Talk:United States Air Force/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Leading cause of death in the USAF

Is it notable enough to indicate what is the single largest cause of injury and death to Air Force members?

Hint: This is the service that trains to operate the most high performance vehicles in the world... Hcobb (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

haha probably not, but if the other armed forces pages have it then I dont see why not. Although I imagine it will be a rather unuseful addition.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again Hcobb, please be direct with what it is you want added to the article, and please back it up with a source. You've been around long enough to know how to propose article changes properly. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Globalhawk.750pix.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hidden note about Growler?

Would it be worthwhile to direct people trying to edit in the Super Hornet to the one USAF unit that trains EWOs to fly in Growlers? Hcobb (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to this edit, no, a hidden note is not necessary. This wasn't a case of someone mistaking the Growler for a Super Hornet, but rather someone trying to add the entire Hornet family as a USAF aircraft. At this time, such a hidden note would be a solution in search of a problem. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Core functions vs operational functions

Do we need both lists? Could we drop the list from the lead and just use the list under operational functions? Hcobb (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No. One is the Air Force core values, more of a moral and ethical standard. The other is what the Air Force actually does. They are not substitutable with the other, they are not about the same thing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's a third (unrelated list). The current sequence is:

  • Lead - The USAF articulates its core functions ... (Dozen listed are duplicate with operational functions below)
  • Lead - The core values of the Air Force are ... (Sounds like it belongs down in culture)
  • 1 Mission - 1.1 Operational functions - The Air Force describes its mission in terms of 17 operational functions: (The list expands from 12 to 17 by breaking some items into multiple parts.)

Hcobb (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And Agile Combat Support is purely in support of special ops? Not according to the added ref. Hcobb (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mission subheadings

An editor removed many mission subheadings. I feel that the article was better with the mission subheadings included. What do other editors think about this? Pinetalk 03:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There were way too many subheadngs under Core Functions. A subheading per paragraph does really help the reader and fills up the table of contents. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
How about at least boldfacing the names of each function for easier reading? Pinetalk 04:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Friday Name Tags

Is this truly a recent change on the same scope and scale as the others mentioned in this section? If so, can it be linked to a larger change in Air Force traditions? This seems to be (relative to the rest of the section) a minor change that only impacts a small segment of the Air Force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.132.164.86 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

High Speed Strike Weapon

Where does the High Speed Strike Weapon page go?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/hypersonic-missiles/

Hcobb (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Date Air Force was created

On 26 July 1947, President Harry S. Truman approved the National Security Act of 1947, which created the National Military Establishment, including the Office of Secretary of Defense and the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.


Not 18 Sept.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.91.89.32 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the reference for that text, U.S. Air Force fact sheet. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Trimming down the culture section

I'd like to say something short like "The USAF is the armed service of the future. It always has been, and it always will be", but that would be OR. So how do we balance the futuristic aspirations of the service vs. the all too human failings along the way? Hcobb (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does the culture section need to trimmed? Are you instead suggesting a rewrite and if so, why? I'm sure it isn't perfect - and seems to be poorly written with several bullets rather than in prose form - but I think I might be missing your point. Ckruschke (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Order of Battle link

Hi, I'd like to include a link on this page to an order of battle for the USAF: http://wiki.baloogancampaign.com/index.php/United_States_Air_Force_OOB_Current and I figured since this was my site that it wouldn't be good for me to add the link as it could be interpreted as me advertising my site. If you think this order of battle for the USAF is worth including here please add a link in an appropriate spot.

Thank you Baloogan (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Is the Air Force Constitutional?

After WW II when the USAF was being created, some people questioned the constitutionality of an Air Force, since our glorious Constitution only provides for an Army and a Navy. You know those strict constructionists. Shouldn't there be at least a paragraph on this?209.179.51.140 (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about your "glorious constitution" but the fact the Air Force was created as a legal entity by an Act of Congress really makes any such complaints by a "some people" really not relevant and of little weight in what is an overview of the USAF. MilborneOne (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that we'd already had a Coast Guard as a separate branch for more than 150 years at the time of the founding of the independent Air Force, the issue was already moot. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it probably seems like a hassle to conform to a constitution (for those who don't have one), but liberals have been able to ignore it when they want or somehow find what they want when they read between the lines (hey, if you can find the right to kill your unborn child, you can find almost anything). But not everyone is so nonchalant about it.
Long ago in college I read an article on Constitutional issues. For example, Thomas Jefferson initially refused the Louisiana Purchase and wanted a Const. admen. passed first giving the government the right to do it. (He once vetoed a bill that helped pay for a bridge across the Potomac, saying that if Virginia and Maryland wanted a bridge, they should pay for it all by themselves. What a concept.) The only other point I remember from what I read was about the Air Force.
And I don't think the Coast Guard is a good example, as it was originally created under the Treasury Dept. as an enforcer of duties and tariffs. I really don't see why someone would say the Constitutional question is moot or irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.51.140 (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The Constitution grants the authority to Congress to raise armies. The way I see it, and I think the easiest way to silence any sort of "strict constructionalist" who is such a nay-sayer, is that the Air Force is an army, albeit an army specializing in these new-fangled artillery platforms called "airplanes" and "rockets". Hence, I'd say any questions regarding Constitutionality are moot. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Mission vs budget

Is the percentage of the budget devoted to each mission area notable? (see the pie chart here for breakdown: http://www.defenseone.com/state-of-defense/?oref=search_state%20of%20the%20air%20force#air-force ) Hcobb (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View - A Christian Organization?

