Lord Ratner

I know this surprises no one here, but that article has nothing in it that supports the so called good-old-boy club argument. It even has one of the good old boys arguing against a verdict reversal. I also found it interesting that Hicks "knew [breedlove] was “very much in Franklin’s camp.”"

Agreed, with one exception: Everything out here looks like a pub (especially from the outside), and compared to American restaurants, is a pub. There is a slow, but steady movement (at least where we are) of pubs bringing in real chefs and serving some pretty great food. Still rare, but one just popped up in Ely. The problem is that it still looks exactly like all the shitty-food pubs and there is no reliable review system like Yelp in the US. Compared to the US though, it's still dire.

My advice based on a few trips down there. Get an Oyster card (5gbp) and use the tube to the max extent. I wont go over the prices, but you'll save more time and money than you could possibly imagine. The card makes it easier if you plan on using the tube multiple times a day, which you should plan on. You can save the 5 quid and get a zone pass each day, but I like the card better. Avoid cabs. A single cab ride will cost you more than an all day pass on the tube. As stated by someone else, the Tower of London is for history nerds, as are many other attractions out there. The fact you'll be paying about 20 - 30 quid per location means you really have to like that kind of shit. Westminster Abbey, Buckingham, ToL, Kensington Palace, there are lots of wildly historic places there to see. We like that stuff, so we go, but others have been bored out of their mind. Double Decker Bus - The tours are hop-on hop-off, so a ticket lasts all day, but honestly it's a pretty terrible way to get around london. The tube is better. Instead, get tickets online for a night time double decker tour. They are generally about 1/2 the price, and instead of using it as a way to get around, just get on, ride the whole circuit (60-90 minutes) and you can check off seeing many of the more conventional tourist areas in one go. London Dungeon, Madam Toussaints, etc - Depends on your tastes. I thought the Dungeon was awesome. Kind of a mix of a haunted house, carnival rides, cheesy acting, and some very basic history. If you want to do it in conjuntion with the Eye ferris wheel, you can get a combo discount online. The lines are long in the mid afternoon, but die down around 630pm. Just watch out for closing times. Hotels are expensive. Find a hotel on the outskirts of london near a tube station, and use the saved money towards the food, which is expensive. Learn to love the salt shaker. London is better about good food, but many of the pubs will over promise and under deliver as far as food quality goes. I cant think of much else. If you have any specific questions, PM me or ask here.

The plot was B. But the production was A and the acting was a solid A-/B+. I get the sense that the science of making an action movie has gotten to the point where there are no B movies any more, just boring A movies and low budget C movies.

I hope not. DTS is one of our less talked about financial catastrophes in the world of acquisitions.

Shhhh. You're ruining the righteous fury of the we're-all-snowflakes crowd with your experience and perspective.

The real question is, if the Navy's primary mission these days is projection of Air Power all over the globe, why do we waste our time with a separate service (Navy) when we could just keep the support assets together. Or to put it in his words: Separating naval military assets from the air assets they organically support makes no more sense than the creation of separate arms for tanks and submarines.

Just because he's old doesn't mean he can't smell what the rock is cooking.

This. I always loved how low on SA the preds were in a stack. That's not to shit on the pilots, they knew their systems' limitations and worked diligently to mitigate, but sometimes it would get to be a bit much, and suddenly someone in the stack would call out moderate turbulence for no reason... But one day, those weaknesses will be overcome. Most likely once the Google's and Microsofts out there start playing. A few nerds can build a self driving car on their spare time, but a major defense contractor can't make a gradesheet program for UPT without 10 years of Beta testing? And we wonder why we're broke.

Walnut Creek. It may not be as glamorous as Sac, but trust me, you'll thank me when you see the opposite direction traffic during your commute on the 80 and 680. Plenty of things to do for a single dude(tte) there, and the train to SF is close.

You're assuming I care about the mission. I've done three so far (two if you dont count AETC), and I've learned I care about location more than mission. Just like I said before. You can also pick an airframe based on future assignment opportunity. But it's not short-sighted to pick based on a location when you decide you are more concerned with the location. I don't know what your background is, but a fairly large portion of the people at my base now came from other platforms. Not really uncommon

I'll be the voice of dissent and say choose the location. But I am personally more concerned with the lifestyle than I am with the mission. You'll be serving your country honorably either way. BUT, I didn't come to this point of view until after my FAIP tour, where I got huge amounts of perspective from C-17, KC-10, C-5, etc guys who had BTDT. I never understood why, but for some reason IPs never tell the studs their true feelings about airframes, assignments, etc. Maybe because they don't listen anyways. That being said, I was devastated when they FAIP'd me, purely because I hated the location. Turned out to be the greatest time I could have imagined. Great flying, great people, and despite what so many (clueless) people say, minimal queep (especially for a FAIP). I guess the moral of the story is: what you think you want is wrong, but by the time you figure it out, it won't matter. Things change too fast to game it anyways. Figure out what your goals are in the near term, and try to knock them out. For me, I wanted to see the world, so of course, they kept me in Mississippi. Yet here I am now, living in England. You'll be fine either way.

