Longhorn15

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early “led to believe NATO would not expand east” Read and decide for yourself whether we “agreed” to anything or not.

Absolutely not. We’ve completely lost our sense of ourselves if we force women to do our fighting for us.

I always knew the AF/DoD didn’t care about me. I lived with that during the numerous deployments that achieved very little. I at least had fun with the bros. It is somehow worse that we now are deploying people for 6 months to train. It grates on me far worse than any combat deployment ever did. Just when you think it can’t get worse, the military finds a way. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not an argument, it’s a possibility. If the writer is so anti-MSM why is he using anonymous sources with no corroborating evidence? You know, the exact reason no one trusts the MSM. Being against liars and propagandists doesn’t automatically make you a beacon of truth. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually read the article. After years of being lied to by the MSM and their "sources" I don't see a reason to give this article any credibility. I can make up how anyone would've accomplished this and cite an anonymous source to attempt to bolster the point. No one in the media knows who did this. Until someone has some real evidence or credible sources willing to go public, it will remain that way. I find the US unlikely due to Biden's past timidity. Don't forget Biden is the one who didn't want to risk going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden. It doesn't seem likely that he would risk fracturing NATO via-a-vis Germany by cutting off a potential gas supply that might be needed during winner. Russia would risk little if this was found to be them, as it is their property. It does play well into the Russian domestic narrative that they are under attack by NATO. It could also drive a wedge between NATO countries. Does that mean they did it? Nope, it just means it may have been them.

Badass patches is great for all kinds of patches and name tags Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The focus on road trips and long range completely misses the huge advantage of convenience and fuel cost that a Tesla has over ICE. Electricity is significantly cheaper than gas and you leave home each morning with a full charge. The inconvenience of stopping at a gas station every week or so is gone from everyday life. I have to charge for 40 minutes to do an 8 hour drive. Superchargers typically have decent food nearby so one is a lunch stop amd the other is a piss break. Fuel cost to drive 500 miles: $14. If you don’t have a place to charge at home, then an EV probably isn’t for you yet.

I was thinking about taking a 3 year bonus, which would take me past 20 by a little bit. If 5 years is the min, I’m definitely gone at 20. The extra $35K/yr makes a big difference in the calculus. With it, I make more with the AF than with Atlas, without it, I’ll take my chances. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Illegal to have alcohol on base? Where is that happening? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interference and the “Trump is a Russian agent” narrative are very different. It is dishonest to link the two. You’ll no doubt be horrified to learn that a lot of nations interfere in our electoral and law-making processes. There are entire organizations dedicated to this, they’re called PACs. A lot of former lawmakers make a good living putting foreign interests above American ones. This is nothing new. Despicable and should be illegal, but nothing new. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This guys article has a logic problem. If fighters are outdated and drones are the future, why do we need to convert drone operators into fighter pilots? Shouldn't it be the other way around? RAND also says we should put more FAIPs into fighters since they meet the definition of experienced faster. The problem is, they really aren't any more experienced than anyone else except in admin and tend to progress along with their non-FAIP peers. Drone operators have useful kinetic experience that only translates to a very small slice of what fighters do. Similar to FAIPs being good at an ILS, it isn't that relevant to being a good tactical aviator.

Are you OCONUS? If so, you can get 30 days PTDY to move and job hunt, but can’t start another job during that time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are pages for both CAF assignments and the CAF Fighter community. Can't speak for the whole CAF Fighter community, but I'm not that interested in what Junior has to say. If I had a nickel for each time I heard him say "ops isn't special" I could buy a few beers. He was instrumental in creating the problem, now he is in charge of solving it. Classic Air Force

We finally agree on something. No free services, no school for illegal children and no birthright citizenship. That’ll reduce illegal immigration immediately. I don’t blame the immigrants, they’re just doing what I would do if I were in their shoes. I blame politicians that make the illegal route the easier one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F-4G flew well into the F-15 era, and was damn good at its job. It was never replaced because the AF decided that LO would solve all problems, and we didn't need EA anymore. I think most would agree that was a bad decision. Do you want to start an A-A fight with the F-35 loadout? You're right, F-35 is more than LO, F-15X is also much more than just a new F-15C. There are significant limitations to F-35 and putting all our eggs into that basket isn't perfect. Would I love to have 400 F-22s, yes. Would I love to have the F-35 able to solve all problems, yes. I disagree with your notion that there is no scenario in which I'd rather be in an F-15X than an F-35, but that is as far as I'm willing to go down that discussion. When it comes to cost, the difference in purchase cost is negligible. This is all about sustainment. The F-35 is expensive as hell, the F-15X is cheap by comparison. Does anyone really think we're going to buy 1,763 F-35s? We need some cheaper aircraft with a lot of capability, F-15X is one way to work towards that future.

But do we need to financially incentivize then to stay? People need to realize there is more outside the AF than just the airlines. I know of several former Nav/WSOs that got out and are working for Fortune 500 companies making more than a commercial pilot ever will, though they do work more than half the month. The cost to train an F-15E WSO is only different from pilots in UPT vs UNT and a few TR sorties in the B-course. Everything else is the same, for the millions invested a financial incentive makes sense to retain 12Fs. Especially the instructor corps that is badly undermanned, but since AFPC doesn't see the difference between an MQ student and an evaluator, they say their manning is fine, undermanned, but fine. The real issue here is when people say it isn't about the money, they mean it isn't just about the money. Now that the AF has decided to use money as a show of relative value, the 12Fs are rightfully feeling extremely undervalued compared to us vaunted 11Fs. This crisis has a lot of push and pull factors. The airline pull may not be there, but there is certainly the AF push of 60-hr workweeks, lack of mission focus, endless queep and the joke of mission support. I'm frankly surprised we get any WSOs to stay past their initial commitment. Since most are still under 30 when their commitment is up, I'd bail and go get a top-tier education and kill it in the business world.

