pcola

My opinion in a nutshell: NATO can't survive without us. The collapse of NATO would be a huge win for Putin. Brexit, while not directly related to NATO, has an impact on the mindset of other NATO members. Without NATO, Russia will rise to fill the ensuing Eastern Europe power vacuum. Britain and Germany would rise to balance and we'd be looking at early-to-mid 20th century Europe all over again. Except the calculus would be significantly different because of nukes. Realists have been saying NATO would collapse since 1989, and it hasn't - mostly because we stayed in. Leaving NATO right now would be a huge strategic mistake and I just don't see that happening. Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Hmm. Doesn't look like forward visibility from the rear is any better. Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Fixed. CCDR IAW JP 1-02. I actually suspected that I might be using the wrong acronym there, but didn't give a shit last night when I typed that after 4 drinks. Thanks for the call out.

Oh good god, man. I was going to let this die rather than participate in a classic baseops dick-measuring contest, but the irony here is just too rich. You lecture your homie about not spouting off about that which he knows nothing of, but then you reply to Moose's very valid points with a naive combination of ignorance and NG propagandist talking points. Once again, you have no clue as to the capes of the U-2. On 4 U2 deployments, I personally have never wx cancelled a U2 mission and can count on one hand the missions that I saw wx cancel. I've climbed and descended through ice, lots of it. I've dodged TS by looking out of the window. I've landed in 1/4 mile vis, mobiled sorties that landed with lightening and TS very close to the field, and mobiled and flown missions which landed in excess of our crosswind limit. The U2 is extremely flexible WRT weather. On station and enroute, we are ALWAYS above it. Can you claim the same things? Not queep unless you are ignorant or just touting the party line. WRT threats, yes, we have capes to operate in those denied environments, jamming and kinetic. Your lack of knowledge here is glaring, but this forum is not the place to rectify that. Grab iowa and go to the vault. Sure, all gobble drivers are now stoked to be there. Wait, let me find my BS flag... I can't even believe that you are persisting with this pack of 12 bullshit. As Moose already pointed out, it's not your POS jet that anybody cares about, its the freaking billion dollar sensor. We don't have 12 packs of those. And yes, distance matters. Especially vertical distance. How high can you guys carry the payload again? Clueless again. You need to open up your aperture beyond mx/wx limitations. Perhaps the U2 wasn't tasked to cover GH shortages because we're already maxed and operating at near 100% rates. Truth. Also, perhaps there have been instances where the CCDR needed an asset in the air RIGHT FUCKING NOW and the GH never entered the conversation because it's not even remotely possible. But guess who can surge, waive shit, plop a driver in the jet and get on station FAST. Ask your intel folks where/when this situation might be applicable. Or ask any U2 driver. Finally, we agree on something. If indeed the GH were merely complimentary to the U2 or its ultimate replacement, that would be fantastic. But for some reason the boneheads making the rules have decided it should be either/or. And therein lies the problem with the GH. And of it were so simple to modify the GH to carry U2 sensors, carry them higher, and generate the power (electricity) required for the next gen, then trust me, NG would have done it long ago. The problem is that it is not a simple remedy, and may in fact prove impossible. Which could leave us with a subpar platform replacing a more capable (and cheaper) platform for the sake of politics. I don't care what you fly, that is a fucking fail.

Awesome that it was written by a former SECNAV

And you would have greatly regretted it. I went to SOS with BQZip ~5 years ago - his mom made the rounds. I don't know what's worse, the burning, itching, or the emotional scarring. Wait, what were we talking about again??? Oh year, switching to fighters... To sum up the thread, if your life's dream was to be a fighter pilot and you didn't get the chance for whatever reason after UPT, go for it. Just realize that you will be a part of AFPC's #s strategy and subsequently subject to all of the BS warned about in this thread. But ultimately, aren't we all just pawns in the big blue game and subjected to one shit-show or another? The only difference is the flavor of shit.

I thought the problem with increasing #s of 11Fs was in the IFF - B course pipeline capacity? How does injecting crossflow pilots into that pipeline solve anything? The only thing I can imagine is that they are looking to create more 11F Majors...which solves the numbers problem on the spreadsheets but does nothing for the experience shortage. I'd call this another shell game by the bean counters attempting to hide a serious problem.

And that vehicle will not be the RQ4

What do they have you doing to "pay back" this wonderful educational experience?

True, lots of alternates picked up last year, but I was selected as a primary on my 2nd look without correspondence complete. I see that as evidence that the completion info was masked to the selection board. Now, how Wings were doing their rack and stacks is another story...

