jazzdude

There less of that than you would think. Sure, there's a training fence, but mainly because requirements could easily outstrip our ability to maintain basic currency. It's funny when the army mobility guys start talking about "yeah, well need 10 dedicated C-17s for two weeks to do our movement. We aren't going to preplan our retrograde and associated load plans, we're just going to fill up the jet as we deem stuff ready to retrograde in execution." It's almost as ridiculous (but not quite) as CFACC wanting to do ACE exercises in theater and having AMD bump cargo (making it late) to do unilateral exercises, oh, and let's do it without dips for any of the jets (fighters included). There's demand across all the COCOMs since everyone wants their stuff yesterday, and if the president or VP is traveling, well, it throws a wrench in capacity for operations. This makes it hard for strat lift to train for the high end fight, because there's always demand for missions going out and no dedicated down time to train like jets that rotate in and out unless those tails and crews are fenced off.

I mean, there's already more demand for C-17s than what we have, even write augmentation from contact airlift. Especially as the Army's equipment gets larger, requiring outsize lift capacity. Things like ACE only increase that demand (is a C-130 really going to be able to load up with whatever the fighters need at a safe distance from a TBM threat and fly to that forward location in a useful timeframe, as well as have to fuel reservers to make it back to the safe location and alternate if required?). The vast majority of the mobility mission is operating in permissive environments, and that makes for a boring exercise (where the capability being exercised is flow control and aerial port capacity). And boring doesn't get you funding for exercises, or relief from operational taskings to make time for exercises. So you're left with 3 tactical missions to exercise for conventional mobility: airfield seizure, airdrop resupply, or retrograde/exfil. Going to a flag usually means playing to someone else's objectives, and chances are the mobility objectives are going to be an afterthought in the larger air war in the exercise. And the bigger problem is that the majority of airlift pilots (primarily strategic airlift pilots i.e. C-17/C-5) will never get to go to a flag exercise to gain that experience, much less get repetitions in a training range against simulated threats. And we don't have the knowledge base/experience to replicate that at home station on locals, especially when there's pressure to just meet min currency requirements to fly real world missions in permissive environments needed now. I'm not saying it's not worth mobility doing exercises and improving tactical proficiency, but it feels like we are trying to sprint before we crawl.

ACE concept has bigger problems than mobility O-6s not delegating authority, especially if it's for more than a one-off resupply. Airlift capacity, logistic footprints to sustain not only the fighters but the airlift needed to sustain the fighters- we just plain run out of airlift. Also don't forget that other stuff from other services will be moving at the same time to support their part of the operation, so movement priority becomes critical. And none of this matters if the airlift gets killed like they do in mobility guardian

C-17, but my info is a bit dated... You could maybe get the sim to practice ahead of a major exercise, but probably won't get a dedicated local trainers to prep on. You could piggyback on an existing local, but you probably won't have the same crew that's scheduled for the exercise. Local trainers usually have maybe one threat react, and plot/avoid a couple threats (radar or IR) on the low level portion of the sortie, and generally only if the pilot is doing fine on time control already. Not sure if this has gotten better, but usually you're cycling people through the seats, so you may only get 10-15 min per pilot (3 legs or so) on the low level each just to keep them current. For a formation airdrop sortie, you'll get one pass at usually a short low level to do a tactical scenario (so one lead gets to work through the problem solving), then you end up spending hours on checking currency boxes for the different types of airdrops and lead/wing requirements. Usually on a local IFR route, so you generally don't get the opportunity to do more tactical training. Generally not a lot of instrument approaches unless the weather calls for it, or more than one pilot needs it for currency, or you need to kill some time in the pattern before heading to the next training event. Typical local sortie would look like: 0+30 to 0+45 to the tanker 1+00 to 1+30 behind the tanker 0+30 to low level entry 0+30 on the low level 1+00 to 1+30 on pattern work (or replace with airdrop DZ passes) 0+30 RTB 0+15 ground ops (backing/rev taxi, combat offloads) A typical traffic pattern was notional about 8-10 min, so you'd have time for about 6-9 landings total. 15ish minutes for a full stop taxi back off an assault landing (typically to the 3500' assault strip), or to reset for a tactical approach to landing. Assault landings are a currency item of ACs to do in the jet, so you'll typically need to do a couple on the sortie. Depending on who needs what, you might get 15 min behind the tanker, maybe 15 min on the low level to do tactical training (and assuming the other pilot isn't struggling at low level basics like time control and chart reading), and 2-3 landings on a sortie, so not a lot of training time. Usually only get a few locals per semi, ready of the time is out on the road flying missions. People want to get better, but the training time in the jet isn't there, and for whatever reason, people don't take advantage of doing what they can in the sim in the sim (like plotting that's and adjusting flight paths or threat reacting while flying to a TOT), so that the time you do get in the jet can be used to refine the skills rather than learn the basics of the skills.

