Leaderboard

Any flying seems optional at SWA. Too soon?

Quick work by the Igla gunner.

Yep. I saw a copy/paste from a HAF prerelease, to be effective 1 Jan ‘23. Bonkers I might need a masters to make major, but not even a bachelors to go fly for one. Edit - checked my email, and sure enough had a forwarded message from my CC with Gen Miller’s release. This is definitely going to catch out some 2015 YG folks.

Cough, nuclear power, cough…

Nope. Here’s another: What’s the difference between Covid & SWA? Covid is airborne.

Absolutely, AMC’s culture has really changed recently, largely thanks to Mini. Young cats are in the vault more than ever and excited about planning and executing challenging profiles and exercises. Thank god because INDOPACOM presents a logistical challenge like no other, EUCOM would be no cake walk either. There are still your AMC careerists and your toxic old hats who scoff at anything more challenging than SKE VIS PRO..but I’m really impressed and optimistic with the way the community is headed.

The best part is California is further reducing the NEM credits for new customers in April. It makes sense from the utility’s perspective, the mandate for solar on all new homes, plus the encouragement for solar on existing homes, has reduced the utility’s cash flow. They’ve gotta make up for it somehow.

I don't disagree with any of this and you make some important observations about these programs' implementation, but there is an important distinction you're not acknowledging: power companies are NOT a free market, and they are NOT capitalism. If you want to start a supermarket, record label, software company, fast-food chain, brewery, or consultancy, or any other number of businesses, you're completely free to do so. You are not free to just start a competing power company and start running your own power lines, installing utility poles, tearing up roadways, utilizing public rights-of-way or easements on private property, etc. The government has a direct hand in ensuring the viability of power infrastructure. There is a categorical difference between these types of companies, so while power companies appear to be companies, they're really part company, part government. In any case, insofar as ME (who personally has no solar) selling power "back to the grid" using public infrastructure (the same thing the power company does) I don't see any problem at that level of analysis. There is no reason why one entity should be allowed to conduct business using public property while I am not. A government that disallows that, or privileges other businesses over others (me) is engaging in a totally anti-capitalistic practice.

"Airmen and Guardians For several years the DAF has masked advanced degrees from Major and Lieutenant Colonel promotion boards. I have repealed that policy effective 1 January 2023. I do not believe that as we assess the development and potential contributions of our officers, that we should hide the acquisition of valued expertise from promotion boards for any rank. The United States, and specifically the Department of the Air Force, are facing foreign competitors that include the most technologically capable and well-resourced competitor we have ever confronted. We are also confronted by multiple competitors from vastly different cultures than our own. To compete with China, Russia, or other potential threats, the Air and Space Forces must incorporate new technology more rapidly and effectively than our competitors. We must also have a deep understanding of the history, motivations, doctrine, and thought processes of our potential adversaries. To do this effectively, we need leaders and supporting staff throughout the DAF at all levels who have deep expertise in emerging technologies and their applications to military operations. We must also have leaders with expertise in the cultures of our potential adversaries. Such expertise and associated critical thinking skills are developed from many sources and experiences, including advanced academic degree programs. I'm aware that there was a time when an advanced degree, any advanced degree, was considered necessary for promotion to Major or Lieutenant Colonel. That is not the intent. Advanced degrees are neither a requirement for promotion to Major or Lieutenant Colonel nor a guarantor of promotion. The DAF will continue to value both operationally and educationally derived experience and expertise and will always value high levels of performance. I will instruct promotion boards to understand and appreciate the value of specific advanced academic degree awards, military training completion, and operational experience with respect to the developmental category meeting the board. Officers should not pursue an advanced degree simply to impress a promotion board or to check a perceived box. Advanced degrees should be chosen to meet personal and professional goals, with an appreciation of the value the specific degree has to the Department of the Air Force. One Team, One Fight! Frank Kendall Secretary of the Air Force"

Confirmed, official release today, takes effect 1 Jan 23.

@Lord Ratner either you’re right and every major government, energy company, and electrical utility are wrong for investing trillions into new solar and wind capability…or perhaps it’s the inverse. Hard to say 🤷‍♂️

Except your tax credit is a subsidy. So, not you. I built my system on my own. And it cost more than just using grid power. I'm designing a much bigger system for a new house, and it too will cost more than just using the grid. However the batteries and inverters are the main reason for the system (power-outage protection with a much smaller generator needed), so I'd skip the panels entirely except you can get pallets of used panels from power companies for very, very low prices, which make the system economically viable. But the used-panel strategy is a market abnormality supported by government subsidies, so I don't count it. Yeah I would do the same. I don't fault people for taking advantage of the system. When they defend it, however, is a different story. I don't think anyone on this forum thinks you care about anyone the poor, but CA allegedly does, and they are just discovering these policies are hurting them.

