Leaderboard

I'm still not convinced that English is your first language. Hacker was commenting that the majority of fighter funding (what little there is for "legacy" platforms) is being spent on the WEAPON SYSTEM instead of ADMIN for the weapon system.

Death by bunga bunga?

Wait, I thought we couldn't go around because of the "threat"? You know, the threat from Al-Qaeda. I think in the past 10 years Al-Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan has done bout 4 million dollars worth of damage to USAF aircraft, "we" on the other hand have done close to 800 million. Know your threats!

It is almost as if they were more concerned about spending their time/effort/money on the tactical and weapons systems (ergo "warfighting") capabilities of the aircraft instead of the latest and greatest capabilities to fly around the National Airspace System.

Not every week...

My first trip to Afghanistan our commander asked us to come up with a list of our risks and prioritize them in order. We ended up with environment as the number one "threat." It was a good exercise in combat ORM.

Exactly. Some dudes in the MAF are so busy trying to be Tommy Tactical that they wind up doing the enemy's job for them.

Bra-fcukin'-vo!

And this is why we can't have nice things...

But Lt Bosch said you don't need good hand skills anymore. PS they are ok and lucky.

To me, the issue isn't deploying. It's deploying to fill jobs that shouldn't be rated jobs in the first place. I have no problem going to a targeting cell in the CAOC or working the fixed wing CAS desk at a CJSOAD somewhere. Its the fact that dudes are being deployed to be coffee-getters or briefing builders that yanks my chain. If the new Chief wants to make a change... he can start by asking the question "Are all these rated deployed billets really required?" My view is that the Army has figured out that a rated AF person can make quick decisions in a way that other tribes in the AF don't. As a result "can make spot decisions" gets morphed into "rated required."

Though it is indignant for the peanut gallery to hear such utterance from booger eating FAIPs and however easy it is to discredit their perspective due to lack of exposure (not their fault mind you), the jist of the argument is about right. I have met plenty of mediocre hands, some outright scary, I've had to seeing-eye help/rescue in the jet who have cleaner FEFs than mine. Being good on test day doesn't mean you're good. It's lowest common denominator fellas. Hands don't really mean shit past a nominal threshold of performance. Which is why FEFs and OPRs aren't reflective of an aviator's net daily skillset. In Blue's defense, the job is designed for all of us to be carbon copies of each other, just like the airlines, so individual differences in mechanical aptitude for flying don't mean one iota nor are recognized or awarded, outside a few niche special flying programs that require overt demonstration of above-average ability in order to get in. As to the rest of the article. Man, those two sound beat down, especially the T-1 chick. Talk about soul-crushing sour grapes. Somebody send these two a "3 rules of life" postcard with rule #1 highlighted in neon yellow. So, other people undeservingly get better deals than you...Um, welcome to Life?? Could be worse, she could be on a RC box watching her nail polish dry (is that comment degrading to women? lol). The power of perspective...

XL 13-07 T-38: DO-328 B-1 Dyess F-22 Tyndall F-16 Kelly A-10 DM U-28 Cannon T-6 FAIP F-15S Saudi x 3 T-1: C-17 Charleston C-17 McChord x 3 C-17 Hickam MC-12 Beale KC-135 Fairchild x 2 EC-130 DM x 2 KC-135 McConnell T-6 FAIP I don't remember the guard or reserve aircraft/bases.