brabus

Holy shit. Are "what if's" open?

Wasted effort on the trick-fucking; all they have to do is keep chugging along like they are and the bullshit will continue to naturally weed out selects from going to IDE in the form of two big middle fingers combined with a guard/reserve/airline job.

So in dumb pilot speak, is this to say at least 5th gen should prioritize more weight of training effort to the "virtual" side in order to take advantage of full system capes? I'm well aware of all the "we can't go full up" limfacs, but no sim will ever replace the training available in live fly, even if there's some "trick fucking the system" that has to be done. Sims are great training tools, but they belong in the 10-20% max category when it comes to training allocation.

I think you win for the most fucked up personnel story I've ever heard. A1/AFPC are just unbelievably retarded.

to your uncle; it's awesome that even in his 70s/80s he would walk to the VA to support others. The world needs more men like your uncle.

YGBSM! Guess I shouldn't be surprised - what a bunch of dickbags.

Valid - the C model fleet has been cut a ton in the last 5 years, but I'm not sure why it's not getting the "full axe" like the A-10. Maybe it's because "they" view us as having more jets that can "replace" the A-10 compared to those who can "replace" the F-15C. Who knows, pure conjecture and not saying I have any reasons to support such a thought. I know, not saying A-10s are one mission. Where "they" draw the line is it it can't do A/A and AO/AI is pretty much not going to happen (take too long to get to a target and egress / not survivable in such scenario). It's ignorant to say CSAR, FACing and being a CAS fighter are the same thing, but from a large, institutional viewpoint when it comes to this topic, it's not completely out of this world that the three are combined into "single role." I hate all this as much as the next guy, and hell no we shouldn't be crippling combat capability like this. But, there's a lot of assholes who don't give a shit about such things and just want to keep their power, money, etc. They have put us in this "save X amount now!" and regardless of how insane and ridiculous it is, the CSAF has to make a very difficult decision that unfortunately can't be solved by TVs, furniture and TIB. The real solution to this problem is get the damn funding we need and allow BRAC. Or save us a shit ton of money by not spending it elsewhere in the world, who are ungrateful dipshits anyways.

I'm completely with you. But again, the latter statement especially lies heavily on Congress. My entire point is the CSAF is having shit forced down his neck and because of how our system works, there's nothing he can do about it except do the best he can with the shit he's been given. Congress is unwilling to reign in the F-35 (jobs and money for all my friends!), so they scream bloody murder for X savings "some other way," which has forced the AF into a very terrible situation. It's bullshit we're forced to do it, but since we are here, from a purely objective standpoint, you can't really argue (un-emotionally) against single-role being targeted over multi-role. The CSAF shouldn't be in this position, but he is, and I think given the stark reality of having to choose between piss and shit, he's not doing bad. Again, all of this to say I put 95% of the blame on Congress and our civilian leadership for these problems and bullshit situations, not the man at top in uniform.

So what does he push to divest that offers the same amount of savings as the A-10/KC-10? I'm not a fan of either going away, but if we have to divest something, what else? And yeah, I know there's bullshit waste like Tops in Blue and new flat screens - but unfortunately none of those will create the same savings. It has to be something "big"...I don't know the answer, and because of that I'm not going to throw spears at the guy. I will however throw burning spears towards Congress - this is their giant shit pie and now they're making him clean it up.

Completely disregard drops on this forum and anything people say, including UPT instructors or a random fighter pilot you know...completely serious. You are so far from track select, let alone getting a post-UPT assignment, there's no telling what will happen. If you go AD, you could be in a class where everyone gets a Viper on assignment night (apparently just happened), or you could get to track select and there's one T-38 and you're not the guy. Point is, NOBODY has an clue what it'll be like for you in 1.5-2 years. Every class is different, assignments go in waves, etc. If you go Guard there's a lot of great things, but you can pretty much count on never flying a fighter - if you're OK with that then take the guard job and never look back. If you'll always be wondering, "what if?" then in my opinion it's worth taking the chance, and even if in the end you don't end up in a fighter, there's still a lot great flying to be had in something else, doing great missions, and hell, you could still end up flying Hercs anyways and get a job at your hometown unit in 8-10 years.

$5 buyout? What kind of spineless LPA is this - it should be triple digit buyout!

I will never complain about an "uncomfortable" sortie. Hat's off to you U-2 guys!

Interesting...you say you've been dicking around since Sep trying to get the $450 reimbursed, yet I had the fee waived (and never even billed to my account to begin with) last month. I'm not saying what you were told isn't correct, BUT the vast difference between my situation and yours seems very strange. I think it's worth another call and talking to somebody different. By the way, I also had a different AMEX card waived in Jan as well. I assume you brought up SCRA (which is the keyword for AMEX).

Nobody is carrying this operationally. In fact, LRIP hasn't even started. So yes, more sensationalism that people with no SA use to "legitimize" their grip on the anti-F35 bandwagon.

Not gone, just well hidden, at least some places.

