Letters

Dress Code

I recently had the opportunity to meet with the Secretary of the Air Force, the honorable Frank Kendall  [“Letters: Fatigued” June/July, p. 5 ]. I briefly encountered his military assistant, a young Air Force officer dressed in Blues. He looked sharp and professional and at a glance at his ribbons and wings on his chest I had a good idea of his career.  

As we walked the decorated corridors of the Pentagon I never saw another Class A uniform.  Everyone was dressed in camouflage. To know who was Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps I would have had to know the camouflage patterns of the individual services. Even rank was difficult to observe in many cases, not to mention decorations.  I strongly believe that in a headquarters setting there is no need for that kind of attire.  Frankly, it looks unprofessional. 

Let’s face it, none of the staff officers or NCOs serving at a headquarters has a part-time job as fighter/bomber/transport pilot/navigator or loadmasters, which would require them to be on call and to wear such attire. Wearing OCPs or flight suits is fine for the aircrews and maintainers at our combat wings and squadrons. However, headquarters staff officers, nurses and doctors, unless flight surgeons, have no need to look professionally frumpy. 

Small things matter, the uniform we wear in public is part of our image and sends a message— something to think about—how we see ourselves and what inspires.

Col. Wolfgang W. E. Samuel,
USAF (Ret.)
Fairfax Station, Va.

After Cambodia

Picking up after the article [“Flying the Last Missions in Cambodia,” August, p. 50]: after Aug. 15, 1973, our squadron commander, Lt. Col. Howard “Howie” Pierson, was faced with many disgruntled aviators. Some were grounded because we had logged so many hours before peace broke out that we now exceeded peacetime restrictions. Our OV-10s were grounded for a nose-gear problem, and the fuel crunch of the ’70’s had started—cutting back the few hours we could get airborne.

Frustration reigned and tempers flared as we sat around staring at each other counting the days remaining on our ‘tour of duty’ because curtailments were not being approved!

Then, word came down one day for everyone to show up at the wing’s briefing room. After having armed guards at the door check our ID cards against a squadron roster, we entered the room.  Howie stood at the front next to a flip chart with a blank cover sheet.  Directing us to take a seat, he flipped that blank sheet to the back, exposing a map of the region around Saigon.  He then stated, “Gentlemen, we are going to be a part of history!” Needless to say, he had everyone’s attention.

Howie then informed us a Vietnamese Air Force major, named Hu Chi, was going to overthrow the corrupt government in Saigon and we Forward Air Controllers were going to support that effort. Pointing at the map, he told us the headquarters for this effort was based in the Cu Chi rubber plantation on the outskirts of Saigon. He noted the irony in this location as the VC (Viet Cong) had based many of their operations from there.

It was at this point he revealed the rest of the story, stating it was going to be a tough fight and we would likely suffer losses, but we would all look back with pride on this operation.  He concluded by saying that there would come a day when we could tell our grandchildren that we were a part of the “Hu Chi, Cu Chi Coup!”

The room went silent for a few seconds as everyone sat in stunned silence and then people started throwing hats, checklists, pencils, etc., at Howie.  He just stood there laughing and said, “Let’s go to the club!”

Col. Dale C. Hill, 
USAF (Ret.) 
Canton, Ga.

and

Capt. Stephen E. Dean, 
USAFR (Ret.) 
Gilmer, Texas

I enjoy reading most articles about the war in Vietnam, but was somewhat disappointed in the article at subject in the August 2023. First of all, these were not the “Last Missions” in Cambodia for U.S forces. 

That occurred some 19 months later. Although the author acknowledged in a small, next to last paragraph the SS Mayaguez incident in April of 1975, he failed to state that they were the actual last OV-10 Bronco combat missions flown in Cambodia at Koh Tang Island, in the Gulf of Thailand, off the coast of Cambodia.

 I led the last F-4D Phantom mission in this operation and worked with two “Nail” forward air controllers in Broncos, one was a Major Undorff in command, and based at NKP, in Thailand. These missions were against Khmer Rouge Cambodian forces and resulted in the last 41 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 

Col. Cedric Hunter,
USAF (Ret.)
Burnsville, N.C.

