jazzdude

I don't know why they made a big deal about masking line numbers. You can just look at promotion month and essentially get an officers relative order of merit to within 8%

And just to add, if you're 1APZ your year group is now the one you promoted with, not the one you commissioned with

That's great of you have the money to pay for that place of development. Also, it requires stable requirements to specify the x/y/z, and that usually takes 1-2 years, since that analysis also takes time and money. It's basically what the AF did with the NGAD prototype, and was able to accelerate the development significantly

I agree that trade is important. But so long as industry stabilizes post conflict, I'd bet most businesses don't care who's in charge of a country, so long as money and goods keep moving. I think what NATO is doing now (providing and and supplies) is a good response. I don't think direct military involvement is in our interests, because Ukraine is NOT an ally Nora NATO member, just a country with some aligned interests (mainly screw Russia and their influence)

We don't really care about sovereignty. We care about maintaining our influence on the world, and one good way to do that is to ensure foreign governments are friendly toward our interests (and not Russian or Chinese interests). This includes supporting/working with authoritarian governments, so long as they continue to act in our interests (sure, we'll encourage democracy and human rights etc, but that comes second after maintaining our national interests/influence in the region). There's no way that Ukraine is a litmus test for Poland: one is a NATO member and one is not, and the reaction is (appropriately) different. The one good thing in all this is it's woken many NATO states up to the fact that Russia is still in fact a threat to their existence, and that they need to find their defense.

PCMR only happens with off station missions greater than a day, and measured in hours. So flying over the weekend wouldn't get you any real benefit. If AMC didn't have PMCR, there'd be nothing to keep (strat air) crews from being continually on the road so long as they are current. 4 days of PCMR sounds awesome after a 2 week TDY. But when you start seeing that the only time you're home is during PMCR, it gets old since you're taking care of all your personal life stuff during that short window as well, and that window changes as the mission changes so it's hard to make any real plans.

Agree it's great discussion! One of the limitations of the AF safety system is it looks to assign blame (even though it's always talked about as not assigning blame, labeling factors as causal and contributing assigns blame). It looks for what went wrong and establishes a chain of events leading to a mishap, and that one individual can break the mishap chain. That approach is fine for all individual chain of events, but largely misses problems that tend to not consist of individuals (i.e. organizational problems). Another safety paradigm that is starting to gain some traction is to look for what goes right rather than what went wrong ("safety II" if you want to read more into it). Basically, any system is prone to errors that could lead to mishaps, but the people in the system make small corrections that together keep the system safe. So for this mishap, we would expect a competent pilot to recognize that TOGA was inadvertently engaged, and to reconfigure the flight director and recover from any spatial disorientation by transiting to their instruments. Post flight, the pilot could fill out an ASAP documenting inadvertent TOGA, which could initiate a trend leading to a cockpit redesign or procedure change if it's determined that inadvertent TOGA is a frequently realized hazard/issue. Alternatively, FOQA analysis could see inadvertent TOGA trends. We'd also see that pilot hiring relies on accurate job history. Generally, pilots will be truthful on their resume since if they aren't and are caught, they'll be blacklisted from that airline. But without a system like a fully implemented PRIA program, it trusts pilots to be honest or airline HRs to do a lot of digging into applicants to verify employment. It's something we take for granted in the AF, since we have our FEF that follows us every time we change assignments that documents our history. (Sidebar- is the AMC philosophy of Q3/Q1 to "document" a deviation that in ACC might be a "there I was" lessons learned brief to the sq good or bad?)

The dude sucked, but if that's where you leave it, it opens the door for this kind of thing to happen again. Getting after the "why" the pilot sucked is the more important and harder question to answer to prevent something like this from happening again. They were flying in an environment that is regulated and controlled: there are supposed to be several players of safeguards to remove bad pilots from flying (for an air transport carrier) and being a danger to the public. Poor sq or company culture can be a factor (i.e. IPs/EPs/LCAs not holding the standard), and that needs to be examined and fixed if needed as well. Things like FOQA and ASAP are important as well to identify issues before they become problems, whether it's bad operational procedures/guidance or poor aircraft design. I don't think anyone would argue the mishap copilot doesn't deserve blame, but there's a lot of blame that is deserved elsewhere as well.

