brabus

Yep, so what I said - He never said we're getting a 10% raise. What he was wrong on was the "no raise in 10 years" and "one of the biggest raises." Although maybe (I don't care enough to do the math) with the new standard deduction this may be the most take home pay increase for a lot of mil...but that's not what he specifically said, so not a defending him, just a thought. Also, Brick fucking nailed it.

Offering an unbiased observation: his exact words were "I said make it 10!" when referring to others saying lesser numbers during a discussion. That may be entirely accurate, so he's probably not lying that he said that. I didn't see any quote that said, "you guys are getting a 10% raise" or "I just gave you guys a 10% raise." He was stating his opinion that we should get a 10% raise. Completely agree his words are not crystal clear and his MO of speaking off the cuff like he's in the bar with his bros does not work well for communication at the presidential level. He's dead wrong that the military hasn't received a raise in 10 years. He could have accurately said we've had an extremely paltry raise over the last 10 years (relative to inflation). It's not much of a raise when your 10 year average barely covers inflation.

There are a lot of 179 non-flying jobs that are bullshit and useless - we've all seen jobs that can take an A1C 15 min per week to accomplish, but the AF deploys two Capts to fill the position for 179. Almost worse is the ineptitude of how they fill certain positions, e.g. deploying an F-35 guy to BAF to do the SE job that could be done by a SE guy who flies any of the 5+ airframes that fly out of there on a regular basis (same example, but OSS/DO...seen both). They're so retarded they made a flying deployed job into a non-flying deployed job. Shit like that is what pisses people off and needs to be stopped. 365s aside, bullshit like this pushes people to make the sensible decision to skip bonuses and/or punch at first opportunity. Deploy us to do our primary job and contribute to the war in a meaningful way, but don't lie to our face and tell us powerpointing or filling out TPS reports once a week is a worthwhile contribution in anyone's book outside of the hardcore koolaid drinkers who have long since lost any ability to rationally think.

Sounds like you got your answer above...6 months sounds right for the standard limitation, but good news from Guardian that it's waiverable. Start asking about the waiver process as soon as your PC hopefully gets approved. Good luck dude, hope it all works out!

My takeaway on F-16 SLEP was not "it won't be properly done," coming from guys I worked with who are far more knowledgable in that area than I am (and it's high on the priority list). Do you have first hand knowledge that says otherwise? I won't speak for Eagle/Strike SLEP, but it's not an entirely different animal. Of course any number of things (including SLEP) can be fucked up in the future by politicians, wayward GOs, some dickhead SES, etc., but its not really noteworthy in these types of discussions due to the universal application of fuckery to any program. If you want to argue operation and sustainment costs (I probably understand them better than you think), then maybe you should be arguing why we're even using 4th gen fighters at all in the current wars. We've been destroying our jets for years doing shit a 4th gen fighter is way "over kill" for. Yet here we are, slogging away killing dudes on donkeys and dropping thousands of PGMs to move dirt a few feet. Do we need 4.5 gen fighters to take on those rolls? The reality is if something more peer-level kicks off, all that flying hour cost, etc. discussion would be fairly inconsequential when 75% of the Package AA/AB F-16s/F-15s didn't come home. How's generation for AC+ looking? Oh, and the CFACC objectives weren't accomplished either, so we'll have to re-roll a bunch of shit to future ATOs and DTs. Or there's the alternative of increasing capital in newer technology that outperforms anything that could come of a 4.5 gen fighter. It may not be cheap, but it's a lot cheaper than what the realized losses would be in the aforementioned example.

You missed my point. Your comments on the F-35 specifically are in line with a lot of dudes who don't have insight/knowledge beyond the surface level of the program (a basic program brief and a healthy dose of invalid WOMs). That's not a personal attack, it's a fact that applies to a lot of the CAF, let alone everyone else who doesn't even work in the current, fighter community. No, I do not want to be in a Block 70, an F-15X, etc. over F-35/F-22 in several scenarios (though of course I would prefer those if the only alternative was a current F-16/F-15). We don't need a hoard of 4th or 4.5 gen fighters (a misnomer many are hung up on) - there are means to solve problems other than bravehearting our way into the fight with hundreds/thousands of manned 4-4.5 gen fighters. Our current 4th gen fighters properly SLEPd and upgraded will fulfill our defense requirements, and this will cost less/allow allocation of more funds to other things that will net us more warfighting capability than purchasing new, non-5th gen aircraft. Like you and many others, I love my 4th gen fighter and hate to see it get shoved from the front of the line, and I want to see it "survive," but that's a myopic and emotional viewpoint, I can admit that. You want to divert funds to something that will get use fairly quickly and have a warfighting impact with low sustainability cost, send it to light attack and other related programs. $1.2B on those are more useful and have better "warfighting payoff" longevity than 1/2 a squadron's worth of F-15X, Block 70, etc. Not an emotionally popular opinion in a 4th gen fighter squadron, but it has truth to it if dude's are willing to take a step back and see all portions of the big picture.

