Monday, July 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Friday, February 8, 2013
.jpg)
.jpg)
Monday, January 28, 2013
.jpg)
.jpg)
Sunday, March 11, 2012
LET'S TALK FIGHTERS (by Riq Baldwin)
Due to the fiscal realities presented by the current administration, the United States Air Force (USAF) and her sister services have to make some tough decisions.
The USAF would like to trim some infrastructure, personnel and less-critical future agenda and weapon systems in order to preserve some essential programs that would retain her current capabilities (albeit on a smaller scale) as a successful war-fighting partner with her sea-, and ground-focused sister services. Included in these “essential programs” is continued production of the F-35 Lightning II fighter and life extension of the current F-16 Falcon fighter. So, let’s talk “fighters”...
A “Fighter,” simply put, is the term used for any aircraft that is designed to engage another aircraft in flight. If your side is going to attain air superiority over a combat environment, then you have to have a way of keeping enemy aircraft out. If enemy aircraft show up in the combat zone, it is USAF, USN, and USMC fighters that have to knock them down.
Following the Viet Nam conflict, the United States has always established dominance of the airspace over a battle environment before sending in the ground troops. As Republican Guard and Taliban fighting personnel can attest, it is difficult to operate when you always have to worry about being rained on by high-explosive weaponry. So the first order of business for any conflict is to send in the bomber, ground attack, and fighter aircraft to destroy enemy lines of communications, air defenses, airfields and aircraft so our ground-pounding brethren need concern themselves primarily with the fight in front of them, and not from above.
Clearing the airspace of enemy activity also assures air support of our ground forces, which (in part) is supplied by the same fighters that cleared the airspace to begin with. Today the Air Force has cold-war era 4th generation and more modern 5th generation jet fighters at their disposal, while the Navy and Marines have only generation 4 and 4.5 equipment. This has to change in the near future as China, Russia and India are developing their own 5th generation fighters. All right, let’s have a talk about this “generation” stuff as it applies to fighters…
The first generation of jet fighters comprised the initial subsonic jet fighter designs introduced late in World War II and in the early post-war period. The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, F-84 Thunderjet, and F-86 Sabre are USAF examples of our 1st generation jet fighter fleet. Guns remained the principal armament of these aircraft that operated during the Korean War and early on in the Viet Nam conflict until they could replaced by 2nd and 3rd generation aircraft.
Aircraft designers developed second-generation fighters leveraging technological breakthroughs and focusing on conducting operations in a nuclear warfare environment. Widespread use of afterburning turbojet engines allowed these aircraft to be the first to break the sound barrier and sustain supersonic speeds in level flight. Prime examples of second generation Air Force fighters are the F-100 Super Sabre, F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief, and F-106 Delta Dart. Dogfighting maneuverability was traded for pure speed to intercept incoming aircraft and get weapons from point A to point B in a hurry.
Third-generation fighter innovations were marked by renewed emphases on maneuverability and traditional ground-attack capabilities. Enhancements to improve aerodynamic performance of these aircraft included canards, powered slats and blown flaps. The F-4 Phantom II (built initially for the Navy and also used extensively by the Air Force), F-5 Freedom Fighter, A-7 Corsair II, and the F-111Aardvark are classic examples of 3rd-generation fighters.
Fourth-generation fighter designs were significantly influenced by Energy-Maneuverability. This approach emphasized aircraft designs that were capable of performing quick changes in speed, altitude and direction. Other innovative technologies included head-up displays, multi-function displays and the ability to select weapons, navigation and displays while keeping hands on the throttle and stick. Bonded aluminum honeycomb structural elements and graphite epoxy laminate skins began to be incorporated into flight control surfaces and airframe skins to reduce weight. Aerodynamic innovations included variable-camber wings and exploitation of the vortex lift effect to achieve higher angles of attack through the addition of strakes (leading-edge extension devices).
The high cost of production led to the adoption of the "high/low mix" procurement concept which proposed a high-capability and high-cost core of dedicated air-superiority fighters (like the Air Force F-15 Eagle and Navy F-14 Tomcat) to be supplemented by a larger contingent of lower-cost, multi-role fighters like the Air Force F-16 Falcon and the Navy/Marine F/A-18 Hornet. The Air Force also sported a pure attack fourth-generation aircraft in the A-10 Thunderbolt II. These aircraft have been the mainstay of our fighter force since the late 1970s.
