Leaderboard

I recently interviewed "Hacker" Haskin about his time as a UPT student, UPT IP and IFF IP (amongst other things!). He shared a range of advice and thoughts across about four hours of chatting. Those looking to go to UPT might find it interesting:

My recommendation would be to do everything you can to max out your Roth TSP while your home-station. DFAS limits Roth TSP contributions at 65% since they don't know your in a combat zone and leave some of your pay for taxes. Once you start getting the CZTE then max out the Traditional to as high as you can muster (I did 100%). These will be noted under the "TSP Exempt" section of your LES. Once keep the high Traditional TSP the entire deployment and only switch back to the Roth once you get back home. This way you will have as much in the TSP tax free as you can.

It’s all luck and timing, with increased probability because he’s a great dude.

All of this! What's the average reaction time of SF to something like this? I can assure you it's long enough for me, and many of my friends to get filled with bullets. At least give me a fighting chance. I'll take my chances that SF would confuse me with the attacker. What's going to happen is people are just going to start carrying anyway and taking the chance that they'll get in trouble.

Columbus 25 Oct.

I have not heard from Idaho either. I plan on giving them a call this week to confirm.

Concur. All this seems to do is create new push-line language that tells the board who should/shouldn't be promoted. I don't see how these changes would have any impact on any current APZ folks due to the fact that our records have been so disregarded over the last few years that they look terrible (no strats, etc.) Raters are going to push for the folks they know will get promoted on their 1st, 2nd, or 3rd look. All this does is change the timeline for the shiny pennies. Will there be some type of requirement to promote a specific percentage from each "look group"? if not, how will this system allow raters to highlight the folks on their 4th or 5th look that are performing at a higher level? Those folks still won't be able to compete against the folks with better records that are on their 1st or 2nd look. In fact, I think it would be more of a negative that you have been non-selected for promotion the first 3-4 times. On top of that, if you aren't promoted on your 1st/2nd/3rd look, won't that make you less likely to be selected for a Command position or be considered for future promotion? These changes seem to solidify who the chosen ones are much more than the old system did and I think it will turn into a, "not promoted on your first 3 looks? Well, you might want to consider a different career because this isn't going to happen for you". Finally, fully support removing CGO OPR's from O-5 promotion packages. If a person performed well as an FGO, and was given leadership opportunities, then what they did as a 2LT is, for the most part, irrelevant. Looking at the last 4-5 years of a candidates professional record would a.) give the board more time to spend on reviewing packages, and, b.) Even the playing field for folks that have been riding the gravy train because they were an exec as an O-3 (or folks that had a rater crap on them as a CGO). My only other question is, what happens if you don't get promoted after your 5th look? Does the AF boot you? If my math is right, wouldn't a 5th look non-select put a lot of folks at 18-19 years active duty time if your IPZ/1st look is at 13/14 years?

But at least the slides are green for the generals review!

18 AF/CC doesn’t think that to my knowledge. 19 AF (AETC) does. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

The idea that MWS squadrons should teach what should have been taught at UPT is going to get people killed. When I get a new Copilot, I don’t need to be teaching him basic instrument skills or airmanship. I need to be teaching him how to land in an LZ, airdrop 19 year olds into hot DZs, defend against a spectrum of threats, operate in a contested environment, integrate with SEAD, CAS, JTACs, be proficient at TDL or at a bare minimum not kill himself and his crew in Afghanistan. If 18th AF/CC thinks we can train in the Ops squadrons then he is directly countering his boss who has made it clear that peer and near peer readiness is a priority.

I know several people who “bloomed” early, Ie Shoe Flag DG, and kept earning top strats despite working as little or less than their peers. They kept riding the wave as FGOs knowing they were gaurenteed school, etc. Meanwhile, their FGO counterparts worked their tails off but never could reach the golden children in terms of strats or pushes. Thus, removing BPZ and eliminating CGO OPRs from a Lt Col board is absolutely the right move and may just retain some talent that, under the previous system, weren’t golden children and thus not given a chance. It also eliminates the notion of “one mistake Air Force.”

So much so that in various forums with senior GOs (of all branches) during my year in school, I heard many a GO state emphatically that the most important thing to do as a leader is to do the right thing. Moreover, they all stated that character was the single most important quality to possess as a leader. I know we occasionally impugn social media, but the instant spotlighting of poor behavior is seemingly having a correcting result on those who either lost their way or were never on the right path ethically from the get-go. No longer can bad actors hide behind the bureaucracy.

CHeers! Long layover in Vegas. Didn't feel like walking the strip so I was enjoying the happy hour 1/2 price special on 1 Liter drafts at the Hofbrauhaus. The Deep State hasn't called me yet. 😄

I did GO travel support before, and enough staff time to know how the whole thing works. I also know when doing those the GO's I worked for were great leaders, and worked hard to make sure they were within the rules. I was always happy to help the boss out when they're in a bind (card not working)...but there wasn't a personality issue, and the GO's never expected me to do it. I'm guessing that's different here? I don't know. I just know this seems to be catching a lot of "leaders" these days.

