brabus

That's my point - there should be an FAA reg that makes it a violation to transit a MOA without being on an IFR flightplan OR using VFR flight following. GA can still transit MOAs; nothing really changes except if you can't meet one of these two requirements, you must avoid a MOA (laterally or vertically). I don't think that's asking much and keeps everyone safer.

It seems to me a good idea would be to mandate GA to be on an IFR flightplan or have VFR flight following to enter a MOA. If you don't have either, you don't go. I don't get butthurt if a dude enters the MOA and I know about it, what I get pissed about is the asshole who doesn't say shit and enters a MOA - it's extremely dangerous for everybody. See and Avoid is a 1/2 cop out on the mil side - yeah we're looking out the window, but we're also raging around near the mach, executing aggressive maneuvering under G, managing a shitload of data to make 1/2 sec decisions in a tactical environment, talking to several people on the radio, etc. Many GA pilots have zero SA about any of this unless former mil, trained by mil dude on the side, etc....I was one of them. It's not that they're incapable of understanding, they just are never taught/told and/or have an entitled attitude and put their lives at a lot of risk all because "I'm a taxpayer dammit, I can go here!" It's dumb and naive.

I think I'm going to start writing opinion articles on how shitty I think the Navy's newest boat is - after all, I know a shitload about boats, everyone listen to me! What an idiot.

I don't think moving will have any impact on your chances at the ENJJPT board (if you get there). The AF doesn't use common sense and could not care less about wasting thousands of dollars on a pointless move.

Damn near every dude I know who has taken the bonus in the past several years has ended up on a 365 within 2 years of taking the bonus (some < 1 yr). Many of the bros and I 100% believe bonus = auto 365, and for that reason alone we will not take the bonus. Tac is right - if this "auto 365" went away, I bet there would be more bonus takers/rentention. Everyone wins - except the AF is retarded and will therefore continue to not get it.

Thank you bureaucratic wasteland called DOD/US Government. This is 100% how it will be for every new idea for the rest of our history unless we make a massive paradigm shift in acquisitions, contracting, etc. I'm not betting a single penny on happening. It takes 5-7 years just to put something new on a 4th gen...we're taking 5+ YEARS from requirement to fielding, now that is fucked up. All of this assumes new concept/idea, not taking pre-existing products and molding them to fit our need, as well as we get the funding/approval at T+0. There's a long list of shit we've been asking for over a decade that still sits at the bottom of the pile on a staffer's desk.

Ballwash article from a dude who has zero SA. Put on your thick skin: Strikes get beat by a 2 bag Viper every time (assuming no gross BFM execution errors), yet the Strike is a very capable fighter that kills the shit out of the enemy. Is the Strike a "useless fighter" because it can't kick the shit out of a Viper in BFM? Absolutely not, that'd be an absurd assertion. Should the Viper go away because we suck at slow speed fights and get our ass beat by name-your-high(er) alpha capable fighter in a slow speed fight? Again, dumb. Look at some EM diagrams - it's not bravado or bar talk, it's simple physics. To say a jet is worthless because it can't perform 1v1 BFM to the level of another aircraft is retarded. We all have strengths and weaknesses; this article is attempting to make a minor problem into a massive one. FWIW, I think BFM is important and awesome (and I'm disappointed the F-35 is shitty in the realm), but it's a weakness that has to be dealt with and is not even close to being a "show stopper." By the way, the F-4 was shitty too, and took its whips in Vietnam, but it also took its turn killing MiGs far more maneuverable than itself in the WVR region. Fighter pilots will overcome and be creative - all is not lost.

One step further would be not necessarily shitcanning every 365/remote assignment on the planet, but just the 95% that are complete ballwash/bullshit and have either zero real value or, almost as bad, may have some minor value, but they're forcing people to do them who's AFSC has nothing to do with the actual work. If you have to do a remote assignment once in your career, whatever, nobody would really care that much if it was in their primary job, but when you ask people to do one that involves stoplight powerpoints and that's about it...well, doesn't take an MIT grad to figure that one out.

I scanned the link Azimuth posted and there's some incorrect info in there - the AF will pay to move your family/stuff to somewhere CONUS (really up to you where), pay BAH in that location, etc. If your follow-on is CONUS, it probably makes the most sense to move them there, but you don't have to. Additionally, it is possible for your family to stay at your current location, but it requires approval from I believe the MAJCOM (can't remember exactly, but it's definitely higher than WG/CC). Essentially your WG/CC must argue your spouse is of specific value to the base/local community and everyone would benefit from her staying. Saving the government a mega shit-ton of money is not a valid argument...clearly.

