french aircrafts but he knows nothing about it. The only thing I was able to find out is that this item is definitely of american origin (confirmed by the royal air-force museum). So I am going to post the picture here and I hope that someone can help me or knows somebody who can. Maybe you can also redirect me to a better place to post this request....I would appreciate your advice! Thanks in advance!

File:AirWay Marke-1-.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.77.50.5 (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

i have added the usaf subdivisions in a manner like the one found on the us army wiki page US Army#Combat maneuver organizations but i think it needs work and missed units.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.225.215 (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Air Patrol[edit]

Any value to including a section here about the Civil Air Patrol (other than the "see also") similar to that of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary included in the Coast Guard article (see here)? Newguy34 (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would vote 'no' because the CAP isn't technically part of the USAF. That's my two, admittedly bias, cents. Ndunruh (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but "technically" CAP is part of the USAF as the official, congressionally-chartered civilian auxiliary. But, I understand you point. Thanks for the thoughts. Newguy34 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Newguy34 (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MV-22[edit]

May the pic of the MV-22 be replaced with an actual USAF aircraft please? Hcobb (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but they may be a better image around. MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LiMA[edit]

Where should LiMA be listed? https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9989409add711616230dced09861a253&tab=core&tabmode=list&cck=1&au=&ck= Hcobb (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no, it doesn't add anything to the USAF site. An RFI is a publication to the commercial sector and therefore not really applicaple to most of the potential readers.--Ndunruh (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PAVE COIN[edit]

What's old is new again as USAF resdiscovers it's old role as a COIN force. Now what's needed is a USAF COIN page to tie together articles like A-37 Dragonfly. Hcobb (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Five Year Plan[edit]

All reports I've seen so far on the USAF cuts have been based on that one Bloomberg article, but as soon as I get an independent second source I'll revert that section back into place. Hcobb (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, consider though that Wikipedia is not about plans or projections, but rather what has already happened. So, reliable sourcing or not, it seems that until the event actually happens and is notable in a historical context, it doesn't have too much of a place in Wikipedia. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wideawake Airfield[edit]

Isn't Wideawake airfield considered a USAF base although it is shared by The Royal Air Force? Because I could not find it in any USAF articles. Parker1297 (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold War Inventory?[edit]

Is it possible for this page to have a list of aircraft that were in active service at the end of the Cold War? I was interested and trying to compare such a list (if it exists elsewhere) with the Soviet list of active aircraft here. Such a list would be very informative. Perhaps such a page for the USAF exists elsewhere? I haven't found it however. --69.67.117.34 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is Not a directory so not in this article. You can find a list of Cold War aircraft on the AF's National Museum site though. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - such a list would be a possible addition to History of the United States Air Force. But it really belongs in the history page, not the actual root page. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, you essentially agreed with me as I said "this article". The History article is a fitting place for Cold War info such as that. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C-47[edit]

I have re-added the C-47 as it is still in use today at Hurlburt Field, Florida by the 6th Special Operations Squadron. Please do not delete until such time as the aircraft is retired from service or is no longer in use. — BQZip01 — talk 14:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment of the United States Air Force[edit]

Factchecking for Equipment of the United States Army was easy because i could use the us army's factfiles [3]. Does the U.S. Air force have an equivalent website? username 1 (talk)

