BB Stacker

This. Lunch/gathering with the shop/singing his praises are all well and good, but time off is more than worth its weight in gold.

Not unreasonably so...I was honestly surprised when I heard that single digit number.

I've got it on relatively good authority that the total number of RPA guys the USAF was looking to award the DWM to, going back retroactively to 9/11, was in the single digits. So yeah, given that DoD has given out more MoH in that same timeframe it seems like the intent was indeed to make it at least as selective as the DFC, if not more so. Also remember that the approving authority for the DWM is the Service Secretary, which is non-waiverable, so it's not like the 432d or whoever could just start handing these out like candy even if they wanted to.

You'll forgive me that I don't really give a shit that it needs "more time to develop" when LockMart/the Program office sold everyone a bill of goods about concurrency.

We didn't develop the software, we paid CSC to do it. The problem (well, one of them anyway) was that instead of clearly defining requirements and delivering those to the contractor for them to meet, the AF allowed the contractor to define a lot of the requirements that the system needed to be able to meet...you can see the inherent problem here. Or maybe not a problem, depending on whether your goal was to actually develop a working system or to funnel a bunch of money to your contractor buddies. The most frustrating part is that a significant amount of the shit that ECSS was supposed to replace didn't really need replacing in the first place. Instead of going through and developing individual replacements for the stuff that was old and needed replacing, they were just going to go in and overhaul everything, because 21st CENTURY LOGISTICS!!!!

I'll just regress, because I feel I've made myself perfectly redundant.

FWIW I'm an AF officer, not a Marine. You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The MAGTF (specifically at the MEU level, embarked on an ESG) has been used on its own all the time over the past 20 years (and before that) for operations short of full blown war, for everything from deterrent presence (the firepower an ESG possesses with a self contained MEU is much more of a deterrent than some Army prepo ships filled with stockpiled tanks and trucks bobbing about) to stuff that involves actual real world employment, like NEO. Which is why self contained CAS is important, because the U.S. military is not going to deploy an entire CSG or a squadron of A-10s to provide support for a MEU conducting NEO in a country like, say, Liberia, but having some fixed wing CAS in the on site commander's pocket is a nice safety net in case things start going sideways for the forces on the ground. I've never advocated for the F-35B (I was the guy posting pictures of Broncos on the Boxer), all I've advocated for is that the idea of the MAGTF in principle is sound (even I have quibbles with what they think they need to be capable of WRT the air element). Without the MAGTF concept, you might as well disband the entire Marine Corps because without it they would become just a smaller second land army with different uniforms that ride around on boats sometimes. You can argue that the MAGTF doesn't need fixed wing aviation, but there is no way in hell the USMC will or should get away from the entire idea of a scaleable tailorable unit that possesses integrated ground combat, air support, and logistics support capabilities.

Here ya go: So they need fixed wing CAS as a substitute for ground based fires support (which they don't have in force because they're light/lean), and it needs to be organic because it's entirely possible that there could be a situation where the MAGTF needs CAS to support ground operations but there isn't enough of a threat to require the deployment of a CSG or of USAF assets.

