THE CONTRAIL STAFF

This funded newspaper is an authorized monthly publication for members of the U.S. Military Services. Contents of The Contrail are not

necessarily the official view of, or endorsed by, the 177th Fighter Wing, the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense or the Depart-

ment of the Air Force. The editorial content is edited, prepared, and provided by the Public Affairs Office of the 177th Fighter Wing. All

photographs are Air Force photographs unless otherwise indicated.

FEBRUARY 2016, VOL. 50 NO. 2

1 7 7 T H F W C O M M A N D E R

C H I E F , P U B L I C A F F A I R S

E D I T O R / S U P E R I N T E N D E N T , P U B L I C A F F A I R S

P H O T O J O U R N A L I S T

P H O T O J O U R N A L I S T

A V I A T I O N H I S T O R I A N

C O L . J O H N R . D i D O N N A

C A P T . A M A N D A B A T I Z

M A S T E R S G T . A N D R E W J . M O S E L E Y

T E C H . S G T . A N D R E W J . M E R L O C K

S E N I O R A I R M A N S H A N E S . K A R P

D R . R I C H A R D P O R C E L L I

WWW.177FW.ANG.AF.MIL

On the cover: U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Ian Vanvranken, crew chief with the 177th Fighter Wing of

the New Jersey Air National Guard, marshals an F-16C Fighting Falcon to its parking spot at the Atlantic

City Air National Guard Base in Egg Harbor Township, N.J. on Jan. 29, 2016. The F-16 pilot, Capt.

Michael Gallinoto, just completed his final flight with the unit. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by Master

Sgt. Andrew J. Moseley/Released)

For back issues of The Contrail,

and other multimedia products

from the 177th Fighter Wing,

please visit us at DVIDS!

On desktop computers, click

Ctrl+L for full screen. On mobile,

tablet, or touch screen device,

tap or swipe to flip the page.

EO based on FMCP by Lt. Col. Diana Brown, Mission Support Group Commander

Subject: You’ve heard Confucius say, “Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.”

Approximately 1.4 million people serve in the U.S. armed forces; that equates to roughly 0.4% of the American population. We are an elite group of people with com-mon goals. Our goals are to meet the AF Mission to Fly, Fight and Win in Air, Space and Cyberspace. Our unit mission is to “Provide Highly Qualified/Combat-Ready Citizen Airmen, Mission-capable Aircraft/Equipment to Support National and State Objectives”. So, how are we going to do that? We follow our vision statement “From the Home Front to the Front Lines, Commu-nity-based, Professional Airmen, working as One Team, delivering State, National, & Global impact as Full Partners in the Total Force”.

In keeping with these principles, we want to develop our Airman. All service members are afforded equal opportunity in an environment free from harassment and unlawful discrimi-nation on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Ser-vice member promotions, awards and promo-tion potential are evaluated solely based on their individual Fitness, Merit, Capability, and Performance – FMCP (an easy way to remem-ber the FMCP acronym – Fully Mission Capa-ble Personnel). So, what does the concept of FMCP really mean?

The definition of “Fitness” is the condition of being physically fit and healthy, being suitable to fulfill a particular role or task. Fitness for duty is holistic. It includes mental, physical and emotional health. Fitness is not just passing the annual Fitness Assessment, alt-hough that is a mandatory requirement for promotion/AGR tours/reassignment potential, etc. As a member of the Armed forces, you have an obligation to perform at peak profi-ciency. It’s an inherent responsibly to take care of yourself so you can take care of your responsibilities.

“Merit” means quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward, excellence, quality, caliber, worth. You’ve heard the saying “quality over quantity”; so in everything you do, you need to strive for quality and excellence. “Excellence” is an Air Force, and therefore our, Core Val-ue. Consideration for a job/promotion/etc. when measuring merit includes consistently trying to perform all of your duties with excel-lence.

“Capability” is the extent of someone’s or something’s ability. Are you capable of per-forming the tasks of your assigned position, duties and responsibilities? Are you able to do your job? If the answer is no, why not? Have you discussed the limitations you have with your supervisor, Chief, First Ser-geant or Commander? If not, you need to. Allow them to assist you in your efforts to become capable.

