Leaderboard

Can you elaborate that? Seriously. I've heard numerous people say "DeSantis Sucks" but not a single one has built a rational reasoned argument to support that statement.

Bro if you'd seen what came out of the 3rd floor this week you'd know this overly checks/truer words have never been spoken.

That was the path CQB followed (7AF->PACAF->CSAF) but its a bit of a jump to suggest that experience as a PACAF or even a USAFE CC yields a thorough understanding of the theater logistics. Under US doctrine we decouple most of the logistics functions from the geographic elements under geographic combatant commanders. So why Ramstein does have some USAFE C-130s at its disposal, their nesting is designed more to support commander priorities that would be otherwise ignored by TRANSCOM who is planning at a global level. So for example, if you are going to perform a JFEO as the USAFE Commander, you would probably want to use your C-130s rather than petitioning TRANSCOM to add it somewhere in their list of priorities--to which you would get a response that's something like: "we will deliver 1/4 of your troops next week, and then a few more the week after, and then the rest the week after that." Well that's not really how JFEOs work..... so clearly that's not really useful. When hiring at the executive level, competence becomes less of an issue because almost all of our O9/10s are probably competent to lead HQ AF. Heck, probably even a few high speed O8s. They have decades of experience in organizational leadership by this point. So a more important facet that comes into play, in my opinion anyway, is suitability/fit. Who is the right commander to lead right now? Specifically, who has the expertise to solve a pressing problem, and be able to articulate that problem to congress in a detailed enough manner that they can secure money for it. At the end of the day, the CSAF's role is to get money. That is really all he/she is--a sales person.

@nsplayr You’re correct that I cannot understand how several Biden-led actions/policies are OK, let alone good. I accept that’s what you believe. Main points for why I think he has done terribly, and what are apparently “mainstream dem” according to you: - Not only supporting, but aggressively pushing, a mental health crisis, especially amongst youth - Purposely, and significantly, degrading domestic energy production/increasing reliance on foreign energy - Willful dereliction of border security at best, calculated and purposeful border insecurity at worst (a PCF of our drug epidemics going on) - Pushing green energy plans that are counter-science, counter-logical, and completely unrealistic. Note: All for green energy exploration and getting better, but not for illogical buffoonery driven by politics instead of reality - Weaponizing gov agencies against those who aren’t in lock step with party talking points/objectives - Extreme focus on exciting and continuing race-based culture wars - Multiple avenues of attack on individual liberties…he wants an obedient populace, not a country of unique individuals That’s just off the top of my nugget. I haven’t even touched the significant links he and his family have to our #1 enemy. But I also acknowledge corruption is everywhere, so I don’t think Biden is unique in shit like this. Ultimately, I cannot comprehend why you or anyone rational would support things like above. But you do, and I accept that is reality, even if I wish it wasn’t

Meanwhile, at AFSOC A1…

this has GOT to be my wife trolling on baseops...

Imagine how horrible it would be when you prove them all right by doing a mediocre job. Or worse, focusing on DEI instead of solving other actual problems.

Real talk now - The current administration has a laser-like focus on identity politics, and no where is this more evident than in their political appointments, particularly in the high profile positions. And it doesn't get much more high profile than a service chief. The talk about qualifications and experience of different candidates is laughable. The next CSAF is going to be chosen based on which box they check. Given the current field, I assume it's going to be "First Female CSAF."

@nsplayr I understand your perspective and see the rationale of the baseline argument. I think Biden and those who surround him have made disastrous decisions and emphasized things to the detriment of our country. I think a rational D voter would advocate for another candidate to represent the Dems in 2024 vs. allowing the shit show to continue simply because there’s a D next to his name. If Biden and friends were moderate, then I totally agree with your premise. Bottom line, specific to Biden, it is more emotional than rational to want to him in 2024. Rational = demanding DNC primaries and hoping a better candidate comes out on top. I know that’s an unusual situation for an incumbent, but it’s warranted this round.

Talked to my father in law yesterday, he’s incredulous at the idea that Biden or any Dem could win. He wants trump. He will not listen that trump = best chance of Dem success. He and people like him will fuck us all over, though under the best of intentions. Emotions on both sides of the spectrum are what landed us in the dumpster fire we’re in. Detach and make rational decisions and we can get ourselves out of this. Both Biden and Trump are irrational picks for different reasons. It’s that simple.

More likely that I don't understand an elementary word definition, or that you've allowed yourself to be so corrupted that you're blind to reality? It was hard with so many examples to choose from but here's one for my side, so....

I legit feel bad for CSAF candidates that are anything but straight, white fighter pilot males. If one of them gets picked (happened to Gen Brown), everyone will glom onto their skin color/gender/orientation. I can’t imagine how demoralizing that would be to have served for almost 40 years and everyone assumes you only made it as the diversity hire.

Honestly, I think this matters very little. Van Ovost makes A LOT OF SENSE. A robust knowledge of SEAD isn't going to win the South China Sea. That is literally the smallest problem set there and I'm certain any given weapons officer at any given F-35 squadron is more than capable of solving that for any given MPC. What is much more problematic, and why VO makes so much sense is the logistical problem in the Pacific and the fact that we have a smaller tanker and airlift fleet than we've had historically while planning to fight a war in 5 years thats going to take place over a greater geographic area than any war we've fought in the last 70 years. In in 99% of that geographic area, there is 0 ground lines of communications, effectively incapacitating 1/3 of the entire logistics enterprise. (In reality much more since ground transport can move more stuff cheaper than air or sea transport) Never mind the fact that on any given day any of those key islands we might rely upon for solving that logistics nightmare might just be not there thanks to China's latest advances in missile technology. I know you're a fighter dude and love blowing shit up, but lets face it--if we leave that problem to a Viper dude, there's likely going to be several hundred other fighter dudes sitting on an alert ramp with no gas and no weapons. It would literally take a year and a half for a CAF guy to even get caught up to understanding the problem, much less being able to put any foot forward on defining a solution. Yes learning SEAD and weapons is cool, but what I really need someone to know is what are the primary lines of communication, how many tons of freight can they move, how quickly, during what times of year, how much staging is needed for every single supply depot, what is the capacity at every supply depot before overage and need cargo forward.... Theres an economics side to it, what does it mean when a major port in Singapore puts down a paddock for renovation? How many other supply nodes does that effect on the first, second and third order? I'm not saying any of it is hard and a fighter guy couldn't pick it up. Its not even a tanker versus fighter thing since I'm almost certain most tanker bros cant speak to this. Its more the fact that VO is leaving TRANSCOM and has already spent years untangling the requisite knot in her own head space. If we accept that China is the next big war, and its happening in 5 years, which seems to be on repeat among senior staffs now--then positioning of WRM needs to start happening now and that's not something I think another CQB could handle. He did his big effort which was bringing on the whole AGILE Wing thing. That was a great move to lower the logistics burden and apply some redundant C2. But I honestly think VO is in the best position to solve the next big problem and why a COCOM/CC would be tapped for a Chief role rather than even the AMC commander.

I’m just curious how this administration will use this to conduct the next social experiment. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app