Gearpig nailed it - what's the difference between ARC and AD? If there is to be no difference (like apparently some ANG leadership want to keep money flowing), then why does the ARC exist? I hope for the ARC dudes sake, they at least allow 90 day splits in these deployments. Its BS for any of us AD guys to shit on them and call it whining - guess what, we're on AD by choice, those guys made another choice and I'm guessing a big part of their's was the lifestyle/ability to have a civilian career while still contributing to the military/country. Maybe an airline dude wouldn't have an issue going for 6 months, but I can't imagine a business owner, project manager, etc. leaving for 6 months and having no issues coming back to that job...just to do the same thing again 1-3 yrs later. Regardless of what the law says, there's no way that won't effect them negatively.

9-5 only, no weekend and holidays. Shit, I've said too much.

Let me start by saying this, in no way is my statement saying we can do everyone's job or are a valid replacement for certain aircraft with a crew doing X, Y, and Z; hope it was not taken that way. I also have zero doubt you have not seen such a thing happen. But that reason is not for a lack of capability, but a byproduct of how COIN CAS is conducted currently. Other than the 4 radio part, what you describe is a relatively benign scenario for a single seat FAC(A). When we end up fighting MCO CAS in the future on Day 15 of the war, there won't be fighters at E10, "sensor warden" won't exist, and the show will be far more advanced, complicated and difficult than the current fight - single seat FAC(A)s will do just fine running that AO because that's what has already been happening since the 60s and what we still do today in training...without a dude in the back. Remember, not a pissing contest between different assets, just making a point that more people is not always required or desired.

Non-starter, what you mentioned is what single seat fighter pilots do every day (and more when we're not talking about low threat CAS, which apparently is the only mission that exists in the AF according to BOPS.net). Mistakes are made, but significantly less than successes. Strikes do it well too, they also fuck it away (just like single seat guys). The point is, at least in the fighter world, there is not a need for a second dude, with the exception of the Strike which was specifically designed for a WSO. We've been single seat weaseling since the 90s and FAC'ing single seat since Vietnam, extremely effectively as well. It's a non-issue in the fighter world - this is not chest beating, it's simply reality. To give the F-35 a 2nd seat would be a huge mistake, waste of money; essentially no gain for a whole shitload of pain.

Heard good things about them from several friends who have been there. If I end up doing the ATP, that's who I'll probably use.

I have the rest of this year left to get the practical done before my test expires, but the more I think about it, the more I have no desire to spend $1.5K+ on a rating I have absolutely zero desire to use (and is as useful as my TUI masters). Sure, there are some REMOTE possibilities that could drive me to airlines, but I think they're very unlikely. That said, with the amount of hiring going on and likely to continue over the next 5+ years, am I screwed without an ATP in the eyes of the airlines if on a very long shot I am forced to look for work there? I know the easy answer is just spend the money and do it, but I'd say there's about a 95% chance it'd be a complete waste of money and could be much better spent elsewhere. Is anyone getting hired with just an expired written or none at all?

"(Joint) Urgent Operational Need" - Unless you have that pinned next to a program/widget, there's no hope of even approaching "reasonable" when it comes to getting it, let alone getting it in a timely/decent cost context. Shack.

Yep, the "I want 100% everything" thought process crushes us in the long run. I'm with you, we need the 80% solution now and can add tech as it comes, but because of the aforementioned group of thinkers, we have a bloated and long-winded program.

We're fighting to get better EA, AESA and a lot of other shit on 4th gen fighters to increase effectiveness/survivability into the future; these are necessary things, but they aren't the ultimate solution by themselves is all I'm trying to say. There are good dudes well above me arguing for this stuff right now, and there is some light at the end of the tunnel, but unfortunately not near as much as you and I would like. We can thank the colossal fuck up the F-35 acquisition process has been for that one.

True, but it also is far less effective capability-wise than what we need. No matter what you do, you cannot make an F-16 into what is needed to cover the next 30-40 years, you can only make it better to a point, and that point misses the mark if it's to not be flown in conjunction with assets like the F-35.

The SCRA does not force companies to waive annual fees, just many do out of their own prerogative. The biggest thing it forces is low interest rates for those who incurred debt prior to entering military service.

I want to laugh at this analogy, but its too true in so many places.

Shack...seen that exact act 3 times now. Seems like very few good MX officers stay for the long term.

I'm shocked. Of all the monumental amount of MX terribleness I've seen in my career (and continue to see), 80% is the fault of shitty MX leadership, 10% is the fault of shitty mid-level leadership on the line (SSgt/TSgt level) and maybe only 10% I would even remotely consider putting on younger guys, but that's even a stretch. If the MX career field on AD could unfuck their terrible leadership, things would be much better. Every time I run into good MX leadership, they seem to be the exception, rather than the norm. It's sad.

I don't follow...