Whose Funds 

  Being an Air Force retiree (1967-1987) and a member of AFA for 47 years, I read the editorial [“Build an Air Force,” August, p. 2] by Tobias Naegele pretty much on autopilot, nodding in agreement for more than half the page until I found myself doing a “double-take.”
  Naegele states, “The Air Force has tried for years to modernize at its own expense.” I might infer a positive intent but the funds he refers to as the Air Force’s “own expense” remains public money even though it has been entrusted to the Air Force. American taxpayers are entitled to more respect for their hard-earned tax dollars than his parochial whine for a bigger Air Force slice of taxpayer dollars.
  Naegele next states that, “the Pentagon must make a strategic shift in priorities,” in order to enlarge the Air Force budget allowance by “$10 billion to $20 billion annually.” His petulant “must make” demand for additional Air Force funding highlights exactly why we created the Pentagon: to weigh the needs of all the services so as to develop a combined DOD budget which maximizes the greatest American defense bang for the buck. 

The Pentagon has skillfully balanced actual weapons in-hand with state-of-the-art industrial research and capacity to rapidly scale up while at the same time providing sufficient deterrence with minimized maintenance costs.

Naegele then targets a sister service’s budget “Cutting the Army by 20,000 troops.” 

Naegele finally asserts that, “It’s been five years since the Air Force last offered a plan to size the force to what it really needs.” Anyone who has not lived under a rock for the past decade knows such a thought to be false. Further, he has taken an unprofessional and unfair swipe at current Air Force leadership.

In an age where service interoperability, interdependence and cybersecurity are absolute necessities, it is counterproductive to snipe at the other services. 

What is the Space Force, for example, to think of Air Force budgetary self-centeredness? The Air & Space Forces Association represents both services. Does this mean that the Space Force has to agree with Naegele’s editorial in support of a larger Air Force budget? And from a perspective much larger than just an interservice budgetary arms race, is it wise to telegraph the fears driving our modernization focus as being focused on China or, any other potential adversary?

 It might be more productive to let the Pentagon continue the good job it has been doing without editorially stoking internecine passions or getting undue attention from our adversaries.

Capt. John Facey,
USAF (Ret.)
San Antonio

Recruiting

I am troubled by the problems the military is having with adherence to standards and individual behavior. The downward trend in standards starts at the top and flows down to the basic military members. The purpose of the military is quite simple—prevent wars if possible, and win them if fighting becomes necessary. That requires esprit de corps and unit cohesion. 

Men and women join the military for “God and Country” but in war they fight for the guys in the “foxhole” next to them. That requires trust and respect of each other and of their leadership. 

Entry in the military used to require a sound mind and a sound body. In basic training the individual was torn down and rebuilt as a member of a fighting unit. This required a focus on the ultimate purpose of the military whether flying a gazillion-dollar airplane or keeping records for those who did. Every job in the military is vital for the success of the whole.

 For recruitment “they” say we had to lower standards for hair length and styles, we had to lower standards for visibility of tattoos, we had to lower the physical standards because, … and on and on. So, you lower standards and expectations and you reap what you have sown.

 For this old Airman, the solution is simple: Raise standards and demand excellence. We would be better off with a leaner force of people who wish to be in the military and let those who don’t fit find another occupation. 

Lt. Col. Ken Rosburg,
USAF (Ret.)
Oro Valley, Ariz.

I am writing about your article regarding the failed recruiting goals. I just retired in January as the Assistant Chief of Staff for Air Force Global Strike Command. I will be blunt:  the destruction of meritocracy and focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion is the result of this.  It has alienated the primary recruiting pool—family and friends of military members. 

When someone is selected for advancement opportunity (in-res school, command, executive, superintendent) based on race, gender, and sexuality to ensure we reflect the U.S. population, that places less qualified and unqualified individuals in these positions.  Social media and the digital age means negative impacts at the flight level reverberate across the force. 

 Focus on warfighting and the profession of arms and they will return.

Lt. Col. Michael F. Loos,
USAF (Ret.)
Tucson, Ariz.

Look Again

 I have noted a steady series of letters to the Air & Space Forces Magazine and other military-based magazines that are critical of the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies of the services. Perhaps it is time to step back and take another look.  

 To start, I look forward to the Outstanding Airmen recap every year, not just to learn of their achievements, but also to enjoy seeing the diversity of the honorees. For instance, this year they included males, females (and probably some LGBTQ people, who knows?), Black, Caucasian, and some with ethnic backgrounds that included East Asia, South Asia, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and others.  