Most likely yes but below the line as a MEP

Assuming finance and/or DFAS don't mess it up... I took the 100k upfront (AD 11M) and none of my 3 bonus payments so far have been right.

Then you owe 4-5 years of service (and may not have any college debt if you go academy or get a ROTC scholarship). Similar commitment if you enlist in a guard unit to try and improve your chances getting hired there. If it's something you want to do, work hard to build a competitive package whichever route you want to go. Do well academically in HS, competitive athletics, find leadership opportunities, etc.

The US and the UN have and continue to ignore genocide. China and the Uyghurs are probably the one that gets the most attention. But guess who also has nuclear weapons and a seat on the UNSC... There's also Burma and the CAR. And NATO seems to continue to need to reign in Turkey from killing Kurds.

I doubt anyone now would claim the KC-46 program is a success story-lots of lessons learned that will hopefully be allowed to the future (though I wouldn't hold my breath). I'm surprised no one got fired for it (though former asst secretary for acquisition Druyun did end up going to jail for a few months for corruption, since she personally benefited significantly from the tanker lease debacle). That being said, the KC-46 is flying operational missions now. Hopefully the program follows the trajectory of the C-17 program: troubled program that overcame significant design problems and threats of program cancellation due to performance deficiencies (some of which still exist to this day and likely will never be fixed) that eventually became the backbone of the mobility fleet. For KC-46, I guess we'll know in a few years when/if the RVS gets fixed.

Yes, as well as argue that portions of the data are proprietary and not deliverable as part of the contract. Cases already going to court on data rights issues. They'll also lobby Congress that the AF should use the traditional primes due to their experience in defense contracting and the number of jobs they bring to congressional districts, rather than using smaller companies that may have traditionally been subcontractors. The other piece to making this work is that the AF has to invest in it's engineering capabilities if we want to be the lead on integrating technology/capability on our jets rather than contracting it out. A challenge is how to recruit and retain the AF (or GS) engineering talent, when the party is better working in industry. I know I made more as an engineering intern at a defense contractor than I did as an LT, and didn't achieve pay parity on the job offer I got at the end of my internship until I was a major.

This wouldn't work as you have it, since there's no real incentive for primes to do it without being forced to. Best way to make money is not selling the jet, but by achieving vendor lock on sustainment and future modification (looking at you, F-35). AF has to make open architecture and room for capability growth requirements for the aircraft. This often will show up as a penalty in overall (initial) performance, since you're likely adding weight and unused space to allow for future growth in, and that's something the AF has to be okay with. There's also a cost penalty of the of AF wants to buy the data to be able to go straight to OEMs for mods rather than rely on the original prime. On top of the open architecture, the AF also has to own the tech/data rights for the jet. This allows the AF to go direct to other contractors that offer capability, rather than being locked into dealing with traditional primes that add overhead/passthrough costs. There's a big push by the AF to move in this direction: owning the tech data stack/models, open architectures, move towards organic AF sustainment vs relying on contractor led support, etc. The little information that has been released on NGAD points to the AF trying to implement these ideas for the 6th gen fighter.

Looking at what I've been issued by various (airlift and trainer) squadrons, there's been a lot of nice to haves as well as needs issued. Things that aren't essential but made life better: various pubs bags, rolling luggage bags, kit bags for deployment, multiple flashlights (from fingerlights to strong lights for preflight and everything in between), knives, G-Shock watches, seat cushions, lightweight sleeping bags, kneeboards (I'm a fan of the plastic standard issue one). Another big one is foreflight, which in the earlier days was unit/wing funded (maybe still is?). Nice to haves I've been issued that ground guys don't know why we get issued since they have to buy them: goretex jackets, fleece jackets, fleece hats, gloves, contact lenses (though not every squadron funds them). Point is, I've been issued lots of niceties that aren't strictly authorized that make doing the mission easier, all under the sq/cc's discretion. Which can be hard to justify if your CC doesn't understand it have experience with the mission. On the other hand, initial leather A2 jacket and nomex flight jackets? Approved APEL that allowed for glasses inserts? Like pulling teeth to get issued.