Yes, see USAF factsheets. The aircraft, UAS, and weapons lists ones should be easy to follow. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Airman Magazine also lists many of the smaller weapons employed by the USAF.--Ndunruh (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure I like the layout of this chart, but it isn't too bad. I think it could be split into more categories (bombers, fighters, cargo, etc), like its predecessor. In addition, it is missing a large number of aircraft (B-2, C-47T, MC-130W, AC-130H, AC-130U, MC-12, U-28, etc). Most of these were on the previous list and, while pictures aren't available for all of them, they should be the basis for the current list, not starting from scratch. — BQZip01 — talk 14:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur, in my opinion the significance of an airframe or other piece of AF equipment should be based on capability & contribution, not simply the number in the inventory. For example, there may not be a lot of MILSTAR or DSCS III satellites but the contribution of these systems is significant to the AF and other branches. Similarly the number of B-2s, AC-130, et al, may not be high but their effects and contribution to the AF mission are significant.--Ndunruh (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The equipment table in this article repeats most of what is in the Equipment article. I think the table in this article should be replaced with a text summary or some type of summary. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ndunruh but the B-2 is not only low in number but is also not used as much, quote: "the stealth of the B-2 Spirit (has) only been useful until enemy air defenses (are) destroyed, a task that has been swiftly achieved in recent conflicts. The B-52 boasts the highest mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers operated by the USAF. Whereas the B-1 averages a 53% ready rate, and the B-2 achieved a 26%, the B-52 averages 80% as of 2001." Also, am i the only one who disagrees that the V-22 should remain on this page? There were only 7 of this aircraft with the air force at last census. FYI, there is Equipment of the United States Navy in the works on my userspace. I'm not sure i agree with a text summary however yesterday i tried (but failed) to combine all 3 tables into one. username 1 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is actually repeated three times, and each one is slightly different in content and layout. It should probably be combined into one article, and should include every airplane at least listed on the USAF website, regardless of numbers. What constitutes a 'low number' that shouldn't be included? I'm not trying to pick a fight ( I think who ever reorganized the article did an excellent job), I just think we need to streamline to one article and include all airplanes(Fixed,Rotary and Tilt wing). Redjacket3827 (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. There are many unique aircraft that the Air Force only has one of (C-47T, YAL-1, OC-135, etc). The composite article should include every airframe and variant in active service. This article should include them in list form. — BQZip01 — talk 08:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the B-2 be added to the list of aircraft, although they are not used as often as some of the other bombers, they are the most iconic and identifiable bombers ever, and they should not be left off the list. if we have satelites, refueling trucks, and cesna aircraft on this list surely the B-2 belongs there.Jpal55 (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not neccessary since there is a more descriptive article at Equipment of the U.S. Air Force. I think that the U-2 should be removed from this article since there are only 28 and it is to be replaced by the RQ-4 Global Hawk by 2012. username 1 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Authority[edit]

The US Constitution explicitly authorizes the Armies, the National Guard and Navies. The Coast Guard can be extrapolated as another Navy, but there is no particular authority for the Air Force. The Air Force was originally part of the Army, but since splitting off, has anyone ever published anything explaining how the Air Force is authorized under the Constitution? I'm pretty certain the Air Force is here to stay, but it would be useful for an explanation to be made part of the article. AlanK (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph and the Mission section both mention National Security Act of 1947. Is that legislation not enough? -Fnlayson (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any legal precident on the issue, but the National Security Act of 1947 combined with the 'necessary and proper' clause should be sufficient. The Constitution does expressly charge the government to "...provide for the common defense..." In the 21st century that requires an Air Force.--Ndunruh (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says a Navy and Armies. The Force is just one of those several armies allowed. -HJC

Air sovereignty[edit]

I'm waiting for the bill to be signed to add this latest wrinkle in the story:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm2699.cfm

The FY 2010 defense appropriations bill has passed both chambers and is awaiting final passage. In this legislation, there is essential language sponsored by Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) that would prevent the Pentagon from retiring many Air National Guard legacy fighter aircraft before there is a viable plan to replace them with a sufficient number of new fighters.

