hindsight2020

manning climate, and openings by proxy, is very unit location dependent. Doesn't take a genius to figure out which are which. As to competitiveness in the aggregate? Honestly it tracks pretty inversely proportial with airline hiring at the time.

Sure RND is an option, just not immediately for someone external to the 340th who isn't already a 559/560/435th line-cutter at the time of regAF separation. For everybody else, it's usually a "go put in your time at the salt mines" before the RND units give ya audience. Military 3-rules of life type of thing.

I'm on the same boat regarding that point. I never had a problem negotiating that conclusion either, but I have nothing but empathy for those who struggle with what essentially is a public loss of their religion. I lost my OTS class leader to green-on-blue over there. Complete waste of potential; a solid human being and family man at the hands of a distrungled and corrupt local. A true believer my friend was, and a bona fide hero in my eyes. Such Heroism wasted on an unreedemable place, and unreedemable people. I got too many stories of personal corruption and cowardice from that so called allied force, even stateside. Fuck. That. Place. In the macro, I never bought into any of that shit. Our self-defense Air Power objectives in that shithole were largely completed by 2003 from where I saw it as a civilian college student. That was a full 3 years before I would even see the inside of a military building. So 9/11 was never a draw for me. Lord knows I disagreed with the second invasion of Iraq from the jump, as I also disagreed with the criminal decision to disband the Iraqi Army (may Paul bremer and his blood-soaked hands burn in hell.... a lackey of Kissinger, this is my shocked face). Full circle now during my time in, we get tasked to bomb the predictable offspring of that decision 10 years later in Syria, and I'm supposed to put my brain on pause and grab some pom poms? Nah I'm good. It was a waste when my friend Nylander lost his life, and it was still a waste in the Levant as we wrecked strategic heavy bombardment assets over turkey shoot medals with what could have been accomplished with surplus Yak-52s and recreational AR rifles a la Texas hog hunts. Digressing. In due credit to the Service, it did afford me the opportunity (via ARC) to focus on a role I not only could tolerate for 14+ years, but personally thrive in. I was always an aviatior purist at heart. I've never been fazed by the "flying for the sake of flying" supposed aspersion it's meant to imply, usually uttered by cOmBaT veT true scots fallacy merchants. I've legit enjoyed the amount of upside down flying the service has afforded me as a career instructor. Much bigger sense of personal accomplishment, in what conservatively is circa 500+ individual pilots and still counting. My time in the CAF left me rather unfulfilled by comparison, though that was a combination of poor career timing and luck (BRAC 05 no fighter soup fo you, TAMI-21, then PRP/PACAF babysitter bitch while the bones got all the turkey shoots). At any rate, my decades spent building something of personal import to me in the training command is a legacy that will outlive both me, as well as all of Uncle sammy's bullshit wars... and I'm here for it. We all have our rationalizations, I won't apologize for mine. My username checks. Now FUPM. 😄

Between post-IFF delays, any DNIF or performance issues, and the biggie, the delay to get to UPT start class via Guard slots in present circumstances, and yeah a 5 year development window to 11F TI/MQT is not that out of the zone.

On the bolded, bit of a misnomer. You're just describing the 6-day bundle. The neophytes might misunderstand what you mean. That sequence is not a requirement, merely a TR preference given the exigencies of getting to/fro some of these garden spots. Think of it just like airline commuters: They want the least traveling cycles per capita compensation. As such, bundling works best. It is not the only way to do it however. The participation requirements are spelled out in the application packet. But that's legalese, the reality is a lot more fluid. At the end of the day, this job is for those who like to fly upside down (T-1s AFRC spots are being slowly divested as we speak, TBD on full stop date) for uncle sugar when not doing their airline or whatever. It's not for everyone, just like the airlines. The locations have always been stipulated, so I don't get the aggrievement over the knowns. We make Gumby out of the JTR, to get people to come here. Suffice to say not all AFRC/ANG units exhibit anywhere near that level of flexibility; geographically they just don't have to. It's not complicated really. Don't look at a gift horse in the mouth type of thing.

Yeah the CAL/UAL one was a nasty one at my squadron back in 2011-2013. We had a boatload that took long MLOA while the lists integrated. Pretty heated stuff among so called squadronmates. A bit embarassing as an external observer tbh, given the fact they had no control over the process, and the personal aspersions were nothing more than impotent rage. Things settled as they always do, the world moved on, and they're still richer today than yesterday and will retire as multimillionaries anyways. Boo hoo.

Reduced benefits to be exact. My particular exchange's demographic happened to be a group of retired combat arms Army officers. One went so far as to imply there is a degree of stolen valor from veterans who receive benefits (retirement or otherwise) whose service lack the combat prefix as they see it. They also proudly display "combat vet" bumper stickers on their pov, with the combat underlined. Real divisive stuff. At any rate, when I hear this back and forth on here about combat cred among airframes, as a timing/circumstantial REMF I of course handwave it away as the usual friendly banter. But it does take me back to exchanges with people who do hold quite radical and incisive views of what qualifies as honorable service. One for whom the DoD's decision to recognize/compensate veteran service on an equal footing, is considered very much an affront to their own.