I think that the statement under the culture section that the United States Airforce is a Christian organization is inconsistent with a neutral point of view. An oath requiring airmen to acknowledge God may be on the books, but it is inconsistent with the Establishment Clause and the sentence in question should be rephrased accordingly. After all, all US Government bodies and organizations directed by it are supposed to be secular in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.227.81 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

F-35 Operation

I noticed that someone added the F-35 with a source that the USAF now operates the F-35 in an official capacity (and operational): http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/616055/first-operational-f-35as-arrive-at-hill-afb.aspx?source=GovD

But that it was removed because it hasn't achieved IOC yet. I personally feel that if its moved to a fighter or training squadron it should be added to the aircraft list. Is there any Wikipedia statement saying that IOC is required for it to be added? 24.192.250.124 (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't get an answer here, you can ask on the WikiProject: Aircraft talk page. - theWOLFchild 23:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The F-35 can not be deployed for operational use until it is fielded. So it is not really in the inventory until then. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
can you please define fielded? These units (based on the Air Force link) are under Air Combat Command and part of an operational fighter squadron. Although it's not IOC they source says that the units are "combat coded" and the title say that they are the first "operational F-35As". That seems to suggest fielded, at least according to the USAF. 24.192.250.124 (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Since there has been no response on this talk-page in 5 days I will be re adding the F-35 to the inbox unless anyone opposes the move. If so please speak up so we can come to a consensus on the matter. 24.192.250.124 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
No, do not re-add unless you can provide a reliable source that specifically states the F-35 is IOC, per Fnlayson's comment above. - theWOLFchild 02:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The source cites that the F-35 is operational, and part of an operational squadron. Where is the policy or requirement that it must be IOC to be added to the infobox, even if it is operated in an official capacity, as the citation says, by the USAF? Also he did not provide a definition of fielded. The operational status given to the aircraft would seem to indicate fielded, even if it is not currently IOC. These are also combat coded aircraft, and not part of a test or evaluation unit, but rather the first part of an operational squadron under Air Combat Command. My citation is an official Air Force press release, stating that these are operational aircraft. 24.192.250.124 (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Fielded means awarded initial operating capacity (IOC) and can be deployed for combat. There has some rare cases where aircraft where deemed critical and deployed for combat while in testing, e.g. RQ-4 Global Hawk and E-8 Joint STARS. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Do you have an official citation for an Air Forcd Instruction saying that? My understanding is that IOC for the F-35 isn't being based on combat capability, but rather when the first squadron reaches half strength. So combat coded imply a that they could, if they really needed to, deployed them.24.192.250.124 (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that IOC for the F-35 isn't being based on combat capability, but rather when the first squadron reaches half strength. So combat coded imply a that they could, if they really needed to, deployed them. Do you have a source that supports that? - theWOLFchild 21:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
http://breakingdefense.com/documents/services-set-ioc-dates-for-f-35s-confidence-is-the-watchword/ “Air Force F-35A initial operational capability (IOC) shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 12-24 aircraft, and Airmen are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct basic Close Air Support (CAS), Interdiction, and limited Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) operations in a contested environment. Based on the current F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) schedule, the F-35A will reach the IOC milestone between August 2016 (Objective) and December 2016 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately I should also amend me previous statement, that IOC is only partially based on the planes capability, but the "combat coded" aspect states that it is combat ready, at least on a basic level.24.192.250.124 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

According to your source; "The Air Force F-35A will reach the IOC milestone by December 2016.". So I guess we can put this issue to rest for now. - theWOLFchild 22:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Only if we're using IOC as the bench mark. We still haven't really talked about that yet. If we do use IOC I'm fine with that, however think that there should be a unified Wikipedia policy so we don't have this discussion evertime an aircraft becomes operational in the Air Force but not yet IOC. Thanks for sticking with this, I appreciate it. 24.192.250.124 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United States Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Moved MQ-1 and MQ-9 from recon to attack

Now that these two aircraft have been moved by the USAF to attack squadrons to reflect their attack role can we do the same hereGaruda28 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, that move should be made. 2600:100E:B00C:4A5E:68DF:8C5B:C778:7D72 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Ill get on itGaruda28 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Air Force conflicts

Since the Air Force has the linage of its predecessor organizations and has the campaign streamers of WWI and WWII I propose adding those conflicts to the main infobox. Garuda28 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. It makes sense since they've got The lineage directly carried over from their predecessors. 65.152.162.3 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Billy Mitchell

The opening sentence in Billy Mitchell describes him as the "father of the US Air Force". There was some discussion on this four years ago at that article's talk page, in which numerous citations were provided for this epithet. Nonetheless, I still see no mention of him on this page at all, and while he does have a section in the History of the United States Air Force article, it doesn't seem to acknowledge the apparent influence he's now attributed. Surely he should be covered in more depth on both of these articles per the opinions of him cited on his article's talk page? Walkersam (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

He really should. If I get some time Ill start working on adding him into the history section. Thanks for bringing this up. Garuda28 (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Change role from Air force to Aerospace force?