*sigh*

My humble opinion: This is a clear cut case (assuming it's clear-cut to them, I have no clue personally), and Boeing is leaning hard on all parties to ensure no one thinks this was their plane's fault. Not after the 787 mess. Why else would the airline and NTSB release so much info pointing to non-aircraft related factors?

GC, Take this advice from a captain for what it's worth (nothing): 1. Read joe1234's post a few times. It doesn't matter what the truth is (which you are sharing, and trust me, many people here are glad to finally see the other side's view, even if we still disagree), you still support those below you where you can. Since you can't save their careers (people have to go, not everyone gets a bonus, etc etc), you can still empathize and support. A doctor may know the patient is dying due to terrible life choices, but he doesn't tell him that on his death bed. If I'm being unclear, stop telling dudes here they should just be happy, or to hold out their hat and take what they can get, or to stop putting their own "selfish" interests ahead of the AF. Leave that to their peers and mentors. I'm sure you already know this and have applied it with your subordinates, but since you came here as an unofficial representative of the AF leadership, maybe it would be appropriate to apply it here as well. 2. Living by the numbers, as you have made clear is your job, is only valid if the numbers aren't garbage. Corporations spend millions on numbers-people who are tasked to break every minute aspect of operations and personnel into a formula. But they don't get paid to ignore the numbers that "shouldn't" be there. Saying the C-17 world has enough people to do the job it "should" be doing is great, but a real numbers guy would follow that up with "but they are doing more, so here are the statistics based on the current reality." The AF (government) has always been hell-bent on running the numbers, but they always fail because they only look at the numbers they'd like to see. Has anyone ever seem a manning percentage that made sense, high or low? Guess what, if you have been running a squadron for 15 years at 69% manning, and you never have or will make an attempt to fix it, that's now 100%. If C-17 GP and WG execs "should" be flying their fair share like the line pilots, but are only flying a fifth, or tenth of the sorties the line flyers fill, well that's the new real number. And before you tell me the AF hasn't failed, throwing billions at the problem after the fact to make it go away (F22, F35, retention, OEF, OIF, etc) is failing. No normal corporation would survive that. Should the AF be a corporation? No, but call a spade a spade: the AF and government at large fails with numbers, and often because of many of the things you are saying here. I truly appreciate you coming out here and sharing with everyone the thoughts and opinions of the Pentagon. I hope the people here will restrain themselves from scaring people like you away from posting, despite their often-justified rage, so that BO can remain more than a place to bitch.

Chang, O-5, O-6, or GO? Not trying to identify, just trying to get a better perspective on who is sitting on the top rope with Liquid crushing the BaseOps theory machine.

I agree it needs to end, but the Air Force does offer a free Masters degree.