Occasionally, you will hear about a 4.5, or half-generation aircraft. These are primarily 4th generation airframes that have been improved with advanced digital avionics, highly integrated systems/weapons, and modern aerospace materials. In the U.S., "half-generation" advances allowed production of the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet from the 1970s F/A-18 Hornet design. The same advances enabled the F-15E Strike Eagle, a ground-attack/multi-role variant of the venerable F-15 Eagle.
The fifth generation of jet fighters, ushered in by the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor in late 2005, are designed to operate in a network-centric combat environment and feature extremely low, all-aspect, multi-spectral signatures employing advanced materials and shaping techniques (a.k.a. stealth). Maneuver performance remains important and is enhanced by thrust-vectoring, which also helps reduce takeoff and landing distances.
The stealth aspect of fifth-generation fighters is created by designing its layout and internal structure to minimize radar-cross-section over a broad bandwidth of detection and tracking radar frequencies and permit internal storage of its primary weapons (air-to-air/air-to-ground missiles, guns and gravity weaponry).
The Navy, Air Force and Marines still have a passel of 4th-generation fighters that would have a tough time surviving a combat environment against a modern enemy equipped with 4th and/or 5th generation capability. The Air Force is getting ready to take ownership of its 187th (and final) F-22 Raptor, the nation’s only operational 5th-generation fighter. All three fighter-equipped services are still waiting on the first operational F-35 Lightening II to supplement the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, and give our Navy and Marine fighter pilots their first 5th-generation fighter, and a leg up in the modern aerial combat environment.
Unfortunately, the F-35 Lightning II is facing some severe acquisition issues (ranging from technical to political) that are slowing its initial delivery to the war-fighter…but that is another story.
The USAF would like to trim some infrastructure, personnel and less-critical future agenda and weapon systems in order to preserve some essential programs that would retain her current capabilities (albeit on a smaller scale) as a successful war-fighting partner with her sea-, and ground-focused sister services. Included in these “essential programs” is continued production of the F-35 Lightning II fighter and life extension of the current F-16 Falcon fighter. So, let’s talk “fighters”...
A “Fighter,” simply put, is the term used for any aircraft that is designed to engage another aircraft in flight. If your side is going to attain air superiority over a combat environment, then you have to have a way of keeping enemy aircraft out. If enemy aircraft show up in the combat zone, it is USAF, USN, and USMC fighters that have to knock them down.
Following the Viet Nam conflict, the United States has always established dominance of the airspace over a battle environment before sending in the ground troops. As Republican Guard and Taliban fighting personnel can attest, it is difficult to operate when you always have to worry about being rained on by high-explosive weaponry. So the first order of business for any conflict is to send in the bomber, ground attack, and fighter aircraft to destroy enemy lines of communications, air defenses, airfields and aircraft so our ground-pounding brethren need concern themselves primarily with the fight in front of them, and not from above.
Clearing the airspace of enemy activity also assures air support of our ground forces, which (in part) is supplied by the same fighters that cleared the airspace to begin with. Today the Air Force has cold-war era 4th generation and more modern 5th generation jet fighters at their disposal, while the Navy and Marines have only generation 4 and 4.5 equipment. This has to change in the near future as China, Russia and India are developing their own 5th generation fighters. All right, let’s have a talk about this “generation” stuff as it applies to fighters…
The first generation of jet fighters comprised the initial subsonic jet fighter designs introduced late in World War II and in the early post-war period. The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, F-84 Thunderjet, and F-86 Sabre are USAF examples of our 1st generation jet fighter fleet. Guns remained the principal armament of these aircraft that operated during the Korean War and early on in the Viet Nam conflict until they could replaced by 2nd and 3rd generation aircraft.
Aircraft designers developed second-generation fighters leveraging technological breakthroughs and focusing on conducting operations in a nuclear warfare environment. Widespread use of afterburning turbojet engines allowed these aircraft to be the first to break the sound barrier and sustain supersonic speeds in level flight. Prime examples of second generation Air Force fighters are the F-100 Super Sabre, F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief, and F-106 Delta Dart. Dogfighting maneuverability was traded for pure speed to intercept incoming aircraft and get weapons from point A to point B in a hurry.