Still way too expensive...an F-35 would be only ~$15M more (~20% more for substantially more capability/survivability in the longterm). Honestly, even if the price was $50M, I still think the money could be spent elsewhere (and I'm not talking just on a fighter). Again, I don't think anyone can present a strong argument for the hypothetical of buying "3.5 gen" F-4s instead of F-16/F-15s back in the 70s. This is the same thing, different era. And since I haven't said it, the F-15X or a Block 70 Viper would be a badass airplane and have some awesome capes, but when you step back and look at the big picture without emotion, neither is the right long term move.

If you're talking about temporarily taking an AFRC job at current location, then moving to another AFRC job at a different location later, your HOR move you get as part of AD separation entitlements applies. The part I don't know is how long that HOR move is good for before you essentially forfeit the entitlement due to non-use after x months. Anything in the JTR, HOR move section that addresses length of eligibility for the entitlement?

Remember guys, "5th gen" is WAY more than just LO. I absolutely agree some people oversell LO's future value (as it currently is applied), but don't mistake "5th gen" as simply meaning an LO asset. There's far more to 5th gen technology than the brochure highlights.

The point is why would you spend the same or more money on a "4.5 gen" fighter when you can have a 5th gen fighter for the same cost? Would you have supported buying "3.5 gen" F-4s for the same price (at a 1:1 ratio) of brand new F-16s/F-15s back in the 70s? This is the same argument that occurs every generation of aircraft...somebody thinks the "new fangled stuff" is bullshit, overpriced "night one" tech we'll likely never really need, etc. and upgrading "old faithful" fits the bill better. I'm not arguing we fly Block 30 Vipers until 2050 (we won't), I'm saying we need to spend our money on technology with greater capability/survivability longevity than what a 4.5 gen fighter can ever give us. This discussion cycle will continue when 6th gen comes out and a camp of people will be arguing for purchasing new 5.5 gen F-35s for the same price as a 6th gen F-69. I love the F-16, but I'm also pragmatic about the subject. Everyone here needs to have a little trust/faith in their bros working with the science and technology world, assessing and ranking future requirements, and steering core function groups in the best direction they know with the current information. I assure all of you there is an amazing amount of things that exist in the shadows and there are very good, smart bros working on all of our behalf to make sure the right moves are made. This includes the way forward for current 4th gen fighters and keeping them safe and relevant within the constraints of technology, threat advancement, and budget.

Not even remotely what I said. We will continue to upgrade current 4th gen fighters for a long time, which is in general a more fiscally sound proposition than spending $90M+ on a non-5th gen aircraft. If companies cut the cost to $40M per, then maybe it'd be worth looking at, but I don't see any company doing that, as its not in their best interest to do so.

No, it doesn't. Those who seriously think it does make sense (especially at that price tag) do not have enough knowledge on "future us" and "future them," either via lack of read-ins, lack of understanding of said read-ins, and/or lack of understanding of future capes on other platforms (including non-fighter platforms). Bottom line, while buying Block 70 Vipers or F-15X seems like a good move to replace our aging fleet, it is not for many reasons. If we had infinite resources, then sure lets buy a bunch of each, but we don't, so as Danger said: spending $80K on a full resto on an old and busted 69 mustang will still never make it a 2019 Corvette ZR1. Lipstick on a pig and all that (and yes, that's a dig at my Ford friends!)

It's not solely about that, nor is it solely about "night 1." The Vipers and Eagles in the ARC will do just fine executing the ADA mission, the Vipers and Strikes in the ARC/AD will do just fine employing A/G weapons in low-med ALR conflicts where fighters are required (or not required, the way our politicians like to manage wars), etc. This isn't about what we'd like in 2019, it has to be about 2030+. Procuring a fighter that will not fully stand up to threats 10 years down the road is a waste of money and effort. By the way, there are current/about to be current threats I have serious doubt about the X being effective around, not even talking about 2025+.

Yes. If such a buy happens, it will be a very myopic decision to do so.