It takes some care and feeding but Doug has a good explanation on his website. https://the-military-guide.com/maximizing-your-thrift-savings-plan-contributions-in-a-combat-zone/

Deployed finance was a bit confused when I asked, but eventually figured it out. It seems to be tied to CZTE being processed, which then allows you to go above, but like you said only for traditional. I had timed my contributions to stay below 19k until a month into my deployment, and contributed above 19k after ctze started

I think the collective "meh" is because everyone in the government and military already knew this (maybe not the details, but they knew the mission was a failure and that we were not making progress, that we were pouring money and blood into the country with little to show for it and little accountability). And the civilians are probably surprised to hear we are still in Afghanistan.

The sim is fine for learning procedural tasks, but it's not the same as being in the jet. More MWS sim time is not the answer, at least for the C-17. Need more quality training time in the jet, but that means reducing mission taskings so guys are home to train, and more locals so you don't have 5 dudes all trying to get recurrent on 4.0 local instead of focusing on tactical proficiency. Even if you moved money to find more sim time, there are a limited number of sims, and there's not a lot of excess capacity for more training. So that means mil construction for more sim buildings and buying more simulators, which again, really just teach procedural tasks. Not saying the T-1 track needs to stay as is, but I'd bet there would be better payoff for the airlift community trading for more time in T-6s learning visual navigation and building air sense in general. Pretty sure that 1x C-17 sim session (3 hours) would buy you 6x 1.5 sorties in the T-6. Also don't need to have both the T-1 and T-38 tracks graduate at the same time. No matter how rigorous MAF wants the T-1 track to be, the fact of the matter is that big AF will always see the T-1 track as being limited/lesser than their T-38 track counterparts, who will be universally assignable (subject to AFPC's whims). But if all you think C-17s do are strat missions, then yeah, just do transition phase in T-1s and graduate, cancel all locals and do it all in the sim, just like the airlines. Hell, just direct hire guys of the street with a FAA commercial Pilot certificate; it'd be a lot cheaper and fix the rated manning numbers really quick. And while we're at it, do the same for the fighters, cancel locals and do more sims; they'll just be cruising at 30k dropping GPS JDAMs in a permissive environment.

Instrument approach practice. Stan isn't very good at it, regardless of what he thinks.

Give it to the Army? https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/slaying-the-unicorn-the-army-and-fixed-wing-attack/

That is, hypothetically speaking, based on the belief that people actually abide by the insane base policy (it's not Federal law no matter how many people claim it is, read 18 U.S. Code §930). Here in Texas, I suspect there are one or two that don't (again, hypothetically speaking). The Lone Star State does things right! The DoD could learn from it. By the way, in case you didn't notice, open carry is allowed on Texas state military installations while not in uniform!

I never really thought I would disagree with a MOH Recipient but in this case I do. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/navy-base-shootings-pensacola-pearl-harbor-revive-debate-myths-about-ncna1097656 That said in this case he's an NBC analyst so there's little doubt who signs his paycheck. I would guess it's probably a sizable amount to make sure he toes the network line. Maybe limiting the concealed carry to NCOs and Officers active/reserve/retired would be viable. When you realize the armed SF Airman at the gate was still coloring in elementary school when a lot of us who aren't allowed to carry on base were doing missions downrange it sends you to a new level of pissed off. I do know of at least one off installation Reserve Center that allows members to discreetly carry and have for quite a while now. I've said this before. How safe are the people off base either coming or going when a bad guy knows 99 percent of them are unarmed due to policy? Most higher leaders probably figure if it happens off base it's not their problem and their retired pay/post retirement employment aren't in jeopardy is what matters to them. It's not like the bad guys can't come along in a van and spray the long line of cars (made even longer by the new "security measures") waiting to drive on base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_shootings_at_CIA_Headquarters

Totally agree there are many scenarios where datalink, etc. is a min force requirement. I’m with you, but I would still like young guys to show up with more general air sense, the ability to know where other things are by comm/time and bull/map correlation (e.g. decent geospatial awareness of the AO without having the answer on a screen), and better multi-tasking ability (especially with degraded/denied blue capes). I bet the IFF/UPT syllabus could change to leverage what tools they have to grow those types of skills. For example, I’ll probably never do a lowat ingress to 10/20 pop again, but maybe, given the tools they have available, that’s the best way for IFF to put the pressure on a guy and make him Mx SA on 3 other aircraft while executing threat reactions, making radio calls and maneuvering in 3D to not hit the ground and accurately fly the attack. The tactic is not exportable to an F-35, but the holistic lessons of geospatial awareness and multi-tasking under stress is. Now that shit is funny!

Agree 100%. This stupidity has got to change. The fact that military bases are soft targets is criminal.

Positive one shared on reddit. Boston controller helping out a min fuel Viper. 2:23:00 if the link bugs out.

Well, if the fucking Aussies didn't do this to their F-111s, I might be more sympathetic!