Leaderboard

Most of the rest of the world does not understand how developed the SOF fires machine has become...they still think in terms of the AOC or CAOC running the fight with 3 GO's, 10 O-6's and 50 O-4's working the same permissions that a single dude in the JSOAC can pass. Sadly, BLOS and VDL have become pass fail, but they do act as an insurance policy in multiple ways. Sorry bra, I don't talk to the CAOC unless I want to know why the tanker is late...AGAIN.

https://federalnewsradio.com/air-force/2017/03/air-force-meeting-airlines-pilot-shortage-may/ Or as Michael Scott would say, "Now this situation is a what I like to call a Win-Win-Lose", where the airlines win, the air force wins, and our pilots lose. Because eff them. But Grosso isn't going to say that, of course. Funny.. I just left a squadron whose commander was adamant that the Air Force's goal is to produce leaders, not pilots. On a local we discussed the topic at length, and he told me "If you want to just fly, great.. get out and go join the guard or reserves. The Air Force wants leaders, not technicians." Trying to provide evidence to the contrary was a losing position, we found very quickly. It would seem that AF leadership is now giving a different message and being forced to acknowledge that not all of us will be, or want to be, leaders. As someone who went to UPT late and is more or less stuck in till 20, I am curious and scared to see how this unfolds.

So don't.

I know it's a different for the fighter guys in the squadrons that stopped flying during sequestration, but on the heavy side there is no lack of flying. Completely disregarding the fact that our job requires us to fly to stay current and qualified, pilots aren't unhappy because there aren't jets to fly. Our base generates 2-3 locals per squadron per week, not counting off station JA/ATTs, TACC missions or even our sims. We actually don't have enough pilots to fill all of those lines. What pilots are tired of is having to fly locals or missions and then having to stay late into the evening afterwards or come into work during their post mission to make sure their shops don't burn down because the schedulers cleaned out the shop for the 3-4 time this month and X,Y & Z projects are due to tomorrow. I know we are all well aware this isn't a 9-5 job and personally I like that it isn't that way, the problem is when I'm staying late to do PowerPoint slides not flying jets.

Insert Face palm meme. That statement belongs in the "What's wrong with the Air Force" thread.

PCSM 2.0 is very heavily based on flight hours. A PCSM of 74 for 16 flight hours most likely means your 201+ column is mid to high 90's. Keep flying, earn that pilots license, and I highly doubt it will be difficult for you to get an interview. At that point, just be yourself (I know, but it's true), and hopefully a unit will see you as a good fit.... Just as long as your degree isn't gender studies.

I commissioned March of 2016 and had a similar experience in DET12. The level of intensity is pretty low threat and if anything is suitable to preparing for the official PT test so think of it as just staying in shape if you show up already physically prepared. IMHO the biggest risk to washing out comes from personal injury. Since a lot of the PT is cadet led I would be careful to stretch like you normally would and just take care of yourself. Idiot cadets who have never done PT in their life will be tasked to lead exercises and will find ways to get you hurt. Also watch out on the LRC (or whatever the obstacle puzzle challenges were called) for the same reasons. The squadron runs are kind of nice in terms of distance/pace/workout to start the day off bright and early (4:30AM) but they are actually physically terrible for you. A friend of a friend I may or may not know injured his knee in the latter half of the program because of they way they do those runs. My 2cts

This sounds to me more like an echo of Gen Welsh's attempted zing directed at Congress over CRs and sequestration. They are likening QoS/QoL to flying hours as an AF-level readiness discussion, not admin-queep vs. flying and instructing. The above quote still misses the mark as to the crux of the issue, unfortunately.

Vortex is a dumpster fire POS and I blame whoever at the NSA sunsetted the PACWIND crypto about 5 years too early. It's almost as if we just need a common, pilot-proof, on/off system that works 99% of the time out to 80nm...sounds real familiar... I slammed my head against the wall so many times trying to integrate Vortex back in 2012 and working with it regularly today, 5 years later, it is still horrible. Apparently Vortex 2.0 will be "a lot better," but a pox on Comms West's house for the current box and I don't trust them at all because they also think Vortex 1.0 is just fine.

You want BLOS comms and VDL so the FSO can clear you hot in places where no JTAC is on the ground. Absent executing true SCAR doctrine, it's how business is done. Fair enough. I guess I'm just ready to write the check so I wanna see a full requirements list that has all the stuff I think the platform will need to succeed.

