Talk:United States Air Force

New Memorial

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

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

Unclear first paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staff Sergeants & Master Sergeant

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

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

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

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

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

Officer Pilots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone confirm?

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

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

You are correct

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

rv - NAF "Tyndall AFB"

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

[First Air Force History] [Info on NAFs]

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

Mikeb 13:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Reorganise

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

• United States armed forces
• United States Department of Defense
• United States Army
• United States Navy
• United States Air Force
• United States Marine Corps
• United States Coast Guard

and maybe Joint Chiefs of Staff etc.

Air Staff

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

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

Restructure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broken redirects

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

They are:

• 3d Fighter Squadron → 3d Flying Training Squadron
• 7th Combat Training Squadron → 7th Fighter Squadron
• 10th Fighter Squadron → 10th Flight Test Squadron
• 13th Airlift Squadron → 13th Reconnaissance Squadron
• 17th Fighter Squadron → 17th Weapons Squadron
• 18th Special Operations Squadron → 18th Flight Test Squadron
• 20th Space Surveillence Squadron → 20th Space Control Squadron
• 31st Bomb Squadron → 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron
• 31st Special Operations Squadron → 31st Rescue Squadron
• 37th Rescue Squadron → 37th Helicopter Flight
• 39th Fighter Squadron → 39th Flying Training Squadron
• 39th Flight Test Squadron → 39th Flying Training Squadron
• 40th Fighter Squadron → 40th Flight Test Squadron
• 59th Fighter Squadron → 59th Test and Evaluation Squadron
• 72d Bomb Squadron → 72d Test and Evaluation Squadron
• 76th Fighter Squadron → 76th Space Control Squadron
• 77th Bomb Squadron → 77th Weapons Squadron
• 82d Fighter Squadron → 82d Aerial Targets Squadron
• 83d Fighter Squadron → 83d Fighter Weapons Squadron
• 85th Fighter Squadron → 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron
• 86th Fighter Squadron → 86th Fighter Weapons Squadron
• 325th Bomb Squadron → 325th Weapons Squadron
• 328th Bomb Squadron → 328th Weapons Squadron
• 337th Bomb Squadron → 337th Test and Evaluation Squadron
• 337th Fighter Squadron → 337th Flight Test Squadron
• 340th Bomb Squaddron → 340th Weapons Squadron
• 340th Bomb Squadron → 340th Weapons Squadron
• 353d Fighter Squadron → 353d Combat Training Squadron
• 417th Fighter Squadron → 417th Weapons Squadron
• 433d Fighter Squadron → 433d Weapons Squadron
• 452d Flying Training Squadron → 452d Flight Test Squadron
• 509th Air Refueling Squadron → 509th Weapons Squadron
• 535th Fighter Squadron → 535th Airlift Squadron
• 715th Bomb Squadron → 715th Weapons Squadron

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

Warrant officers

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

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

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

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

New Weapon

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

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

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

F-117 operational usage

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

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

Joining the USAF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UFO conspiracy and coverup accusations

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

I have removed the following text from the article - because

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

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

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

It is highly rumored that the Air Force has been involved in the many UFO cover-ups. Many lines of UFO supporters have accused the USAF of keeping information secret. Air Force personel have denied this and claim to have lost all interest in UFOs. Supporters of this conspiracy argue that the Air Force is keeping their discoveries hidden from the public in an effort to aviod mass hysteria or panic among the nation.

A seemingly high amount of evidence has been put foward to support this theory. On February 28, 1960, former CIA Director Vice Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter signed a statement that read,

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

In his detailed The UFO Book, Jerome Clark writes,

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

There are also major events support this proposition, some of which have accuired alot of publicity. The most famous recorded event was the Roswell UFO crash, in which the USAF itself issued a press release stating that a "flying saucer" had crashed in William "Mack" Brazel's ranch, situated near Roswell, New Mexico. Within an hour of the press release, the head of the Eighth Army Air Force in Fort Worth, Texas, Brigadier General Roger Ramey, began changing the story. Ramey stated that the object had been a weather balloon. Later on, United Press reported that Ramey would not let anyone see the debris or photograph it because a "security lid" had been placed.

When Brazel was later interviewed, he stated that the after the USAF let him see the debris, it "did not in any way resemble" what he had first seen. It seemed that the USAF switched the original evidence with a real balloon in an attempt to have everyone believe their story.