I have also seen Pacific Islanders among the recipients in the past. I also enjoy the monthly “Faces of the Force” article for the same reason.  For instance, this past month included a young female Airman originally from Sri Lanka.  I am always so proud of my Air Force for its ability to meld all of these people from different backgrounds into an effective and modern military force.  The fact is that without diversity, the Air Force would have a very tough time meeting recruitment goals.

 To follow on, “equity” simply means fairness and justice, and I would hope that it applies equally to every person who joins the Air Force and Space Force and, for that matter, any of the services. Same with inclusion.  It is important for every service member to feel “included,” just like in any organization or athletic team.   

DEI is the very foundation of a personnel system dedicated to doing its best for every Airman and Guardian in the force.

Maj. Paul C. Robertson,
USAF (Ret.)
Springfield, Mo.

Outstanding

It was pleasant to read about the 2023 Airman of the Year winners [Sept.  pgs. 58-60] and their accomplishments that led to their being recognized. I was most pleased that out of the 12 winners, five were from the Security Forces career field (3POx1). 

Even though Security Forces is the largest single Air Force Specialty Code in the Air Force, we often get overlooked as we are not one of the glamorous career fields. Congratulations to all the Airman who received this fantastic honor and to AFA who recognized many years ago the importance of acknowledging our hardworking folks.

SMSgt. Thor Merich,
USAF (Ret.)
Lake Havasu City, Ariz.

Legacy Guardians

The discussions I have seen of the proposed legislation to recognize Air Force Space operators (and other space-related Airmen) all seem to begin with the foundation of Air Force Space Command in 1982. 

Air Force Space Operations began with the foundation of what would eventually become the Satellite Test Center and Air Force Satellite Control Facility at Sunnyvale/Onizuka Air Force Station, Calif., in 1958. Strategic Air Command’s 4000th Support Group became the first operational satellite control organization in 1962. Ballistic Missile Early Warning Systems became operational in the early 1960s, along with the Missile and Space Defense Centers in the NORAD Combat Operations Center at the Cheyenne Mountain Complex [in Colorado].

Gerard M. Delaney
Huntsville, Ala.

Words That Stick

After reading Retired Lt. Col. James Harvey III’s comments [“Verbatim, Attitude is Altitude,” August, p. 8] under his picture, I remembered a general meeting that I attended at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., in 1971. 

One of the speakers was an African-American, lieutenant colonel who spoke about the three A’s to success: Attitude and Aptitude will get you Altitude.  

I’ve never forgotten that phrase and now after seeing the phrase in a “partial” mode, I wonder if this Lt. Col. Harvey was that speaker.  Happy 100th birthday, Lieutenant Colonel Harvey III.

SMSgt. Jerry L. Mansfield,
USAF (Ret.)
Gray, Ga.

Leadership Goals

Wow, what a very impressive write up by Col. Art Cole [“Letters: Old-School,” September, p. 5]. I fully 100 percent agree with his article and thoughts. The LeMays and Foglemans will never be equaled. My Air Force/Strategic Air Command time was primarily under the LeMay era with a couple exceptions. The leadership/supervision and total management in the upper echelons today in no way meets the requirements of our personnel.

 Yes, I know there are no SAC trained people there in our Chiefs of Staffs or even a little down the chain. I have two daughters in the Air Force, one retired, a son retired, two granddaughters, both got out. That all took place after 1990. My son and I keep pretty much up to date by your magazine, thank you.  In the LeMay, Doolittle, area we (all Airman) knew what our mission was and how to accomplish same. Training was an everyday responsibility and we excepted that.

CMSgt. Donald W. Grannan,
USAF (Ret.)
Benbrook, Texas

Warfighter First

 [“Next-Gen Fighter Engines,” September, p. 42] describes how we have ended up with an F-35 engine that produces less range, speed, and electrical power than its main rival, the Chinese J-20. There are two reasons for this. 

First, several years ago, the USAF decided not to buy a second engine, because it increased costs. Second, they have rejected use of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), for the same reason.

 The result is that the F-35 won’t be able to compete with the J-20 especially when it is considered that the AETP technology will be stolen by the Chinese Communist Party resulting in an even greater gap in performance.

This is greatly reminiscent of the decision to choose the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine for the P-51 during WWII, although this was the opposite decision. Because the current administration refuses to fund an adequate budget for the Air Force, many lives will be lost—and maybe even the next war itself! The article should have made that clear.

Lt. Col. Robert Sandberg, 
USAF (Ret.)
Stony Brook, N.Y.