I was in this exact same boat last year. I didn't want to go to school, but also didn't want to show my cards. The Sq/CC asked me to submit a 3849 because the OG wanted to push me. Rather than level with my Sq/CC, I rolled the dice and submitted the 3849. Crapped out, got picked up as a primary (candidate, no correspondence) and am now suffering at Maxwell (Douhet was wrong, btw.) In retrospect, and after talking it over with the CC in the bar, I should've let him know my desires so that he could've gone to bat for me and pushed someone else. Live and learn, and of course, YMMV. Unfortunately, not a guarantee anymore. I was as a candidate with no correspondence and got selected. They truly have hit rock bottom...

As I suspected...all Kool-aid, no meat/potatoes. If you really do want to improve your community, do as WTFAF suggested and go spend some time in the vault. Even GH drivers can read the U-2 3-1. Once you gain a basic understanding of U2 capes, talk to some drivers to get a feel for how we can integrate into the battlespace in ways that a Global Hawk will never be able to match. Good luck and I'm glad that you're excited about your new job!

When do you expect this "sensor parity" to occur? And please explain why it will "clearly surpass the U2 in capability," especially after you just said you're a "mission manager" who doesn't fly anything. Who is flying it, and what do they do when the mission requires a little old-fashioned pilotage? If you think that is a pointless question, then I'd venture to say that you really have very little knowledge of the U2's capability as compared to the Global Chicken's.

This. I'd say the same thing about the vast majority of C-5 FEs I've flown with. More similarities with pilots than with the regulation-blinders, yes sir, shoe-clerk Es. Hopefully they'll source appropriately and lean on these crusty enlisted aviators when building the training program. IMO, they should start with MSgt FEs as initial cadre. Not sure if the current SOs would be equally equipped to mitigate the pitfalls that concern matmac.

Its a start. Hopefully once the changes are implemented and CSSs are right sized they'll do another review and eliminate more of this queep. Unfortunately in order for a lot of this stuff to go away AFIs will have to be waived/rewritten and that also takes manpower

Great sentiment, and I get it, but WTF is a "paste eater?"

Caption should read "In this photo Maj Jack "SAM" Nelson demonstrates to the crowd the approximate size of the cajones required to pull off this astounding feat of airmanship." And yes, the U2 pressure suits are specifically designed to accommodate cajones of that magnitude.

Wait. What exactly are you claiming that the spreadsheets are backing up? That there are fewer deployments? If so, I'll buy that, but it's a fallacy to then jump to the conclusion that this somehow makes RPAs appealing. If you are claiming that you have spreadsheets that can somehow quantify the level of appeal the job has for pilots based upon the deployment rate, then I'm calling bullshit.

Yes, you can decline continuation. But you won't get any separation money.

A referral OPR for a failed PT test? IIRC, a referral is mandatory if your OPR period closes out with a failed/expired PT test. Which means that even if you fail one, as long as you can make it up and pass before your report closes, you shouldn't get a referral. If CCs are giving referral reports for failures above and beyond that, well, that's some solid douchebaggery right there. General bit of free advice for folks that struggle with the PT test: adjust your testing schedule so that it DOESN'T coincide with your OPR close out. Shoot for the first or second month of your annual reporting period. Then your second test will fall in month 7 or 8. Should give you plenty of time to fix any failures prior to a report closing. Or just get to the gym more often, it's not that hard of a test.

I think the Changer is gunning for the official Chief of AF Retention position. You'll see the official AFPC mail robot announcement for the position next week: Requisites: 1. Graduated MSG Sq/CC. 2. 2 years in-res PME time total. 3. 2 Bronze Star Medals ( BSMs with V devices only accepted on case-by-case basis with single-sided narrative describing qualifying circumstances) 4. Instructor qualified on C-method PRFs and double-sided 1206s. Highly Desired: 1. 4 years in-res PME time total 2. WIC level pepper grind skills. 3. SAPR level 12 qualified. 4. Graduated or sitting MSG/CC.

I'm prior E. I reached the end of my UPT commitment with 16 years TIS. Knowing that to be the case all along, I'd always planned to stay until 20. I've had great assignments and am not nearly the most disgruntled dude on here, but I did not want school. Didn't even honestly think it was a possibility. I'm not tracking your logic in why it's a sport bitch, but even after 13 years on this board, I can rarely follow most of your posts.