Never had any issues with PACWIND......

Hard to blame them when that is all they hear instructors talking about in the squadron.

most important requirement that it should have: some LOS VDL other than POS VORTEX christ almighty that system sucks

How much longer until the All Call with the boss punishing everyone for the crimes of others, I see group discussions, reflection days and new case study videos and CBTs right around the corner.

It's like having the most awesome job in the world, with an awesome team of coworkers. But having to do that job in a prison. Its a sweet gig. But you're still in a prison.

Politics favors detailed integration, even when no ground forces exist.

Your data on SCAR is misinterpreted. It is exactly for localized control of a full F2T2EA process emphasizing decentralized execution in low to medium threat environments. Final attack control isn't part of the SCAR responsibilities because it isn't needed in an environment where close proximity to FF and detailed integration don't exist. All you need is someone doing task/employment/airspace deconfliction. So for air interdiction of emerging target sets where you don't need the detailed integration for friendly forces, the SCAR will have authority to issue Investigate/Target/Smack tasks. If the JFC/JFACC actually delegate the authority as intended. The ALSA MTTP has a lot more specifics.

Hmm...you say JQP only told one side of the story just to generate traffic? You say he doesn't care about the truth? . . . . SHOCKING.

Fighter pipe is full... all 38 trained FAIPs standby for B-52s... Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I saw it more as an equality issue...if I wasn't going to lend much credence to "please promote me" letters, then I wanted to give equal weight to ""DNP" me letters...in other words--give all letters to the board equal weight. Comparing it to an SIE from UPT is like apples to Tuesday, though. A promotion board is not charged to find the best records "of the willing"...but is charged to put the records in order, best to last. IMHBAO, a member's opinion/desire for promotion isn't very relevant to how well the RECORD stacks up against other RECORDS--even for the purposes of promotion. For DNP me letter writers, if it were possible, I suppose it would be OK to specifically request your record NOT compete for promotion at all. But that's not how our system works. Maybe it should--that WOULD ensure we're only looking at the willing. To me the officer's performance, as recorded in OPRS/DECS/PRF (in that order) are much more relevant to determining the "quality" of the record. Also, specific SECAF instructions to the board play into how the letters are treated....and how individual officer traits are treated. There are never very many letters to the board. This isn't a widespread issue, nor a big deal for 99+% of officers meeting a board. It's a HUGE deal to each letter-writer, though...and every letter was read (some several times, because they were tragic, or long, or just interesting examples of the varied human condition)...and I gave every letter I read equal weight in calculating the score of the record. So they weren't disregarded. Just not highly regarded. I don't recall being surprised that someone with a "DNP me" letter made the promotion list. If it happened, then that officer still has options: take it or not. Circumstances change. People change their minds...some who are promoted won't accept, or will wait until pin-on day to reject it. Some who thought they WOULD be promoted won't be, and will make choices based on that. Some 5APZ dude with a P who thought promotion was never gonna happen gets the nod and has to make new choices based on that info. Some "DNP me" letter writers may change their minds in the months between letter and list release and pin-on. What we should NOT do (institutionally, as a SERVICE) is accept a "lesser" officer for promotion in lieu of a "better" one just because the "better" one doesn't want promotion, or because the "lesser" one made a really good argument for promotion in a letter. We should promote neither. And I'm pretty sure that's what happens in the vast majority of the incredibly small number of letter-writer cases.

Every board is different..every board member has personal opinions on the subject...but I'll say this: the board is charged with evaluating the records of a couple thousand officers. The personal opinions of the member aren't really relevant to the "quality" of the record. I didn't give much weight to letters that begged for promotion in the face of gross buffoonery in a record...and I didn't give much weight to letters begging for non-promotion either. IIRC there was something in the rules/regs/policy letters/AFPC message/Promotion Board announcement or message/SECAF board instructions/AFPC people processing guides (or somewhere) about officers who write DNP me letters NOT being eligible for invol sep pay and invol sep benefits...unknown if that's still the case. Use caution when employing tactics such as these...

"Every Marine a rifleman" is analogous to "Every airman a warrior" and provokes about the same response from a real grunt. Kelly was a squad leader with a line infantry unit, so the distinction is warranted. Anyway...