The F-35 is absolutely intended for day 30 permissive airspace ops (complete with external stores). Look at the fighter roadmap. By the 2040 timeframe the plan is to be flying whatever Raptors we still have left, some Golden Eagles and Mud Hens that will be held together with chewing gum and duct tape, and a whole shitload of F-35s. The only option under the plan for a permissive airspace bomb truck is going to be the F-35. I'm not saying that's what I think is actually going to happen, but that's the plan. Regarding the MAGTF (no second A), putting on my joint hat...I think a couple clarifying points are in order. First, the MAGTF isn't a set unit; it's explicitly intended to be scaleable and tailorable to meet the combatant commander's needs. So what this means is that the MAGTF can vary in size from a 2,000 person MEU all the way up to a 30,000 person MEF, and the exact type/size of units will vary depending on what the COCOM needs the MAGTF to do, but it will always have the same basic four group structure that enables self contained independent operations: command group, ground combat element, air combat element, and logistics element. Second, remember that the Marines are the nation's 911 force. They've been used (unwisely, IMHO) as a second land army over the past decade, but even during that time they were also still doing more typical Marine stuff like NEO and providing a rapid response presence in various hot spots around the world. This use as a 911 force that requires being able to rapidly respond to a wide variety of possible events is why the MAGTF structure is so different from a typical Army force. Having a self contained forward deployed unit that is capable of doing anything from launching a punitive amphibious raid to conducting NEO to providing humanitarian aid to providing a deterrent presence, all without any additional augmentation from outside forces, is worth its weight in gold planning wise. The key words there are "forward deployed." Yes, an ESG travels at 20 knots, but let's be honest outside of the 82nd the Army travels at the same 20 knots when deploying anywhere in force, and as opposed to a self contained forward deployed MEU that is probably already within a day or two steaming time of the crisis, the Army is going to have to deploy forces from multiple locations that are weeks of travel time away. Unless of course the Army forces were already forward deployed, but if we're going to talk money and efficiency I'm pretty sure that having a couple of MEUs embarked in strategic locations around the world is going to be more efficient than permanently maintaining forward deployed heavy Army forces. Drilling down to why the MAGTF needs self contained fixed wing aviation support, since the MAGTF (especially at the MEU level) is intended to be relatively light and flexible, they tend to be pretty lean when it comes to fires support. The flexibility of fixed wing CAS (compared to artillery or mortars) is intended to make up for this lack of fires. As far as all the other uses of fixed wing aviation support, I'm not going to defend them because I don't agree with them as a requirement. Like I've said before, if a MAGTF finds itself in a situation where it needs OCA/DCA or AI there will either be USAF or USN assets around to perform those missions. It is entirely possible that a MAGTF could find itself in a situation where the level of threat does not require deployment of outside assets for air support but that may still require that CAS to make up for lack of fires, which is why I would argue that self contained fixed wing CAS is essential to the MAGTF concept (but the ability for it to carry out anything more than CAS is not.)

Probably option 2, especially if we're in a day 30 permissive airspace situation, which is likely to be most of what the F-35B specifically and the F-35 in general is used for...which raises the question of why the hell did we need LO in the first place. For that matter, I'm looking forward to seeing what the Navy's plan is for LO with the -C, operating continuously in a corrosive environment with limited maintenance facilities on board a ship.

Bingo. It was mentioned earlier that a reason for V/STOL fighters is because the ESG might deploy without a carrier and the MEU needs therefore needs organic OCA/DCA capability (such as it is with 4-6 V/STOL fighters with underwhelming performance.) Does anyone really think that we would deploy a MEU into a situation with a credible threat requiring OCA/DCA capability without having a CSG riding herd on it? I'm not talking Libya-esque "well what the hell, there's an ESG on station, let's let the MEU play too" situations, I'm talking "there's enough of a threat here to turn the ESG into the second iteration of Ironbottom Sound" situations. If you truly need OCA/DCA to complete the mission, there will be a big deck carrier around; this isn't 1942, and we're not at Guadalcanal. Amphibs aren't anywhere close to expendable enough to risk otherwise. And if you don't need OCA/DCA, there are other, cheaper options...even ones that don't require V/STOL, just STOL: Like I said earlier, this isn't an attack on the idea of the MAGTF (go hog wild with self contained CAS as far as I'm concerned), this is an attack on the idea that the MAGTF needs to be capable of self-contained OCA/DCA operations when operating from amphibs. If you remove that requirement a whole 'nother world of options opens up, but with it you are stuck with the navy's army's air force operating stealth fighters.

