JULY/AUGUST AIRFORCEMAG.COMHistoric Importance
I hope the decision to delete the
roster of leaders of past Air Force
commands in the 2019 Air Force Alma-
nac is a “one-off” and you will restore
them in future almanacs [“Leaders,”
June, p. 77].
By eliminating these legacy com-
mands you deprive readers a vast
repository of iconic names and famous
commands that built the Air Force.
Why exclude the leaders of SAC, TAC,
MAC, AFLC, AFSC, and other legacy
commands? An almanac is defined by
including, not excluding, the organi-
zation’s history and leaders. Readers
miss seeing names such as Gens. Russ
Dougherty, Bruce Holloway, Bennie
Schriever, Jerry O’Malley, Al Slay, Chap-
pie James, Bryce Poe, Bill Creech, and
many, many more Air Force leaders
that created our Air Force but no longer
appear in the almanac.
Sending readers to an online listing,
as you suggested, to find this major part
of Air Force history is not the answer. I
went online and found that you saved a
mere four pages in a 144-page publica-
tion by excluding past commands and
their leaders. Was it worth it? I think not.
Gen. John Michael Loh,
USAF (Ret.)
Williamsburg, Va.
OCP, ABU, BDU
It was disappointing that an Air Force
Magazine editor didn’t jump in to gen-
tly correct retired Col. Don Hengesh
when in his letter he misidentified Gen.
Stephen W. Wilson’s AFA Air Warfare
WRITE TO USDo you have a comment about a current
article in the magazine? Write to “Letters,”
Air Force Magazine, 1501 Lee Highway,
Arlington, VA 22209-1198 or email us at
[email protected]. Letters should be concise
and timely. We cannot acknowledge receipt
of letters. We reserve the right to condense
letters. Letters without name and city/base
and state are not acceptable. Photographs
cannot be used or returned.
—^ The EditorsLETTERS
Symposium attire as “BDUs” [“Letters:
Battle Dress Blues,” June, p. 4].
The Air Force’s battle dress uniform
was phased out in 2011 in favor of the
Air Force unique ABU—airman battle
uniform. ABUs are now on the way out,
to be replaced by the Army’s OCP (op-
erational camouflage pattern) uniform
that General Wilson was sporting at the
symposium.
I share Colonel Hengesh’s concern as
to the propriety of wearing a utility uni-
form at a public event involving civilians
largely in business attire. That camou-
flage doesn’t work well in that setting.
Would it not be more appropriate for
airmen to exercise good professional
judgment and respond in kind at such
a gathering?
Col. Bill Malec,
USAF (Ret.)
O’Fallon, Ill.Space Force
This letter is about the possibility
of a Space Force, as detailed in the
May 2019 issue of Air Force Magazine
[“Questions Remain as Lawmakers Mull
Space Force Proposal,” p. 20].
From the 1955 Aviation Cadet Corps
program at Houston’s Ellington Air
Force Base, I was commissioned and
rated as a navigator at the age of 20. I
learned a lot from my five years’ Active
Duty. I learned that I needed to get a
college degree if I wanted an Air Force
career. So, I got o¢ Active Duty and went
back to the University of Illinois on the
Korean [War] G.I. Bill in 1958, and got
a B.S. in 1961 and M.S. in 1962, both in
electrical engineering. My intention was
to go back on Active Duty. But, I was
then too old for pilot training, so my wife
asked if we could go back to Houston,
somehow. I told her we could go to this
new outfit named NASA, which had
just opened an operation in Houston
in early 1962.
NASA taught me that manned space
was interesting for someone with a mil-
itary background. In fact, the first NASA
pilots were mostly military. I learned a
lot from them while I taught space radio
theory to the second and third astronaut
classes. What I learned from the astro-nauts and mission control guys was
what the functional requirements were
going to be for the design of their lunar
radio system, both space and ground.
And that design was going to depend
on what flight operations were going to
be done in deep space.
Now, some 54 years later, here we
are, thinking about a military Space
Force. And the design of that force is
going to include a lot more than just
hardware. My opinion is that the most
di¢icult part of the design is going to
be the design of the organization itself.
In 1962, we had to design a Houston
organization that could take us to the
Moon. Nobody knew how to do that, and
we had a seven-year deadline. So, we
used the younger guys who flooded into
Houston to not only manage the design
of the hardware, but the organization
itself. It worked.
I suggest that the Air Force get a
lot of help from NASA in thinking this
organizational design out. In fact, there
will probably be a lot of younger NASA
people who will want to transfer into
the US Space Force. If I was in my 30s
again, I would.
John H. Painter
College Station, TexasWouldn’t It Be Nice
The Air Force and this magazine
overtly support new technology over
numbers. The latest example being the
vilification of the F-15EX [“F-15EX vs.
F-35A,” May, p. 30].
The F-15 Eagle platform is com-
bat-proven with at least 104 air-to-air
kills versus no losses. The strike plat-
form based on the F-15E is a world-class
fighter bomber, and its variations are
still being purchased by many allied
nations.
Always waiting for the next greatest
aircraft, be it a sixth-generation fighter
or more F-35s, comes at the expense of
current inventory fighters or upgrades,
leaving the warfighter and this country
woefully short of combat aircraft when
the time comes.
It would be nice if all the early F-35s
were combat-capable and were able
to be easily upgraded, if the plane had