I was gonna let this one go, since I think others on here have already rebuked this garbage more eloquently than I ever could, but I just can't. Ummm - he gave you a wall of facts. Furthermore, that you refuse to accept the facts is indicative of your utter failure (inability or ineptitude?) to grasp the reality of the situation before you. Misjudged??? You think??? That was fcking predictable. In fact, it WAS predicted, on this very site. Which, IIRC, you scoffed. Time and time again you are told the ground truth. If not in your staff meetings, at least in this forum. Yet you plow ahead with your useless playbook, hoping that it works. Guess what, it's 4th and long and your playbook is shit. Someone needs to get creative - now. And I'll go ahead and give you another prediction - higher bonuses won't work either. Please. Take your kool-aid somewhere else. Nobody here is drinking it. You claim to be in A1, possibly even at the GO level, and you want to talk about core values? OK, please explain your meaning of integrity. I'd love to hear it, because I certainly can't tell by your policies. Stop loss = a violation of trust and contract = lack of integrity on the part of leadership that callously uses it as a retention tool. Officer first? You bet. All the way until the bitter end of my service obligation. Beyond that, I'm free to do as I see fit. Even if you geniuses decide to hold me beyond my obligation. May have to? This should be where you are investing most of your time finding a solution. You should not be looking at it as an unfortunate compromise required by A1 to ease the situation. It is the answer. We don't want more money. We aren't a bunch of washed up, grumpy old has beens that missed the boat either (as you've alluded to in several other posts.) We are the voice of the pilot force, representative of the majority. And in fact, it seems that several of us that are bitching the loudest on here actually have those opportunities that you value so much in front of us, or have already turned them down, voluntarily. Your interpretation of the situation is skewed by your addiction to the kool aid, brother. Open your eyes. We don't want more pay, we want more freedom to do the job that needs doing. This statement shows your cards. You really are blindly grasping at straws here, but unfortunately for the health of the Air Force, you've picked up the short straw and you think its the long one. You think that more of the same wanton mismanagement and lazy application of the "rule book" is going to solve the problem. News flash - this plan will have a negative effect on morale. At the expense of tooting my own horn here, by and large, the pilot force is the smartest, most capable cross section of personnel that the AF has. This is, in part, due to the very nature of selection for UPT and the weeding out process after. If you think that screwing the next generation will somehow escape the scrutiny of the current crop of pilots, you've (again) sadly misread your target audience. Who do you think is going to lead this next generation of screwed-over young LTs? That's right Einstein, the same people that are currently disgruntled by your abhorrent management policies. Making worse management policies will not help your situation. I think your most grievous error here is interpreting that the disgruntled pilots are simply looking out for #1. Wrong. Most of us are so disgruntled because we believe in the importance of having a strong, sustainable airpower force and we see how damaging your policies are to the bottom line of that force. If you think that continuing the downward trend of flawed management polices will not affect morale, you are clueless. I won't even go into this statement, as it's been thoroughly debunked in the preceding pages of this post. I will say that if you expect us to drink your kool-aid, pass it around, and make your job easier, while you continue to F-it up by the numbers, you are sadly mistaken. It's not on me to lie to those I lead in order to create a positive environment. They'd see right through that BS anyway, and then I'd be part of the problem. It's on you and your peers (if you are who you say you are) to fix the environment so that us front line leaders can have a chance of making it positive again. As Clearedhot so eloquently pointed out - senior leadership and their staffs created this mess, you can't put it on our shoulders. One last point. I don't know if G Chang is a troll or not. Doesn't really matter - the problems discussed on this thread are real, and I have no doubt that real AF leadership follow this forum. Please, for the sake of the future of the AF, read and heed. The pages on this forum ARE the Sq level ground truth you guys claim to be seeking. I've answered your surveys. I've spoken frankly to my boss. I've had these conversations repeatedly with my peers. I've mentored the Capts and Lts. Have some courage and make the necessary course corrections. Admit fault if that's what it takes, but show some of those core values that you love to tout. Integrity, Excellence, Service... For Fuks sake, I need a scotch. ETA: Damn, when did I lose the privilege of dropping F-bombs on this forum? Totally F'd up my post, I'd say.

Hmm, I know several school grads/students that regret saying yes. Pretty sure one is on this board. Personally, I said yes only because I didn't want to 7 day opt since I have 16 years TIS. I'm already wondering "what if" I'd said no, but not in the way you're implying. I'm wondering just how much QOL I'll be giving up over the next 4 years, how much seniority I'm losing, and if I'll end up regretting my decision to stay i.e. getting stop lossed just before retirement eligibility in 2020. I'll let you know once I get my post school assignment if I regret saying yes, but I'm not optimistic... BTW, I would have absolutely declined IDE in-res if I could've done so without 7 day opting. And I seriously considered it anyway.

Sorry, no gouge on this school, but if you're on the fence between this and airlines, seems like a no brainier to me. This school is going to net you minimum 4 more years on AD, maybe more. You've got the year of school, followed by a three year school ADSC. Your post school assignment will most likely be staff. Assuming you still want an airline job, you'll probably want another post staff flying assignment to gain some recent currency. You'll be looking at another 2 years PCS ADSC, and possibly a requal ADSC. That will put you at, what, 17-19 years in following your next flying assignment? If anything, I'd think this "opportunity" would make the airlines the easy choice. YMMV