Does putting your wingman between you and the threat so they soak up the threat count as a tactic? Hopefully it's gotten better since I left the community, but last LFE I did (planned 40 ship), we couldn't even get admin right. Stupid stuff like aircraft lighting, both en route and after fence in. And the planners screwed all the personnel airdrop jets on gas and recovery plan, planning us at the appropriate weight across the DZ, but not enough gas to get to the planned recovery bases. So some jets (like mine) said screw being the correct weight over the DZ, we're a dry pass so we'll carry the extra gas to get home. Others took the planned amount, and ended up having to fuel divert halfway home. And that doesn't even touch elements holding at the wrong points at the wrong altitude (at night while interplane freq was being jammed, and who plans heavy aircraft formations to fly holding patterns with 45 AOB?).

Oops, I'm dumb. Posting while tired probably isn't good

Not if you start from Hawaii. Went through India and Africa to make it the US east coast. Interesting story, especially if you put yourself in the Captain's shoes and go "what would I have done in this situation?" Edit: I'm dumb, you're correct, westbound

Along the same line of thought, is an amphibian needed, or would a pure seaplane suffice? Amphibian adds complexity, and landing on water with a gear hanging would basically guarantee the loss of the aircraft and the cargo it carries, and possibly the crew. You can usually recover an aircraft following a gear up landing on land, but a gear down landing on water is typically catastrophic. If anyone's interested, this is a pretty interesting seaplane story set in WW2: https://www.panam.org/the-long-way-home The book is a touch dry in the story telling, but tells the (true) story of a Pan Am flying boat that was in the Pacific when Pearl Harbor was attacked, and the crew's/aircraft's journey back to the US the long way (eastbound starting in the Pacific, attempting to avoid the fighting in both the Pacific and Europe)

I was going to get excited, but then just saw it's a herk on pontoons. I'm not sure that repurposing the C-130 as a base airframe for an amphibian saves any development cost, and probably would really just be chucking money at LM. That being said, we must not allow an amphibious aircraft gap! https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-largest-floatplane-takes-first-flight-in-china-spruce-goose-2020-8

Absolutely. I'm wary of surveiling military social media as well, but fortunately the DOD is a slow bureaucracy and slow to change. This stuff is nothing new, it's just got easier to surveil as our lives have moved online, especially given the Patriot act being enacted. Activist political appointees are a symptom of electing bad politicians bent on special interests or personal gain rather than what is best for the country. Unfortunately, the 2 party system keeps pushing the parties towards their respective extremes to consolidate power while villifying the other side, and both sides are just as guilty of doing so. So the parties reinforce bad behaviors, and "encourage" elected officials to tow the party line rather than represent their constituency. This attempt to maintain power removes incentives to cooperate with the other party and independents in Congress, so the game becomes manipulating voting blocks to ensure a victory/majority to push through agendas unilaterally, whether it's through gerrymandering, or hindering access to voting, or increasing access to voting to manipulate voting outcomes. The other piece tangentially related to this is that we'd be stupid to think our enemies aren't surveiling us as well, both with public data like social media or public records, and marrying that info against stolen info like gained from the OPM breach. Makes it easier to target and influence people at the fringes, or to sow discontent to weaken our country, particularly when we as a country/society are struggling to find common ground as Americans.

There are several more political appointees working at the assistant or under secretary levels within the various departments, with narrower scopes than SECAF. Garrison's actions aren't going to be independent, he still reports to SECDEF who sets the direction. If he moves in a direction SECDEF isn't happy with, it ain't happening, especially on an issue as politically charged as this. Like it or not, this is the price having civilian leadership and control of the military, and speaks to the importance of voting for good elected officials.

Man, wait until you learn SECDEF, SECAF, and many other Air Force civilian leadership are are also political appointees...

Generally agree with you, at least fair the general public. The difference here is that as a member of the military, we are in a position of trust (some positions now than others). It's why we have a security clearances with recurring investigations, and why we can handle classified materials and information not released to the general public. So there becomes a balancing point between your individual right to free speech, and whether the opinions you express indicate you shouldn't be in a position of trust within the government. However, trust works both ways. If the monitoring is overly aggressive or overly broad, it'll hurt morale (or degrade performance) in the military, and become a deterrent for people to join or stay in the military. Then again, SERE beat out most of my desire to use most forms of social media (well, just reinforced my decision to stop using many forms of social media).

