BB Stacker

I don't necessarily disagree with your doubt that any of this is likely to occur or that the author failed in not even addressing economic issues...but it's worth pointing out that the major belligerents of WWI (particularly Germany and the UK) were highly economic interdependent in 1913, at least as much if not more so than the US and China today.

Because when I think "which of the three commissioning sources needs the most attention regarding SAPR," the clear answer is ROTC and not the place where athletes have raped women for years with impunity.

Yuuuuuuuuup

Pretty clear that the WG/CC wanted this guy gone for some reason and this just provided him the opportunity to do it. The whole thing is just one case after another of "well we can twist this to somehow be against the rules even though it's something that literally everyone else does, we're going to use it to you up."

Since joint basing was such a rousing success, we're now going to implement the same concept AF wide. And if there's one agency I would want managing a new command focused on contracting and acquisitions for base services, it would be the one that brought us such good news stories as the F-35 and KC-X.

And at least half the time, the gear's down.

Good luck with that. They control the purse strings, they have all the power. Fortunately, the current leadership team seems to realize that a lot better than the previous one did and at least is trying to communicate with them, as opposed to the idiocy we witnessed under Skeletor v2.0 with the end around Eielson "draw-down" that was a BRAC in all but name that they didn't bother to talk to anyone in Congress about before trying to execute. But you aren't getting anything done without working with, not against, Congress. Exhibit A for this: if you are talking seriously about a BRAC as being an option for cost savings anytime in the next decade, you don't have a clue. Congress will not be authorizing another BRAC anytime soon. If Pierre Sprey was running things we would have a fleet of nothing but daytime only no radar fighters armed with nothing but two Sidewinders and a Vulcan. He had some good ideas, but like most zealots, he took them way, way too far.

Not the case anymore. AFCENT just changed up the rules, now you must have a passing PT test on top in order to deploy to their AOR, period. Last month we had someone go short notice to lovely KAF because someone else failed their test right before they were supposed to deploy. Yes, I too see absolutely nothing wrong with this plan or any way it might be abused.

To be fair, that's less about an enlisted culture issue and more about the fact that by AFI (signed by a three-star) you are prohibited from getting SR without CCAF complete. I agree that CCAF is stupid but I think the fire is a bit misplaced if we're directing it solely at org level SNCOs...fact of the matter is until the AFI changes you ain't getting promoted past MSgt without your CCAF, period.

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. e: I don't see how the allocation process can be updated/increased until the course length goes down/throughput goes up, which I don't think is slated until sometime around the beginning of FY15.

Good rule of thumb for any AF (or really, any .mil) application or website is to only expect it to work in IE...and probably only with compatibility view enabled because it was likely designed 10 years ago by a bunch of idiots to specifically only work with an ancient version of IE.

Good luck with that. There's no published policy, and AFAIK it's not like the CSAF has had an all call with all the WG/CC's where he explicitly informed them in person of the new policy...even though anyone with half a brain knows the CSAF's intent, until it's published, you won't have anything to substantiate the complaint. It's a sad comment on the complete dysfunctional and broken nature of this clown show of a service that the HMFWIC can't get something this simple done without first publishing a policy letter and ensuring it is distributed in triplicate.

I can keep faith without being a Christian, and Article VI is pretty specific about it being MY god, whatever I determine that to be, not a specific religion. And like StoleIt pointed out, I've never seen a Bible as a part of the Table.

From the previous page: Edit: It's a bloodbath over here. Four Sq/CCs, two DOs, Chief of OGV, plus the OG/CC and CD are going to be off the base within the next 48 hours. Around 85 missileers will face NJP with 5 or so going to court martial. Apparently there were missile flight commanders that had emails direct from the OG/CC saying that they would do whatever was required to score 100% on their testing.

Holy shit. Location? Just like anything else, required to sign in order to acknowledge receipt, not that you agree or accept that the person issuing it is correct. You should be able to write a rebuttal though and could reference article in said rebuttal.

I got in trouble back in school because I wrote a blog at the time, and included a post describing AFPC in a derogatory manner (we were a couple weeks out from commissioning and no one had received EAD orders yet). Fast forward a couple of days and I had multiple O-6s calling for my head due to, in the words of my spineless Det/CC, my "unprofessional profanity laden tirade." This all got brought to light because someone from a randolph.af.mil domain searched the phrase "AFPC sucks" and that blog post happened to be within the top couple of hits. So yes, AFPC has someone who sits around googling the phrase "AFPC sucks" to smoke out people bitching about their incompetence.

It's all good though, because according to Col Oh all we need is to eat healthy, exercise, and get 7 hours of sleep a night. I know at KAF I never had any problems with accomplishing those, between eating nothing but mermites for months on end, working 14 hours a day at a minimum, and getting woken up by the occasional rocket attack.

And how many people would unnecessarily die before we highlighted those capabilities as an all around killing machine? Look at that history you speak of...how many people died unnecessarily in 1942 or the last six months of 1950 because we weren't as prepared as we should've been when a real shooting war broke out? How many people died unnecessarily flying Rolling Thunder missions because we didn't fully shitcan stupid shit and focus only on tactics once we were in a real shooting war?

Maybe in selective cases (I don't know one way or the other) but definitely not true across the board.

No, I'm really not. Our "side" includes exactly zero statements about security obligations. Show me where in the memorandum it says anything about the US coming to Ukraine's aid. In your rush to make partisan hay out of the crisis you've overlooked a pretty key detail...the minor issue that the facts don't support your point of view. Also no, it doesn't go through the UN, nor is it a treaty. And for what it's worth, we maintain a policy of strategic ambiguity regarding whether we'd come to Taiwan's aid for a very good reason. States have no permanent allies, only permanent interests.

You need to reread the Budapest Memorandum. We are in no way "bound" to come to the aid of Ukraine. You're making it sound like they're a member of NATO and are invoking Article V, it's nothing close to that. Russia has probably broken THEIR obligations under the Memorandum by failing to "respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders" and by failing to "refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine," but we are under absolutely no obligation to come to Ukraine's defense, regardless of if they request it or not. Chalk this one up as yet another reason why the proposals for NATO expansion eastward of where it currently is were all really, REALLY stupid ideas.

To add to that, the only reason they got the SH in the first place is that they completely and utterly botched the two major NAVAIR post-Cold War acquisitions projects. First the ATA/A-12 program imploded, spending $2B with nothing to show for it but one mockup, and then NATF turned out to be vaporware. So by 1995 they were staring down having no A-6 replacement, no F-14 replacement, and no money. Thus enter the SH, a program that was completely built on compromises and that prioritized being affordable over everything else. On the one hand, this made for a relatively drama free procurement (no Congressional hearings or 60 Minutes stories about massive cost overruns) but on the other it led to some pretty hilarious performance compromises (e.g., those outward canted pylons).

Bingo. Generally speaking dependents don't have to change but as far as AK specific stuff, good luck claiming PFD without being a resident. And you'll want to claim PFD.

You're right, but the budget realities of the early '90s/post Cold War drawdown meant that the Marines wouldn't have gotten a fighter in that scenario. ASTOVL/SSF/CALF was a non-starter as a standalone program, but there was no way in hell the Marines weren't getting a Harrier replacement (too many friends on Capitol Hill). Thus the JSF program was born.

Guess it was too much to ask for maintainers to get to wear Friday shirts with our planes on them. e: But if that rumor is true I won't have to worry about Friday shirts at all, which is even more awesome.