I won't get into the amphib V/STOL argument right now (there are valid arguments on both sides, although in an era of fiscal austerity I have serious issues with paying for a "nice to have" capability for the navy's army's air force when other services are cutting their core capabilities especially when we aren't going to deploy an ESG into a region where it faces an air threat without a big deck CSG to provide overwatch), but if we're going to have an honest conversation about the land side of this we need to define "austere" base. As the OP identified, the main LIMFAC for austere bases is logistics, to include maintenance support. Do we as a military have a need to operate out of extremely austere bases? Absolutely, and we have the logistical ability to support operations from these bases (within reason) provided they possess a runway large enough to get a C-130 in and out (assuming the base is forward enough that we don't have reliable, secure, and regular surface transport for stuff like fuel and ammo). Of course, this raises the obvious question of, "If we can get a C-130 in and out why do we need V/STOL strike aircraft?" There is "austere base with limited available support that can support conventional fixed wing operations," and then there is the definition of "austere" that V/STOL proponents use, which refers to operating out of locations that are only capable of supporting V/STOL ops. Harriers have operated in combat out of austere bases that nominally couldn't support conventional fighters (more on this in the next paragraph) but the reality is that these were more or less publicity stunts to attempt to demonstrate V/STOL's relevance. During Desert Storm the Marines operated Harriers in a V/STOL manner out of an abandoned airbase (capable of STOVL only operations) in northern Saudi Arabia (it's popularly known as operating out of a soccer stadium due to them setting up admin support in a soccer stadium next to the airfield). Despite the Harriers being marginally closer to the FEBA, a similar number of USAF A-10s were able to generate more sorties carrying more ordnance with fewer logistical bottlenecks by operating from a forward airbase capable of supporting conventional fixed wing operations. The Marines tried a similar thing during the invasion of Iraq, and have done similar things in Afghanistan (setting up a FARP outside Marjah a year or two ago, for example, to support Harrier operations out of Kandahar). The dirty little secret with all of these is that while they netted some impressive sounding metrics for the USMC and V/STOL, the cost that wasn't counted was the logistical effort necessary to keep these bases supplied with fuel, ammo, and maintenance support...as one example, one of the things that the Marines tout as being a benefit of V/STOL ops is reducing the burden on tanking support required by setting up FARPs closer to the action. That's all well and good, but you'll forgive me if I find it hard to believe that it is smarter/safer (forget cheaper) to truck fuel tankers overland outside the wire to a FARP on a road or parking lot somewhere instead of adding a few jets to the tanking support requirements for the day. The fact is that fixed wing aircraft (including USMC Hornets) were able to operate in the same areas more effectively and efficiently than Harriers doing V/STOL in each of the instances listed above, and this was due largely to the logistical burdens imposed by operating out of V/STOL only capable locations, which is why I think it is important to define what we mean when we talk about "austere" bases. And all of the above ignores the very significant differences between the F-35 and Harrier: cost (if you think the raid earlier this year on VMA-211 was bad, imagine it with F-35s being the target...putting your hundred million dollar+ stealth fighter within range of any asshole with a mortar seems like a very poor cost-benefit tradeoff), LO maintenance, increased fuel requirements, the increased heat footprint of the F-35 compared to the Harrier...all of these things further count against it from operating out of an austere V/STOL only location. I should be clear, this isn't an attack on Marines operating fixed wing aircraft, or the MAGTF concept...I think both are vital components of the way the Marine Corps does business, but if we're going to assess an idea's value we need to be honest about all its limitations, and the idea of effectively operating F-35s out of a truly forward austere base where they can only operate V/STOL is a pipe dream.

Oh for ######'s sake, she included a goddamned Ammo coin (and a fairly tame one at that) in her little list of evil naughty things? Man, her head would explode if she saw my Ammo Road coin.

One of the points of the article is that civilian SES types don't get anywhere near the same amount of perks as uniformed flag officers, despite them performing roughly on the same level (I think it's fair to say that the SECDEF and CJCS are roughly equivalent as far as workload, not to mention that the CJCS ostensibly works for the SECDEF.) If those perks are essential to operating effectively and efficiently as you claim, then SES types like the SECDEF should get them. Since Bob Gates was able to fill the post of SECDEF effectively without some of them (obviously secure government airlift is a legitimate requirement, but he didn't have a household staff for example), I don't understand why it was essential for Mike Mullen to have all of them to do a roughly equivalent job just because he wore a uniform instead of a suit to work.

Pretty sure Bob Gates has WORKED to get where he's at in life, he just sees a bit of an issue with spending taxpayer dollars for someone to have military members sweep up their leaves just because they wear four stars on their collar seeing as how we're in an era where we are kicking people out. Are you seriously equating calling out flag officers for getting insane levels of perks to class warfare? Again, I would've thought the idea of flag officer perks being a little much would be a gimme given the rending of garments here about the RIFing of rated officers, but I guess getting leaves raked on the taxpayer's dime is more important than avoiding hollowing out our force. edit: and yes, before anyone says it, I understand that these perks are a drop in the bucket relatively speaking compared to funding new weapons systems or manpower or whatever. It's about perception. The American people are not going to be supportive of a large defense budget when they see stuff about generals having personal leaf baggers and private aircraft, and nor should they, frankly.