Since the Air Force is also the lead service for space in addition to air (per http://spacenews.com/secretary-wilson-air-force-to-step-up-advocacy-of-space/)

Propose changing type from "air force" to "aerospace force" based on the offical citations listed bellow: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-891j-space-policy-seminar-spring-2003/readings/taf.pdf https://www.afrotc.com/college-life/courses http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a338559.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1075.pdf

In essence the USAF has moved beyond just being a pure air force to also being responsible as a space force, something that many USAF units and publications have adopted in recognition of this new role.

Alternatively I feel that we could re-title it air and space force as supported by the name Air and Space Operations Center. http://www.northcom.mil/Newsroom/Fact-Sheets/Article-View/Article/564002/air-forces-northern/

If it is preferable to keep air force as a standalone in the title we could add space force below it, but I feel that it is important to ensure that it is recognized that both air and space are the responsibility of the USAF. Garuda28 (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like it -- but, that has little to do with whether it should be on Wikipedia. That being said, there seems to be no official sources calling the Air Force an aerospace force. Yes, there is the whitepaper you linked to, but that's just a white paper, which is just what a previous CSAF of the Air Force envisioned... and current leadership doesn't seem to be using that term at all. There is also no major mention of aerospace force on [1] based on a quick google search (unless I'm missing something major). I just don't think there's enough official backing to change this right now. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Understand what your saying. The white paper is an official source, since it was written while they were both (CSAF and SECAF) in office, thus making it an official policy statement, but I'm going to try to find some more up to date sources on that as well. Do you have a good way to reflect its significant space responsibilities in the type infobox? Update on that: here's an article on global security describing it as "The Air Force is moving into the 21st century as an expeditionary aerospace force"
(https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/aef-intro.htm), from Vison 2020 "We’ll provide an
environment that encourages all our people to achieve personal and professional excellence, taking pride in being part of the aerospace force that’s respected the world over." (http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4240529/FID521/pdfdocs/2020/afvision.pdf) (also used on the current AFROTC website https://www.afrotc.com/about/mission which indicates current official usage of the term) Garuda28 (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It's an official source of the vision of a previous administration. As far as I know, aerospace has not been adopted in any pertinent AFIs or documents. Also, in that second pdf you linked, it provides a link on the first page to [2] which is now a 404. A google search of "air force vision" leads you to [3], which does not mention aerospace anywhere. Searching for "goldfein aerospace" doesn't bring up any articles with him discussing it as well as searching for "goldfein vision 2020". So it seems this is no longer something the current Air Force administration is pursuing (at least, not at this time).
Finally, it is almost always covered that the Air Force does "Air, Space, and Cyberspace". I feel like if we change the wiki to aerospace, it should also have something to cover the cyber aspect of it. So should we have aerospace/cyberspace force? That looks even worse (although, I do admit, the look of it is strictly a subjective opinion).
All this being said, I'm not sure it even needs to be documented there. Right underneath, it states that the USAF role is "control of air, space, and cyberspace". Do we really need to have that information duplicated? In my opinion, unless the name of the US Air Force changes to US Aerospace Force, it should remain as Air force for the type. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You make some really good points. I'm on a phone right now, so the 404 could be a typo on my part. After looking around it seems that the proper term used by the USAF is "Air and space force", but since I'm on a phone right now I'll wait till tonight to list sources and make my argument (but your right about Aerospace Force being outdated. I reverted my edit pending the conclusion of this conversation and will ping you when I get an updated argument up. Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The 404 error was not the link you provided, but rather a link in that document to an Air Force webpage that is no longer active. It just doesn't seem like the Air Force is actively pursuing Vision 2020 anymore. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (E/C) I am in agreement with Bassmadrigal's post above. In addition, I believe mentioning space in the first sentence is giving undue weight. "Space Superiority" is mentioned later as the USAF's core function among other functions. --Finlayson (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
On the topic of space in the first sentence I dont believe it is undue weight, as the Air Force is considered (and as stated in citations) to be the primary space force for the US, so it's merely stating what both primary domains are. Space is also reviving a much higher emphasis from Air Force leadership. By the same logic Air shouldn't be mentioned since Air superiority is one of the core functions. Garuda28 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • My point is about the difference between main and secondary missions; the various missions don't have equal importance or equal priority in the budget. The sentence excludes other missions like nuclear deterrent that are not directly covered by air and space warfare as well. --Finlayson (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Understand what your saying. My response to that the main article is not for missions, but rather the primary domains that the Air Force is responsible for. Aerial warfare references in the intro paragraph more to the domain than any specific mission, which are focused more in on the core functions. Space rather is a domain, which just as many core functions (or missions) are executed through. Having it in the main paragraph acknowledges that the Air Force is both the primary aerial warfare and space warfare force in the U.S. Armed Forces, and provides context to those who do not know it has those responsibilities. To quote from AFDD 1-1 "Just as airpower grew from its initial use as an adjunct to surface operations, space and cyberspace have likewise grown from their original manifestations as supporting capabilities into war fighting arenas in their own right." (https://doctrine.af.mil/download.jsp?filename=V1-D21-Airpower.pdf). This is an acknowledgment by the Air Force that space is not a mission (however both space and air superiority are missions, and missions such as ISR are done from space), but rather a domain. To address a question that may come up on why not to mention cyber, it is because the Air Force (nor any other branch has been designated the primary cyber force, and thus none has the joint claim to the domain that the Air Force does to space.)Garuda28 (talk) 02:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
To address the original question at hand "Air and space force" is used by a number official documents and by high level defense officials, including:
The bottom line is that this is a commonly used term within the Air Force to describe itself, and even if you do not feel that it validates changing the type, it does indeed justify keeping aerial warfare and space warfare separate, since the Air Force acknowledges these differences in its own doctrine, documents, and mission statements. Garuda28 (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose under Active tab in infobox adding antecedent organization

