Forum: F-16.net feedback

Then maybe we saw different briefings because what I saw was Not Officially Sponsored by USAF Public Affairs - who knows but what I saw was a clear vilolation of OPSEC and PA Never would have allowed it

F-16.net Sponsor

I read everything posted on the forum from the individual, and while I'm not an OPSEC genius, I never got a hincky twitch about any of it. It was all pat Lockmart propaganda, and pardon me for saying this, but the positive publicity about the 22 is VERY much needed......if ANYBODY in the AF had a clue they'd be parking the frickin' things at every county fair in the country. I hear ALL THE TIME how much we don't need F-22s....and a LOT of that from the people who control the purse strings. Somebody has to "sell" the jet to John Q. and Mrs. Q citizen and the AF brass has done a MISERABLE job of it thusfar. Somebody is going to have to nut up and vote for increased purchase of the jets, and if us slobs out here in flyover land don't "get" what a quantum leap the thing is, nobody in their right mind is going to support it if it continues to be portrayed as a bazillion dollar pig-in-a-poke......and make NO mistake about it folks, that's EXACTLY how its percieved out here. This smacks a LOT of Billy Mitchell II.

I recieved the brief 4th or 5th hand from civillian sources, and my understanding was in was FOUO....and call me crazy, but HIGHLIGHTING what the percieved OPSEC issues were, and then blasting in out over e-mail seemed just a little bit "off". Seriously....they couldn't have handled this at the wing/MAJCOM level?

AfterburnerDecalsScott wrote:

...if ANYBODY in the AF had a clue they'd be parking the frickin' things at every county fair in the country....

AGREED!

There should be Raptors at EVERY air show in the country regardless of size or sponsorship. Flying AND static display. (Given the proper airfield length) Too often USAF aircraft will not support an air show unless the attendance is projected to be a specific amount. (FYI USAF Public Relations Folks - This practice gives negative results about the USAF as a whole ...)

I would see F-14s at every air show I attended right up until they were withdrawn from service. Then there is some stupid USAF blow-up-doll walking around shaking kid's hands!?! Where was the Raptor parked? WTF

People what to see what they're tax-dollars are paying for! If the USAF can't sell Congress they need to sell the public. Sell the Raptor to us as a whole country. Two Cents

I'd go so far to say they should even build a "B" model to haul the politicians and lucky public VIPs just to spread the word. Two Cents

AfterburnerDecalsScott wrote:

...and call me crazy, but HIGHLIGHTING what the percieved OPSEC issues were, and then blasting in out over e-mail seemed just a little bit "off".

Seemed a bit odd to others I've talked too as well... "Don't do this, don't do that, this is all OPSEC but E-mail the brief to EVERYONE?

Umm did I have need-to-know for all the specifics in the first place? Now there are tens of thousands of people who have all the facts that the one person wasn't suppose to talk about? Shrug

Last edited by Meathook on Mar 05, 2008 - 04:29 AM; edited 1 time in total

Yep,,,they could or should have but the reasons it got this far...well, we can all speculate. I agree selling the aircraft to the general public is a great idea however, the USAF decides how that is done, not even the contractor can do that without USAF blessing (since they now own it.

That's life, many may not like it but the government does what it wants or feels necessary to control it's assets, always has, more then likely, always will. Infomation will be released as the USAF see's fit and at what level of detail, their call, not mine or yours.

Plus in the environment we live in today, why broadcast if we don't need to, what, just to impress the public, I have found, the public in general is clueless and cant be trusted with information that needs protecting. Oh well...I'm done with this one.

Enjoy debating it...

Just today I recieved this powerpoint from the security guy (mass emailed to the company distro list) at my civilian job. Granted, we do a significant amount of defense contract work, but please...a brief highlighting supposed OPSEC violations, in bold print and colored text none the less, seemingly sent to everyone with a military/defense affiliation? Seems a bit off to me. Meathook, I fully understand your view; the guy probably shouldn't have said some of the things he did, but where do we draw the line when daddy Air Force tells you to promote the thing? The OPSEC line, when dealing with unclass material, can be a fuzzy one, unfortunatly.

Daddy Air Force clears your briefings before hand, happens all the time, happened to me many times when I was a Thunderbird too, your told what to say and what your limits are. It's training, over and over again for all the right reasons, especially surrounding this aircraft and at his level of exposure...even the Pentagon has a "PA" and those briefings are cleared too, do people really not know information must be controlled and why?

Government protecting government assets, simple really, least it is for me, I do the same daily, you have to know your limitations, but the USAF teaches you your limits in such cases...just like the great Clint Eastwood would say..."Man got to know his limitation's"..I love that movie and that point is spot on in such projects and programs. Thumb

I have gotten the OPSEC e-mail that has seemingly been distributed throughout the AF and [Link pending approval]

The guy that is highlighted in the presentation was told to promote the AF and the program that was discussed in order to publicize the program and the AF using any media available.