It's the universe where input costs and secondary effects are factored into overall cost. The oft quoted $.03 is nonsense. It ignores bad weather, damage maintenance, and, most critically, the costs associated with the rest of the grid. When you move to solar you drastically change the pricing dynamics of fossil fuel/nuke power production which is necessary in any system due to the inherent failings of solar and wind. Power plants are most efficient when running at full tilt 24 hours per day. Power demand doesn't work like that, however the use of solar takes somewhat regular and predictable demand curves and shakes them. Nice hot sunny day in the summer? Great, solar shines, and the power plants can spin down. But those same plants still have to be able to reach full grid coverage if a summer storm rolls in. Or similarly with a winter storm. So the irony here is that solar increases the cost of fossil fuel and nuclear power production, then brags about the cost difference. It is a 100% fact that on a cost basis alone, solar does not compete. Do you really think we would still need government subsidies to promote solar if it was cheaper? That's a lack of surface level analysis. Because of the lack of battery technology, which is nowhere close to ready for grid-level coverage, solar and wind do not reduce the need for baseload power. You still need full grid coverage from fossil/nuke for those times the sun is gone and the wind is calm. So you are adding to the infrastructure costs, leaving only the fuel reduction as the cost-savings offered from solar. That savings is far lower than the cost of solar manufacturing and infrastructure. To repeat, the less you use a power plant, the more expensive it becomes on a /KWh basis. Without the ability to store ~ 1 month of energy from a battery array (not happening anytime soon), you must maintain your non-solar/wind power generation capacity. I know this is par for the course, because you are generally the most self righteous person here (which says a lot if you can out-righteous me), but you're ability to straw man is almost as impressive as your ability to be consistently wrong. Thanks to Russia we now have all the evidence we needed that the wind/solar movement was bullshit. And no, you can't compose a scenario where this war isn't a factor. This is the problem with liberal ideology in general. It works great in a hypothetical world, it collapses in reality. Germany, the icon of solar and wind installations, has been importing wood from the US to burn in their power plants. Wood is one of the worst fuels imaginable, yet because their zeal for killing fossil/nuke power was unstoppable, they ended up using fucking wood(!), while having to fire up some coal plants too. So much for carbon emissions. Of course the EU quietly revises their climate guidance to declare nuclear power is now suddenly "green," because they see the failure of their wind and solar strategy agitating their populace. And the UK was paying people's power bills because they went up 500-1000%. Neat. How did we get there? The promise of solar and wind convinced these countries they could rely on countries like Russia to provide them with cheap fossil fuels for the "transition period" where they shut down the nasty fossil fuel and nuke plants. No need to invest in new power plants or fossil fuel exploration, wind and solar to the rescue. Wind and solar are nothing but feel good nonsense. Ambrosia to the academics and virtue signalers, but impractical for wide-scale use. Solar/Wind + Batteries are great for purpose built systems that require off-grid or grid-failure resiliency, but that does not describe the average use-case. And anyone who has built a system like that without government subsidies knows how much more expensive it is than just plugging into the grid.

Russia rolling out the big missiles...big inflatable missiles.