Third-generation fighter innovations were marked by renewed emphases on maneuverability and traditional ground-attack capabilities. Enhancements to improve aerodynamic performance of these aircraft included canards, powered slats and blown flaps. The F-4 Phantom II (built initially for the Navy and also used extensively by the Air Force), F-5 Freedom Fighter, A-7 Corsair II, and the F-111Aardvark are classic examples of 3rd-generation fighters.
Fourth-generation fighter designs were significantly influenced by Energy-Maneuverability. This approach emphasized aircraft designs that were capable of performing quick changes in speed, altitude and direction. Other innovative technologies included head-up displays, multi-function displays and the ability to select weapons, navigation and displays while keeping hands on the throttle and stick. Bonded aluminum honeycomb structural elements and graphite epoxy laminate skins began to be incorporated into flight control surfaces and airframe skins to reduce weight. Aerodynamic innovations included variable-camber wings and exploitation of the vortex lift effect to achieve higher angles of attack through the addition of strakes (leading-edge extension devices).
The high cost of production led to the adoption of the "high/low mix" procurement concept which proposed a high-capability and high-cost core of dedicated air-superiority fighters (like the Air Force F-15 Eagle and Navy F-14 Tomcat) to be supplemented by a larger contingent of lower-cost, multi-role fighters like the Air Force F-16 Falcon and the Navy/Marine F/A-18 Hornet. The Air Force also sported a pure attack fourth-generation aircraft in the A-10 Thunderbolt II. These aircraft have been the mainstay of our fighter force since the late 1970s.
Occasionally, you will hear about a 4.5, or half-generation aircraft. These are primarily 4th generation airframes that have been improved with advanced digital avionics, highly integrated systems/weapons, and modern aerospace materials. In the U.S., "half-generation" advances allowed production of the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet from the 1970s F/A-18 Hornet design. The same advances enabled the F-15E Strike Eagle, a ground-attack/multi-role variant of the venerable F-15 Eagle.
The fifth generation of jet fighters, ushered in by the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor in late 2005, are designed to operate in a network-centric combat environment and feature extremely low, all-aspect, multi-spectral signatures employing advanced materials and shaping techniques (a.k.a. stealth). Maneuver performance remains important and is enhanced by thrust-vectoring, which also helps reduce takeoff and landing distances.
The stealth aspect of fifth-generation fighters is created by designing its layout and internal structure to minimize radar-cross-section over a broad bandwidth of detection and tracking radar frequencies and permit internal storage of its primary weapons (air-to-air/air-to-ground missiles, guns and gravity weaponry).
The Navy, Air Force and Marines still have a passel of 4th-generation fighters that would have a tough time surviving a combat environment against a modern enemy equipped with 4th and/or 5th generation capability. The Air Force is getting ready to take ownership of its 187th (and final) F-22 Raptor, the nation’s only operational 5th-generation fighter. All three fighter-equipped services are still waiting on the first operational F-35 Lightening II to supplement the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, and give our Navy and Marine fighter pilots their first 5th-generation fighter, and a leg up in the modern aerial combat environment.
Unfortunately, the F-35 Lightning II is facing some severe acquisition issues (ranging from technical to political) that are slowing its initial delivery to the war-fighter…but that is another story.
LET'S TALK BOMBERS (by Riq Baldwin)
The Secretary of the Department of Defense recently requested from Congress permission to conduct another BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure). Last week Congress understandably balked at it (but it is still being discussed). Because of fiscal realities presented by the current administration, the United States Air Force (USAF) and its sister services have to make some tough decisions.
The USAF would like to trim some infrastructure, personnel and some less critical future programs in order to preserve some essential programs so as to retain its capabilities (albeit on a smaller scale) as a successful war-fighting partner with her sea-, and ground-focused sister services. These “essential” programs include:
- Produce the KC-46 tanker
- Continue production of the F-35 fighter and life extension of the current F-16 fighter
- Develop new space launch capability; & advanced infra-red/ultra high frequency satellites;
- Pave the way for an advanced bomber.
Today, let’s talk bombers. During World War II, the United States built over 34,000 heavy bombers (B-24 Liberators, B-17 Flying Fortresses, and B-29 Super Fortresses) that could go downtown and drop iron where the enemy, his leadership, his industrial base and his Mama lived. The last of these aircraft retired from USAF duty in 1960.