Hcobb (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft[edit]

List of active United States military aircraft is treating United States Air Force Academy aircraft such as the de Havilland Canada UV-18 as U.S. Air Force aircraft but Vehicles of the United States Air Force does not. Which should it be? username 1 (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better question is: why do we need aircraft on the Vehivcles article when we already have a list of aircraft of the USAF article? That's redundant. We certainly don't need two ariclies listng the same things, and probably 2-3 templates listing the same things too. - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And despite being on numerous lists the aircraft info is still duplicated in this article, when really it should just have a link out and a summary. MilborneOne (talk)
An IP added the B-2 to the aircraft table, and Username1 removed it without comment. I've readded it, as the B-2 is a major USAF asset (and an expensive one), and should be listed in any list of USAF aircraft, regardless of how many were procured.
Further, I think it's time to dump the equipment tables, per the comments in the sections above, and return to a strict list format for the main aircraft (including the B-2) only. Missiles, guns, and ground vehicles can be covered on the euqipment lists pages. Further, I thinnk we shpould avoid duplication, and only list equipment and missiles on one page, and possibly not the same one. A list of USAF aircraft page with a full table is OK, as most of the other air force pages have that, and it can list all the USAF aircraft in inventory. Thoughts? - BilCat (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. Currently the equipment section takes up about a quarter to a third of the article, that seems a bit excessive for an overview article when the equipment can, and has, been broken out into independent articles.--Ndunruh (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to treat Air Force Academy aircraft as Air force aircraft since I've read that the academy is an agent of the Depart. of the air force.username 1 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally removed the long tables from the articel per the consensus here, and restored the older text-based setion that actually describes what the various types of aircraft do. I've created a new Aircraft of the United States Air Force, and redirected the now much shoter Vehicles of the United States Air Force to Equipment of the United States Air Force. I've not attempted to combine any information from the variaous tables, as I don't work well with tables. Feel free to update the current tables as necessary, but any new article should be discussed first. We certainly didn't need 3-4 pages covering basically the same information. - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement about Navy WWII Aircraft[edit]

The statement about Navy WW-II aircraft is more restrictive than reality. Hcobb (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it, as you apparently know why it's wrong. - BilCat (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split off JFACC?[edit]

Should JFACC be split off by itself or as part of a combined "combat command" article? Hcobb (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sugest putting in the combat command article. It's more a combat command role rather than a service branch role and it's not necessarily always filled by an Air Force officer--Ndunruh (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Friday[edit]

This portion of the article states absolutely no references or sources. It sounds to me like someone who works in a fighter squadron is just blathering on and on about something that happens in his particular squadron. (I.E., "The less advertised, but perhaps more important reason for First Friday is that it forces squadron members to actually clean out the refrigerators, get rid of the trash, and make their place of work more habitable for humans lest they face the wrath of their significant others.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.25.0.206 (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didnt see this comment before I deleted the section, I just noticed it had been tagged as unreferenced for over two years. But it didnt appear to be notable to what is an overview article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That part was moved here from First Friday (public event) a couple of months ago with the old tag. Someone can add it back with a reference if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Educational outreach[edit]

Would a short note on the educational outreach programs be fitting?

For example:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/03/29/AW_03_29_2010_p56-210646.xml&headline=USAF%20Grooms%20Teenage%20Computer%20Geeks USAF Grooms Teenage Computer Geeks

Hcobb (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Colours[edit]

I'm not quite sure this is the proper place to post this. However, I believe in good faith, that someone should do a little more research about the Air Force's colors. I'm pretty sure they are silver and blue, not blue and yellow. -- 167.206.169.66 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue and yellow are the official air force colours according to the reference at [4]SCΛRECROWCrossCom 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is crufty[edit]

How about redoing the lead with the core functions on top in the USAF terms, but hyperlinked to what those terms actually mean? Perhaps this could link to or replace the missions section? Hcobb (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Capabilities Office[edit]

