Are they wearing it as a skill tab, or as part of their unit patch? Not that it makes it any better, not sure Airborne tab is authorized w/Air Force unit patches.
Drone pilots to get medals?
- Thread starter Brill
- Start date
Are they wearing it as a skill tab, or as part of their unit patch? Not that it makes it any better, not sure Airborne tab is authorized w/Air Force unit patches.
Skill tab. One of them has a Ranger tab above his Airborne tab. All of the rest have just the Airborne tab at the top of the HUGE, empty swatch of pile tape which covers one's upper arms
820th Sec Force Group has at least one Squadron on jump status, so that squadron may be in-theater now. I still think the Abn Tab thing is ghey if they are doing it. Send a letter to the ACC Commander asking why cops are the only ones gettig to wear a tab
The January 31, 2012 AFECD disclosed only a General 44 is required for classification into CCT. The new AFECD comes out sometime in August.
If there is a change to a dual aptitude area requirement it would have to be a result of an interim message change provided to the Air Force Recruiting Service. A July 31st change certainly indicates an interim message change was put out.
Such changes typically are not disseminated down and out to the CCT worker be population as such changes don't affect them as the pipeline and training standards are not influenced to be changed by ASVAB test score requirement changes.
An Air Force unit having a parachutist capability does not result in the unit being a designate airborne force. If they be Army airborne as the tab indicates to comply with Army heraldry these Air Force Silly Folks (SF) would be approved and authorized maroon beret with airborne or Special Forces Flash.
As the 820th has both female and male parachutists assigned and the unit has never made an operational airborne assault and never will the parachute quals is nothing but a morale incentive to get people to want an 82oth duty assignment.
Post a few pictures of the fools wearing the airborne tabs.
If there is a change to a dual aptitude area requirement it would have to be a result of an interim message change provided to the Air Force Recruiting Service. A July 31st change certainly indicates an interim message change was put out.
Such changes typically are not disseminated down and out to the CCT worker be population as such changes don't affect them as the pipeline and training standards are not influenced to be changed by ASVAB test score requirement changes.
An Air Force unit having a parachutist capability does not result in the unit being a designate airborne force. If they be Army airborne as the tab indicates to comply with Army heraldry these Air Force Silly Folks (SF) would be approved and authorized maroon beret with airborne or Special Forces Flash.
As the 820th has both female and male parachutists assigned and the unit has never made an operational airborne assault and never will the parachute quals is nothing but a morale incentive to get people to want an 82oth duty assignment.
Post a few pictures of the fools wearing the airborne tabs.
At least they're not My Little Pony tabs...
AdVictoriam
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2
Restored by Freefalling.
American SOF is renowned both for how well they fight and for how well they think. In the spirit of the latter, I'd recommend intellectually engaging full articles in military journals rather than emotionally engaging out-of-context snippets from pop media. (Incidentally, many of the arguments raised here I've addressed in the articles themselves.) Accordingly, here's the full articles.
Article - http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/May-Jun-2012/V-Blair.pdf
Rebuttals - http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/Jul-Aug-2012/RR-Senn.pdf
Backstory (Small Wars Journal) - https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=120526623337
Discussions of deficiencies in my intellect, experience or character are equal parts uninteresting and irrelevant to the argument at hand, and I'll save my time and yours by not engaging them. However, understanding how changes in technology can bring about victory in the wars we're in is crucially important. The point of the article isn't 'chest-candy' but ensuring that the LTs and Airmen employing fires danger close to friendly troops, just like manned aircraft doing CAS, view their responsibilities as life and death serious as they ought to.
The strategic reality is that RPAs have been dismembering our enemies worldwide, and their only effective counter thus far has been Information Operations - labeling RPAs as 'cowardly' makes their use more strategically costly. So, unfortunately, much of the chest-beating about who's braver and why ends up echoing Al-Qaeda talking points. This should be a very uncomfortable position to be in.
Bottom line - the only thing is to win as soon as possible at absolute minimum cost in blood and treasure, without forgetting who we are in the process. RPAs are a large part of that presently, and will save more friendly lives and take more enemy lives as we sort out RPA culture. 'What combat means in an age of sensors and BVR weapons' is an important question toward that end. If this is a discussion you'd like to engage, I'd recommend Lt Col Grossman's On Combat and On Killing, and if still interested feel free to contact me directly.
V/r
Blair.
American SOF is renowned both for how well they fight and for how well they think. In the spirit of the latter, I'd recommend intellectually engaging full articles in military journals rather than emotionally engaging out-of-context snippets from pop media. (Incidentally, many of the arguments raised here I've addressed in the articles themselves.) Accordingly, here's the full articles.
Article - http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/May-Jun-2012/V-Blair.pdf
Rebuttals - http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/Jul-Aug-2012/RR-Senn.pdf
Backstory (Small Wars Journal) - https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=120526623337
Discussions of deficiencies in my intellect, experience or character are equal parts uninteresting and irrelevant to the argument at hand, and I'll save my time and yours by not engaging them. However, understanding how changes in technology can bring about victory in the wars we're in is crucially important. The point of the article isn't 'chest-candy' but ensuring that the LTs and Airmen employing fires danger close to friendly troops, just like manned aircraft doing CAS, view their responsibilities as life and death serious as they ought to.
The strategic reality is that RPAs have been dismembering our enemies worldwide, and their only effective counter thus far has been Information Operations - labeling RPAs as 'cowardly' makes their use more strategically costly. So, unfortunately, much of the chest-beating about who's braver and why ends up echoing Al-Qaeda talking points. This should be a very uncomfortable position to be in.