Since that time, the United States has built just under 3,400 long-range bombers to carry on the mission of their WWII-era brethren. Time and technology, however, always take their toll. The last of the 380 monstrous B-36 Peacemakers, which could fly intercontinental distances without refueling, retired in 1959. Over 2,000 B-47 Stratojets, capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons, saw their last days in 1960. The B-58 Hustler, of which only 116 were built, was the world’s first supersonic nuclear bomber. They closed out their career in the Air Force in 1969.
Today, only 180 long-range bombers built by the United States since WWII remain in service. For those of you just out of high school, these would include 94 of your Grandfather’s B-52 Stratofortresses, 66 of your Dad’s B-1 Lancers and a whopping 20 modern era B-2 Spirits. Although these aircraft are a bit long in the tooth, (the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are roughly 50, 26, and 18 years old respectively) they do receive the best of care regarding maintenance and upgrades. The Air Force believes the B-52s and B-1s will be safe to operate through 2040 and the B-2s another 15 to 20 years after that.
However, the nemesis of the strategic-capable bomber has always been the potential adversary’s ability to acquire better defenses. Today, only the B-2 can be expected to get through a modern, well-defended airspace and survive while delivering gravity weapons. Against the same air defenses, the B-52 and B-1 would be most likely be used in a standoff role, launching cruise missiles and other self-propelled weaponry…which we’re running out of, by the way.
As time goes by, the B-2’s ability to transit over an enemy’s defended position will also go by the wayside. A quick perusal of the internet will turn up articles that brush on laser, ultra high frequency radar, passive detection, Doppler, line-of-sight and other interesting technologies that could make our current stealth capability inadequate in the foreseeable future. So we need something in the wings that can go deep, put any number of weapons on target, and still retain the flexibility of: (1) being able to retarget weapons while en route, (2) being recalled (bringing both the launch platform and weapons home), and (3) being used more than once.
In a recent interview with Air Force Magazine, Lt.Gen Christopher D. Miller, deputy chief of staff of strategic plans and programs, alluded that of all the myths circulating about USAF’s plans for long-range strike, the biggest one "is that the nation doesn’t need a new bomber."
Lt.Gen Miller said that the new bomber is needed in the mid-2020s, a goal both he and industry officials believe can be feasibly initiated this year, provided the new design is based on extant technology. Miller does not want a repeat of the development of the B-2, where technologies that gave the aircraft its capabilities had to be developed in parallel with the airframe itself. That, combined with gearing industry for rapid production, then slowing that production to a trickle, exploded the price of each weapon system into the billion- dollar range.
For future reference, the new bomber program is called the LRS-B, for Long-Range Strike-Bomber. Despite the Air Force knowing that it needs the new weapon system in the relatively near future, it seems to be exercising some of its more tongue-in-cheek conventions in doing so. For example, “Flexibility is the key to success, and indecision is the key to flexibility” seems to reflect the fact that to this day, there is still no operational requirements document (ORD) specifying the LRS-Bs characteristics and capabilities, despite the bomber getting the go-ahead well over a year ago.
While I attended the USAF Academy, one of the tortured sayings we espoused was “anything worth doing well, is worth doing at the last minute”. This rule also has an interesting corollary; “if you wait till the last minute, it only takes a minute”. Having worked in the Air Staff at the Pentagon, I can tell you with some certainty that the AF is working like mad developing more than one ORD (or an ORD with several options) for the LRS-B, so that when Congress gives them the opportunity, they will have the “flexibility” to make a very intelligent decision at the “last moment”.
The USAF would like to trim some infrastructure, personnel and some less critical future programs in order to preserve some essential programs so as to retain its capabilities (albeit on a smaller scale) as a successful war-fighting partner with her sea-, and ground-focused sister services. These “essential” programs include:
- Produce the KC-46 tanker
- Continue production of the F-35 fighter and life extension of the current F-16 fighter
- Develop new space launch capability; & advanced infra-red/ultra high frequency satellites;
- Pave the way for an advanced bomber.
Today, let’s talk bombers. During World War II, the United States built over 34,000 heavy bombers (B-24 Liberators, B-17 Flying Fortresses, and B-29 Super Fortresses) that could go downtown and drop iron where the enemy, his leadership, his industrial base and his Mama lived. The last of these aircraft retired from USAF duty in 1960.