Yeah I know...it's was tongue in cheek to an extent. It is relatively useless in the current fight, but the same can be said for a lot of current, relevant platforms in tomorrow's fight. So does that mean we scrap every bit of those once the next big war kicks off because "we'll never use those again!" Avoiding the current conflicts is not the answer, but neither is sticking your cranium in the sand regarding the future conflicts. OK...and it will never change (at least for hi-tech requirements). Things are too advanced and our process is too fucked to ever go back to the days where we could roll new shit off the line in a matter of months/1-2 years in response to emerging threats. It's not an F-35 problem, it's a "this is the world we live in" problem. The F-35 is our LO strike fighter, essentially a "strike version of the F-22." That's it role. Sure you could put some bombs on a C-Model, but there's a reason we have that aircraft and F-16/F-15E. I'll take the F-35s right now (call it 5 years from now). Additionally, many targets are not CAT I pre-planned. More often than not we don't have the luxury of just BOC'ing on CAT-1. That said, there are definitely things worth putting specific UAVs against as the primary asset, but that doesn't mean they work well across the spectrum. Well if we're doing full up Force on Force CAS - we're doing it after several days or weeks of IADs and key COGs destruction. As in, we're cool with 4th gen or 5th gen with hardpoints flying overhead to provide CAS. You're right, a 4th gen can do that job by that point in the war, but we also need to replace our 4th gen for the fact they're falling apart. On that note, the F-35 still brings a lot of good sensor capes to such a fight all of us 4th gen guys cannot. And yes, I know it can't sparkle - got it, but picking one thing out of the many capes it brings is a bit ridiculous. I'm sure it will sparkle in time; I'm not losing sleep over it. No argument on the gun - what a farce. Again, not an A-10 replacement, or a CAS machine by any stretch, but it will be decent enough, which is all we can afford right now (no money for niche aircraft). Other than internal payload limitations, I wouldn't worry about it's A/A capability. Again, it's complimentary to the F-22, and will also do just fine by itself, internal payload not withstanding. Should we have shit-canned the Viper just because a standard SCL is 3x1 and it's radar is smaller (which is a non-issue with the F-35)...well the C model carries more and has a bigger radar, therefore we should just have C-Models! Dumb. It surely won't be a BFM machine - and that sucks. But, it's something we have to live with for better or worse. The Strike is a pig in BFM, but that doesn't mean it's not a great aircraft with awesome capes or we should shitcan it/should have bought less. Again, one data point that honestly is very small in the grand scheme of things.

If you want to consider the F-22 revolutionary, then yes, I think the F-35 will be revolutionary in it's own way. Again, one can go round and round about how X should or not have been done, but in the end, our capabilities well be far better in mission sets expanding well beyond traditional strike roles. America chose to lean on LO, adversaries chose EA. There's good arguments for both sides; in the end it is cheaper and easier to develop EA, but that doesn't mean LO doesn't have its place. More 4 or 4.5 gen fighters is not the answer, but merely a bandaid fix. I'm all for upgrading 4th gen with 4.5 gen capes right now, because honestly we need that bandaid to cover us for a while / compliment 5th gen capes. We can't ride the bandaid fix for decades, so yes, we need to make the full faith leap eventually. All of our eggs in one basket is not good, but it's what we have to deal with for now - we just don't have the money to do otherwise. I'm not a fan of the VTOL/STOL - I agree it will be decades, if ever, that we see one of these operate out of a truly austere field in combat. I'm not sure this has anything to specifically do with the F-35. This scenario could create a "legs" / AAR problem regardless of fighter aircraft type. Our capability to deal with AAA and kill movers has drastically improved since those days. AAA is still a threat, but not nearly the same threat to an LO platform with a lot of good capes than it is to a Thud raging down the valley below 10K. That's an awesome story, seriously. But we have much better capes today to take care of the same situation in 4th gen, let alone with 5th gen and the things newer technology brings. Yes, there are enough weapons...within reason, unless we're talking some egregious amount of vehicles. Sure they can low angle strafe - but will they even have to? I love raging at 100 ft, shooting the gun, dropping CBU, etc...but admittedly there are better ways to solve problems nowadays. That said, the jet can still do it and will do it if in a situation where that's the only way to solve the problem. Engines fail - got it, but they're pretty damn reliable today. As you said, we've been flying single engine fighters for a very long time. I don't know the answer, but I'm willing to bet if you actually found total amount of F-16 flight hours in the world, and then took the number of F-16s that crashed due to engine failure, it's be an extremely small and almost inconsequential number (from a pure numbers standpoint, not a human/emotional standpoint). As a guy who flies single engine, it doesn't bother me nor has it ever. Our effectiveness/capability skyrockets with the F-35 and other "5th+" gen capes. I'm sure there will be risk adverse bullshit, and it's use may start out slow, much like the Raptor. But just because "they" were very risk-adverse to using the Raptor for years, doesn't mean it wasn't a great idea to buy it or it's not a great jet. The Raptor has finally had it's day to a small extent, and we'll all be thanking God we have it when we're doing more than killing goat fuckers in the mountains. Lastly, a lot of questioning directed at the program is very CAS-centric. This jet will do CAS fine; it will not replace the A-10. People need to step back and realize there is a massive world of non-CAS warfare out there, and a lot of what is involved in that drives the need for the F-35 and like-technology. We will not be flying permissive OIF/OEF/OND type CAS forever and we cannot afford to get caught with our pants down when the proverbial shit hits the fan. There are a lot of platforms who do great work in current AORs, there are also a lot of platforms who are basically useless in a lot of other conflicts - at least until day X.