As a career REMF and former CAF guy during a time when MWS got told to sit on its hands and navel-gaze in PACAF, I'm completely indifferent to the back and forth of proving one's ego/legitimacy in life via these anecdotes. But, there is a cohort of veterans who unironically advocate for the means-testing of outright retirement benefits based on a combat service metric. Nasty and divisive undercurrent if I ever heard one; I can't break bread with those people. And I do challenge those utterances publicly, as letting that narrative stand unchallenged can be materially important to all of us. Thankfully, even Congress isn't as myopic so as to buy into such nonsense as a matter of policy. Brittle egos abound.

TLDR version: Finland proves you can exercise deterrence against a numbers-bully. No capitulation on your sovereignty required. Wordy version: Russia doesn't have any incentive to negotiate back to pre-Donbas annexation, so that's not gonna happen. They'll keep throwing their expendables at the grinder, as is the way of that ghastly Russian so-called Federation, which in all honesty has always been a shaky held one at the point of many rusty, but outnumbering guns. Ukraine could capitulate even more territory, but all it buys them is time for the next assault. Ivan will come for them again. The Ukranians need to read the Finnish playbook more deeply. Finland almost went the way of Ukraine historically, but managed to reach the lifeboat with NATO membership and more importantly, a very strong homeland-defense prepositioning policy. Finland is the mother of all, living-defensive line. Heck even shouldering up with the actual Nazis was necessary in order to bloody up the bear's nose, no fucks given by Finland. Life is grey, at least for us Realists. Fact is if Lenin hadn't been so easy on Finland the first time (1910s) they broke away from Russia, theirs would be a similar story as today's Ukraine. So people need to give Ukraine a bit more benefit here on the whole capitulation front. Remember, population wise, Finland is a piddly tiny country compared to Ukraine, yet the deterrence outcomes between the two are stark. Yes, Ukraine got saddled with the Soviet Union proper after WWII, that's of course the biggest historical obstacle. Let's also remember that Finland too, gave up some land. But then they effected a brilliant homeland deterrence policy for a Country of such small size. Ukraine needs to go full Finn once any cease fire is afforded to it. The Finns don't forget the 11% they gave up to this day, and neither should Ukraine.

Ti's jUst mY mOdeRhUd bRO! 😅

I had similar bad timing/unsuccessful at snagging a fighter unit spot when I was in my 20s, and I was in much worse econ position than you in that I wasn't making major FO money at such a young age, nor had the flying quals to be one during the lost decade. I still wouldn't enlist for the sake of a UPT slot, it's a very low percentage play in the aggregate. Odds are you'll end up spinning your wheels and end up encumbered with the impositions of an enlisted job that isn't really going to add much to your primary income generation career. As to fighter or die thing, I get it, I resembled the remark too. Given my experience with the process, and my own outcomes and history now as a middle aged guy within spitting distance of the jelly of the month, I know what advice I'd give you, if you weren't a major FO already. ..But you are one already. As such, I'd just focus on your airline career and fund the F1-rocket/Gamebird airplane fund if you can't get a fighter spot tbh. But I'm me, I'm not you. Good luck to ya.

It also attempts to address a non-problem, that of idle bodies with a long ADSC balance. The DOD doesn't care. Retention of their experienced chattel is an actual material concern for the DOD, and they still don't care enough about it to give up an inch on the 'control' line item of the ledger. And that's fighting separation-eligible bodies they have actually sank millions of dollars in recurrent training in. Good bad or indifferent, BITers simply are in the weakest negotiating position of their entire careers. Their only reprieve is that their clock is running post winging. Now, the AF goes and changes the contract to functional AFSC complete before clock starts (aka core ID other than 92T), and all bets are off. That would def sour the entire batch writ large, and cause all sorts of second tier morale effects all the way up the training pipeline to the op units. In fairness to the borg, there's no indication they've gotten that greedy.

Thing is, the inflection point is training completion. If the member wants out of the AF ASAP, it'd be more advantageous for him/her to start the ADSC clock by finishing UPT than it would be to get banked like in the 90s, awaiting initial training while in some other AFSC. Frankly, I'm surprised big blue hasn't in fact considered 90s styled banking in lieu of starting these people's ADSC clock. Retention at this point is stipulated as a non-concern for big blue. It's not a business accountable to anyone but congressional pork, as such senior management can afford to be perfectly price-inelastic when it comes to the question of retention.

this is my shocked face. #yoUrmiSsionIsmUhmOtherhUd

These things ebb and flow. During the drought days of TAMI a companion COA was F-16 slotted folks (the worst backed up pipeline at the time) giving up the dream and going AFSOC/NsAv in lieu of continuing to rot in a banked status. Some took it (U-28s et al) , especially with the spectre of Tami-proper touching folks on the shoulder left and right of them in the backed up pipeline. Needs or the service and all that jazz. Do concur with the advice of pursuing the ARC to the degree possible/available. Know folks who were able to recapture the dream that way, though it becomes a low percentage play they older you get on age and DOR alike.