Propose that under the current 18 September 1947 we add 1 August 1907 (first antecedent), with it hyperlinked to United States Air Force#Antecedents, the source being that the USAF derives a direct tradition and linage from these organizations, and though it considers its birthday to be on 18 September 1947, it also traces its direct heritage back to the Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps. The direct quote from the USAF website is "For over a century, the U.S. Air Force has defended this country in the air, space and cyberspace through the skill and the bravery of American Airmen." (https://www.airforce.com/mission/history), which is ample evidence that the USAF tradition as a single cohesive organization extends back to the Aeronautical Division.Garuda28 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Concur, with enthusiasm, for the proposed hyperlink. CobraDragoon (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Propose changing the main image from DAF Seal to Air Force Symbol

After seeing that the United States Navy page changed its main image from the DON seal to the emblem of the U.S. Navy I thought it might be a good idea to do that here as well. My reasoning is a) the DAF Seal belongs to the Department of the Air Force, not the United States Air Force, and while they are similar they are still different. and b) that the USAF Symbol is more representative of the USAF and often used instead of the DAF Seal on official Air Force pages and is more recognizable. For further reading: http://www.airman.af.mil/Portals/17/002%20All%20Products/003%20PACEsetters/Meaning_Air_Force_Symbol.pdf?ver=2016-03-30-001043-347 Garuda28 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify the Department of the Air Force Seal is not the emblem of the United States Air Force, but rather its parent organization, the Department of the Air Force. For similar conversations on this topic please see: Talk:United States Army#Propose changing the main image from DA Seal to Army Symbol for more rational.Garuda28 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Disagree - I think as the Seal should prevail over the logo. The Dept. of the Air Force / USAF is one in the same. FOX 52 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
If it were the Seal of just the United States Air Force I would agree with you - but it is not. The Department of the Air Force and USAF are not one and the same, but rather distinct entity. Just as the Department of the Navy is distinct from the Marine Corps (and Navy), so too is the Department of the Air Force different from the USAF. If you look at 10 U.S. Code Part I they are two distinct sections as the are not the same organization. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-D/part-I). Moreover in JP 01 a military department is defined as "One of the departments within the Department of Defense created by the National Security Act of 1947, which are the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force." This is distinctly different from a service branch. Garuda28 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree here. There is another article for DAF at United States Department of the Air Force where the seal is the main image. -Finlayson (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
So do I. They are two distinct organizations. Given the consensus here I will revert back to the image of the USAF Symbol. Since this is the current precedence lets keep this discussion open, but for now the status quo should stand given this discussion here and the same discussion at Talk:United States Army#Propose changing the main image from DA Seal to Army Symbol. Moreover "The Air Force Symbol is the official symbol of the United States Air Force."(http://www.trademark.af.mil/About-Us/The-Air-Force-Symbol/).Garuda28 (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

President vs. Commander-in-Chief

Talk:United States Armed Forces#Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-ChiefGaruda28 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Air Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:US Air Force navbox which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

good article nominee

Why is this article a good article nominee? This not a Stable article given its issue with PROMO and jargon. Also, it is highly primary sourced, which is not a preferred source. Thus it pushes it into original research (if not necessarily how it is described in WP's definition). Spshu (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments

To editors Garuda28, L293D and Spshu: pinging all parties involved here. I have not done a thorough read of the article, and I am not taking sides on the arguments. I am not an expert on military articles, but have certainly been through a couple of reviews. Here are some observations:

  • You do need to sort this out on the article's talk page.
  • Garuda28 and L293D, I believe the two of you are acting in good faith to nominate this for a Good Article, but it isn't anywhere near ready for that kind of review. Please consider removing he GA nomination and instead nominating it for a second Peer Review. 2006 Peer review had a lot of issues. Here are some current issues I see:
  • The lead should not have sourcing/citations. The lead is supposed to be a recap of what is already in the article, which is there the sourcing should be.
  • All sections should be sourced. There are, as I write this, 111 citations in the article, but entire sections are not sourced.
  • Some sections have only one source at the end of the paragraph, and some paragraphs with no sourcing. Please consider double checking the sourcing on those.
  • Formatting counts. Paragraphs, commas, date style consistency, all things.
  • Image captions. The RQ-170 Sentinel is not a photograph of the aircraft itself, but the caption makes it read as if it is.

Other more experienced Military History reviewers should probably comment here. — Maile (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It is already being discussed at #Mission, vision, and functions thus why I called foul on the Good Article nomination. Spshu (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing references from the lead.Tirronan (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Completed.Tirronan (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, a few items here: 1: OR is not involved here. Once a national organization puts out publications for mass consumption That is a source, not research. If you find yourself in the National Archives and are researching original documents you have crossed into OR. I did that when working on the M 39 cannon and ended up having to pull every bit of it out. That being said, too much reliance on Air Force sources can lead to questions of the validity of the citations. Mix it up with 3rd party reviews.

