Leaderboard

Maybe you could pitch staying at a crash pad in the context of Agile Combat Employment and sell it like the dispersed basing of aircraft. When war with China kicks off isn't the Red Shit Dumpster River Inn full of upgrading MAF pilots exactly what they're going to be aiming the hypersonics at? Why put all your eggs in one basket when you can diversify.. and have hot tubs

They're both CJO's, so just like applying for multiple interviews, there is nothing that stops someone leaving AD to get CJOs from multiple airlines and picking the one he wants as he retires/separates. Two years out gives a bit more peace of mind than six months, but doesn't really change that much. This is a solid step in the right direction. An even better step would be to actively recruit guys that are at the 7 or 15 year point. Send them through indoc on a week or two of leave and then know that they're going to drop long term mil leave for 5 years. Then you have a 99.9% chance that dude is going to show up at your airline at the 5 year point. It is obviously not free but it's not that much either. With how much airlines are spending on trying to create their own pipeline, this seems like an easy answer to get some top tier candidates with a very predictable timeline.

As I got older, when some shoe clerk said that, I would ask "How far back does your always go? Because mine goes back pretty far"

To get to the other side? Lol

They're.

Problem is probably the standard everywhere else, the wrong persons pockets are getting lined and someone doesn't like it.

DAYUM...next Huggy will be measuring socks at the DFAC.

Are nukes really on the table for Russia? Are they willing to instigate a nuclear confrontation anymore than we were in Korea or Vietnam. Despite an hyperbolic kremlin rhetoric, is anyone assessing that as a realistic possibility? Maybe outside the scope of an unclass network. Also, it wouldn’t be the first time Russians shot down a NATO aircraft, to include crewed aircraft. These occurrences were during the Cold War, where I think we can all agree there was a much higher probability of a nuclear confrontation than any other time in history. Looking at it from another angle. Would the US actual nuke Russia because they participated in a proxy war against us such as this (history says no, obviously). As a military member the idea of this seems absurd. Those of you wringing hands, why does it seem less absurd that Russia will respond in this way?

Whisky for breakfast

I don’t understand the hand wringing WRT US/NATO/EU involvement in this war. I don’t see Polish troops crossing the border like it’s the Yalu River to reinforce Ukraine (yet). As far as I know there aren’t any non-Ukrainians flying MiGs and shooting down Russians. Is Russia not bombing specific airfields because they’re afraid of killing U.S/British advisors and sparking a larger conflict? If the answer is yes, I’d say they’re just as concerned about widening the conflict as the rest of us. Surely these historical connections are obvious. It’s nothing new. The only substantial difference I see is the proximity of the conflict to the super power taking part in the conflict. The larger difference here is that said super power instigated the war themselves. Open to different points of view regarding these thoughts.

The British investment on Ukrainian soil (aka fixed targets) for war manufacturing is a bigger risk than British-trainers in Western Ukraine I think. Who's £s??? Not to mention whatever new involvement in the Black Sea too. Very sticky situation

In theory, the problem you described of transnational problem sets was addressed by Gen Durnford's efforts to change the law and make CJCS the global integrator. However, while the title sounds great in practice, the CJCS still has next-to-no authority and can only advise. The real global integrator is SecDef since he issues EXORDs that dictate how forces are allocated during the force management process.

I agree with you 99%, my only input is I wonder if the combatant commander model (with its boundaries) should be revisited as our adversaries cross those boundaries without our level of bureaucratic thrash. Regardless, 100% CJCS should not be involved tactically... which Milley was. He was deeply involved with O6 level decisions in the AFG withdrawal. The full depth of his personal touch on that disaster is not widely known.

Brits putting troops on Ukrainian soil https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/30/grant-shapps-to-send-uk-troops-to-ukraine/ Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That’s not a bad thing. Combatant commanders should run their AORs, service chiefs their services, CJCS should be there to support those aforementioned and provide the best (apolitical) military advice to the National Command Authority. Somewhere along the line Mark Milley forgot all of that.

This generations Merrill McPeak.

"DoD Lodging Adequacy Standards" It's the key to getting a non-A at (almost) every military base.

The point is not: "what F-35 tasks can we accomplish in the T-6?" The point is: "how do we set a strong enough foundation we don't have to waste time/money doing remedial T-6 things in an F-35"