Although they did pay to stockpile all of the tooling instead of destroying it as is normally the case when a production line shuts down... (It's supposedly in case they need to do a SLEP, which with 185 and counting, they will more than likely need to...but you never know.)

Regarding the "happened so he wouldn't testify about Benghazi" conspiracy theory, I'd say that's pretty much been put to rest: Also apparently Broadwell's security clearance has been pulled after they found some classified documents on her personal computer at her home.

Congress has the power to subpoena any U.S. citizen, anywhere, anytime, provided the subpoena is relevant to whatever Congress is investigating (which it would be in this case). Him resigning isn't this big "get out of testifying" thing that a lot of you seem to think it is. Okay, so he won't testify at the hearings next week because he's no longer the CIA Director...if Congress wants to hear from him they will, and honestly he stands less of a chance of fighting a Congressional subpoena as private citizen David Petraeus as opposed to DCI David Petraeus. Do you really think that a political animal like Petraeus would get outflanked to the point where he has to resign because of some "made-up" affair that is going to effectively kill his career, both in govt service and politically? He isn't some babe in the woods when it comes to these things, he is very very savvy politically; if someone was trying to "take him down" or whatever and he was fighting it, it would be a lot messier and a lot nosier than him submitting his resignation and the President accepting it a day later. Simple solutions are the best. And yeah, if you're gonna go down that road, you could do a lot worse than her.

There's a mx officer job supporting the same thing, also a short tour. I think there's also a couple C-130 pilot jobs and a mx officer job doing the same type of thing with Herks in Poland, but I might be mistaken on that.

Not quite sure what you're asking, but you are eligible to enroll in Course 20 (SOS by correspondence) as soon as you are selected for promotion to Captain (so everyone who got notified on this most recent board could enroll right now). They have yet to roll out the new course so you can still enroll in the old one...latest guesstimate I heard was sometime before the end of the year for the switchover, so if you want to get in on the old course now is the time.

That's what the picture is of and the "Kimpo MiG" that Steve is referring to...the USAF had a program going at the time where they made it known that they were willing to pay $100,000 and grant political asylum to any pilot who defected with a MiG-15. That actually took place a few months after the Armistice was signed in '53, but it was a North Korean pilot who defected to the South (and first landed at Kimpo near Seoul, hence the "Kimpo MiG" moniker.) Edit: Although I should add that the North Korean pilot who defected was actually unaware of the program.

It was somewhere in the vicinity of 80% for this most recent board. I can look up the actual stats at work tomorrow if no one comes up with them before then.

I would agree with this...he really needed an editor. I don't really consider that a slam on him because even the best writers need editorial support, it's just a shame because like you said there are some decidedly mixed reviews out there but he tells a good story and the book has a lot of good primary source info (quoting at length from emails/letters/etc from others involved in the program), particularly from the enlisted guys. Of course, a lot of that is what is driving the disjointedness and the feeling that a good editor would've been worthwhile, but still. In any case your book is what I would recommend to someone who is relatively unfamiliar with Constant Peg and wants to get the story, Evil's is what I would recommend for someone who has read your book and wants more. And FWIW I got to meet Evil a little while back because he happened to be up here during a Flag for something unrelated and spent a couple hours hanging out in our bar. Good guy.

I was talking about comparing Roth IRA to Roth TSP, but yeah, if we're talking Roth IRA vs 401(k) style traditional TSP there's no question which is a better choice as a junior officer making not so much money.

As others have said, max out a Roth IRA...personally I'd do that before TSP given the likely better rate of return on the IRA (provided you find a quality fund of course), although with your circumstances you can probably afford both. The biggest thing is to save early and often...one of the best things anyone ever did for me was when my dad took me aside when I got my first "real" job in high school working summers landscaping and hammered into me that since I was in high school I didn't have any real required living expenses and I should therefore dump the vast majority of the $3-4K I generally made into a good Roth IRA because compounding was my friend (and just like the CZTE putting money you didn't pay income tax on into a Roth is always a sweet deal.) I'll also second the emergency fund suggestion...that's one area I'm a little weak on now but working to fix. You've got the money to do so now, start working to get 6ish months worth of pay stashed away...rolling CDs, money market, or a mutual fund are all good choices, just like Swizzle said make sure wherever you end up putting it the money is liquid.