That slide show only gives you one view, and it's that of a seemingly "out for blood" individual. The view given is from someone NOT in the program and NOT aware of what is and is not classified or sensitive [Link pending approval] was apparent by just reading the presentation. Nothing that was said by the individual on the forums was [Link pending approval] was all "open source". The presentation was apparently not approved by OSI, nor any other agency. Seems that it was put together by one person and passed out without approval.

Unfortunately as false as the accusations are in the presentation the damage is done. The gentleman's name has been drug through the mud in a seemingly "political" attempt to slander his name. The individual or organization that allowed the presentation to be sent should be held liable.

That slide show is 100% CRAP!
It came from a lone OSI agent at Davis Monthan AFB, NOT some all encompassing DOD investigation like it was intended to appear. That "agent" took it upon himself to make a slanderous, misleading, and false "hit piece" (in my opinion) and e-mail it to the world. The facts:
- This person was ordered, by several General Officers, to be the F-22 Spokesman and use “any and all media,” INCLUDING THE BLOGISPHERE, to blunt negative press during at a time when the F-22 program was in peril
- Everything said was open source…HE DID NOTHING WRONG, he obeyed orders!
- If he was that bad he would have been fired!
- He is an Patriot who does not deserve having his name dragged through the mud!

BTW, I heard heads are rolling in the OSI over it

I know for a fact that it intimidated the living crud out of a BUNCH of military folks, and if this is really a rogue OSI person, then wow.....I DO find it signifigant that the person in question....(can we say his name now, since everybody knows who were talking about?) is still occupying his current billet, and one would imagine that ifthere were validity to this "presentation" that he'd have been relieved poste haste.

Its going to be very interesting to see how it shakes out and who ultimately ends up wearing egg.

AfterburnerDecalsScott wrote:

.....I DO find it signifigant that the person in question....(can we say his name now, since everybody knows who were talking about?)

Scott

I would suggest you keep it to yourself until there's some formal word about the matter being resolved.

DPRK wrote:

That slide show is 100% CRAP!
BTW, I heard heads are rolling in the OSI over it

I hope so.

And I also hope that the AF puts out a statement clarifying that this individual has done no wrong.

Then I hope that Meathook will retract his comments.

Steve Davies - You assume or hope much, don't ya, who are you to question the US Government or the USAF for that matter and it's policy's towards Op Sec.

Who do you think you are?? If your in the USAF, take your case up with the OSI, you seem at act like you know better or have inside information, good for you but somehow, I doubt it.

I for one don't give a damn about what you think or feel about this issue or my comments surrounding it.

Whoever posted them was wrong in my book, end of story - if it was this pilot, he should have known better, if not, the USAF will sort it out - not you and if you expect the US Government or me to retract what it feels about it - it will be a cold day in hell.

Don't bother me with your crusade, I could care less.

Last edited by Steve_Davies on Mar 07, 2008 - 06:02 PM; edited 1 time in total

Meathook wrote:

Steve Davies - You assume or hope much, don't ya, who are you to question the US Government or the USAF for that matter and it's policy's towards Op Sec.

On the contrary - it is you who is assuming that a single, ill-qualified individual who compiled a OPSEC 'report' without either the approval of his superiors, or the approval of the 3rd Wing CC, has actually got it right.

I contend that they have not got it right. The information that is starting to come out as a result of this sorry saga supports that contention.

Meathook wrote:

Whoever posted them was wrong in my book, end of story - if it was this pilot, he should have known better, if not, the USAF will sort it out - not you and if you expect the US Government or me to retract what it feels about it - it will be a cold day in hell.

You are reacting quite vociferously... Hell must be really cold today.

Meathook wrote:

Don't bother me with your crusade, I could care less.

I am not bothering you. You are posting of your own free will and volition.

If you don't like what I have to say, then don't respond.

Relax guys... Confused

Not to stir up the hornet's nest again but there's a good three-part article on the Dozer "incident" here:

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/

Quote:

No Leaks in On-Line F-22 Comments

An F-22 pilot who made numerous internet posts about his state-of-the-art aircraft did not divulge classified information, according to an Air Force operations security (OPSEC) assessment and a security review. Both were conducted prior to a recent briefing by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), which suggested the on-line comments confirmed technical and operational details about the fifth-generation fighter.

An AFOSI spokeswoman also revealed that a widely-circulated PowerPoint presentation on the incident was intended for internal use, and not general release. Entitled “Cyber OPSEC: An F-22 Case Study,” the unclassified briefing was designed as an in-house training tool for the OSI detachment at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona. But, after its initial presentation at the Arizona base, the briefing was quickly passed to scores of Air Force units and military bloggers.

“There’s been a lot of misinformation about this,” said Linda Card, a public affairs specialist at AFOSI Headquarters in Washington. She emphasized that the organization did not conduct a criminal investigation into the pilot’s on-line comments, which appeared on a popular aviation forum.

[...]

In short it was a whole lot of stink over nothing.

Forum: F-16.net feedback

OPSEC - The PowerPoint