No one is arguing that. The issue in California is the reduction of net metering rates down to wholesale-or-lower prices. Further, the power companies don't need a lot of the solar generated power when it is being produced, but they are forced to buy it under the current rules. The power companies are not asking for free power. They want the ability to offer a price based on market conditions. The solar lobby knows that will be the death of residential solar. It's not even close. And if you remove the cost benefits of having China build them with extremely wasteful and environmentally unfriendly processes, it gets even worse. And since we are currently in the process of detaching from China... Agreed entirely. But that's not how the solar homeowners in California feel at the moment... You have to contrast that with the cost of installing the system. Right now, and this is according to CA, without batteries you won't be able to make back the cost of the install if net-metering is fixed. Like nearly all regulated utilities, they set rates at the discretion of the controlling agency. Solar is never going to replace baseload power. The stalling out of the wind and solar movement has forced politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to (finally) accept nuclear as the future. Only took a few decades. The catalyst will be the continued spikes in the price of oil and gas. Russia is just part of the story. The systemic underinvestment in exploration and production for over 10 years is going to make things painful. The strategic reserve hitting record lows won't help either. But that will be masked by the building global slowdown, which will further delay investment in exploration and production. California hasn't done a bang up job of infrastructure planning. The water situation there is another self-inflicted wound. Sure, that was the theory, and I don't particularly mind the logic, though I don't agree either. But as California is learning, this system is benefiting those who need little benefit, and costing the lower class. Is there a single person here with home solar that didn't receive subsidies? The government paid for (statistically) wealthier Americans to install solar on their homes, and now the costs of net metering (which are largely detrimental to the power companies) are pushing the costs onto those without solar. This is an emblematic example of the free market distortions at play at almost every level. This shit is why people are souring on capitalism. But it isn't capitalism, it might be corporatism, or good old-fashioned government waste, but it sure as shit isn't the free market. Solar system should be paid for in full by the homeowner. Whether or not they tie them to the grid should be their choice. When the power company would like to buy power from residential solar systems, they can offer a price, and you can choose to accept or refuse. But this nonsense of paying people to install the systems and then forcing the power company to pay them more than it costs them to produce power in the first place, is silly. It's fucking stupid actually. And considering the input energy for producing solar panels are higher than the output of the solar panel over their 20-year lifespan (if you live at a latitude above Texas), not to mention the environmental damage caused by the mining practices of the countries that make these panels, or the waste generated when these panels hit their end of life, there should be pretty easy to recognize as another government. Boondoggle. How many more fucking years are we going to pretend like solar is economically viable? It's been decades and yet still we need subsidies to get them installed?

Power grids are public infrastructure, or are at least part of it - insofar as they utilize public rights-of-way, law, etc. Why, then, should you not be paid if you add power to the public grid? Businesses whose money-making models rest upon public infrastructure (power companies, internet, water, and so forth) are not businesses in the usual sense and hence can and should be regulated appropriately. In some sense, you're no different than the power company themselves. If you're adding voltage to the system, you deserve to be compensated for that. The grocery store analogy is off because grocery stores do not require government intervention in order to conduct their business. Power companies do; they are not free market capitalism.

Well, in AMC dudes are still deploying, only it's Ramstein and DJ now (and yes, sadly...the 'deid still...sigh). Africa, PACOM and exercises keep the mobility bubbas just as busy as they were, just in different locations. I know some of our young IP/WO community still, and as a single ray off sunshine compared to ClearedHot's report card on AFSOC, the up and coming mobility community is ready for the future fights (both dirty and conventional), at least at the squadron/group level. Innovation and initiative are high in those kids.

Additional flying is always optional at delta

For some reason I can't edit. "close the door to the chicken coop" reads less retardedly.

California requires solar on all new homes, but the builders tend to put the minimum legal requirement on the houses so solar doesn’t really 100% cover the usage. That said, as I’m experiencing first hand, my utility bill and solar payment combined is significantly lower than if I only used power from the grid. I’ve only had solar for not quite a year but so far it seems worth it.

Disagree that net metering is somehow a government handout or a liberal scheme. As @FLEA said, power companies benefit by having additional distributed generating capacity on the grid, they should reimburse homeowners who are net generating power. I’m not saying it always has to be 1-for-1 at the commercial rate, but there should be some reimbursement because as a homeowner with solar, if you are exporting watts to the grid, you are helping the power company out - it seems fair to be paid for that. Whether changes in the law or policies make the economics of owing solar panels better or worse is a risk you as the purchaser of the system take…laws and policies change all the time and sometimes it works out for you and sometimes it doesn’t. But on the whole solar power works great within known limitations, is now the cheapest way to generate electricity, and individual homeowners have the ability to gain some independence and resiliency from outages and price increases by putting panels on their roof, which isn’t an option with many other methods of generating power. It’s a net plus for a lot of homeowners, myself included starting this week, and for humanity as a whole.

They are forced to take it at a rate equal to what they sell it at, depending on what state you're in. The big change in California is getting rid of the requirement that what they pay equals what they charge. With this change, the economics of solar turn red for many, many homeowners. This of course was obvious to anybody paying attention, but as I said before, government meddling in an attempt to promote the wide scale adoption of a half-baked technology has once again left us worse than we were before.