2: Having been the in the US Navy rest assured that I know exactly how much we love our acronyms. Make sure they are explained once. ISR may be easier to list but boiled down its recon and intel period. I know what a synthetic aperture radar is but will your reader? We roll them off the tongue and keyboard but it won't read well if you don't explain.

3: If you make a statement of fact YOU HAVE TO CITE IT EVERY TIME. And no you don't need 7 citations. Opinions are just that, we all have them and they all stink. If you can't cite a reliable source it is an opinion and doesn't have a place in the article. You can not expect to get a GA rating with entire sections uncited in the article.

4: As for blanking entire sections, it will always be seen as disruptive editing in almost all cases. I don't know what everyone's idea of fun is but explaining myself to an admin review is not one of mine. Try listing alternatives to the existing section, yes it will require work and citation, and work for a consensus. Usually, this ends up with a better article.Tirronan (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, looking at the mission section particularly, I think it is reasonable to keep but ... it should be greatly parsed and summarised (summary style). Aviod all of the jargon and acronyms and provide more links. In short, this reads like a military manual and not an "accessible" (ie readable) encyclopedic article. regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I’ll make sure I start a massive cleanup on it tomorrow, and will ensured it is sourced. Garuda28 (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Mission, vision, and functions

This section amounted to Air Force PR and WP is not a means of promotion (WP:PROMO). It is all primary sourced. Thus seems like a military manual thus not really informative to the average reader. All of this could amount to one paragraph or even a sentence. thus I removed this section and it should stay removed. Spshu (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Spshu Disagree. This does not fit within PROMO, but rather deals with doctrine and U.S. Code, which is highly informative and fully justified on a page - especially since there is no bias. Being primary sourced is no justification for blanking. It was written from a neutral point of view, and this not PROMO. Per BRD, please revert your edit until this discussion is complicate. It is not bold,revert, revert the revert, discus. Garuda28 (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does as it seem to be for recruit: "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise."
Second, the source is US Air Force website and the US Code. This sentence in the lead "Along with conducting independent air and space operations, the U.S. Air Force provides air support for land and naval forces[22][3] and aids in the recovery of troops in the field." is more informative then this section. It a lot of meaning less jargon. We are not here to be a manual for military forces, which you suggest in covering "doctrine".
I know BRD. Except you disregard that I have I legit reason to remove. Most abuse BRD, revert then fail to come to talk page . I have that now with one editor now (we are up to three articles were he reverted and has refused to discuss several months or more). Spshu (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll go point by point in addressing this:
a. BRD does not become invalid if one party thinks they have a legitimate reason to edit. It is a means of achieving consensus.
b. The sources are not invalid because they are primary sources. Af.mil and USC are both valid sources
c. Military doctrine does not fit within PROMO, as it is not designed to recruit. If it were something more along the lines of how great or superior the USAF was, you would have a point - but it does not and so doctrine is a descriptive means of going more in depth on how the USAF operates. Jargon can be slimmed down, but it is not PROMO. Garuda28 (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
a. Yes it does. Discussion is a means to consensus not BRD. WP:ONLYREVERT: "revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration". No reason still give on your side except "you like" which is an argument to avoid (WP:ILIKEIT). Any was it has been revert again by some else.
b. They are not the preferred sources "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources" not primary sources.
c. Did you even read the subsection headers?
  • "Air and space superiority" Thought this wasn't in the section and here it is as a header.
  • "Global integrated ISR" absolute meaningless to some random person
  • "Rapid global mobility" Rapid and mobility indicating superiority
  • "Global strike"
  • "Command and control" administration is a mission, vision or function? It is inherent in organizations and a function, but really need to make their "hallmark"
Mission of military organization are straight forward "fight to win" in this case a particular field of the military (air). Going on and on about some thing doesn't add much if any thing. Spshu (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect its more complex than that. These are the hallmarks of how the Air Force defines itself. A more simplistic view is, while accurate to a certain extent, limited. Either way the use of theses sources are accurate as we are reporting what is plainly out there - not forming an opinion (which is what third party sources are for). Either way, you have not demonstrated that this is PROMO, your reason for removal or blanking just because you do not like it. It adds strong value to the article.


On primary sources "specific facts may be taken from primary sources". This is a perfectly acceptable usage of a primary source - for a very specific piece of information with no opinion or bias. This guideline is in place to stop orignial research. If there is no OR, there is no real issue.