Since that time, the United States has built just under 3,400 long-range bombers to carry on the mission of their WWII-era brethren. Time and technology, however, always take their toll. The last of the 380 monstrous B-36 Peacemakers, which could fly intercontinental distances without refueling, retired in 1959. Over 2,000 B-47 Stratojets, capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons, saw their last days in 1960. The B-58 Hustler, of which only 116 were built, was the world’s first supersonic nuclear bomber. They closed out their career in the Air Force in 1969.
Today, only 180 long-range bombers built by the United States since WWII remain in service. For those of you just out of high school, these would include 94 of your Grandfather’s B-52 Stratofortresses, 66 of your Dad’s B-1 Lancers and a whopping 20 modern era B-2 Spirits. Although these aircraft are a bit long in the tooth, (the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are roughly 50, 26, and 18 years old respectively) they do receive the best of care regarding maintenance and upgrades. The Air Force believes the B-52s and B-1s will be safe to operate through 2040 and the B-2s another 15 to 20 years after that.
However, the nemesis of the strategic-capable bomber has always been the potential adversary’s ability to acquire better defenses. Today, only the B-2 can be expected to get through a modern, well-defended airspace and survive while delivering gravity weapons. Against the same air defenses, the B-52 and B-1 would be most likely be used in a standoff role, launching cruise missiles and other self-propelled weaponry…which we’re running out of, by the way.
As time goes by, the B-2’s ability to transit over an enemy’s defended position will also go by the wayside. A quick perusal of the internet will turn up articles that brush on laser, ultra high frequency radar, passive detection, Doppler, line-of-sight and other interesting technologies that could make our current stealth capability inadequate in the foreseeable future. So we need something in the wings that can go deep, put any number of weapons on target, and still retain the flexibility of: (1) being able to retarget weapons while en route, (2) being recalled (bringing both the launch platform and weapons home), and (3) being used more than once.
In a recent interview with Air Force Magazine, Lt.Gen Christopher D. Miller, deputy chief of staff of strategic plans and programs, alluded that of all the myths circulating about USAF’s plans for long-range strike, the biggest one "is that the nation doesn’t need a new bomber."
Lt.Gen Miller said that the new bomber is needed in the mid-2020s, a goal both he and industry officials believe can be feasibly initiated this year, provided the new design is based on extant technology. Miller does not want a repeat of the development of the B-2, where technologies that gave the aircraft its capabilities had to be developed in parallel with the airframe itself. That, combined with gearing industry for rapid production, then slowing that production to a trickle, exploded the price of each weapon system into the billion- dollar range.
For future reference, the new bomber program is called the LRS-B, for Long-Range Strike-Bomber. Despite the Air Force knowing that it needs the new weapon system in the relatively near future, it seems to be exercising some of its more tongue-in-cheek conventions in doing so. For example, “Flexibility is the key to success, and indecision is the key to flexibility” seems to reflect the fact that to this day, there is still no operational requirements document (ORD) specifying the LRS-Bs characteristics and capabilities, despite the bomber getting the go-ahead well over a year ago.
While I attended the USAF Academy, one of the tortured sayings we espoused was “anything worth doing well, is worth doing at the last minute”. This rule also has an interesting corollary; “if you wait till the last minute, it only takes a minute”. Having worked in the Air Staff at the Pentagon, I can tell you with some certainty that the AF is working like mad developing more than one ORD (or an ORD with several options) for the LRS-B, so that when Congress gives them the opportunity, they will have the “flexibility” to make a very intelligent decision at the “last moment”.
LET'S TALK BRAC (by Riq Baldwin)
So…Defense Secretary Leon Panetta tells us that President Obama is seeking Congress’ authorization for another round of base closures to shed excess infrastructure.
Having lived on or near Air Force installations all my life, the term “BRAC” (short for “Base Realignment and Closure”) leaves the same impression upon my tender psyche as does the term “Recycled Toilet Paper.” [shiver]
All military services are making some serious decisions in light of current (and down-the-road) spending cuts imposed by the Obama administration. Panetta has pointed out that the Air Force piece of this puzzle will include:
- Eliminating six of its 60 tactical air squadrons, as well as one training squadron.
- Terminating the RQ-4 Global Hawk Block 30 remotely piloted aircraft program.
- Retiring 133 mobility aircraft (27 C-5As, 65 C-130s, 20 KC-135s, and 21 C-27s), leaving a strategic airlift fleet of 52 C-5Ms and 222 C-17s.
- Making balanced reductions in the Air National Guard, consistent with reductions in the active duty Air Force and Air Force Reserve.