I'm not sure this is the right place for the Rapid Capabilities Office section, seems a little to 'in the weeds' to me. Maybe the Air Staff page or an as yet uncreated Office of the Secretary of the Air Force page would be better. Thoughts?--Ndunruh (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a copy&paste from the RCO factsheet. --Enemenemu (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's accurate informaiton (although I notice it isn't actually cited on the page). However, the United States Air Force page is very high-level. The most detailed the page gets is simply listing out the Major Commands and the Numbered Air Forces (and equilivants), not even providing detailed descriptions of those units. My understanding of the Rapid Capabilities Office is that it's part of the Air Staff and as such a full description of the office is probably better located in Air Staff page than on the United States Air Force page. If we begin listing all the components of the Air Force headquarters on this page it can get very detailed and a reader may lose the 'big picture' of the Air Force.--Ndunruh (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd concur that it needs to be cited (it certainly is PD information and it doesn't need to be reworded...) and that it would better belong in another place such as air staff. — BQZip01 — talk 22:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With no objection I've moved the Rapid Capabilities Office info to the Air Staff page.--Ndunruh (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chair Force[edit]

When you type Chair Force into the search bar, it redirects you to the United States Air Force page. This is derogatory and disrespectful. Wikipedia is not the place to be flaming other services. I would appreciate it if someone who knows how would remove that redirecet. It is no different than if you typed in the word "nigger" into the search bar and it redirected you to the African American Wikipedia page. Thanks.

This was discussed before in 2005 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chair force and the article deleted, it has since been recreated perhaps you need to nominate it again at WP:RFD. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to do this, can you offer me any assistance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.25.0.210 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberwarfare, and other phrasing issues[edit]

The introduction to the article states: "The United States Air Force (USAF) is the aerial warfare, space warfare, and cyberwarfare branch"

Except this is at least partly untrue. Who made USAF the "cyberwarfare branch"? No one. Nothing in the National Security Act of 1947, nor any other recent legislation assigns this role to them. This is a role that USAF has tried to monopolize for itself and failed. The Army and Navy are both setting up their own information warfare orgs. It would be more accurate to state that USAF is a branch that specializes in aerial warfare, but they by no means have an exclusive role here. Both the Navy and Army have huge airpower branches themselves, as well as missile and rocket programs. The introduction is as inaccurate as saying "the Navy is the branch with ships". The introduction sounds more like a press release than an encyclopedia entry. DesScorp (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The cyberwarfare mission is a joint operation. The Joint Cyber Analysis Course at Corry Station, FL, (the current entry level military cyberwarfare training) trains members from Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, Coast Guard, and the Department of Homeland Security. --74.103.30.251 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USAF replaces NASA[edit]

The USAF is the most techie military organization, but this gets scant mention on this page.

Can we have a small section about USAF research programs, including all of the projects that have flown from NASA to nest with USAF? Hcobb (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not exactly the same[edit]

The U.S. Air Force and the Department of the Air Force are NOT exactly the same thing, hence, why should Department of the Air Force redirect here? The Department of the Air Force is an administrative civilian agency mostly manned by civilians, and the Secretary of the Air Force reports to the Secretary of Defense, and hence to the President as a member of the President's cabinet. The U.S. Air Force, on the other hand, is a military organization, with millions of military people, that is a part the U.S. Armed Forces. These Armed Forces report directly to the President as their Commander-in-Chief. The top commanders of the Air Force, such as the General in charge of NORAD, the General in charge of the U.S. Air Force in Europe, and the General in charge of the Pacific Air Force, work directly under the President, and thus they do not work for the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the Air Force - except when authority has been delegated by the President to them. The top commanders of the Air Force, mentioned above, are also not under the command of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The jobs of these officers, and also of the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of Defense, are to provide the U.S. Air Force with the equipment, personnel, and supplies with which to perform its duties - which are to execute the orders of the President of the United States. 98.67.111.148 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better spend some time to read Title 10 of the United States Code (it’s available online for free, for crying out loud…) before making cocksure mumbo-jumbo claims without providing adequate sources. For one, the Secretary of Defense is in the chain of command, of all the military forces, which makes up the Department of Defense (Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force), as he is the “principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense”. And second, the ”Department of the Air Force” is not a civilian agency! It is by statute defined as a ”Military Department”, and the United States Air Force and the Air National Guard are integral parts of it. If this were not the case, then why would every Air Force Instruction start with the phrase ”By Order of the Secretary of the Air Force” or why would it on every piece of official stationary stand ”Department of the Air Force”?RicJac (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to this article[edit]

Since the term Department of the Air Force redirects to this article, which I consider to be dubious, then so should the terms U.S. Department of the Air Force, US Department of the Air Force, and United States Department of the Air Force redirect to this article. The way things are now is just a P.I.A. Also, there is no reason why some other country already has established, or will establish in the future, a Department of the Air Force. For example, that conceivably could happen in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, or any other English-speaking country.

