Leaderboard

So, ISIS should have picked.....their battles....a little more wisely?

In all honesty, anyone who says this neither has the clearance or need-to-know to even be informed on exactly what the Lightning does bring to the table, nor the knowledge/experience to understand what that stuff it has means to the missions Lightning will be tasked with accomplishing. There are a lot of things that are not so great about the Lightning. To cast those deficiencies into believing that it is not worthy of replacing the Viper and Hog is just ignorant. To even think that the legacy platforms are even remotely equipped to deal with the threats of the next 20-30 years that Lightning and Raptor will have to deal with it just ludicrous. With that kind of logic, let's go dig out the A-1s and O-2s from the boneyard so we can really go to town in the CAS world. Let's park all of those F-16CJs and whip out the F-4Gs, let's junk the Growlers and get the Spark Varks flying again. These are ALL aircraft where people cried that the world was going to end because the aircraft replacing them wasn't as capable as the aircraft being replaced...and guess what: somehow we've managed to just squeak by with those under-capable "replacement" MDSs. In a double-digit-SAM and Flanker world, the Viper, Hog, Eagle, and Hornet are just not going to cut it with the margin that we need to ensure that we will win with the least amount of flag-draped caskets.

It's funny that finance only knows the parts of the JFTR that will fuck you over. Anything in your advantage is like voodoo to them.

Seems USAFPilot keeps picking the same battle. Listen dude, if you want to constantly criticize your government and it's international doctrine, have at it. That's your right and there are plenty of places for you to do that. In uniform is not one of them. You claim to be an authority on how the founding fathers wanted this country organized but you consistently and conveniently forget one major fact: The military was and is deliberately distanced from making policy. And for good reason. As was said a few posts up, this is what separates us from the Third World shitholes where the strongest guy gets to run things until somebody more brutal comes along. Make no mistake; YOU and I and EVERYONE WHO SERVES are INSTURMENTS of power. That oath you keep talking about makes that point pretty clearly (Hint: It's deeper than it appears and you and the oath takers don't have exclusive rights on interpretation). You don't get to decide where we fight. The people of this nation do that through their elected leaders. Don't get confused by the fact that you get to participate in that process. Part of being a professional officer is being able to put your personal ideals aside when your country calls you. If you can't do that, I sure as fuck don't want you in my cockpit, on my wing, or anywhere near US military assets when the shit hits the fan. If you're as conflicted as you appear, I suggest you consider taking a leave of absence (new program--probably perfect for you) and consider your chosen profession.

Jesus people, you're insatiable. He said 7 months ago or so that he was going to mask the master's for major and fix IDE/SDE for officers. He did. These things take time, you don't make 4-star general without understanding politics and he had to do some politicking at a few coronas to build his coalition to make it happen. He's also fixing the EPR system, or trying his hardest to fix it. I have no idea what the problem with SNCO PME is, I'm sure it's as screwed up as anything else, but if it is I have some faith it's on his (or the CMSAF's) radar and he's/they are going to work on it when he can. Give the man some credit. He's following through with what he said he would. Are things better in the USAF now than they were 3 years ago? Yes. For at least the following reasons: 1) Mission focus -- he has consistently said his number one priority for performance reports is job performance. So, master's madness is on its way out. 2) Uniform improvements -- no more mandatory blues on monday, and he even did it in such a way that demonstrated delegation and trust in his followers vice micromanaging that we all hate. Although some of the people on this message board complained that he didn't just mandate no more blues on monday. And I can wear a red t-shirt on Fridays. And so can the MXG. And the MSG, and the MDG. I think it's cool that Friday shirts are back and even cooler than instead of it being only the primadonna zipper suited sun gods who get to look different on Friday now everyone can. Reminds me of the photos from the 90s with the baseball hats or whatever you silverbacks wore with BDUs. 3) Honesty and followthrough at the top. Nothing is perfect, but he is, in fact, doing what he said he would and trying to fix the USAF. His messages have been consistent and clear and at least in my little corner of the big blue world it's starting to make a difference. So I get it dudes, we love to sport bitch. But this is way better than we were 3 years ago. Way, way better. The dude has to keep a lot of plates spinning so there will be things you aren't happy with, but overall life isn't so bad, Really. <insert "BUT HE NEVER SENT OUT HIS VECTOR THAT HE PROMISED US 18 MONTHS AGO HE'S A LIAR AND AN ASSHOLE11!!111!!" comment here>