I'm just shocked to read these news. I corresponded with him last year when he wanted to pick my brain about follow-on assignments to the AETC world. I recall him recently posting about PIT dates in the future, appeared excited about it, which made me feel great based on our conversation about it a year ago. Truly heartbreaking. I second the call above, those who knew him closely, please do let us know what/anything as on online usaf community can do to help/outreach.

...while unable to handfly cat-I minima to save their literal lives.

You and me both. Currently wrecking myself and the home life with a hypercommute/geobachelor shtick to get me to the finish line. Couldn't move the family again, they're thriving. It's not their fault I'm a forever teenager who can't get his sh$t together and do something else outside lighting afterburners for the crowd on out n backs and victory rolls with a shit eating grin. My wife's a saint. Digressing. I too have stiff armed the airlines for the entirery of my reserve career, but the pivot to .civ is coming for me either way. Family comes first and I'm tired of tethering my life to sunbelt usaf locations. I'll figure something out when we reach that fork in the road. Doing this job for as long as I have has been an honor. I wouldn't mind finishing out the last 10 doing what I was already doing. But let's get real, they're never going to move the enterprise. Water meet bridge underpass. At the end of the day, my theory of the case is that at the policy setting level, they're not really serious about fixing anything. This is all just political store-minding and perfomative calistenics. As to what's likely to happen to this enterprise as the T-7 rolls in behind schedule and under fleet count? @Pooter called it pretty much to a T on his previous post above. I second his prediction.

Here's the problem green suiters never seem to understand about this tired "contractor deus ex machina" COA. Every.single.time the question gets posed in the real world (and it has, ad nauseam) it boils down to the same self-evident retort: "Where and for how much?". And the answer continues to be the same: "No thanks." The contractor undergraduate training pipedream cannot be scaled to the requirement, unless and until you get rid of the unholy Trinity: Laughlin, Columbus and Vance. I'd give details of what it takes to staff the place, but I don't want to doxx myself, plus I'm not even sure some of the stuff I've dealt with is fully JTR-kosher anyways, so 1 2 3 4 fifth. "Senator, that hooker was dead when I got to the gangbang....." 😄 BL, it is my lived experience that what you people want, cannot be had for what your bosses are willing to pay. A few townie-married check o the month types willing to teach "back waivered" UPT in a Grob are not going to save this enterprise. If you don't move the enterprise to metro USA, that COA is DOA. Reality. There's zero political will to move XL and CB. Reality. The number you get is equal to however many green bags you can non-volunteer to do the job for 3 years at a time + the aggregate cost of 7-day opts. Reality.

It's a real shame they won't be in the seat to suffer the consequences when that numerically self-evident non-starter of a COA naturally dies in the NICU.

Scoff is one of their core competencies from where I sit. CAF (11F core ID in particular) communities are notorious for the attitude encapsulated by that snarky "your entire existence is just my motherhood". Yet, accident track records continue to show carnivores pooching the motherhood as the regular causal to hull/life loss. This is why I snark back when they start the gum flapping about how superfluous the nature of our job is down here in "scutwork" land (undergrad/intermediate), how much fat could be trimmed from what we do, and by implication how FTU can handle the bulk of the "real molding". Yeah, how that's working out....

....or you can just look at occam's razor: They freaked out in '14 when the airlines finally came out of the Lost Decade, to find out they didn't have the infrastructure to upgage capacity. Faced (yet again, and as they've done in decades past) with feeding shiny penny programs in "tIp uh dUh sPeAr" land, AETC has and always will be metered. So there wasn't any political capital to re-open an additional UPT locale and fix the supposed problem they were bellyaching about in the first place. The result is the impasse we see today, where they keep whipping the dead mule and wonder why we ain't moving.

yah I didn't make the slides, the nitpick about the militarized KLN-90 definitionally not being LPV (it wasn't WAAS in the first place) is noted. The slides were built in the context of a pork barrel bidder audience for the T-6 Avionics replacement program. The macro point still stands. It's garbage for the T-6 to still be handcuffed to that unit's limfacs in 2024. The GNS-430W was rolling out to civilian markets in 1998. WAAS rolled out in 2003, as did the first LPV approaches. Again, this isn't the Orion Program, nor is any of this new. We're the military equivalent of "the govt outlaws itself from negotiating drug prices". Everything cascades down from there.

That is the only language HAF responds to. They have a number. It's a political number, and they won't tell you what it is, but it's the one they find acceptable before at-scale recapitalization of primary and intermediate training is taken seriously. The rest of this exercise is nothing more than your typical morale-crushing regAF practice bleeding/running in place/ people put up with until they too bail for the airlines. Which is why I no longer get my blood pressure up about all the malfeasance, nor the political double speak. Any time people of my age demo have spoken up about this issue, all you get is tone policed and Luddite accussations. The AF has accepted atrocious gaps in basic training infrastructure for decades. The T-38 and the T-7 is the most glaring example, but the T-6 GPS is a poster child example as well, especially in the context of COTS solutions. To be clear, the -6s lack of NAS RNAV 1 compliance dates back to 2009, so they've been scoffing at it for a lot longer than this thread intimates.