Section headers and material from the sections are all derived from the source and related AF doctrine. I see no issue at all with detailing the core mission of the Air Force, as stated and defined by them, on a page about the US Air Force.Garuda28 (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I removed it because it added no value to the article. Yes, I have demonstrated PROMO. You are just ignoring that because you like it. At least by this shows you are ignoring:
  • Garuda28: "If it were something more along the lines of how great or superior the USAF was, you would have a point"
  • Point:] "'Air and space 'superiority' Thought this wasn't in the section and here it is as a header."
Well, exactly verbatim what you claimed was not there! Amongst other items that you have glossed over with "With respect its more complex than that." No you show no respect. You even promote their placement with PR wording " These are the hallmarks of how the Air Force defines itself." And no wonder that you want it swept up under the rug as you have nominated for "good article" status. There is issue with using primary sources as they are subject to removal with out review. You now need non-primary sources. Per WP:PSTS: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." You have this whole section base on 1 primary source and most of the article is based. The article is also citing what ever document "JP 1-02" is. Spshu (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not promoting the Air Force, it is stating their mission, as described by them, in a NPOV format. There is no need for secondary sources, as primary sources suffice. An most of the article is based on secondary sources, no primary ones. Your are comparing apples and oranges. Looks like someone tried to cite in text (improperly) Joint Publication 1-02. That is an error that can be quickly cleaned up, and hardly calls for section blanking. As for Air and Space Superiority, that is a technical term and one of the Air Force core missions (which is what the missions section is about). Garuda28 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
It is duplicate information as I point out before and goes on and on getting correctly in trouble with WP:PSTS. Spshu (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
With respect I disagree with you on this. Perhaps others will come along and give their takes on this, but I see no OR issues or promotional issues. Garuda28 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Spshu, we are here as part of the Milhist group to work on this issue. We are not here to take sides or start edit wars. Quoting a huge organization's mission statement is not out of bounds as long as it doesn't come with praise from the editor or quoting praise by another in the article. There is not an air force of any nation that would not attempt to gain air supremacy. That is their job as it were. Gaining information on potential or actual enemies is another function of air forces worldwide. If I were to write an article on AT&T (one already exists btw) then I would include the corporation's mission statement and how they were attempting to fulfill it. In my view this is not out of line. If I was to say however that AT&T was a great company and these sources prove it... now that is another matter entirely. In any case, blanking sections is not seen as appropriate editing on Wikipedia. If there is another way to write the section then do so and put it in for discussion and consensus. It is the way things work around here.Tirronan (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't say that quoting is out of bounds, but they are suppose to limited. So now that you mention it. But this is duplicate information as previously pointed out. Garuda28 stated that no such mention of superiority existed and it was there (it was "Air and space superiority" not "Achieve air & space superiority"). If that is true for all air forces then no need to repeat here and it was already link to from . Mission statement are PR, some times internal PR, so sections upon sections and quote after quote is out of line. A brief mission statement was in the lead. McDonald's is in the real estate business not fast food, but no one things nor cares Blanking section for a good reason is acceptable as I have already quoted revert guidelines that should have stop him from reverting. Spshu (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's PROMO at all. Quite happy with the way Garuda28 has included the information. Lyndaship (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Mission section

The section on mission was recently blanked by Spshu, and rather than engage in an edit war I would like to discus the change. First I would ask Spshu to revert their change to conform with Bold, Revert, Discus. The section is well sourced and full of useful information.Garuda28 (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Garuda28, Discussion started above. You ignored the edit summary and the discussion above. You started the edit war since you disregarded the edit summary, which has a reasonable reason for its removal. Spshu (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
DUPLICATE DISCUSSION - CLOSED

Article size

This page is already a hefty 130,000 bytes, so I was curious about some of the content, such as; why is there a list of "conflicts" in the "history" section, when there is already a list of "engagements" in the infobox? And why is there a huge list of "aircraft inventory" here the main article, when there is already a dedicated article for that (and I believe several other pages that list US military aircraft for one reason or another as well). Perhaps some trimming is in order? I did this on the US Navy page a few years and it was an improvement that still stands. But I dont contribute to Air Force content nearly as much as I do Navy so I figured I'd ask here about this. Thoughts? - theWOLFchild 01:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the aircraft section could be merged into the current U.S. military aircraft article. I’ll also work on redoing the history section to mirror that of the other services. It’s in need of a clean up. Garuda28 (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Ha. Not surprised you're the one to respond and are willing to take on fixing the page. Good on you bro. - theWOLFchild 03:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Space Force. Again.

Why under the parameter "type=" in the infobox, does it say Air & Space Force? The "Space Force" had yet to be established and the USAF at present has a sub-ordinate Space Command. Even the page that "Space Force" links to confirms this. "Space Force" should be removed until, and if, it is actually established. - theWOLFchild 03:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Here’s the link to the talk. This one actually has nothing to do with the space force proposal, but rather the Air Force describing itself as an “air and space force” - basically the Air Force sees itself as not just being a traditional air force, but also functioning as a space force as well as a whole. It’s a little cluttered since I changed my opinion part way though. Basically “aerospace force” got shot down, for justified reasons, and there was no opinion to air and space force, so I WP:BOLD and added it. Since it stood I assumed everyone was alright with it. This was also back in 2017 before the space force thing blew up. The substance for sources is in my last comment. We can relitigate if you’d like? Talk:United States Air Force/Archive 3#Change role from Air force to Aerospace force?Garuda28 (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3