I couldn't have said it better than Lawman. Of course I'd like to think that few of us would stand for somebody naming themselves dictator and expecting the military to go along. That is not what we are talking about here. Until someone decides that 8 years just isn't enough, I'll consider the political process in this country to be working. Despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, there are still a lot of checks and balances at work in our system. As long as that is the case, I will salute smartly and do what my country asks despite whatever misgivings I may have. That is a big part of what I consider being a professional military officer (note that this does not change whether one decides to serve full or part time). Now, If you are concerned about the apparent rise in the power of the executive branch (and I would agree there is evidence to support such a concern), let me ask you this: Can you separate your personal and political views from reality? Is our current president worse than our last (you know, the guy who signed the Homeland Security Act into law) in this regard? I would argue that its actually a pretty close call, but I don't recall many voices from within the military questioning my willingness to honor my oath when I went to the desert 10 years ago. This leads me to suspect that the current crop of PYBers are motivated as much or more by their political leanings as by their self assumed moral authority. Military Officers in this country are generally a pretty conservative bunch. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that as long as we keep our personal views just that; Personal. What would be dangerous is for us as an officer corps to say "We support such and such party and if our CinC doesn't hold true to our political views, we will not follow his orders." The PYBers, I think have crossed that line.

Thats a bit of a red herring argument to make when the idea being pushed here is Political Insubordination to actions viewed as non constitutional because they take place where "we have no business." Thats the problem with the Oath Keeper argument, nobody in the military is condoning the idea of a President declaring themselves king or violating Posse Commitatus in order to impose some sort of political agenda of a tyrant on the citizens you swore to protect. But the Oath Keepers seem to pervert that into "we should refuse any order that doesnt abide our narrow and specific interpretation of executive powers." The Authorization to use force was approved by congress, and acted on by the executive branch which is exactly the way the use of our military was designed from the get go. The question posed up was should Military Officers be questioning authority publicly and vocally thereby making themselves part of the political sphere of decision making as to whether or not we should go do something, not what will we do when asked to go do something. Absolutely not. No different than it is completely inappropriate to stand up and tell the boss "Hey I dont agree with ____ and you should change your mind and if you dont Im not carrying out your order" in front of your subordinates. There is a difference between standing up as the final back stop between some obviously illegal activity (anybody get ordered to drop a bomb on protestors?) and putting on your uniform to lend credibility to your argument of "I dont like this guys decision to go into country X, and I think its wrong so Im saying something (as a member of the military)." You have the right to disagree with whatever you like as a citizen, when you put on the uniform those rights and responsibilities change.

Just curious, is there any time you could think of where our military (via the top General/Flag Officers to the rest of the force?) should/would go against what the President was ordering us to do? Or is there a time where our military should step in and stop the President from doing something...and then possibly overthrow him/her? If yes, then please provide a couple of examples of where this would be possible. Now if the answer is no, then my next question would then be why don't military officers just take an oath to support the current President and execute his/her orders? I mean, that's kind of what the military does, right? Since the 1880's, I'm not aware of the military (from the top down) ever going against whatever the President has ordered...is this because the President was 'preserving, protecting, and defending The Constitution' 100% of the time? I have a feeling the American citizens who were put against their will (without due process) into camps (all because of their Japanese ancestry) didn't believe that the President was 'preserving, protecting, and defending The Constitution' at that time. So should someone have stepped in? If so, who should have done it? Or does it just come down to what 5 people in black robes says is Constitutional? I was taught way back in the day that what made our military different than many others in the word/history is that we don't take an oath to support a specific person, that we didn't take an oath to support a specific government office, that we didn't take an oath to support a certain piece of land...that we took an oath to support and defend The Constitution. But if what we're really doing is just supporting and defending the part of the Constitution that says the President is in charge no matter what he/she orders at the time, then we should probably just be honest and say that's what we support and that the rest of The Constitution is just meh. This discussion probably should be moved to a different/its own thread.

I thought PYB had been banned from here at least twice now? His persistence is impressive, and sorta sad.

