Forum: Air Force Life

we've barely been around for 50 years - not much possibility of tradition there....

F-16.net Sponsor

thegreekness wrote:

we've barely been around for 50 years - not much possibility of tradition there....

"YGBSM"

Actually, the number is 63 and we have changed the way wars are fought. Without air superiority we'd still be fighting the way they did back in the stone ages with a lot more people lost .

Snake

TC

I went back and reserched the reason why the Air Force Symbol was changed and the reason given was that it was made to attract the younger generation to join up.

WOW!!!!!

That's like their second great move of giving a brown leather flying jacket tol our pilots as a retention gimmick. If that's what it takes to retain a pilot in my outfit -- I don't want him!!!!

It's like bribing kids with toys.

Where do people come up with ideas like this.

I'd never make it in today's blues as I don't suffer fools easily.

Snake

In the Enlisted Professional Development Guide, they explain the "purpose" behind the Buzz Lightyear logo...I still don't get it. I still think it's hokey, and it still looks like it should've been on Battlestar Galactica.

The A-2 jacket must be dealt out differently from unit to unit. My squadron issued mine to me as soon as I became mission qual'd. It's nice...certainly nicer to wear with blues than the blue lightweight jacket, but it certainly wouldn't be the thing that keeps me in the AF. A steady income means a lot more to me than a leather jacket with my Afghanistan Blood Chit sewn into the interior.

TC

Would you please explain thaqt "purpose" to me cause I'm lost to as their thinking process.

Takes me back to the late 50's when bermuda shirts, bush jackets, knee socks and Pith helemets were the utopian solution. Looked like a bunch of Brits fighting in North Africa. BRILLIANT IDEA!!!!!!!

Snake

TC gasps...Someone actually posted a credible reference on Wikipedia! Laughing

The article under "Meaning" is straight out of the PDG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Symbol

TC

According to that meaning the new symbol represents everything but the kitchen sink and Mom's apple pie and it still looks awful.

Snake

It's almost like they came up with that meaning simply to justify creating it...terrible!

Yeah, sure, the circle represents global reach and has absolutely nothing to do with this: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestand:US ... 6-1941.svg

I don't get why the US Government gets so sentimental about symbology of all things, I mean there's a multi-paragraph explanation for every seal there is DOE to DOD, when it's obvious pretty much every time the "meaning" came after the artist put it down because it simply looked 'good'.

I for one don't mind the new AF symbol, though.

Prinz

I don't mean for this to be taken personally.

But for those of us that became part of the force within a decade of it becoming a seperate service the old service emblem goes back beyond that September day in 47. It was worn by the guys who broiught aviation in the services to life, by more who flew against the Germans and Japanese in World War II. It was worn by those who fought so gallently in Mig Alley. And by those who bet their A$$es over the skies of Hanoi. And those that fought in the opening battles in the Middle East. To us it is the symbol of the Air Force like the Eagle,Globe and Anchor of the Corps. And regardless if we went through BMT, OCS or Aviation Cadets we were taught the history and "TRADITION" of that symbol and respected it and the history it represented. And I don't care what words or so called "meaning" to it it is offered it doesn't come even close to the old one. That new "meaning" looks to an unknown future but the old one embraces decades of history and something to strive for in the future to match what is already written.

Snake

Only visually do I like the new symbol- I think it looks neat. But that's not the only thing that makes something like that great.

I agree, I don't think having symbolism in something is bad, I just think trying to foist it on something that hasn't earned it just makes it more hollow, more fake. Now it seems like there are graphic designers who have to make up (bad) poetry to justify their design decisions, which is kind of insulting to the classic symbols that actually meant something. That's why I pointed out the circle in the center of the star in the new emblem. They ascribe meaning to it that is obviously only added on after the fact, because it's obvious it is a visual reference to the old roundel. Why they don't just stay with that explanation, which is much more effective, I have no clue.

Prinz

In answer to yours -- I don't know.

But a better qyestion would be "Why don't they just stay with what was??

Snake

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

(Had to break them up somewhat) Cheers

TEG

That NADS photos is outstanding...definitely worth the grounding:)
Any possibility to find this pic a bit bigger somewhere?

Quote:

satoria
Any possibility to find this pic a bit bigger somewhere?

I hope someone on the board can find out for you - that's such an iconic photo! Biggest I've been able to find was 450X350 in B&W Sad

And someone did a model based on that photo see http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/p/ ... 01560.aspx

But back On Topic

has anyone posted this motofake yet?

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

For a change.

Forum: Air Force Life

Motifakes