U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-10-2018, 06:25 PM
 
9,071 posts, read 7,553,073 times
Reputation: 12139

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hunterseat View Post
OP what's your military background?
Entered Navy in 1990. Arrived on the Iwo Jima LPH-2 in November after the steam leak that killed ten guys. Worked as an MM in the engine room. Went through Desert Storm and Bosnia on the Iwo. Went to USS LaSalle AGF-3 in 1993 after the Iwo decommissioned. Rode the LaSalle to Gaeta Italy where it became the 6th fleet flagship in 1994. Stayed there until 1996. Went to SIMA in Ingleside Texas, a former minesweeper base. A shoulder injury on the LaSalle caused me to begin failing the fitness test. Was forced out for failing the fitness test in 1998. Left the Navy as an MM2 or E-5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2018, 09:52 PM
 
10,606 posts, read 7,730,131 times
Reputation: 18820
Thank you for your service. And for the reply.
You couldn't get disability?
Anyway, carry on insulting the Marines. We're family. Leave the AF alone. Only other AF members can do that. Army's fair game for anyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
20,614 posts, read 20,816,968 times
Reputation: 32171
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton View Post
Because they are not the army. They produce AIR FORCE officers. The USMC is part of the Dept. of the Navy.
yes, this. the marines report to the navy and the navy assigns them their missions and then takes the effort to bring them where they need to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 11:23 AM
Status: "Tinsel, not just for decoration" (set 10 days ago)
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,577 posts, read 39,990,982 times
Reputation: 41232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
yes, this. the marines report to the navy and the navy assigns them their missions and then takes the effort to bring them where they need to be.
Or, as I used to remind my Marine friends:
My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2018, 08:13 PM
 
1,479 posts, read 2,205,571 times
Reputation: 1583
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
Itís a joke. Members of the branches always poke fun at other branches. Andrews Airforce Base is a great example of Airforce being a country club military.

https://thecoursesatandrews.com/
The irony of the golf course jokes directed at the Air Force is the nicest golf course in the entire DOD is on a Marine Corps base. Google Klipper course on MCBH.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2018, 08:58 AM
 
1,285 posts, read 2,593,976 times
Reputation: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncho_NM View Post
Because they are not U.S. Army...

The U.S Air Force Academy was established April 1, 1954, the culmination of an idea years in the making. Airpower leaders, long before the Air Force was a separate service, argued that they needed a school dedicated to war in the air, to train Airmen. After September 1947, when the Air Force was established as a separate service, this idea finally had the legitimacy of the new service behind it.

In 1948, the Air Force appointed a board, later named the Stearns-Eisenhower Board for its chairmen, to study existing military academies and the options for an Air Force academy. Their conclusions were strongly put: the Air Force needed its own school; they additionally recommended at least 40 percent of future officers be service academy graduates.

After Congress passed a bill establishing the Air Force Academy, the secretary of the Air Force appointed a commission to recommend a location. After traveling 21,000 miles and considering hundreds of sites, the commission recommended Colorado Springs as its first choice. The secretary agreed and the purchasing of the thousands of acres began. The state of Colorado contributed $1 million to the purchase of the land.

On July 11, 1955, the same year construction on the Academy began in Colorado Springs, the first class of 306 men was sworn-in at a temporary site, Lowry Air Force Base in Denver. Lieutenant Gen. Hubert R. Harmon, a key figure in the development of early plans for an Academy, was recalled from retirement by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to become the first Academy superintendent.

The rest is history...
Speaking of history, my mother and father met at Lowry, he had been an instructor there and was brought over to help with the curriculum for the new school and she was a journalist who was hired to work on the first newspaper for the Academy. I still have a copy of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2018, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
9,165 posts, read 5,009,172 times
Reputation: 7823
Well, look at this way.


West Point is part of the Department of the Army and, hence their budget.


Colorado Springs (right?) is part of the Department of the Air Force and, hence their budget.