Also, no military experience, let alone AF experience. Quite the experienced academic, so his opinion is worth exactly...zero.

I think a lot of the cost savings you're assuming aren't as much as some think. The cost of high bandwidth, secure and not jammable satellite time is very expensive. Remember the news about hackers getting into cars computers while they're driving? Imagine that hysteria times 1000. If the cost savings isn't there, why would they spend the money to develop a very expensive infrastructure of satellites, that customers may not go for? It will take genuine AI to be able to replace us, and we're not there yet. Someday probably, but not yet, and as mentioned before, the FAA will slow roll this big time. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The nature of the Executive Orders in question are completely different. EOs are for the purpose of the POTUS directing the executive branch how to implement policy, and have been around for decades. Restrictions on immigration are exactly within the President's authority. Trump seems to have exceeded his limits by including lawful permanent residents (green card holders,) a mistake I imagine an upcoming EO will rectify. Obama used EOs to get around the fact that he couldn't get the legislation he wanted passed and just ignored law to rule by executive fiat. That's why I'm okay with it so far. EOs implementing a legal policy within the President's job description = perfectly fine. EO ignoring or de facto changing law and doing whatever you want = not fine, or "banana republicish"

So you see that Fingers is trying to reduce future compensation for a large chunk of his pilot force, and you seem to be okay with it. You're not going to convince me that is ok, so agree to disagree. Nice try with the whining comment, it adds a lot to the conversation...

The 1500 hour rule does a ton of good things for pilots that Fingers is trying to undo. 1. Enhances flight safety. If you have doubts, go watch the Colgan crash video again. 2. It makes the regional airline model unsustainable. Most of the majors are already moving former regional routes back to mainline. Good for pilots to not work for regional slave wages, also means more majors hiring to fill expanding routes. This is driving a lot of the hiring. 3. It shifts the supply/demand for pilots. They aren't going to run out, they just can't be as choosy as they were for the last 15 years. They have 10K apps on file and the military putting out 1k+ a year. A lot of the apps are those they'd rather not hire for various reasons. To ensure they're getting quality candidates (mil pilots generally fall into this category) they are having to up pay and benefits to compete with other carriers. Look at pay rate rises over the past 18 months. It still never ceases to amaze me that the AF has made me count the days until I get out of a job that should be so awesome. I love flying fighters, but I hate being in the AF. The solution to keeping your people is not to try and reduce their prospects of future employment, or make that employment less desirable. I think that is a total shitbag move. If I ever had a doubt that I'm nothing but a number to the AF, it is completely erased with this line of effort.

I'm not saying we don't need 11F experience downrange, we clearly do, or that others should go instead. I'm saying if HAF wanted to fix the 11F problem they would get CENTCOM to agree to 120 day non-flying deployments rather than 365s to fill these spots, at least below the O-6 Command level. Make it 120, and you'll get volunteers. When it's 365, you push people out, both the ones that 7-day opt and those that leave at 11 yrs rather than 7-day opt at 14-16 yrs. We are already filling some W11F-coded billets with 120s, due to the patch community being devastated by 365s, why not the rest of the force too? The reason they're focused on 11Fs isn't just undermanning now. Due to CAF REDUX, fighter pilot production was less than half of what was needed from 08-14. Remember the days of 1 fighter per UPT class and ENJJPT guys mostly going to heavies? The chickens are coming home to roost and it's going to get much worse before it gets better, that is why HAF is so concerned about retaining those year groups. Not saying other communities don't have problems, but it's not as acute...yet.

It was pretty good info. The dip in production from 08-14 has rightfully got HAF scared. If they have 30% retention, which I think is very possible, most of those year groups will have 25-40 11Fs, just enough to fill OG and FW/CV. They expect experience ratios to slip and it to get worse before it gets better. Expect to see the quality of the students coming to a squadron near your drop as they cram more through the B-Course. To try and keep guys around they are revamping the assignment system. The goal is more choice and the ability to stay at one place longer. That seems incompatible with cram more through the pipeline, so we'll see. You can get most of the info from the slides and exec summary that are going around. They said goal is summer 17 VML. They trying to reduce strain on 11Fs, but not hard enough. Still 21 365s out there, but no 365s for 11Fs unless it requires an 11F. If they really gave this its due attention, that number would be zero, not 21. They're also looking at how to incentivize hard to fill spots. Whether that is guaranteed IDE or assignment choices, TBD. They're still pursuing pay increases. The numbers mentioned were 50-60K bonus and $1,500 flight pay They still have their head in their ass about the airlines. Overview slide listed airline hiring as the top item. Slide from aircrew survey had airlines dead last. Top 3 from aircrew were Assignments, home station ops temps and promotion. Side note, I also found out that 11Fs are not officially listed as critically manned. WTF?

The Strike Eagle is awesome, and flying with a WSO is nothing like having an IP with you in the jet at UPT. Having a WSO is invaluable when doing DT or CAS, which just so happens to be what we've been doing for the last 15 years. For the initial Libya strikes F-15Es nearly overflew Aviano (F-16 base) on their way down from the UK, while the Vipers sat on the ground. When the COCOM wanted jets in Turkey as a show of force to the Russians last fall, who did they send...Vipers? Nope. Strike Eagles again. If you get a choice, choose wisely.