Here’s the bottom line on BRAC [shiver] and the Air Force…Since 2005, the Air Force has retired 500 aircraft, and has 25,000 less personnel on active duty. It intends to cut another 10,000 across the total force over the next five years, and (as we saw above) retire more aircraft. According to the Air Force, it had about 20 percent more infrastructure than it needed during the 2005 BRAC round, where no bases were actually closed. Instead units and missions realigned to best-utilize the existing infrastructure and trim staff. Accordingly, it is safe to say there is excess infrastructure that should be cut today.
From the DoD perspective, a major concern in closing installations are the immediate costs associated with moving units, personnel and their families; amicably concluding contractual agreements; environmental clean-up; and the unavoidable legal issues. Over time, however, these costs are mitigated by not having to support the tremendous expenses associated with maintaining and continually modernizing these small cities.
Local communities are always fearful of losing a military base, due to the on-base/post/station employment opportunities and the income the installation generates for local businesses, contractors and schools. Contrary to popular opinion, all hope is not lost.
If a community is parked next to an installation with a thriving mission, and the community has (or can make) allowances that will allow the installation and its mission to grow, DoD will have no desire to move from that location. On the other hand…if a community has overgrown the installation, or made no allowances for an installation’s mission to thrive or grow, it is time to plan what to do with the facilities when DoD closes the gates.
Fortunately, except in rare cases, communities that have suffered an installation loss due to BRAC action have recovered and actually benefited from the event by attracting commercial enterprises that can utilize the infrastructure (buildings, roadways, housing, hangers, runways, green areas, gymnasiums, swimming pools, golf courses, bowling alleys, etc.) left behind.
Bottom line…in this time of severe budget constraints, we have to make every dollar count. We need a military that is efficient as well as effective. The Air Force, simply put, has excess facilities…and needs to modernize its forces. Let’s let the Air Force roll up its sleeves and get to work preserving and modernizing an air arm that will continue to be second to none on any objective scale.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
2011 Annual Leadership Awards Breakfast
Following the 2011 Reveille Ceremony the assembly adjourned to Club Altus where a sumptuous breakfast awaited. Colonel Hanovich gave a short summary of the dynamics and importance of leadership in the Air Force. But by far, the stars of the breakfast and awards ceremony were the following 2011 AFA Leadership Award winners:
AMN: SrA Antoinette Hazlewood
NCO: TSgt Chad Turner
SNCO: SMSgt Freddie Dorsey
Civ Tech: Ms. Linda Rose
Civ Super: Mr. Sean London
Unit: 97th OSS, (Col Johnson)
Contractor (N): Mr. Eric Cowan
Contractor (E): Ms. Debi Smith
JROTC Cadet: Angela Basto
Teacher: Mr. Kent Brooks
AFA Chapter 342 forwarded all the above winners as nominees for the Oklahoma State AFA leadership awards. Those Winners will be recognized at the 2011 Oklahoma State AFA Convention in Enid.
Again, a hearty “congratulations” to our 2011 AFA Leadership Awards Winners!
2011 Armed Forces Day Reveille Ceremony
On Armed Forces Day (21 May) Chapter 342 hosted the annual reveille ceremony and leadership awards breakfast at Altus AFB. Lt Col Robert L. Hanovich, 97th Air Mobility Wing Director of Staff and wing liaison to the Air Force Association, emceed the event, while 45 of Altus AFB’s finest airmen looked on in formation. We are again indebted to the Altus Blue Knights Honor Guard and the 97th Communications Squadron for their support of another meaningful and successful event.
Anual AFA JROTC Scholarships
Each year, Altus High School provides a forum for a litany of agencies to award academic scholarships to dozens of deserving graduating seniors.
At this year’s 24 May event, Gary Beach (Chapter 342 VP) awarded two $250.00 JROTC/AFA-sponsored scholarships to Altus High School seniors Skyler L. Fogle and Bradley Cox.
AFA Chapter 342 is proud of all our graduating seniors, but we offer our heartiest “best wishes” to Skyler and Bradley in their future scholarly endeavors!
Spring CCAF Graduation
On 26 April 2011 at the Freedom Community Center, Riq Baldwin (President, Oklahoma AFA) presented the AFA Pitsenbarger Award ($400) check to SSgt Alison Chesser, and the AFA Chapter 342 Burley Burleson Award ($200) to SrA Nicholas Carver during the Spring 2011 Community College of the Air Force Graduation.