“Performance” is the action or process of car-rying out or accomplishing an action, task or function. Are you performing your job? Are you being a productive member of your flight/squadron/work center? Are you giving 100% every time you come to drill? Do you know what your responsibilities are, and are you meeting and exceeding defined standards?

In summary, Fitness is the ability to be physi-cally/mentally fit and healthy. Mer-it involves getting a raise or promotion based on past performance and future poten-tial. The five key areas of capability are Core competencies; Past performance; Differentia-tors; Data and Contact information. Perfor-mance is based on Knowledge of work; Quali-ty of work; Situational Responsiveness and Dependability.

Lets' explore a short list of how to excel in all areas discussed:

1. Take initiative and explore better ways to do your job

2. Team effort is best accomplished with good com-munication

3. Maintain and demonstrate a positive attitude

4. Act professionally in all situations

5. Give 100% from the minute you start working un-til you leave at night

6. Learn how to handle constructive criticism

7. Be a problem solver

8. Single task. Multi-tasking slows you down, increases stress and causes mistakes

9. Organize and prioritize: identify the top two criti-cal projects

10. Aim for clarity and ask if you aren't totally sure

11. Keep a journal of your professional and personal development

12. Passion for what you do is the most important way to succeed: love your work

13. Write a capability statement unique to your job description

14. Schedule a fitness program and demonstrate to yourself the discipline to maintain the effort

We are an all-volunteer force. Each and every one of you who are reading this and who are members of this Wing serve here of your own volition. 177 FW Leadership/Supervisors/Wingmen are here to sup-port your goals, we are here to meet our mission and we must support you. It won’t be easy, but as Tom Hanks said in A League of Their Own… “It’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard, everyone would be do-ing it, the hard makes it great!"

An active shooter is a national epidemic and is considered the number one threat to the 177th Fighter Wing. Some statistics estimate in 2015 alone, over 380 Americans were killed in about 294 mass shootings. Another sobering thought… according to the FBI, an average active shooter incident lasts 12 minutes and 37% of these inci-dents last less than 5 minutes; 43% of the time, the event is over before law enforcement arrives.

Individual action is the key to survival and accord-ing to AFTTP 3-4.6, Active Shooter, you have three options to live; ESCAPE, BARRICADE or FIGHT. But before all that, you must be prepared to re-ceive an alert.

Active shooter incidents occur without warning. As these incidents unfold rapidly, it is important that you receive and follow instructions an-nounced through the Command Post. Emergency Mass Notification Systems are in place and it is a layered approach. Among one of those is Desk Top Alert. Believe it or not, it’s designed to do much more than pop-up weather advisories on your computer. That is why it is important for everyone to update personal cell phone and emails registered in Desk Top Alert. Most of us today carry our cell phones with us everywhere we go. So if your not at your computer, the Com-mand Post will be able to immediately advise you to take action during an active shooter incident. If you get a text message that says LOCK DOWN; know what to do.

ACTIVE SHOOTER AWARENESS: 3 options to live Article by Chief Master Sgt. Mike Allen, 177th Fighter Wing Security Forces Squadron, photos by MSgt. Andrew Moseley 177th FW/PA

ESCAPE to a safe location that provides protection from small arms fire, even if it’s a nearby building. When safe, notify first responders and provide the location, number of shooters, de-scription of shooters, type of weapons and number of poten-tial victims. Above all else, stay under cover.

BARRICADE is not another word for hiding. It is affirmative steps to delay or deter a shooter from entering a room. Re-member, in most active shooter incidents, time is on your side. Close and lock doors and move heavy objects to barri-cade the door. Sometimes barricading a door is not possible, such as when doors open out from the room you are in. In this case use objects in the room to create obstacles to slow down or block the view of the shooter. Turn lights off, silence cell phones and limit movement. Don’t even whisper, unless absolutely necessary.

FIGHT if you must and if it offers the best chance for survival. Violence of action is key in this situation. If you are unarmed, use improvised weapons, such as scissors, fire extinguishers, and/or anything heavy. Try to coordinate an attack with an-other airman by throwing things at the shooter’s to distract and flank them out. Most importantly, if fighting is your only option, COMMIT to the fight; nothing is foul play when you are trying to survive. Groin strikes and biting are not taboo when confronted by an active shooter. If you are able to sub-due the shooter, take the weapon, make sure it’s loaded and functioning. Be prepared to use it or give it someone who will.

