Leaderboard

Gotta love Air Force logic. Actual knowledge/competence (ACSC instructor learns more than his students in the process of teaching his lessons) takes a backseat to square filling (officer X had good timing/was lucky enough to get an alternate slot at ACSC, and gets in-res credit). Funnier one is: IDE or SDE select gets picked to go to a civ school to get an advanced academic degree. Since said individual is in the window for going in-res, he/she automatically gets in-res IDE/SDE credit. The non-select from the same year group puts in the same effort/gets the same civilian degree, and gets no in-res credit. Does it make sense? Not to me. Maybe to GC . . .

Duck, thanks for the insight. I'm a non-rated line officer, just under a year out on my initial ADSC. I'm applying for rated new commission gigs as the on ramp for UPT. Essentially, I'll be right back on Title 10 to go to UPT so I would think it should be an easy kill for approval of the PC app.

EN 16-06 US: F-35 Select T-38A Tyndall F-15E x 2 A-10 x 2 F-15C F-16 T-6 FAIP B-1 x 2 B-52 Germany: Eurofighter x 2 Tornado T-6 FAIP Italy: Eurofighter x 2

I've always felt that we identify our leaders too early and then anoint them for grandeur without paying attention to their continued performance enough. How many times have we all seen a douche bag CC that is a swinging dick that couldn't lead his way out of a paper bag? Then because said CC is anointed he continues on up the ladder regardless of performance and his toxic leadership because he was an "SDE select" at his O-5 board. I'm frankly tired of it. I've seen so many great dudes who are just as smart and with better tactical and leadership skills brushed aside because they didn't go to school. Ridiculous. Maybe if the AF cared more about the environment it is creating and actually putting THE best guy up for DO or CC instead of the guy who was anointed for it at his majors board then we might not have so many retention issues. But, no we've got to groom the in-res guys to be CSAF of the AF someday and we've got to beat out the other services for senior officer positions.

Looks used, yes? If it is used I'd consider replacing the trigger return spring. I've broken two on my P-09, one was because I bent it too many times screwing with the trigger pull weight, the other just wore out. It broke around 4000 rounds, probably somewhere around 25k trigger pulls. So it isn't something to really worry about, just something to toss into the preventative maintenance list. Also, the reduced power springs from Cajun Gun Works seem to last a bit longer than stock.

Devote? Try again, like side note. Oh wait, I already said that.

16-11 drop: 6x B-52 (5 WSOs, 1 EWO) all to Barksdale 2x F-15 MC-130J to Cannon C-130 WV guard U-28 to Cannon 2x B-1 Dyess 2x RC-135 EWO AC-130U EWO to Hurlburt

I sit corrected then.

You can be a sitting WG CDR at 24 years as an IPZ guy your whole career. AFSOC just had one picked up for a star. The problem isn't the math, it's the erroneous assumption that BTZ is required to compete for GO. di1630s post was so incredibly spot on. The facts are undeniable after 15 years of losing wars: we suck. Much like an alcoholic must first admit they have a problem, our force, at every level, needs to accept the reality that we are not accomplishing the tasks set before us. There should be a firestorm of debate about why, and a willingness to examine and scrap all aspects of our institution that have brought us defeat. Instead no one is talking about this, they all want to preserve the system that did them a solid despite the fact we are failing. The careerists all keep chugging along "mentoring" younger people to be like them. Disgusting.

Beyond maximizing the remaining years of service before mandatory retirement, why does the USAF need to make GOs so early? If by accelerating an officer, the service necessarily truncates meaningful joint time, and that lack of joint time is a reason the USAF often loses to the other services in filling key joint GO billets, then would it not make sense to slow the timeline ever-so-slightly? Superficially, the reasoning for a pole year at 24 years reads like a tautology. The USAF needs GOs at the 24-year point because it needs GOs at the 24-year point.

I haven't seen this information here, though I might have overlooked it. Looks like it would be a fun class to set up and participate in. https://ngoabuyersclub.com/building-the-1911/

Online law school...Sounds legit!

Is there absolutely no way you can get back to the states? Sim? Upgrade or training course? Conference?

Great example of what is making this AF what it is. Devote your promotion and energy on payback......wow.