The situation is just like that of the Department of Defense, where we need the article to be titled U.S. Department of Defense or United States Department of Defense. Other countries can have a Department of Defense, too. 98.67.111.148 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, with slight changes in spelling, there is a "Department of Defence" in Australia, Ieland, and South Africa, and a "Department of National Defence" in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.111.148 (talk • contribs)

CAP[edit]

1. A citation is needed for where it says Civil Air Patrol does 60% of Search and Rescues, last I checked it was more, unless the one listed is a slightly different statistic 2. Should the number of CAP members be listed under size as

330,159 active personnel 68,872 reserve personnel 94,597 air guard personnel --,--- auxillary personnel

69.146.33.239 (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to be promoted from the cockpit[edit]

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/12/begging_off_command

I didn't realize that so many eligible Air Force colonels were declining to be considered for command that the Air Force chief, Norton Schwartz, issued a letter in 2009 saying that henceforth everyone would be considered.

Does anybody have a ref to that letter? Hcobb (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force's core contributions reside in four main areas[edit]

http://www.defense.gov//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65397 Schwartz said the Air Force's core contributions reside in four main areas: control and exploitation of the air and space domains, as well as mission assurance in cyberspace; global strike; rapid global mobility; and worldwide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

They've changed focus again? Shall we rewrite or wait five minutes for the list to change to something else? Hcobb (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can drop the sarcasm. No, there is nothing here to change. Our article discusses the legal purpose of the Air Force as defined in law, something a general can't change on his own anyways. It does not discuss the core contributions the Air Force makes in exercise of its legally defined mission and purpose. Nor is what General Schwartz said even all that different from those defined missions, as stated in our "missions" section of this article. Even the tagline of "fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace" already covers virtually all of those except for rapid mobility. Rapid mobility isn't as sexy for a tagline, but the work of the Air Mobility Command and its ancestors has been core to the Air Force's mission since day one, such as in the Berlin Airlift. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schwartz is not notable[edit]

Ouch! That's harsh. He saw something was busted in the Air Force culture and tried to fix it and we'll ignore it? Hcobb (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One assumes you'll enlighten your fellow editors with context, links, etc.? I'd further remind you that as with a past news story your added to an article regarding the Secretary of Defense, the involvement of Schwartz doesn't make something notable. It isn't that Schwartz isn't notable, his notability justified the existence of his own article. A story about Schwartz or relating to Schwartz or involving Schwartz does not become notable just because his name is part of it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now you're deleting on other issues that are Schwartz-free. Hcobb (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please provide links and some sort of context for your comments. Try to actually discuss what it is you want added, and why it is notable (particularly notable to an article about the entire Air Force, and not just a single command or section of it). Just as a story does not become notable just for including the name "Schwartz", a story lacking the name "Schwartz" isn't notable for that lack of name. Can you defend the notability of your story? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the fundamentalist bug does not stop at the doors of the Air Force Academy. There are plenty of other news stories that cover the stain throughout the USAF. The Schwartz letter is well past due and it simply telling them to cool their jets on the issue. Why not at least cover his action on the topic?

And here's another bit of history between the 2005 lawsuit and the current troubles, that is not currently covered in Wikistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902211.html

Hcobb (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ O'Rourke, G.G, CAPT USN (July 1968). "Of Hosenoses, Stoofs, and Lefthanded Spads". United States Naval Institute Proceedings. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Donald, p.358
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Air_Force/Archive_2&oldid=1137284071"