Rest assured, Security Forces is well trained and equipped to respond to an active shooter, but it is up to you to buy the time needed for survival. Pre-planning and practicing these tips will help you survive an active shooter incident. When a lock down order is announced, remember these three words, escape, barricade or fight.

When you hear the order LOCK DOWN, follow your procedures and proceed to a safe room. But, if you’re directly confronted with a shooter and an es-cape route is available, use it. All options are on the table; consider windows, doors, or roof hatches.

Consider all points of egress, but do a little pre-planning in your workstation. If you have a means to escape, DO IT regardless if others agree to follow and don’t waste precious time gathering belongings like jackets or backpacks.

Story by Dr. Richard V. Porcelli

The Convair F-106A Delta Dart – The Ultimate Interceptor

Part 1: The Delta Wing

Starting in late 1972 the 119TH Fighter Squadron transitioned from the F-105B

fighter-bomber to the F-106A interceptor (NJANG photo via Don Spering)

Background

As reported in the last issue of The Contrail the 119th Tactical Fighter Squadron flew the Re-

public F-105B Thunderchief for a relatively short time, from 1970 to 1973. The subsequent

transition saw a drastic change in the 119th’s mission, assignment and equipment. Before

relating the details of the F-106 Delta Dart’s years with the New Jersey Air National Guard, it

is important to review the interesting but tortuous development history of this remarkable

aircraft.

Of all the “Century Series” of USAF fighters (F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F105 and F-106), the

F-106A was built in fewer numbers. Yet its mystique surpasses all others, as does it spectacu-

lar appearance in flight and on the ground. It also had a longer operational history than its

stable mates. It was developed as a pure interceptor (the last ever built for the USAF), with

weapons hidden within a weapons bay, giving it an amazingly clean and sleek appearance

even when carrying external fuel tanks. It was designed for one thing – shooting down in-

truding enemy aircraft, with no compromises to give it a strike, reconnaissance or any other

function. And it did it exceedingly well, justifying its description as the “Ultimate Intercep-

tor.”

The origins of the F-106A go back to the years following World War II, which could be charac-

terized as the most exciting and at the same time the most challenging for American military

aircraft producers. It was a period of rapid advances in aerodynamic design, often stymied

by the inability of the early turbojets to provide sufficient thrust and reliability. Furthermore,

as speed increased, the impact of previously not encountered aerodynamic forces and

effects provided a further challenge.

During WWII, the US Army Air Force (USAAF) recognized the need for an advanced, pure air-

to-air weapons system capable of facing the threat of long-range Russian bombers (amazing,

since despite at that time Russia was our ally in the war against Nazi Germany!). The USAAF

foresaw a design that integrated airframe, missiles, fire control system and ground con-

trolled intercepts. In August 1945 the USAAF issued a request for proposals for a supersonic

interceptor capable of reaching 700 mph at 50,000 feet within 4 minutes of takeoff. Among

the many companies submitting bids, Consolidated Vultee (Convair) was one of the more

advanced designs. The swept-wing, V-tail design powered by four rocket motors, along with

a meager 1,560 pounds thrust Westinghouse turbojet looked good on paper, but wind tun-

nel testing showed severe stability problems. Due to the post-war period of cutbacks in de-

fense spending, the Air Force cancelled the request for proposals.

The Origins Of The Delta Wing

Convair continued to work on the high per-

formance interceptor concept; their new

design relied heavily on research performed

by German designer Dr. Prof. Alexander Lip-

pisch. The postwar Operation “Paperclip”

was the capture of all sorts of German tech-

nical data, weapons designs, entire aircraft

and rockets and even scientists/engineers.

In that “treasure trove” of information was

the work of Dr. Lippisch, who starting in the

1930s experimented with tailless, delta

winged gliders. One of these design be-

came the rocket powered Messerschmitt

Me-163 Comet point-defense interceptor.