Altus AFB Jan-Mar Quarterly Awards
On 27 April, 2011, the 97th Air Mobility Wing held its quarterly awards ceremony at the Altus AFB Movie Theater, to recognize their stand-out airmen and civilian employees. Winners this quarter were:
AFA Chapter 342 would like to add our congratulations to these outstanding individuals for the work and dedication they display on a day-to-day basis. As always we were proud to offer them a free 1-year membership to the Air Force Association and look forward to working with them throughout the next year.
 |
| Mid Level Civ: Robert A. Hughes |
 |
| AMN: A1C Bianca V. Garcia |
 |
| Supervisory Civ: Eric H. Edgecomb |
 |
| FGO: Maj Casey Collier |
 |
| Jr CGO: 1Lt Kathleen A Polesnak |
 |
| NCO: TSgt Anna N. Nelson |
 |
| SNCO: MSgt Chris Rueckert |
 |
| Sr. Level Civ: Neil J. Tully |
 |
| Jr. Level Civ: Keven Ward |
 |
| Volunteer: Bryan E. Walker |
 |
| CGO: Capt Christy L. Zhan |
Photos not available for the following:
Honor Guard: SrA Isaac Navarro
Dorm Rm: A1C Carolyn A. Alexander
Thursday, April 21, 2011
JROTC Cadet of the Year
On 16 April 2011, the Altus High School Jr ROTC held its annual Banquet to recognize outstanding students and performances throughout the year.
As a special treat, Eva Letha Lucas (President, AFA Chapter 342) presented the Air Force Association Cadet of the Year Award to Cadet Angela Basto...a standout performer in the unit.
Angela will also be honored at Altus AFB on 21 May during the annual AFA Leadership Awards Breakfast. Additionally she will compete at the State Level for the Oklahoma JROTC Cadet of the Year Award...GOOD LUCK, Angela!
As a special treat, Eva Letha Lucas (President, AFA Chapter 342) presented the Air Force Association Cadet of the Year Award to Cadet Angela Basto...a standout performer in the unit.
 |
| Cadet Angela Basto and Eva Letha Lucas |
Angela will also be honored at Altus AFB on 21 May during the annual AFA Leadership Awards Breakfast. Additionally she will compete at the State Level for the Oklahoma JROTC Cadet of the Year Award...GOOD LUCK, Angela!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
AFA Chapter 342 Community Partners
As always, AFA Chapter 342 would like to thank our marvelous Community Partners, that allow us to get our programs accomplished. Our current Community Partners are:
AgPreference
Altus Finance
Altus Finance, Inc.
Altus High School ROTC
Altus Laundry and Cleaners
Altus Printing Co.
Altus Times
Bartlett Insurance
Best Western
Boeing Field Services
Brewer’s Auto Supply
Bunker Hill United Drug
CableOne, Inc.
Carl & Carmen’s
Century 21 – Prestige Realty
City of Altus
Crown Jewelry
Dobbs & Brinkman, Inc.
Eastern Motors
Eddie’s Café
Elks Lodge #1226
First State Bank of Altus
FlightSafety Services
Gerrid Kendrix CPA
Higgs Loan Company
Hoppy’s Windshield Repair
Jackson Co. Memorial Hospital
Johnny Roberts Dodge
KEYB Radio
KWHW Radio
Latham & Nelson
Lee Office
Lucas Farms
Luigi’s Pizzeria
MidFirst Bank
MOCO
OK-1 Manufacturing
Petal Pushers Flowers
Privett Sales
Putnam Toyota
Red River Credit Union
Robert A. Beers
Shamrock Bank
Sheryl Homes Inc.
Smith & Smith Agency
Southwest Technology Center
Stockman’s Bank
United Discount Drug
WCR Enterprises
Western Oklahoma State College
Wilmes Superstore
Please tell them "thank you" next time you walk into their office or place of work!
AFA Golf Tournament
Bill Dobbs Memorial Golf Tournament
May 21st, 2011
Shotgun Start at 1000
Registration table opens at 0900
Registration table opens at 0900
18 Hole Golf Scramble @ Windy Trails Golf Course
4 person teams OPEN TO EVERYONE!