I mean, your security clearance paperwork already asks if you're associated with terrorist organizations or associated with groups intent on overthrowing the USG, then someone investigates and verifies that info. That verification used to be a lot harder, but now that so much info is available online, it can provide more insight into the reliability of a person. So nothing really new, but maybe they are saying the quiet part (anything you post online is visible during investigations) out loud now.

Well, the arbiter is the commander, given their positional authority. The CC takes the praise and blame for how they implement it and how much risk they are willing to accept. If they are liberal with enforcing mask wearing, it's not a problem until someone catches it and brings it to work, at which point there can be real mission impacts. But that risk may never be realized either, and masks just get viewed as the new reflective belt. Not an enviable position to be in, especially when it seems like a lot of this just gets delegated to the sq/cc to figure out. I agree there's a lot of nuance to it. The easiest answer (organizationally) is to just follow the letter of the policy, which was based on CDC's recommendation (following the science). In other words, defer to the people who are working to do the science, and take their recommendations and tailor them to the mission. Sure, there's cases where following the letter of the policy isn't "following the science." If you just recovered from COVID, you're considered immune for 90 days after, assuming no new symptoms. Do they just not wear a mask for 90 days, then resume wearing a mask until vaccinated? What if you've recovered and got one vaccination? Lots of different situations, and that gets hard to manage/communicate to on a public scale. Vaccinations provide a simple line in the sand that covers most situations. My guess on the change in policy to let fully vaccinated people go without masks? Likely mostly science based, though there's still concerns about newer variants that break through. But just as (or maybe more) importantly, it also provides a personal/individual incentive (beyond just medical/scientific reasons) to get vaccinated: personal convenience and comfort of not wearing a mask. People that got vaccinated because they are concerned about getting COVID likely already got vaccinated. So now you have to reach the rest of the population. Letting vaccinated people not wear masks trades the small chance of catching/spreading a new strain with encouraging more people to get vaccinated and protect against more common strains, without having to expand testing and quarantine requirements (in other words, much cheaper for the same effect).

You'd be punishing them for failure to follow orders/good order and discipline. Policy is still to wear a mask unless fully vaccinated. No different than punishing a person for not shaving or having a haircut in standards (no real basis for those besides "image" and what the policy is). Likely verbal correction at first, but repeat offenders may get more serious punishments.

While I do agree pawnman's response is heavy handed for a blanket approach, I do see where he's coming from. Agree or disagree with wearing masks, the DoD policy is to wear a mask until you're fully vaccinated. Don't think auto article 15 is the right answer though. You can't force your sq to get the vaccine, but you can enforce wearing a mask. And if it comes to light that unvaccinated individuals aren't wearing a mask like they are supposed to, the easiest solution is to just require the entire sq to mask (standard making everyone wear diapers for the mistakes of a few). It's dumb, but tracking who has to mask and who doesn't is too time intensive and detracts from the attention on mission. And if you do nothing, others will take it as you, as the cc, disregarding policy and erode trust. Plus, the latest memo (https://www.whs.mil/Portals/75/Coronavirus/UPDATED%20MASK%20GUIDELINES%20FOR%20VACCINATED%20PERSONS%20OSD004376-21%20FOD%20Final.pdf?ver=Kx-Isf58hQ-LKMNrvCZDjA%3d%3d) about masking doesn't say commanders can't ask about vaccination status, only that they can't use vaccination status to determine who teleworks and who comes into the office (is you can't make a policy saying non vaccinated people telework while vaccinated people return to the office). This seems to avoid pressuring people to get the vaccine due to potential career impacts (if you're teleworking because you elected not to get the vaccine while most people aren't, you might be out of sight, out of mind) So how do you (as the hypothetical sq/cc) deal with a person that blatantly violates policy? What about if they tested positive and still knowingly came to work without a mask? Even if an airman catches a mild case of COVID with no lasting impacts, at best they are still out for about 2 weeks, and potentially could knock out coworkers as well for a couple weeks due to quarantine requirements due to known exposure. So even if you don't believe COVID to be serious, the practical effect on personnel availability can have a significant mission impact. It's similar to the occasional norovirus outbreak. I've seen norovirus destroy a UPT class due to the faip scheduler pushing the studs to get cleared for sims to stay on/ahead of timeline (and flight med being liberal with not putting people on quarters when they are infectious), and had half the class out for several days to illness and required a couple weeks to catch up. Haven't seen it be as bad deployed, but those docs seen to be more willing to put people on quarters for communicable disease.

