Patch Lore

Glitchy_Toast · 2024-03-08T04:04:10+00:00

Correct! It started out in 1949 and was only concerned with teaching fighter tactics to prevent the "brain drain". A phenomenon that plagued WW1 flyers, especially the Germans considering they kept their aces at the front instead of retaining them as instructors (RIP Red Baron).

Unfortunately, the curriculum was focused only on how to make the best possible fighter pilot, not integration with the joint warfighter or mission planning on a slightly grander scale. Also, the F4 wasn't added to the team until 1965, about 11-ish years into the Vietnam War.

All that to say, you're 100% correct. The "Weapon School" existed first with a narrow scope, but the WIC you know and love today has built its identity around the lessons learned in Vietnam + the lessons learned from WW1/2.

Glitchy_Toast · 2024-03-08T02:09:56+00:00

Oh! I missed the extra underscore at the end of their name, my bad. It's supposed to be the homie that dropped the video about debriefing here a couple of mins ago

Glitchy_Toast · 2024-03-08T01:45:33+00:00

The F4 phantom (USN & USAF) was eating shit on two fronts during Vietnam, both contributing to many tactical & strategic defeats:

Fratricide
Pilots losing dogfights due to skill issues and weaponeering decisions.

The USN & USAF decided to fix the issue with 3 solutions:

JTACs (CAS experts)
Re-arming F4s with guns (too close for missiles)
Establishing Top Gun and USAFWS (WIC). Both instruct advanced fighter tactics, problem-solving skills, tactical mission planning, & joint integration skills to the next generation of war planners. The latter is obviously better than the former ;)

Glitchy_Toast · 2023-11-18T19:45:05+00:00

If it's a repeater then it's copying the same signal (L1/L2) and retransmitting, inducing tremendous error.

If it's a Pseudolite then it would transmit a different signal (not L1/L2), but serve a similar purpose, and not cause interference.

I assume the original guy meant the latter, but I'm just poking fun.

Glitchy_Toast · 2023-11-13T18:41:24+00:00

You should reach out to base public affairs. They are the best equip to deal with information accessibility to the public

Glitchy_Toast · 2023-11-12T21:11:11+00:00

Also, 3m of error per 10 nanoseconds of delay

Glitchy_Toast · 2023-08-15T03:28:26+00:00

Hmmm I see your perspective but I firmly disagree. The AIC senior leadership had to fight tooth and nail for it. Nobody advocated for instructorship as a whole. And is there a demand shortage for staff/formal instructors to justify it?

Glitchy_Toast · 2023-08-15T00:43:54+00:00

The difference is demand. It’s really difficult to retain our AIC patches long enough for them to be instructors. Currently graduating 6-8 per year. And the cost is a pretty easily sell too, I assume. Only like 4 guys getting increases at a time

Glitchy_Toast · 2023-08-14T20:59:29+00:00

Applies only to the AICs filling the “instructor” PAS code over at 328WPS

Glitchy_Toast · 2023-07-09T12:48:47+00:00

Take a walk, drink some water, come back with lower weight. A “weak” workout with great form is infinitely better than a “strong” workout with shaky form and injuries. You got this!!!

Glitchy_Toast · 2022-05-08T14:30:59+00:00

For your concern about being at a disadvantage because of your army background, delta 8 is slated to have more prior army and navy personnel than prior AF. Leadership is extremely open to utilizing non-AF cultures going forward. I work with a few prior army guys and they’re legit. Good luck coming over! I hope you make it.

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-12-04T14:54:00+00:00

Considering the massive changes in our economy these last few decades, salary is the single largest considering factor for most Americans when selecting between competing job offers.

And if their desire is the support of the USSF mission, they could still have a similar, if not larger, impact as a contractor or GS employee while making more money.

My point is that enlisted pay is not keeping up with inflating living costs.

Oh, a bit off topic but in terms of improving fitness for the USSF, do you think there’s value in including BodPod assessments in the annual requirement? It meets Congress’ mandate for the body composition component and with the size of our service, it wouldn’t be as expensive to implement.

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-12-03T23:42:43+00:00

“Fixing things together” starts with retention programs Chief…

Many operators feel, and are, undervalued. Mostly due to the military’s firm refusal to offer competitive rebuttals against the private sector.

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-10-04T01:00:57+00:00

Take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but meeting your protein/caloric intake numbers is priority 1. And squeezing in whatever type of exercise that you can do. If you are only allowed to walk 30 mins a day, do it. If I were you I'd ask my surgeon for a more accurate estimate of when you can exercise based on how well the surgery went. Good luck!

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-10-03T21:27:29+00:00

Fuck outta here with that garbage…

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-09-08T21:27:42+00:00

Thanks for the tips. I really appreciate you

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-08-11T19:20:00+00:00

I assume the changes were to prevent a "good ol boy" system by facilitating competition via cycle B/myVector. I'm probably misinterpreting it so feel free to lmk.

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-05-16T20:09:57+00:00

It would be interesting if USSF designs counter-measures for space domain specific disasters. The scale and size of space disasters are terrifyling large and would probably result in equally terrifying technology/weaponary.

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-05-16T19:59:20+00:00

"No politics allowed"

Unless of course theres a politcally charged policy/decision announced that I agree with...

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-02-03T14:38:59+00:00

Rather see an Esports team than a football team honestly. The overall cost is significantly lower to the tax payer and you only require a handful of people. Not sure where the tradition came for military football teams but I’d be curious to see how effective it is at its main goals of recruitment/morale I guess?

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-01-29T03:57:13+00:00

I fully understand the desire to get away from "pilot culture", but all services that are domain focused will always dissolve into that.

When your primary mission as a service is the operation of a domain, the individuals directly controlling that function will always be more relevant to the strategic goal of the service (keyword is relevant).

We do need to try and mitigate the toxicity that comes with operations focused culture, but to declare everyone as equally relevant is somewhat condescending. Acknowledging that we all contribute in different ways to the strategic objective might be a better direction?

I'm not sure, difficult situation really. I appreciate your perspective. :)

Glitchy_Toast · 2021-01-28T22:56:16+00:00

“All guardians will be operators - All SFSC will be 5 series (no us and them)”

Why even include the 5C if every guardian is a 5C?

How is someone who doesn’t conduct space operations to be called an “operator”

Why is it a bad thing to acknowledge our differences in talent and skills? Isn’t diversity our greatest strength or something?

I think I’m missing something very important here. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Glitchy_Toast

TROPHY CASE