(Military, DoD and Civilian Employees, Dependents, and Guests)
Cash Prizes
Cost: $25.00 per person tournament fee plus cart & green fee
May purchase 2 mulligans for $10.00 (limit 2)
Prizes on every hole including Hole-In-One chance for $5000 !!!!
Join AFA at registration table day of event and get a FREE mulligan package and $5.00 off entry fee!!
POC is:
Rusty @ Windy Trails Golf Course 481-7207
Gary Beach (gary.beach@midfirst.com) 482-7516
Deadline for Team Entry is: 20th May 2011
Business Sponsorships Available
____$100 Golf Ball Hole Sponsor Sign
____Prize for Special Events Hole
Altus Annual Awards
The 97th Air Mobility Wing held its lavish Annual Awards Dinner at Club Altus, on 12 February, 2011, to recognize those Airmen and DoD Civilians that stood head and shoulders above their piers during the busy year. The elite annual Award Winners were:
Airman: A1C Wesley Barlow
NCO: TSgt Michael Daly
SNCO: SMSgt Erica Hammond
H/G Mbr: A1C Bryan Franklin
FGO: Maj Kurt Muller
CGO: Capt Thomas Clark
Jr. CGO: Lt James Six
Mid Lvl Civ: Bryan Walker
Sr. Lvl Civ: Mark Meazel
Jr. Lvl Civ: Latrisha Miller
Civ Super: Gary W. Cobb
Volunteer: Lt Aisha L. Smith
H/G Manager: TSgt Tanya Choyce
1st Sgt: SMSgt Richard Boyles
Air Force Association Chapter 342 proudly adds their congratulations to all the annual winners, offering them a free 1-year membership to the Air Force Association. Additionally, we will track each of the winners down at work and present them with a congratulatory AFA medal.
Airman: A1C Wesley Barlow
NCO: TSgt Michael Daly
SNCO: SMSgt Erica Hammond
H/G Mbr: A1C Bryan Franklin
FGO: Maj Kurt Muller
CGO: Capt Thomas Clark
Jr. CGO: Lt James Six
Mid Lvl Civ: Bryan Walker
Sr. Lvl Civ: Mark Meazel
Jr. Lvl Civ: Latrisha Miller
Civ Super: Gary W. Cobb
Volunteer: Lt Aisha L. Smith
H/G Manager: TSgt Tanya Choyce
1st Sgt: SMSgt Richard Boyles
Air Force Association Chapter 342 proudly adds their congratulations to all the annual winners, offering them a free 1-year membership to the Air Force Association. Additionally, we will track each of the winners down at work and present them with a congratulatory AFA medal.
CyperPatriot...Oklahoma Style
Two teams from Oklahoma made into the National finals for the third annual CyberPatriot Competition. Team “Annex” from Great Plains Technology Center, Lawton OK and “The Elite Dehax0rz” of Lakewood Christian School, McAlister OK.
Coach Sandra Marshall guided “The Elite Dehax0rz”, guiding members Chandler Browning, Dillon LeDoux, and Abigail Marshall.
Coach Wesley Sloan headed up “Annex” team members Dalton Bowers (Sr.), Joshua Durham, John Gardner (Sr.), Juston Hill, Mykyta Morozov, and Robert Traughber.
These two teams (along with 14 others nationwide), traveled to Washington DC for the National Finals which took place 31 March to 1 April.
Red Bank Regional High School, Little Silver, NJ ended up winning the Open Category competition, but that does not belittle the fact that our two Oklahoma teams made the “Sweet Sixteen” beating out well over 600 teams that competed across the nation. GREAT JOB!
Altus Quarterly Awards
On 24 January 2011, the 97th Air Mobility Wing held its quarterly awards dinner at Club Altus, to recognize their stand-out airmen and civilian employees. Winners this quarter were:
Airman: SrA Raquel Leiva
NCO: TSgt John Aluyan
SNCO: MSgt Frederick Turnipseed
FGO: Maj. Steven Martinez
CGO: Cpt. Marcus Cunningham
Jr CGO: 2Lt Shelley Ecklebe
Jr. Lvl Civ: Bonnie Devenport
Mid Lvl Civ: Joni Kelsey
Sr. Lvl Civ: Johnny Summerlin
Civ Super: James Nunley, Jr.
Volunteer: Tena Boren
H/G Mbr: SSgt Alvaro Rojas
Dorm Rm: SrA Angelic Ancho
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)