Ok, well I agree with almost everything you're saying. Two points where I differ: 1. SOS is-corr is not useless. The way it is used is insulting, sure, but the readings, which as you pointed out, are critical of the ways we do some things, can be of great value to certain your officers. I don't think it is a waste of time to learn some of those things, however I agree that doing it only to qualify for doing it in a longer version in Alabama is silly. If they want us to read those things before we go to SOS, and SOS is going to be 100% attendance in-res anyways, call SOS in-corr ASBC in-corr instead, and make it a requirement for pinning on O-3. But I know the outcry may be even worse for that plan. 2. Yes, philosophically I agree that getting a check-the-box degree from anyone, anywhere, about anything that may have NOTHING to do with my job as a pilot or as an officer is an insult, and I have been plenty vocal about that. If you want to call me an educated leader, then actually take the time to educate me. But don't make me look like a stooge by pushing me to get a basket weaving degree from the Boy Scouts community online learning center, and then call me the future of the nation because of my impressive credentials. I agree. HOWEVER. The AF pays me good money. Real good. Sure, we have to do things that more than justify that paycheck, but that doesn't make it any less of a good paycheck. I love my job, and I would gladly do it for less money. But they don't pay me less money, they pay me good money. So if they want me to get a degree in advanced VCR repair from Bob's-Traveling-Combination-University-and-Kabob-Van.com, fine. It's their money. You want me to read a few hundred pages about being a leader over the course of 6 months to a year before you send me to read the same crap in a group for 2 months? Fine, it's their money. Can't wear colored shirts under the flight suit anymore on Fridays? Okie Dokie. No more Fun-Meter patches on my pen-pocket sleeve Velcro? Done. It's not a volunteer force. When's the last time you volunteered at a soup kitchen or bake sale (most likely for OPR bullets) and they gave you a check at the end of the day? It's a job. And the expectations were public when you agreed to take the job. AAD's have been a source of bitching since Vietnam. But as a bonus, you aren't even required to get them, or go to SOS online. If it insults your very existence, as it clearly has yours, don't do it. But don't get self-righteous when you didn't check the clearly labeled boxes, aren't promoted, and then your employer decides they are done paying you for your services. And enjoy the free flight training, on the house. Airline pilots are told what they have to wear. Bankers are told what "conventions" they have to attend and what classes they need to enroll in. Marketing directors are paid more if they have advanced degrees, even if they are stupid. I'm all for making the system better, but I'm not going to harm my own interests to illustrate a point. I like being a pilot, and flying different airplanes in different parts of the world. AADs and CBTs suck, but so did living in a shoebox in Bagram. At the end of the day, they pay me $206 per month to fly airplanes, and the rest covers the queep. Sorry for the excessive text.

I can't believe I have to defend SOS, considering how much I disliked doing it in-corr, but you know there's actually no requirement that you skip the readings, get the gouge, and min-run the tests, right? You're kinda attempting to discredit the entire field of philosophy by arguing there's nothing to be had from the readings, since most of them were simple leadership philosophy readings... So what is your argument to the countless bros who spend hours upon hours working "in the shop late into the nights" and still do the PME and AAD? They should have been putting that time into the shop too? If you are working 20 hour days every day in the AF, you're doing it wrong. Period. And I don't mean you're putting too much of your life into the AF, I mean you're using your own catastrophically bad time management to blame the system. You may be a naturally gifted leader. I don't know, since I don't know you (I think). But most people in the AF, myself included, fall into the range of "some leadership abilities, with room to improve." Does anyone here know of a Flag Officer who hasn't read a shelf full of books by past military figures on command and leadership? Not just the tools, either, but the generals people on this board have hailed as saviors of the AF way; I'd bet the overwhelming majority of them have read leadership philosophy voraciously. They can't force you to read it, and they can't stop us from making and distributing gouge. I'm about as stubborn and convinced of my own strengths as they come (as some of the people here who know me can attest), but when one of those stupid readings corners me in a dark alley and forces it's knowledge down my throat (sts?), I generally walk away a wiser person, and occasionally one causes me to rethink my limited-experience philosophy on leading. SOS in correspondence as a gateway to SOS in residence is stupid. Making us do anything once to prove we are worthy of doing it again is stupid. Turning AADs into a check box instead of a tool for enriching the officer (and enlisted) force is stupid. But knowledge is not stupid, and the people who have the influence to fix this system (Liquid, perhaps? Other generals who would never admit in public they lurk this site) are going to stop listening to you the instant your argument smells like "knowledge is stupid" or "you can't learn anything outside of first-hand, combat experience." Especially when you consider how important every general with a reading list considers it.

I dare say flying a C150 with no autopilot, digital displays, HSI, or GPS on an IFR flight plan would do wonders rebuilding the skill of task management. I know my ability to fly by hand atrophied greatly in the MC-12. I suspect the same will happen in the tanker. The t-6 would be perfect, but for the reasons you listed, it will never happen.

C2 doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. And ATC out there is convinced the world was built in 7 days to service their every desire, and nothing more. C2 aimed so many UAVs at our plane I was starting to think their was a medal for creating the most HATRs, and ATC told me that even though we were going to run out of gas, we could not land at AIX or AKB because POTUS was parked there. Good luck, it'll be your fault no matter what happens. Therein lies the key to serenity.

I was going to say condom, but gun works too.

Even though the MRAP is still much heavier, the "2 1/2" part of "2 1/2 ton truck" does not refer to the truck's weight.

There has only been one crash landing in the KC-135 where the crew lived, IIRC. So that's the scenario where they would be useful. Not the incident in Kryg. I'm hardly an expert on the plane, but anyone who has flown it knows its already a pain to land when fully functional. But that was before butters pointed out that all heavies have passengers on them on every flight. Oops.