It also messes up how they manage officers in general, which is by year groups. Including when people are eligible for different schools (not just PME, but also things like WIC, TPS, etc). Although in theory, we used to have a 4ish year promotion zone for O-5+, just earlier in the timeline (2BPZ - 1APZ vs IPZ + 4 years), so maybe the problem isn't as hard to solve. But you're also right, what do you do with a captain going in for their 3rd/4th/5th look to major? What's their career look like? Especially when the current yardstick for a "successful" career in AFPC's viewpoint is Lt Col by 20 years? Would those officer *want* to stay in anyways, versus taking outside employment opportunities?

You assume there are enough resources for both patients, when that may not be the case, and a choice has to be made as to who gets treated and who does not. Some hospitals may keep them on as long as they are getting paid, or until that equipment is needed for someone with a better chance of living unassisted. This is the whole point of triage, and how money (in how our healthcare system is funded) can buy you options. Maybe there's another hospital that can take a transfer, but if not, how do you choose who gets the necessary equipment? First come, first serve? The one who can pay for the treatment? The one without a criminal record? (This was also the rationale behind the COVID "flatten the curve" effort, so as not to have to make those decisions on who lives or dies due to limited medical resources, and not just for Covid cases, but any case requiring ICU care) Do you stretch resources thin where possible even if it means reduced care for everyone (including reducing recovery odds for some patients) in return for caring for more people? How long should the hospital staff surge? (This is the same problem the AF has with pilot manning, standards start getting lowered, and so does performance and safety, leading to more accidents...) Again, resources are finite, and that can force hard decisions beyond idealized positions on an issue.

Is it murder to pull the plug on someone who is solely surviving based on life support equipment? Does that answer change if there are different levels of brain activity? Does it matter who pulls the plug? Or their reason for doing so? What if the life support equipment keeping a brain dead patient alive is needed to keep a patient who is responsive alive? Remember, hospital resources are finite. (Though if you're rich enough, you can buy your own equipment and staff). And yes this question is relevant, because a trade is being made between patients, and sometimes at the extreme of one or the other (mother vs baby).

BLUF: I want our laws and policy to err on the side of personal freedom and choice, particular on complex issues (such as abortion or gun control) Your question is over simplistic. I'll admit though it's an uneasy question though, but that's good. It assumes that all people will change their life after having a child to raise that child and not neglect it. But that's not even the case today. You could threaten the selfish parent with fines or jail, but that doesn't solve the problem of a child being raised poorly or perhaps even abused, and even if they are removed from the bad parents, they'll enter the foster care system. So here's some more uncomfortable questions. So who pays to keep a very premature baby (20ish weeks) alive? It's only viable through medical advances and affected by the availability of the equipment and staff as well as an individual's ability to pay for that advanced care. Should the mother or father be forced to pay for that care of they didn't want the baby in the first place but was forced to deliver because abortion was made illegal? Or if the government (society) is willing to pay for an expensive NICU stay, why aren't we willing to pay for other healthcare later in life (like an aggressive cancer through no fault of the individual, treatment is expensive and if you don't have the money, it doesn't matter how good the medicine is because you don't have access to it). This makes an unwanted child society's problem, and we don't have the drive/will to care for abandoned children at a larger scale. Do we give those kids free school lunch? What about access to medical care? How do we incentivize adoption, especially of kids that have significant medical out behavioral issues? Many pro life advocates stop valuing life after birth, as shown by their stance on access to medical care, or school lunch subsidies (or rejecting benefactors that aren't the parents from paying off school lunch debts), or willingness to adopt/foster children. All of that under the guise of personal responsibility (which does exist to a certain extent no doubt, but there's also a social responsibility as well that often is ignored). Because if we take away the abortion choice of an individual, we have to replace that with societal support. Otherwise, that child will suffer, maybe throughout their life (it can be hard to dig out of a hole, especially if you start life already in a hole) Some other uncomfortable questions: What constitutes a medically necessary abortion? An outright ban on abortion *will* kill women. Who makes the decision then? What about if it's in a gray area where there's trades between the health outcomes for the mother vs the baby with no "right" answer? Who pays for the expensive procedures that increase the odds of positive health outcomes, for either the mother or baby? Doctors, nurses, and medical staff do not week for free. What about if the women is pregnant due to rape? What if medicine identifies significant diseases in utero? If the baby will suffer and die shortly after birth, should it be brought to term? What if the parents don't have good insurance and will not be able to pay for treatment during the baby's short life, even if they expend all their savings and retirement accounts (which jeopardizes their life and retirement, putting additional stress on social systems as they get to retirement age)? What about maternal care before the birth? Should things like prenatal vitamins be provided to pregnant women to avoid adverse outcomes for the baby? (For example, supplementing with folate is recommended to avoid spina bifida in the baby). What about routine visits? What if the pregnancy is determined to be high risk to the mother or baby, who pays for the additional visits and specialist care? What about normal expenses during and after pregnancy? If a mother can't work due to pregnancy, should they starve (bad outcome for the baby) or go into debt if they don't have access to paid short term or long term disability? What if they aren't married to the father? Would the father of the child be responsible for reimbursing the government (or mother) for any support provided to the mother before birth? Should the mother get any say in the matter? Often the arguments ignore the fact that the mother is also a person that is significantly impacted by pregnancy physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially, and is not just an incubator for a fetus. On the other end of the problem, what do you think about the whole "poor women having babies to increase welfare payment?" Maybe they just really value life and won't have an abortion because they believe it is wrong/evil, and are doing the right thing by keeping the baby and raising it. Should the government force them to stop having sex? Or worse? There's many other questions that touch the abortion question. Like I said in the other thread, I don't think abortion for personal convenience is right, but there's enough gray area or unanswered questions that there may be acceptable or even necessary reasons for abortion. Since that's the case, I would want our laws and policy to err on the side of personal freedom and choice. Too often we focus on the 5-10% where the something (like freedom of choice) is abused, rather than the 90-95% when things work like intended for the reasons the flexibility was provided for.