Although too late to influence the war’s out-

come, in combat against massed Eight Air

Force B-17 and B-24 bomber formations it

proved to be a potent foe.

Another Lippisch design,

Project 13A, was for a

1,000 mph ramjet pow-

ered fighter. Wind tunnel

testing in Germany indicat-

ed stability up to Mach 2.6.

Due to wartime shortages

of gasoline and kerosene,

the design was based on

the use of finely pulverized

coal as the fuel! A rotating

mesh drum containing coal

was located in front of the

ramjet engine’s inlet, and

once ignited by bottled

natural gas, would contin-

ue combustion in the ram-

jet engine. Takeoff and

acceleration to ramjet sustaining airspeed was accom-

plished by either a booster rocket or a piggyback ride on a

“mother” aircraft. The tiny tail-less, delta wing design also

featured the cockpit embedded into a vertical stabilizer fin.

Although the coal-fired ramjet was in fact tested success-

fully, a glider test version of the design was still under con-

struction when the war ended.

The Convair XF-92A, The “Daddy” Of All Deltas

After the war, Dr. Lippisch (and his near-complete test glid-

er) immigrated to the US. NACA (the predecessor of NASA)

sponsored continued testing, resulting in a drastic change

in the original design to a point it was barely recognizable.

Convair used this highly modified P13A aerodynamic design

to develop a new experimental interceptor, their Model

7002 that became known as the XF-92A. They tested a

number of propulsion and airframe variants and settled on

60-degree leading edge sweep delta wing and an unfortu-

nately anemic afterburning turbojet engine.

Equipped with a 4200-pound thrust Allison J-33 engine, the XF-

92A was first flown on 6 June 1948 from Muroc Dry Lake (later

to become Edwards AFB). After about 20 hours to flight time by

Convair pilots, the aircraft was turned over to the USAAF; it was

assigned to test pilots Frank Everest and Chuck Yeager. On his

second flight, Yeager managed to reach Mach 1.05 for a brief

time. On landing approach, he found he could raise the nose up

to 45 degrees of pitch without an aerodynamic stall, with con-

trolled flight as slow as 67 mph, almost 100 mph slower than

Convair had calculated! In 1951 a more powerful (7,500

pounds thrust) turbojet was fitted, but overall performance was

not changed drastically. As a prototype fighter-interceptor the

XF-92A proved to be a disappointment, failing to even come

close to design predictions for speed and ceiling, which turned

out to be highly unrealistic. In 1953 the XF-92A was then

turned over to NACA where Scott Crossfield conducted a fur-

ther series of flights exploring the handling properties of delta

wings. The test pilots really did not like the aircraft, with Yeager

saying it was “a tricky plane to fly”, and Crossfield commenting

“nobody wants to fly the XF-92; there was no lineup of pilots for

that airplane and it was a miserable flying, underpowered

beast.” But the test flights did help gain knowledge about delta

wing designs, that would be valuable information in the devel-

opment of the subsequent Convair F-102 Delta Dagger and F-

106 Delta Dart fighters, and their B-58 Hustler supersonic

bomber. French aircraft producer Marcel Dassault later adopt-

ed the delta concept for use in its Mirage family of high perfor-

mance fighters and bombers. Sweden’s Saab also used the delta

wing concept in its Draken fighter. Today’s fourth generation fight-

ers, including Europe’s Eurofighter/Typhoon, Dassault Rafael and

Saab JS39 Gripen, are direct descendants of the delta wing, but with

front canards added for greater maneuverability.

The 1954 Ultimate Interceptor Competition

In January 1949 the Army Air Force issued an Advanced Develop-ment Objective [ADO] for an advanced interceptor system, dubbed “1954 Ultimate Interceptor.” The name indicated the year the inter-ceptor system was to be operational. Recent intelligence warnings about mounting Soviet capabilities and growth limits on the inter-ceptors then under development (the North American F-86D Sabre Dog; Northrop F-89 Scorpion and F-94 Lockheed Starfire) spurred the Air Force interest in this ADO. Based on the increasing complex-ity of weapons, this ADO departed from previous procurement pro-cedures of isolated and compartmentalized development of compo-nents. It decided this advanced interceptor should be developed as a Weapons System Concept integrating airframe, engines, arma-ment and electronics into one package. A request for proposals of the new interceptor, Project MX-1554, issued 18 June 1950, called for an airframe capable of greater than Mach1 speed at greater than 50,000 feet altitude with an opera-tional date of 1954.