Yes, but with the recent announcement, that has lead to confusion and the link does not really help either. For the Navy, there was debate over whether the type should be "blue water", "blue & green" "blue, green & brown" or "multi-water". We settled on simply "Navy" as a type. Same should go for here, primarily, the type is "Air Force". Do we really need to list subordinates commands also? How about cramming "Cyber Force" in there as well? If and when the actual Space Force is established as a 6th and separate branch... what then? I say fix this now. Just go with "Air Force" as the type, because that's what it is overall. - theWOLFchild
So with regard to "air and space force" I personally think that it should be left that way since that is how the USAF describes themselves, and is very well sourced. It is a more descriptive term as well.
The difference I see from that navy examples that you used is that those are all different forms of a navy, whereas air force and space force are, in theory, two distinct branches, where the USAF sees themselves as performing the functions of both, and they describe themselves as both, as seen in numerous citations. It is in this way that they are unique from pretty much all other air forces (save the Russian Aerospace Forces) in this aspect that it is really the functions of two branches within one.
For why not adding "cyber force", I see it as the USAF (or secondary sources) not describing itself as a cyber force. For subordinate commands are you talking about in relation to the air and space force or the previous post on article organization? Since User:BilCat made some edits on this today I figured they might want to chime in as well. Garuda28 (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's a secondary source that illustrates the point I'm trying to make (May 2018): "The Air Force's evolution into a de facto air and space force occurred...", "America already has a space force. It's called the Air Force. The flying branch has, over a period of decades, gradually assumed control of most of the military's orbital operations. "The Air Force is the main space force," Brian Laslie, an historian and author of The Air Force Way of War, told The Daily Beast..." (https://www.thedailybeast.com/america-already-has-a-space-force) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garuda28 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah... fair enough. I get that right now the Air Force considers Space it's domain. But with this announcement of a "Space Force", and until that either happens or it just dies off in some committee, I think we're going to see continued additions to this, and possibly other pages, about it, and any current mention of a (albeit different) "Space Force" just leads to more confusion. But I'll go with what whatever you guys decide. - theWOLFchild 03:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Fighter obsessed

In 2017, Mike Rogers (Alabama politician) cited an Air Force obsession with jet fighters at the expense of Space as the primary reason to create a United States Space force.[1]

References

  1. ^ Roeder, Tom (25 June 2018). "Trump's proposed new space force must fly over many hurdles". www.stripes.com. The Gazette (Colorado Springs, Colo.). Retrieved 25 June 2018.

This is a well referenced comment by one of the major persons behind the Space Force explaining that the culture of the USAF is to blame.

What's not to like? Hcobb (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it’s an issue of placement and opinion. Perfectly valid on rationale for a space corps, but since it is the opinion of one individual, I think it is inappropriate for a section on the culture of the Air Force. Perhaps a more general statement, sourced from a more neutral report rather than individual opinion (which has a strong political bias) would be better? Garuda28 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Concur with Garuda on this. It's simply Rogers' opinion that the USAF is "fighter-obsessed", true or not. In addition, that's not about "culture" as such sections describe. - BilCat (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Tension between the space mission and the fighter mafia has been noted for a long time. Just let me know how many reliable sources you need.

Page 53/81 "Also, the mean rated officer response to question 9, on changing the name of the Air Force to the Air and Space Force, was the largest reported degree of disagreement seen. Rated officers are in the central position within USAF culture today, and they are acting to retain that position by pushing out any new core missions or fringe groups."

Page 138/154 "The Air Force should not have passively looked for a mission as it has in the gelded age, it should have taken Power’s advice and declared that classic Air Force missions could better serve American defense in space and demanded technology that would make those missions a reality."

Page 487 "It was not long before ardent military space advocates, who perceived that the 'fighter mafia' still maintained a too tight grip ..."

Added quotes to my list. Hcobb (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you please pull out some specific quotes or page numbers to discus? I’d be happy to, but don’t have the time to read through hundreds of pages. Furthermore, I think it would be important to keep talk of conflicting culture to the past decade and a half, since culture does change. Garuda28 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
My survey seems to indicate that the tech nerds are just on the cusp of overthrowing the fifty year reign of the fighter jocks over the USAF as seen in the debates over UAV vs RPA, Space Force, Cyber Command, etc., but I'd need a reliable source to make that claim. Hcobb (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your personal opinion on this, but I want to ensure that what we add is unbiased as possible. With regard to USAF Culture and Cohesion, I am inclined to believe that this source is outdated (1998), and thus should not be taken into account for this. The same goes for the book To Reach the High Frontier, as it was published in 2002. With regard to Tough Tommy's Space Force I see nothing about current air force space vs. air personnel culture. Most sources I have found, such as http://spacenews.com/air-force-tries-to-create-a-warrior-culture-in-space/, speak more to an attempt to change the culture within AFSPC, rather than a major pilots vs. everyone else mentality - at least no recent sources that appear to be not attempting to claim such a divide for political gains. Either way, this culture section should only be reserved for unbiased and well researched reports, otherwise everyone making a claim that the air force is anti-space (missiles, cyber, etc.) could be included. Garuda28 (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There are unlimited references on this common understanding. https://thediplomat.com/2018/07/whats-at-stake-for-the-us-air-force-with-an-independent-space-force/ On the one hand, there are those who argue that despite being within the Air Force, the Space Command is adept at developing a space-based culture, despite mostly consisting of Air Force Pilots and personnel trained in an air-domain focused culture with its organizational rotations and promotion requirements. Hcobb (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There is already a statement that states that the culture of the Air Force is primarily pilot driven. That’s what your new source states as well. Either way, mention of it as a justification for a space force goes outside the scope of the culture section (and since it is just a proposal without any concret implementation steps, this page). I do, however, feel it is appropriate to state that space has developed a distinctive sub-culture within the Air Force. Garuda28 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Dont forget about the Navy, Marines and the Army... they've all got their hats in the 'space ring' as well. - theWOLFchild 03:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Refs