So we can buy more F-35 and KC-46...

Staff assignments are getting rarer due to the pilot shortage, so I guess there's that silver lining. Though I guess mobility pilots are still going to TACC [emoji2961] UPT flying is pretty much flying for flying's sake. I was pretty disappointed when I got tagged to go, but it turned out to be an absolute blast, and I think I'm a better pilot and instructor for it. It also helped that I had a great, tight knit squadron. Not a hard pitch to stay in, everyone's got their priorities and what they want it of their career and life. Just a different viewpoint so the younger guys don't just see doom and gloom.

Let me ask the question in a different way, so as not to lead the conversation into a one way answer like you did. What is the value of life? Not just for as an embryo or fetus, but as an infant, child, teenager, adult, elderly adult? If you value life (which is *the* argument against abortion, and most people value life in some form or fashion), do you value it equally across a lifetime, or does the value change at different points in life, and why does it change? A related question that feeds into the value of life is what is the goal or purpose in life? Minimize suffering? Maximize personal happiness? Work towards some greater societal good? Maximize wealth? Is it a sense of duty or obligation to society (family, friends, organization, country)? Create as many offspring to propagate your genes? Different goals will cause you to change how you value life in general and for particular groups. Along the same line as the original question you passed, is it ever right to kill another person? I'd hope that since most people on this board are in the military that the answer is yes. However, there are people who don't believe it's right to do so, or set the bar much higher than where our national policy is for the use of force. Is collateral damage acceptable in military operations, and if so, where do you draw the line on what an innocent life is worth in order to achieve military objectives? Yes, those are philosophical questions, and I'll probably be accused of waffling in the middle. But it's a way to examine why you think the way you do in a reasoned way. And just for reference, younger me was staunchly pro-life, but older me who's talked with more people about their opinions and tried to take hard looks at not just what I believe, but also why (which is largely why I post lengthy posts on topics here that pique my interest), has led me to be pro-choice for a matter of national policy while still viewing abortion as generally wrong, because there's enough situations where it might be an acceptable choice given the facts of the situation. I'm cautiously optimistic that most people value life and will do the best they can if they are face with this decision. And if they're getting abortions because they don't want the responsibility of raising a kid for whatever reason, well, they'd probably be a crappy parent that would raise a kid that doesn't contribute to (or becomes a drain on) society anyways. It's good to encourage them to keep the baby, but if not, that decision is on them, and not on me, and on the religious side of this issue, the action is between them and God, and God will take care of any punishment that is due to them.

Plenty of FGO ADOs (including several O-5s) in the squadrons at UPT. T-6 (and probably T-38) buys you some schedule flexibility, since you can usually find time to squeeze in a 2.5ish hour flight period (1 hr brief, 1.3 flight, and a quick debrief) even when you have office duties, and everyone seems to welcome guest help. Just got to avoid sitting SOF or RSU...