Messerschmitt Me-163 rocket powered interceptor was a tail-less aircraft designed by

Dr. Prof. Lippisch; it saw limited service at the end of WWII (USAF photo)

Lippisch P13A tail-less, delta wing glider was the basis of Convair’s

delta wing fighters. (luftwaffe46 website)

An early Convair design developed from the Lippisch delta concept is shown

in the XP-92 mockup, with the radial cockpit mounted within the engine

inlet! (USAF photo)

Just three months later, Hughes Aircraft Company was awarded a contract for Project MX-1179, the Electronic Control System [ECS] around which the MX-1554 airframe would be built. Hughes’ advantageous position was based on their work, dating from 1946, on radar-based gunfire control systems for the F-86A Sabre and F-94A Starfire.

On 1 January 1951 six contractors submitted nine airframe bids: Republic (3 proposals), North American (2), Lockheed, Chance Vought, Douglas and Con-vair (one each). On 2 July 1951 three firms (Convair, Republic and Lockheed) were selected to build mockups leading to the determination of the ultimate winner. But shortly thereafter, funding issues forced the Air Force to cancel the Lockheed contract, leaving just the Convair and Republic entries.

The Convair F-102A And Its Difficult Development Program

In September 1951 the Air Force awarded a Letter Contract [LC] for the Con-vair design, powered by an interim Westinghouse J-40 turbojet, while awaiting development of the higher power Wright J-67 engine (a license built version of the Rolls Royce Olympus engine). Performance requirements for the MX-1554/J-40 combination were set at Mach 1.88 with a 56,500-foot ceiling. The subsequent MX-1554/J-67 combination, given the F-102A desig-nation by the Air Force, would include the Hughes MX-1179 ECS with perfor-mance of Mach 1.93 at 62,000 feet. It would also be known as the “1954 Ul-timate Interceptor” as explained above. The contract followed the Cook-Craigie Plan for simultaneous testing and early production, with changes de-termined by flight test incorporated into subsequent production blocks.

As an interesting side story, the development of Republic’s proposal, the XF-103 Thunderceptor, which featured an advanced aerodynamic design and construction entirely of titanium, was also funded. Republic received funding for three aircraft, which was later reduced to just one prototype. The Repub-lic design incorporated many advanced features and technologies that had not yet been developed. Ultimately, problems with engine development as well as titanium fabrication issues led the Air Force to cancel the Republic project in 1957.

Convair got a development contract for the J-40 powered F-102A, with the goal of eventually substituting the new (but still under development) 10,000-pound thrust Pratt & Whitney J-57 turbojet. But as the design phase contin-ued, it became apparent that the aircraft was overweight and underpowered. Also the MX-1179 ECS was well behind schedule and also terribly over weight. Wind tunnel testing also projected performance falling far short of requirements.

At this stage, the Air Force recognized that at best, the F-102A would only be an interim solution to the need for a high performance interceptor. Simulta-neous with the continued development of the F-102A, now minus the MX-1179 ECS, Convair was charged with the development of its replacement, the

true “Ultimate Interceptor”, which would feature a more advanced engine, more stream-lined fuselage and full MX-1179 ECS, but retaining the same delta wing design of the F-102A. This next fighter was initially called the F-102B, but would in 1956 become the F-106A, the main subject of this story. But that was a few years away.

Meanwhile, high transonic drag of the F-102A was predicted, but prior to the first test flights, Convair refused to believe how bad the situation actually was. It was not until flight test (the first flight of the YF-102A in October 1953) that Convair realized how bad a per-former the prototype was, with drag limiting maximum speed to Mach 0.98 with a maxi-mum ceiling of only 48,000 feet. The performance was so poor that there was a danger than the Air Force would cancel the entire program.