That mentality is rampant today; unfortunately there's a lot of really dumb, lazy people in America.

You can't blame the instructors, it was definitely a fighter pilot who made them do it. That's the only logical explanation.

Good points Danny - I understand what you're saying. Maybe the best way is to just accept that those who want the 20 years of flying, more control, etc. are just going to go guard/reserve/out completely regardless of what AD does. But, it still wouldn't hurt to at least loosen the death grip the AF has on the idea that everyone should want to be a WG/CC+ until they are deemed unfit and sent another direction (deservedly or not). For the most part, it is still a potentially very dumb move to show any cards leading to other than "I want to be a WG/CC!" while still on AD, at least until you're at the point you have to show them to move in the direction you want. I think that's a foul, why can't AD just accept someone's desire to do that and let them serve out their full commitment without fear of retribution. If anything it would do a great deal for morale and in turn get better productivity out of people until the very end.

Danny - what I mean is seeing dudes who are good officers and pilots, but because they choose (I agree, it is a choice) to not walk the more or less "cookie cutter" path to leadership big AF traditionally desires (school-staff-DO and on), they start getting the shit deals (TDYs, deployments, etc), undesirable assignments, being directly told "do this or get out," etc. A lot of good O-4s get out of AD because their option is do it the big AF way or face a very increased probability of the aforementioned. Or at the O-5 level, good dudes play the game and then get the "have we got a command deal for you!...or go fuck yourself and get out, your call" line, and now the poor bastard who's put in almost 20 years to the AF is faced with a undesirable deal that sucks wholesale for his family or he can decline and get out...great. The AF "raises" officers to all be on a track to WG/CC, COCOM, etc., but doesn't seem to understand that not everyone wants to be on that track. It subsequently doesn't understand what to do with these officers when they try to jump off the track - which I think is a big reason AD is bleeding so much officer and tactical talent into the guard, reserves or worse, completely gone from military service. It's a shame and something that needs some real, hard looks from senior leadership. I do not have a great answer, what do you think? There has to be something real the AF can offer to keep talent on AD who aren't going to be the next WG/CC or higher, but they still offer a great service to the Air Force. All that said, there are certainly the O-5s that somehow stayed mostly on their desired "non-standard" career track and are doing just fine. But, they're certainly in the minority.

Agreed - it's a two way street. I've seen it several times, just luckily haven't been the poor bastards directly under that "school/staff" guy's command. Like I said, everyone should chill the fuck out and thank the dude who is willing to walk the career path to leadership, as well as thank the dude who says it's not for him and stays on board in some manner to continue the tactical advancement of our Air Force from a flying standpoint. The problem is the latter are more commonly shit on/shoved aside than those who check the appropriate career advancement containers the AF deems more important. You can absolutely do both, the problem is not many people do both; I am grateful there are good dudes who can do both, just wish there were a lot more of them.

I didn't read his post to say he thought anyone doing the "leadership" route were auto-douches, just that it's not for him and he shouldn't be looked at like he has a dick sticking out of his cranium for professing said stance. Maybe I missed some other post earlier, but if not, I think you're putting a lot of words in his mouth. Bottom line, there are a lot of great leaders who did school/staff, and came back to the jet with a decent amount of tactical ability given their position at the time; as you said, there are several who are great leaders and good in the jet as well. However, it shouldn't be a shock that the path they walked is not desirable for a lot of dudes, including A LOT of dudes who are not "off the path" because of a lack of capability to do so, but by choice alone.

Except people can and should learn that exact lesson (take care of your people, find opportunities for them, mentor them, put effort into their OPRs, etc.) without having to be an exec. In my experience, I've worked with a good amount of dudes who clearly did learn that lesson and did well as flt/cc's, ADOs, etc. who never did an exec job. If an exec job is the only way in community X to gain those skills/learn those lessons, then that community is epically failing. I'm glad you took something positive out of your experience (and a very important lesson in my opinion), I really am, but its a shame you spent 2.5 yrs as an exec and got the same lesson you should have received well prior to exec-dom. You're not the exception di1630, lots of dudes think that way, myself included. I don't shit on guys for wanting to go to school, be an aide, etc. Great if that's for them, even better if a good bro decides to walk that path...hopefully it results in a good dude being a CC. But, it's not for all of us, and choosing to not walk that path should in the same manner not be looked down upon by the school-types, etc.

Plug for the Chronospace - it's an awesome watch, do it.