For that price, dumb. 60% off, now maybe we can talk.

"There was an "incredible convergence of stimuli," Col. Thomas Sherman, commander of the 88th Air Base Wing, told reporters Wednesday. "Sounds, yells, sights. All of those things that are really testing the senses." Hahaha, oh wait, you're serious? This is one, rare time where I think some leadership deserves to get fired. Unbelievable clown show.

I don't think there's any reg that mandates you stay for X time. One way you could be on the hook "officially" for a length of time would be if you're on AGR orders for a few years and you want to end them early to transfer units, but TAG does not approve the curtailment (that's ANG, but I assume it's similar in AFRC). If that happened, you'd have to finish out that set of orders before you could move. This situation is probably unlikely, but possible. Post-FTU, you will have some amount of full-time seasoning orders. For fighters it's broken into two sets of 365 days, so roughly 2.5 years all said and done (assuming a few TDYs/deployment that are on different orders and don't count against your seasoning days). I don't know how long heavies season for, but probably varies a bit depending on community. Bottom line, as a new guy back from training, I'd plan on at least 3 years given to your unit before you try to transfer. I think 3 years is also a good ROT for an AD guy who punches to the ARC, then wants to move later. That all said, this isn't black and white and if you have a compelling situation that drives a necessity to move and that's what your family needs, then bring it up to the boss. The ARC is generally very good at being supportive of family-driven decisions and will help you get where you need to be. Just realize you may get less than enthusiastic support if you try to bail a year after getting to your unit.

Whatever all these fees total up to = the amount of 1-2 taxi rides you took and don't have a receipt for. Fuck them, you can play their game.

Last I looked 2 years ago, you could PC for an earlier DOS. That could have changed.

They will lead a squadron, wing, etc. tactically...as the expert in their community on tactics, at integrating with others, solving tactical problems many would say, "that's unsolvable" to, building up those around them to be the best ____ that person can be, etc. WIC is very much a leadership school, and you will get a lot of leadership opportunity out of it, much of which occurs prior to being a SQ/CC. People should do it because they want to do these things, not primarily as a container checked to help make SQ/CC down the road.

If someone goes to WIC to help their future SQ/CC chances, they are fucking it away wholesale.

To be clear, the guard does allow promotion without PME through ROPMA. Not a guarantee, but seems like a high Pk promotion for pilots at least. Downside is you lose a few years of O-5 pay, so even for money alone it's probably worth doing ACSC if you're a full time guy and not living off an airline paycheck. Sucks that ROPMA isn't an option in the Reserves.

Here's some anecdotal thoughts based on what I've seen amongst friends in this situation over the years. Short answer opinion: Tracking T-1s and FAIPing is highest chance of desired outcome...see below for reasoning. 1. FAIPing together gives you at least 3 years post-UPT together. Even though she's 6 month ahead in UPT, they could align you guys on the same VML down the road to help increase the chances of getting a join spouse assignment to the same aircraft. Not a guarantee of course, but you probably have a higher chance of it working out vs. her assigning X aircraft 6 months ahead of you and you crossing fingers the same aircraft is available in your drop. 2. (N/A if you go to ENJJPT) Consider track and decide if living together is more or less important than what you want to fly. You don't know how either of you will perform or what the T-38/T-1 availability will be 6 months apart. T-1s is the more sure bet based on slots available. If she goes 38s 6 months ahead of you, it's higher risk you don't end up in the same track and thus a lot less likely to be in the same aircraft down the road. Bottom line, I've seen several couples make it happen who ended up in the same aircraft, but generally one of them ends up getting out ASAP. I've seen different-aircraft couples fall apart. I've also seen most of my female counterparts love the idea of flying in their early 20s, but despise their 10 yr ADSC and the AD lifestyle when they want to have kids and stop working 12-15 hrs a day, want to be at home with the kids, etc. It creates a real problem for them, and ultimately they suck up shitty non-flying jobs, balance being an officer/mom/wife, and their husband continues to fly while they punch at the first chance. I'm not judging those couples who go down this road or their decisions to stay/go, but its a real challenge you both should talk about.

Heroic - You flew 690 miles to take the fat one for you bro who only could nail the 10 if her 0 friend got some too. Meritorious - You banged 3 or more chicks (8+) at the same time.

Correct, you can keep your residency where you have it as long as your on active orders, or you can choose to change it however often you want as you move to different states. Carry on base is only allowed at some bases, and clearly the rules are different at each.