There's a big difference between solar and net metering. Net metering was always absurd. Why should the power company pay you for electricity? And pay you the same rate they charge? Can you imagine going to the grocery store and trying to sell your homegrown tomatoes to the produce manager, except you want him to pay you the same amount he plans to sell them for? It was yet another government scheme to get more people to adopt solar. And of course it increased the price of power. And yes, since the wealthy are more able to afford the frivolity of solar power, they disproportionately benefit. I'm not a big fan of subsidizing the poor, but having the poor subsidize the wealthy? Only California could hatch a scheme so absurd. Too bad others followed. You want to be off the grid with solar panels? Awesome. Go for it. But wanting the power company to subsidize your prepper fantasies was a gross distortion of free market capitalism, one of many these days. Now a bunch of people are upset that they aren't making money off their solar panels. Many of them are allegedly conservative. Boo hoo. A handout is a handout, even if it's to someone with a big house and nice cars.

You win the internet, I have been saying this since day one of the "Knife" deciding to Crazy Ivan the command. Are we so desperate to play in the big fight that we forget why SOCOM and AFOSC were formed? Oddly, in fighting the GWOT we gave up on some basic blocking and tackling that was the foundation of the command, did that need suddenly go away as well? These so called "transformational leaders" just force us to chase our tail in an effort to build "their legacy." IMHO there is value in being able to seize an airfield in a hostile nation and conduct operations, I can only imagine the flail if we tried to simul three MC's onto a runway and roll out the TF. Situations and adversaries change so the status quo is not always a good thing, but divesting basic tasks that took YEARS to develop and refine is a poor choice in a chaotic world. While we are at it, what defines "post-GWOT"...is it because we quit and went home? Did all the bad guys just stop because we went home? Obviously Afghanistan is turning back into a soup sandwich, but I hope someone is watching the brewing terror storm in Africa, South America, the islands in PACOM. It is absolute lunacy to think that just because we left Afghanistan GWOT has gone away. The real question is why does AFSOC think they need to transform so quickly, the answer is easy...$. After years of being the Belle of the ball they were worried they would become the B team and lose all the cash that was poured into and on the command. Keep in mind that on Sept 10, 2001 the TOTAL SOCOM budget was $2.1B, that swelled to $15.5 at one point and that doesn't count the many billions the services had to carve out of their budgets as "service common" to do things like RECAP the C-130 fleet ($10B), purchase CV-22's ($5B), buy RPAs and Ops centers for AFSOC ($4B). SOCOM/AFSOC certainly have a place in the peer/near-peer fight but in a desperate effort to play the big contribution we are homogenizing the C-130 fleet into missile trucks? Seriously? What happens when the phone rings and the boss asks us to insert some BAMFs deep (STS), to enable the fight? We are years away from the shinny new MCJ's having the TF and ECM capability we are sending to the desert on the T2s...while mothballing half the CV-22 fleet! Also, our shinny new gunships are still waiting for an ECM suite that is half as capable as the H model that went to the Boneyard 9 years ago. Good thing the near-peer fight won't be fought in a SAM ring. WTF is your problem dude, thinking we should follow our basic doctrine of centralized control, decentralized execution that has been written in blood many times through the years...F that nonsense! Define winning, which has always been the problem. Did we stop attacks on the homeland while murking bad guys "over there?" I think there was a certain value in that proposition but obviously it can't go on forever. As far as monitor and assess, I presume you are? The intel feeds and assessments are not pretty, Al-Qaeda, ISIS-K, Taliban and other Jihadist groups are most certainly rebuilding and spreading influence while our exalted leaders have shifted to countering domestic violence here at home. Sadly, there will be another big event, followed by investigations, finger pointing and over-reaction. I know I am a dinosaur but one would think there is a better way to plan for both. Back to the rocking chair and running kids off my lawn.

I am too lazy to fly SWA. Company tried to book them and I mentioned it’s not them it’s me. Too dang lazy to lock in a seat with the early bird theme. Need to have things set ahead of time as a lackadaisical commuter… Might be the biggest debacle, but definitely hasn’t been the first as of late. Maybe the die hards will send a message, your system gets updated and you get a contract you deserve for dealing with managements failures and the public as a whole. Hopefully it works things out for SWAPA.

I agree. The progressives are retards. Edit: I just needed to reiterate that they are RETARDs. I can't think of a single thing I like about them? They destroy everything they touch. Change my mind....lol

I used to think JA (or equivalent terminology) was only an FFD carrier dynamic. Do all airlines effectively have JA work provisions? Kinda smears the glitter off the airline humblebrag about days off....