Would you want to be paying for the education of someone else's officers?


Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
It’s a joke. Members of the branches always poke fun at other branches. Andrews Airforce Base is a great example of Airforce being a country club military.

https://thecoursesatandrews.com/

I suppose that depends on one's experiences.



I remember Andrews as a good place for space A flights out of the NAF (and a good place to lose it all if one said the wrong things in ear shot of Secretaries) and a wonderful working relationship with their MWD unit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2018, 08:40 AM
 
18,641 posts, read 10,219,592 times
Reputation: 18317
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant View Post
Consolidation of military space activities currently sorest, and secondary focuses, of ALL services was kind of the point.

The Air Force became a service because airpower became critical and the Army frankly didnít focus on it.

Space has become critical. I love me some Air Force, but they and the other services-frankly donít focus on space.
The Army didn't focus on it or even know how to use it. The operational problem is that the Army treated air power like a division asset instead of a Corps asset. They Army also didn't understand how to support air forces logistically.

The Army understands such things a bit better now. The move to understanding true joint operations during the 80s is responsible for much of that. Considering that most Air Force missions are actually in support of the Army, there might be room to discuss re-incorporating the Air Force back into an Army Air Corps

But what does "focus on space" really mean with regard to a separate military service?

Unless the plan is to abrogate current space treaties that restrict military activities in space, there can't really be a "Space Force" as a military service. It's going to have to be an "Aerospace Force" in which space forms a supporting part of that continuum, not an actual operational zone.

So it's going to be a Space Force without any combat operations that are solely space-centric, and silly to be a separate operational service rather than a corps of the Air Force as the services are currently organized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2018, 09:51 AM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
24,451 posts, read 39,563,348 times
Reputation: 28543
Why an Air Force Academy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2018, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Richmond, VA
2,664 posts, read 4,472,442 times
Reputation: 4282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
The Army didn't focus on it or even know how to use it. The operational problem is that the Army treated air power like a division asset instead of a Corps asset. They Army also didn't understand how to support air forces logistically.

The Army understands such things a bit better now. The move to understanding true joint operations during the 80s is responsible for much of that. Considering that most Air Force missions are actually in support of the Army, there might be room to discuss re-incorporating the Air Force back into an Army Air Corps

But what does "focus on space" really mean with regard to a separate military service?

Unless the plan is to abrogate current space treaties that restrict military activities in space, there can't really be a "Space Force" as a military service. It's going to have to be an "Aerospace Force" in which space forms a supporting part of that continuum, not an actual operational zone.

So it's going to be a Space Force without any combat operations that are solely space-centric, and silly to be a separate operational service rather than a corps of the Air Force as the services are currently organized.
There certainly can be a space force, even with existing treaties. Military activities do not necessarily mean kinetic activities. Space is a separate domain of warfare and current US doctrine clearly treats it as distinct from air.

The Air Force is focused on fighter pilots with butts in seats and, as a poor and less sexy relation, drones. I don’t see the kind of focus or resources on the critical space domain. Focus means adequate doctrine, training, operations, funding, and personnel systems. When you’re all about the next fighter, that is easy to get left behind as it relates to space-and generally is, to the point the other services felt the need to develop their own space capability. That wasn’t because the USAF was knocking it out of the park as it relates to space.

I think saying the ‘Army didn’t know how to use it’ (AirPower) is accurate, but saying AirPower was more naturally a corps asset and shouldn’t have been in division is an incomplete argument. How do you know that was the ‘right’ answer rather than ‘an’ answer? It may have changed with the focus on brigades (haven’t looked it up lately), but at one time when Divisions were the focus Artillery successfully existed as an asset at BOTH corps and division. That wasn’t necessarily right and every other model wrong-it was a reasonably effective choice. I submit Air at division rather than corps wasn’t absolutely wrong-it was a choice.

Last edited by GeorgiaTransplant; 12-27-2018 at 10:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top