The solution was a drastic redesign of the F-102A while initial production was underway. The key was to employ what the aeronautical engineers referred to as “Whitcomb Area Rule” (named after NACA scientist Rich-ard T. Whitcomb), which required the adjustment of the cross-sectional area along the fuselage body to minimize transonic and supersonic drag. In practice, this was achieved by indenting the bulky fuselage to a “coke-bottle” or “wasp waist” configuration. At the same time, early testing showed the need for a major wing redesign with cambered leading edg-es; reflex (twisted) wingtips; rearward relocation of the wing; relocation and extension of the vertical tail; and a 7 foot extension of the fuselage length.

Convair’s XF-92A prototype for a delta wing fighter was a disappointment but did provide valuable data for future delta wing aircraft. (USAF photo)

This fundamental design change threw a veritable “monkey wrench” into the Cook-Cragie Plan, which included early tooling. With the redesign of the F-102A, of the 30,000 fabri-cation tools purchased for the production line, more than 20,000 had to be discarded and replaced.

The highly modified, J-57 powered first production F-102A, called the “hot rod” to contrast it with the two, underper-forming unmodified YF-102A prototypes, achieved the de-sired performance of Mach 1.22 and 53,000 foot ceiling. It entered service in April 1956, 10 years after its predecessor XF-92A’s first flight. Armament was a combination of 6 Fal-con air-to-air missiles and 24 2.75-inch or 2-inch unguided rockets. A total of 889 single-seat F-102As plus 111 TF-102A two-seat trainers were built between June 1953 and Septem-ber 1958. The F-102A Delta Dagger stayed in Air Force in-ventory (Air Defense Command, Pacific Air Forces and US Air Forces Europe) until 1970 and then served with the Air Na-tional Guard (23 ANG squadrons at its peak) until 1976.

As indicated above, during the 1952 – 1955 period as work continued on developing and producing the F-102A, which had then been given the name Delta Dagger, it was increas-ingly apparent that it would never achieve the performance set for the “Ultimate Interceptor.”

Comparison of F-102A before (left) and after (right) “area rule” modification; note the narrow canopy and pinched waist on the modified version (USAF photo)

Convair’s XF-92A prototype (NASA photo) aircraft. (USAF

Although the development problems of the F-102A caused a severe drain on funding, work continued on the improved version, the F-102B. It would be equipped with the MX-1179 ECS (later the MA-1 Automatic Weapon Control System), which had been deleted from the F-102A due to development delays, and powered by the Wright J-67 turbojet. As further testing of the revised F-102A showed more promising results, a production contract was granted which included 749 A models and only 17 B models.

The Convair F-102B

A mockup inspection of the F-102B was successfully competed in December 1955, which included a proposed cockpit arrangement featuring the Hughes MA-1 fire con-trol system and advanced instrument displays.

On 28 September 1956 the Air Force issued its initial requirements for the F-102B in-cluding the capability of intercepting and destroying hostile “vehicles” under all weather conditions at altitudes as high as 70,000 feet and with a combat radius of 375 miles. Intercepts would be accomplished at speeds up to Mach 2 at 35,000 feet, and be, in the words of the documentation, “under automatic guidance provided by the ground environment and the aircrafts fire control system.” In other words, the F-102B would be an integral part of the SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) com-mand-control-communications [C3] system just being deployed. Armament, initially, was similar to the F-102A and based on nuclear tipped guided missiles and rockets. The new target date for initial operational capability was moved back to 1958, four years later than the original “1954 Ultimate Interceptor” program.

The proposed F-102B was to be equipped with the Wright j-67 engine, but the prob-lematic development of that engine forced the Air Force to consider a different en-gine. Therefore, it was powered with the even more potent Pratt & Whitney J75 tur-bojet, itself an advanced and improved version of the dependable and widely used J-57, which powered the production F-102A along with the F-100 Super Sabre, F8U Cru-sader, B-52 Stratofortress, KC-135 Stratotanker and others.

Convair test flew the prototype F-102B (56-0451), an aerodynamic test bed, for the first time on 26 December 1956, 38 months later than the F-102A made its first flight. A second F-102B prototype (56-0452), equipped with a full set of electronic equip-ment, flew two months later. The important point to recognize is the continued devel-opment of the F-102A and the initial testing of the F-102B were taking place at the same time. This overlap of the two programs would cause problems, as we will see in Part 2 of this article in the next issue of the Contrail.