@N2e: - there is no need to insist on refs for content that is linked to an article. Both the military operations noted in the diff have their own articles that confirm USAF participation. There are numerous other linked items on this page, are you going to insist they all have refs? Are you going to do that for every article on the project? (cc Garuda28) - theWOLFchild 04:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia verifiability policy is rather clear on things that Wikipedia cannot be used to source claims and that any statement that is challenged should have a source provided.
In the extant case, I requested a source on two claims that were clearly not supported by the 2005 source, and could not have been, since the statements were about stuff that allegedly happened in 2010-2011. Another editor added sources. Seems like things worked well. The article is, now, improved. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Roundel history gif

I've noticed that the last two iterations of the USAF roundel have different shades blue for the circle behind the star and the outline. These should be the same shade (the darker one used for the outline, if I'm not mistaken). Garyvp71 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Commisioned Officers

The rank insignia for General of the Air Force has never included the US coat of arms. Unlike the insignia for General of the Army, GAF has always been simply a circle of 5 stars, on the shoulder straps as well as other displays. This mistake is repeated throughout Wikipedia entries. Venqax (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Civilian Service

The USAF includes approximately 142,000 civilian employees, who serve as aircraft mechanics, engineers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, and child care specialist, among other positions.[1][2] There are more than 600 civilian professions in the USAF. [3] The Air Force's Personnel Center, specifically the Air Force Civilian Service, is responsible for the hiring and personnel management of all civilian Airmen. [4] Those in civilian service are considered U.S. Federal Government employees, and no military commitment is required.[5]

Nolebelle (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)nolebelle

Can you please help me understand the point you are trying to make?Garuda28 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
The fact that 25-30 percent of the total US Air Force are civilian employees. These individuals are working on significant engineering and science projects that affect the US and support the mission of the USAF. I wanted to shed light on the fact that a civilian service existed alongside the military service. Hopefully, the Air Force Civilian Service contributions to society could be highlighted, similar to other, smaller divisions of the Air Force, such as the Reserves or National Guard. (I was working my way up to more substantial edits. Just wanted to try out a small edit at first.) Thanks, Nolebelle (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)nolebelle
Civilians employees are referenced and noted in the article, however given that this article is about the military service, I'm not sure that it warrants any significant expansion. However, you are more than welcome to make any edits that you feel may improve the article! Garuda28 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/2017/03/12/air-force-civilians-are-critically-important-to-our-success/
  2. ^ https://www.afpc.af.mil/Portals/70/documents/03_ABOUT/Civ%20Demographics%20Mar%2019.pdf?ver=2019-04-18-104044-870
  3. ^ https://www.afciviliancareers.com/about.php
  4. ^ https://www.afpc.af.mil/
  5. ^ https://www.afciviliancareers.com/careers.php#benefits

Vandalism

On the page for Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, in the info box, under introduction, hovering over the link to USAF brings up a preview of this page. The following excerpt is from the preview: "BREAKING NEWS - reporter john bishop says alien has been spotted near the 63 entrance gate and has been". I am not sure how to fix this, the text does not appear on the actual page for the United States Air Force. --The Elysian Vector Fields (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Notification of MOS debate at United States Space Force

Please be advised there is currently a debate on WP:MOS at Talk:United States Space Force#MOS that could affect the article pages of other U.S. Armed Forces branch pages.Garuda28 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead Image

While the current lead image (Service Mark) is heraldically and historically pleasing, it is also important for the lead image to be the most common representation of an organization - in this case the Air Force symbol. From MOS:LEADIMAGE "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" and "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see."

The current image, the Air Force's service mark, is not commonly used within the Air Force or to represent the Air Force, outside of memorabilia, Veterans merchandise, or when . The Air Force Symbol (adopted in 2000), on the other hand, is not just used in all Air Force marketing, but also used extensively within and outside the service to represent it (making it more than just a marketing tool). For instance, the Air Force symbol is used on nearly all Air Force websites, such as af.mil and all of its bases' websites(not geared towards recruiting like airforce.com). It is also used at the front gates of all Air Force bases [4] and is used on its uniforms, such as the lightwight blue jacket. The Air Force service mark, on the other hand, appears to have fallen into disuse since the adoption of the Air Force symbol in 2000, which has, for most purposes, entirely replaced it (with the Air Force symbol being equivalent to modern-day Hap Arnold Wings in its use).

In summary, the Air Force symbol is more recognizable to the average user, in greater widespread use (both within and outside the Air Force), and is not just used as a marketing logo. It is the best fit for the lead image as it is the primary emblem of the Air Force, even though some of us, myself included, do hold a personal preference for more traditional iconography. Garuda28 (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:@Garuda28:, I'm not saying I'm for or against this change as of yet, I'm wondering if you know about the usage, or lack there of, regarding the other branches and their marks? If this change is made on this page, it could affect the other 5 service pages, perhaps also the Armed Forces page. In fact, with that in mimd, this discussion may need a wider audience. (jmho) - wolf 21:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Core Missions

In the Core Missions section, it states that the Air Force has five core missions. However, it then lists six:

  • air superiority
  • global integrated intelligence
  • surveillance and reconnaissance
  • rapid global mobility
  • global strike
  • command and control

Is one of these not a core mission or is the given number wrong? -- KomradeKalashnikov (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

There are only five in the list, but it's poorly formatted, as "global integrated intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance" are one thing, as seen in the sections that follow. BilCat (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Air_Force/Archive_3&oldid=1208676675"