Bottom line - the only thing is to win as soon as possible at absolute minimum cost in blood and treasure, without forgetting who we are in the process. RPAs are a large part of that presently, and will save more friendly lives and take more enemy lives as we sort out RPA culture. 'What combat means in an age of sensors and BVR weapons' is an important question toward that end. If this is a discussion you'd like to engage, I'd recommend Lt Col Grossman's On Combat and On Killing, and if still interested feel free to contact me directly.
V/r
Blair.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
Whichever mod deleted that epic post robbed me of a scoff'ortunity.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,186
In the Army, the airborne tab is considered part of the unit patch. Does the AF wear it differently?
AdVictoriam
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 2
Copy all. Intro post: Author of referenced article in thread. 3rd SOS MQ-1, AC-130 pilot.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Maj (or is it Capt.? The AF Global lists you as the latter) Blair,
In the interest of fairness I've restored your original post but banned your account. The staff will not entertain any thoughts of removing your posts or altering your profile.
Your repeated messages to the staff are rather laughable to be honest. You are a pilot, qualified in multiple airframes, with a Bachelor's and probably a Master's degree (I have not read any bio of yours), so you clearly aren't a dummy. What is disconcerting for us is your utter lack of situational awareness, particularly in light of the fact that you are an experienced pilot. Let's review: Your profile was sparse and almost resulted in us rejecting your account, you ignored the user agreement when you signed up, failed to read any of the FAQ's, and instead dove headfirst into this thread, defending your position. When told by a staff member to post an Intro you couldn't even do that properly...but we're not done.
Now you send several messages to the staff asking for your account to be deleted because of OPSEC concerns. If you had those concerns then why register in the first place? They are serious enough in your eyes to warrant the deletion of your account and yet you somehow failed to see any content on the board besides this thread? Sir, I hope your SA is better in the air than it is here on the ground.
See, had you bothered to do any research before rushing in to defend your position, you'd know that this board contains a number of intelligence professionals, many still serving, on top of a robust user base of very experienced SOF professionals. Door kickers, the guys you support, "boots on the ground," and you waltz in here and insult them like this? I wonder how many of them now associate Preds and AC-130's with you and your behavior. These users have no hesitation about reporting OPSEC violations. These users with active TS clearances have somehow to the last man and woman failed to see "OPSEC violations" that grabbed you with such intensity as to call for the deletion of your account?
Situational awareness fail.
Your actions make you out to be offended that anyone would disagree with you or tell you what to do so your only course of action was to throw the OPSEC flag to justify your departure.
We see through it. Have the best day ever.
In the interest of fairness I've restored your original post but banned your account. The staff will not entertain any thoughts of removing your posts or altering your profile.
Your repeated messages to the staff are rather laughable to be honest. You are a pilot, qualified in multiple airframes, with a Bachelor's and probably a Master's degree (I have not read any bio of yours), so you clearly aren't a dummy. What is disconcerting for us is your utter lack of situational awareness, particularly in light of the fact that you are an experienced pilot. Let's review: Your profile was sparse and almost resulted in us rejecting your account, you ignored the user agreement when you signed up, failed to read any of the FAQ's, and instead dove headfirst into this thread, defending your position. When told by a staff member to post an Intro you couldn't even do that properly...but we're not done.
Now you send several messages to the staff asking for your account to be deleted because of OPSEC concerns. If you had those concerns then why register in the first place? They are serious enough in your eyes to warrant the deletion of your account and yet you somehow failed to see any content on the board besides this thread? Sir, I hope your SA is better in the air than it is here on the ground.
See, had you bothered to do any research before rushing in to defend your position, you'd know that this board contains a number of intelligence professionals, many still serving, on top of a robust user base of very experienced SOF professionals. Door kickers, the guys you support, "boots on the ground," and you waltz in here and insult them like this? I wonder how many of them now associate Preds and AC-130's with you and your behavior. These users have no hesitation about reporting OPSEC violations. These users with active TS clearances have somehow to the last man and woman failed to see "OPSEC violations" that grabbed you with such intensity as to call for the deletion of your account?
Situational awareness fail.
Your actions make you out to be offended that anyone would disagree with you or tell you what to do so your only course of action was to throw the OPSEC flag to justify your departure.
We see through it. Have the best day ever.
It's too bad, he really missed an opportunity here to try to influence the opinions of a broad cross-section of the SOF community. I know what it's like to try to defend an unpopular point of view, and would have welcomed the chance to obtain a deeper understanding of the author's rationale on this subject "straight from the horse's mouth," so to speak. That's not going to happen now.
Unfortunately, this former member's conduct on the site only served to reinforce the initial assessments that several site members had of both him and his position on this subject.
Unfortunately, this former member's conduct on the site only served to reinforce the initial assessments that several site members had of both him and his position on this subject.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,767
You've just been THUNDER STRUCK!
I think I found something that might solve this issue to everyone' satisfaction.
They aren't even trying now. I just saw two airmen with "Airborne" and "Air Assault" tabs made from Multicam fabric.
While I probably shouldn't, I'm emailing my Chief. The SFS airmen have surpassed "hooah" and crossed into the derp.
While I probably shouldn't, I'm emailing my Chief. The SFS airmen have surpassed "hooah" and crossed into the derp.
We're giving out tabs for that now? Cool, I always wanted tabs, but didn't want the hassle of going through Ranger School, the Q Course, or Sapper School. And I'm not a good enough shot for President's Hundred. But I am Air Assault and Airborne qualified. I wonder how multicam will look on my ASUs.
Similar threads