The F-102A became operational with the ADC in April 1956; the 332nd FIS at McGuire AFB received their Delta Daggers, one shown here, in 1957. (USAF photo)

The F-102B prototype; note the “FC” buzz number. (USAF photo)

As we remember our great Presidential leaders this month on Presidents Day, consider the following quote:

“Remember the difference between a boss and a leader…. A boss says "Go!" A leader says "Let's go!" ~E.M. Kelly

When we think of our first President George Washington and our 16th President Abra-

ham Lincoln we ask the following question. What makes a true leader has always fasci-

nated me? I have noticed that it is both a combination of their leadership style in which

they lead and their ability to maximize the potential of those around them? In the military

organization one can have both traits and neither of them and still be called a leader or a

boss.

I remember that one of my supervisors, when I was in the Air Guard Medical Group used

to say: “a leader leads by example.” How true this was when I was in both The Marine

Corps and the Air National Guard. I think each one of us is a leader at some point in time

and almost everywhere. We all can set an example. You do not have to have a title; be

a Senior NCO; or an Officer or to be considered one. You simply need to influence those

around you. When you speak do people listen? What example do you set? More im-

portantly, what example do you want to set?

Ask yourself, if you have these Leadership qualities, which include humility, integrity, fair-

ness, assertiveness, and dedication? Good leaders encourage others to share their ide-

as and opinions without fear of reprisal. They are in touch with their emotional, mental,

and physical needs and those around them. They realize the mission is not about one

individual but the whole. Good leaders give credit where credit is due with words and ac-

tions of appreciation as part of their daily routine. They laugh often, listen always, and

learn from others.

Good leaders have the ability to “paint the big picture,” and provide a rewarding vision.

They motivate others to embrace the vision and in turn, become more productive than

if they just performed routine job requirements.

Good Air Guard leaders command confidence and trust, not by demanding but by en-

couraging. Even in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, an effective leader will

tell you “don’t give up but to keep fighting.” Consider, isn’t that what we are called to do

every day at work and at home.

If you have any questions or want to discuss your leadership definition, or simply want

a FREE CONFIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT, come on over to Building 229 (Next to the

Gym) or contact me at 609-761-6871 / 609-289-6713 or andrew.savicky.civ@mail.mil.

The political scene is heating up.

What are the dos and don'ts for Airmen on social media?

Find out in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vsx-xYT9YU

For more awards photos, check out the

177th Fighter Wing Facebook page!

The Boys Scouts of America, Jersey Shore Council, donated popcorn to the 177th Fighter Wing. During their annual fundraising drive, patrons purchased popcorn for troops and it was delivered on 1/12/16 by John Brilla, District Director. ANG/Master Sgt. Andrew Moseley

From left, U. S. Air Force Col. John (Jack) O’Connell, USAFE JA, helps change the epaulets on Lt Col Daniel Mitola, 177th FW JAG, to Colonel while Mitola’s uncle, Chief Master Sgt. Ron Poserina (Ret.) helps on Jan. 10, 2016. ANG/Master Sgt. Andrew Moseley

From right, U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Wayne Kenney and Senior Airman Michael Calabrese, electrical-environmental personnel from the New Jersey Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing, inspect the solder joint on the nose wheel steering electronics of an F-16 Fighting Falcon on Jan. 10, 2016. ANG/Master Sgt. Andrew Moseley

U.S. Air Force Capt. Michael Gallinoto taxis his F-16C Fighting Falcon to its parking spot after his fini flight at the Atlantic City Air National Guard Base in Egg Harbor Township, N.J. on Jan. 29, 2016 as Maj. David Still looks on. ANG/Master Sgt. Andrew Moseley

Members of the 177th Force Support Squadron augmented the 100th Force Support Squadron, RAF Mildenhall, from 12-31 Jan 2016. Services provided were Meal Preparation in the

DFAC, Gym Facility Support, SPEK Training and Military Personnel Section Training. 177th FSS members also supported base ops during CMSAF Cody's visit and a Personnel Deployment

Function sending 50+ Wing Members to Moron AB, Spain. (Courtesy Photo)

Final Photo DFT to England