RAND recommended 48-60k, AF asked for 48k, Congress approved 35k

We shouldn't limit our thinking to only military means to achieve our strategic objectives, which can be hard for us as military officers to consider seriously (when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). We seem to have done very well controlling the narrative internationally on what Russia is doing, and leveraged that into widespread support for significant economic sanctions on Russia. Even to the point that historically neutral countries were convinced it to be in their interests to follow suit on sanctions. One downside of the American way of life is that we generally are not patient and want big actions and fast results. Use of military force can be a way to get quick results, and often works much faster than the other instruments of power. But the quick response isn't always the best response. Sanctions take time to build that pressure on the target to change behavior, but allows us to deny Russia a reason or justification to expand the fighting and drag the western world into WW3. In the meantime, we need Ukraine to keep fighting Russia to buy time for the sanctions to work, so the western world has been funneling arms and supplies to them to support Ukraine's fight to remain independent. The cynic in me says this is also good for American defense contractors to make a good deal of money selling those arms... And furthers our goal to be the partner of choice when it comes to military equipment sales and strengthening economic ties. The sad truth is that as a nuclear power, if and how Russia is engaged militarily matters because nukes are on the table, and they have too many for us to target and neutralize to take nuke off the table. It pushes military action to being a last resort, and only to be once the other instrument of power have failed to achieve our objectives. Even if Russia didn't maintain it's nuclear force well, there would still likely be enough useable nukes to act as a credible deterrent

It's no different than the selective service we still have on the books in our country, or the fact that the US had used conscription to achieve national goals until very recently in our history. Ukraine is facing a fight for it's existence, and called up all the men of military fighting age to defend their country. Freedom isn't free...

Do we have an alliance with Ukraine? We do have somewhat aligned interests, though they aren't really the same interests. Ukraine wants to survive and keep their sovereignty. US and NATO want to keep Russia in check.

Sometimes you don't need a win, you just need to lose less than your adversary. Maybe restarting the cold war is in Russia's interest. Stronger NATO resolve means the need to expand Russia's military to counter a growing NATO threat. Short term risk increase in exchange for a possible long term objective. On the flip side, how supportive would the American (or European) public be of open war with Russia, epecially if Russia never overtly attacks a NATO member? If Russia believes NATO wouldn't actually conduct a first strike, that short term increased tension might be worth it. But like FLEA said, a lot of people are looking at this from what we think Russia's/Putin's goals are, rather than trying to really understand what motivates them. Putin seems to behave very rationally to advance his goals (in other words, his actions always seem to be calculated/deliberate and not at a whim), so I doubt he would've launched the invasion of Ukraine if he didn't believe it was in his best interests. Not understanding his goals and motivations means we won't be able to contain/counter him, so he stays one step ahead of us.

There are other paths to scholarships besides academic achievement, and the are grants and loan programs for low income students. But I get your point, it's easier to excel and compete for scholarships of your family has the means to help push your development, whether through academics, sports, arts, etc. Or there's always the enlist and use the GI Bill or other enlisted to officer programs, though timings became a lot tighter on the road to wings. I will also say it's sad to see military aero clubs mostly go by the wayside, as that removed another means for military members to pursue their aviation dreams.

Those opportunities I listed are available to many (though may be restricted by where you live), regardless of the applicant's race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. Including the poor white demographic you mention. Why should you care if a special interest/minority group wants to fund a scholarship or grant for their community? It doesn't take away opportunities for the majority of people, especially when we're talking into to flying and breaking into the aviation career field.

Civil air patrol and AFJROTC for high schoolers. ROTC and military academies for college age, though those come with a commitment

The challenge is keeping out other refugees of other nationalities that aren't approved for entry. So at a minimum, a US citizen would at least need their passport (looks like DoS was able to negotiate not needing a visa in advance due to the deteriorating Ukraine conditions), and take a COVID test at the border and quarantine if not vaccinated. If a US citizen there doesn't believe in getting the COVID vaccine, then Romania is their best bet for a land crossing https://ua.usembassy.gov/message-to-us-citizens-ukraine-land-border/