Thats about what I figured.... Anybody in the room who doesnt see your view point obviously isnt as smart as you... thats exactly how your opinion comes off in these threads. Like every action is a narrative and your the guy that can see through it all. You repeatedly make comments along the lines of us being Mercenaries or unwilling accomplices to the global capitalist Machine of the 1% or something of that nature... So why the hell are you still here after you've seen the truth from the inside. Do you think that your service is the inside route to convince everybody that what we are doing is wrong? If your so bound and determined if there is some sort of moral high ground that you need to stand up on to challenge this status quo what are you doing wasting your time here? You make the statement like its somehow our job to stand up to the leadership to challenge the civil authority.... Thats the kind of shit you see in backward ass South American countries where the Military decides "F this guy we know better." A thorough understanding of the constitution would let you understand that just about everybody with the exception of Ron Paul understands that an Authorization to use Force (which was given for our little romp in Iraq) carries the same standing as a Declaration of War, the title is just more politically palatable in todays day and age. No different than its the Department of Defense but we have a hell of a lot of Offensive Firepower when it used to be the War Department. Words change, meanings are the same. What are we supposed to do the day that the people in charge tell you drop that weapon on XXX, not fly? Go on camera in your uniform like those asshats on Facebook and let yourself become a tool in another nation/force/regimes propaganda? Its the military, we are the ultimate force behind the political will of our nation. We are not beholden to ourselves and our decisions on how we should be doing things beyond executing a policy. If thats your attitude your in the same boat as Caesar. Your voice in the discussion is your vote, not your uniform. And your moral objection to a nation acting within its interests is just terrifyingly short sighted. Nationalism is not a goal I would support, but to be so naive to think that if we just take some sort of moral high ground and "let it be" that everything will work out is ridiculous. Stalin didnt respond to concessions he claimed half of Europe and would have taken all of it if we hadnt had tanks in the way. Putin has effectively annexed a chunk of Ukraine and the show isnt over while we have said its not our problem. What does that tell Lithuania or Finland when our national interest is to just wish real hard that everybody understands being nice to one another is the right thing to do. National prestige, power, influence, whatever you want to call it does not exist in a vacuum. Just because we vote ourselves out of the game doesnt mean we win because everybody else will keep playing. Do you think we should just show the world that we are out of the game? Should we have let Kuwait be annexed because hey bro not my problem? Do you think China is just going to stop trying to become the big player in Asia if we tell everybody over there "we are out guys, handle your business."

Im just curious because your posts all show a trend of an isolationist "this isnt our business and its amoral to try and push our national interests on anyone anywhere," attitude.... Why are you in the military? Are you even in the military? Do your bro's in the unit or does your chain of command understand that you seem to be morally apposed to any and all actions that the rest of us carry out willingly? Seriously, any time there is a thread about any kind of military action your quick to come in here and imply that we are all unknowing or ignorant conspirators in some sort of criminal/immoral activity. Im curious if and why you would continue to serve in such an organization.

Lol you can skype the entire time, unless your roommate sucks. They dont monitor that stuff, facetime on the phone is probably a bit safer just do it at night and be quiet its no big deal. They know we do it, they know everything that goes on just stay in your room and dont go walking around the hallways on your phone and youll be fine.

A. What? B. If you get selected for school, that's it...wait for school. C. If you don't, get DL done ASAP...it won't get easier to fit I in...barring any special circumstance making immediately undesirable. D. Drink one for me. E. What? Bendy

Thankfully once football starts again in 3 weeks, we can give NASCAR the respect it deserves. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

To be fair, your buddy sounds like a douchebag.

After try 2, he should have probably just gone to finance. And, you know...be an officer. ETA I'll be perfectly honest. Officers need to stop playing the victim card so much. Step up to the plate and lead. If something isn't going how it is supposed to, be polite and work your way up the chain. You'd be surprised and how far common courtesy goes.

My (highly controversial) trick: go to a CGOC meeting every now and then and meet the OICs of the different shops. It's nice being able to call a fellow CGO directly at Finance or MPF if you're having trouble.

The latest for people at PIT. Bottom line don't put your spouse on a lease. One guy I know is out almost $4200 because of this.