Another popular incident was the Kecksburg UFO crash, which occured in Kecksburg, Pennsylvania. A large, brilliant fireball was seen in the sky by thousands in at least six states and Canada on December 9, 1965. The press assumed that it had been a comet or meteor; the USAF quickly supported this. However, residents of the crash site reported seeing the object crash and emit an odd blue smoke. When local fire and police departments arrived at the scene, reports of writing resembling Egyptian hieroglyphics was engraved at the base of a metal acorn-shaped object about the size of a Volkswagen Beetle. When the military arrived at the area, they quickly ordered both civilians and emergency units out of the area. Witnesses further reported a flat-bed military truck entering the site and leaving with the acorn-shaped object covered in sheets. At the time, the military claimed they searched the woods and found nothing unusual.

There are also some official UFO investigation groups. The Majestic 12 is an alleged secret committee of high-level scientists, military leaders, and government officials, supposedly formed in 1947 at the direction of U.S. President Harry S. Truman. One intriguing place is Area 51, a remote tract of land in southern Nevada containing an airfield apparently used for the secret development and testing of new military aircraft. UFO conspiracy supporters theorize that here is where the USAF studies the debris from the many UFO crashes/sightings.

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

[[Category:UFOs|UFO related articles]]

Megapixie 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Hole in the history

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

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

Citation Needed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Blue Book

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

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

Notes and References -- PLEASE READ

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

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

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

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

'Knock It Off' etymology

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

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

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

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

Article expansion

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

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)

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)

USAF Roundel

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)

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

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)

Hmmm, what have we here?

"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)

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

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))

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)

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)

PT Uniforms

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)

External Links

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.

• http://www.af.mil/ Official USAF website
• http://www.airforce.com Official USAF Recruiting site
• http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/ USAF History Support Office
• http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/ Air Force Historical Research Agency
• http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/ National Museum of the United States Air Force
• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/afb.htm U.S. military air bases by GlobalSecurity.org
• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/ USAF organization and units by GlobalSecurity.org
• http://www.scramble.nl/usaf.htm USAF Order of Battle at Scramble
• http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1411636384 United States Air Force: History and Guide to Resources
• http://www.afforums.com Air Force Enlisted Forums
• http://www.afa.org/default.asp The Air Force Association (AFA)
• http://thefederalregister.com/b.p/agency/Air_Force_Department Air Force News in The Federal Register
• http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/postwwii/nsa47.htm Text of the Act that created the USAF

Is this article getting too big?

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

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)

Advantages of Enlisted?

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)

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)

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

It depends on rank, look here http://www.airforce.com/careers/paychart/index.php.Sir hugo 18:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Jamesino 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

DRUs

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)

ABU's

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"?

"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)

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)

All Battle Uniforms

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

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)

auxiliarists?

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)

Russian Planes?

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Top of article

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)

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

(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))

Conversation 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

Furthermore, check out letter from SECAF and CSAF which has two flags, representing IMO two organizations. -Mikedelsol 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Those two flags are are personal flags of those two positions/people. --Pmsyyz 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Conversation 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do itBQZip01 09:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me - thanks for suggesting this. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

USDAF vs USAF

• 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)

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)

Questions

• 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)

"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)

Organization and Hierarchy (T/D)

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)

Info boxes

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)

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)

How about consolidating all of the data into a single info box? Bburton 04:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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}}, 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)

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)

Clean Up

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)

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)

Shorten lead

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)

Suggestions for improvements

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)

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)

Core Values Section

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)

Break out uniform to a new article

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)

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)

• 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)

Likewise, I did not find any other articles on USAF uniforms apart from the ABU one. Greenshed 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Current inventory

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)

Possible vandalism

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

Linkspam? Or a light hearted view?

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)

Displaying Rank

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's how I recall seeing it, too. --ElKevbo 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Insignia section EXPLODING

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)

Concur. - BillCJ 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it already was.... (a sub-page, that is) - NDCompuGeek 04:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

F-117

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)

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)

The F-117 is still flying at Holloman Air Force Base, you can call and ask them. -- GoDawgs 06:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Just for info here is a 2004 list [2] - for the popular name for the T-43 is says None. MilborneOne (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

On the Dutch language Wiki

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)

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

Foreign aircraft

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)

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)

...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: [3] — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

AF Cyber Command

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)

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)

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

I need help

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