Blue

I'm not in the .gov world anymore, so I don't know what the messaging is. And it's hard to sift through everything out there on social media about the topic, because there is little differentiation between fact, hyperbole, and speculation. At first glance though, it really seems like your leadership is getting ahead of themselves here. Why are people being told "they're fired" before there is no-kidding paperwork in hand? All of this churn sounds like the fault of your direct leadership, and not DOGE, POTUS, etc.

The quoted NBC News article cites their source as "a U.S. official familiar with the matter." All of the reporting seems to trace back to a story in The Record, which is a site that reports on cybersecurity news. They state their sources as "three people familiar with the matter." Maybe it's true. But it's been very clear that most mainstream media is biased against Trump, and certainly biased against anything that shuts down the flow of money to Ukraine. In the past, so many news stories like this were ginned up from next-to-nothing, and the benefit of hindsight showed that so many of them were false. So, I can't summon any personal concern about a "story" from the MSM that cites the bullshit "sources familiar with the matter" and the like. I suppose it doesn't matter though. This story is running rampant through social media, with everyone piling on. "OMG, How can he do this!!11!!1 HE's an ElEment of PutiN! Fuck TruMP!!1!!" It's all just so fucking exhausting.

Yeah. Saying that the EOs intent was "only the Pres and AG can interpret the laws" is a shitty take. Didn't stop all of social media from running with it yesterday though. This was my interpretation as well. For all of the screaming about Trump, DOGE, firings, Ukraine, taxes, etc, a large portion of what is happening is a long overdue attempt at reigning in the federal bureaucracy. This EO is just another step in that direction, and I think it's a reasonable approach. I'm anxiously awaiting the implementation of the "Schedule F" EO, which is intended to put some guardrails around civil service employees working in policy-influencing positions. As can be expected, many in .gov land are not supportive.

What @Clark Griswold said. Air Force trainer aircraft acquisition has been the next-to-last priority, for a long time. When the AF went to replace those aircraft, they didn't care enough to put the proper resources behind it. Leading to today's inevitable state of affairs. Also, my hazy recollection - folks can correct as necessary. The T-41 had worked well for a long time, until McPeak became CSAF in the early 90s, and decided people needed to train in something aerobatic. The AF procured the T-3 Firefly, which was pulled from service after three fatal accidents. After that, the Air Force vacillated between several different solutions: sending people straight to T-37s with no prior flight time provided, paying for people to get a certain amount of hours at a private school of their choice, sending people to get their hours at a school designated by the AF, and probably other options over time that I don't recall. The T-37 had worked well for a long time, besides being old and outdated. The Air Force tried replacing in in the early 80s in a competition eventually won by Fairchild Republic's T-46 Eaglet. They went over budget, and the program was cancelled. Just goes to show you - even during the height of the Reagan era military buildup, the Air Force didn't care enough to get a new trainer built. The AF tried again in the early 90s with the JPATS program, and ended up with the T-6, which were delivered between 2000 - 2009 or thereabouts. And, based on this thread, the Air Force can't seem to keep them flying, for whatever obscene reason. The T-38 had worked for a long time, but was old, outdated, and wearing out. In the early 90s, the Air Force began procuring the T-1 Jayhawk, and split pilot training into a track for T-38s and T-1s, with part of the reasoning being to extend the life of the existing T-38 aircraft. In the early 2000s, the AF began the T-X program with a stated goal of replacing the T-38. That program proceeded in fits and starts, but generally really sucked hind tit when it came to funding over the years, with some years having no funding at all. Finally, in 2016, the AF released a formal Request for Proposal, and in 2018 selected Boeing's T-7. And Boeing has basically been Boeing, and fucked it all up.

This. Also, isn't the latest "Take over Gaza!" comment just Trump 101? When he's struggling to get the needle moving on a particular situation, he throws out the most extreme option. The press laps it up, and broadcasts it as far as they can. Frenzy ensues. It's chaotic, but often the end result is that stubborn needle begins to move, as Trump quietly walks back the original "extreme" plan.

So it turns out the CIA and larger US intelligence community was heavily involved in the Maidan Uprising and subsequent regime change in Ukraine. I'm losing count - how many "Conspiracy Theories" of the last ~10 years have subsequently proven to be fact?

My (cynical) assumption is that Boeing was given the T-7 in order to keep their St Louis production line open (where the F-15 and F/A-18 had been built).

From Reddit: Army Aviation leadership killed 67 people today Text copied below.

Reports I've seen only mention Trump criticizing DEI initiatives in the FAA and ATC, with no blame pointed towards the crews. WSJ link. Granted, I haven't listened to his remarks myself. But while pointing fingers at this early stage is clearly crass and bordering on vulgar, Trump is also not wrong. The FAA's push for DEI in the ATC ranks over the past several years is well documented. https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-faas-hiring-scandal-a-quick-overview

Yup, this. I've found that, when looking at a potential solution to an existing problem, ask yourself: "Does this make money for the big defense contractors." If you can answer "yes," then that solution will probably be implemented. If the answer is "no," then you're probably not going to see things happen. New trainers just aren't an attractive proposition for the big defense primes. Sure, they're some $$ when you're building them. But there just isn't enough money in upgrades and support throughout the life of the aircraft like there is with a new weapons system (F-35, B-21, etc). So the big primes don't really care. Which is partly why you see so many trainer aircraft leveraging work from foreign partners (Pilatus for the T-6, Saab for the T-7, etc). To a certain extent, it's always been this way (or at least the entire post-WWII era we live in). My main heartburn is that, up through the 80s or so, there was still enough around the margins that everyone still got taken care of. Now, those margins are so eroded, you end up in our current situation. There is always money to throw at Lockheed for more F-35's, but fuck you if you want more flying hours for training, or anything else that doesn't somehow lead back to the big primes. Related, the relentless pursuit of quarterly earnings, DEI, and everything else besides, you know, actually designing and building aircraft has led to the current hollowing-out of the defense industry. I've watched it first hand when working development programs. If you're ahead of the schedule, behind the schedule, succeeding or failing, no one cares. Just as long as you got all the money spent. Any why should they care? If things go haywire, Uncle Sam will always just write another check. It's been equal parts alarming and saddening to watch this develop over the past 20+ years. And it doesn't appear to be getting any better.

34 to 40 - six years to go from hired to showing back up at a squadron?

This is about a two and a half hour video from Tucker Carlson. It honestly looks to be pretty interesting, but can you give us more than just a link? Some cliffs notes or something?

Flying hour shortage? Or more accurate to say a shortage of aircraft to fly those hours? If someone could wave the proverbial magic wand and put a fleet of T-7s at every UPT base, and plus-up the FTUs with as many aircraft as they wanted, that seems like it would go a long way towards helping the issue.

Am I missing something? I just see a handful of tweets, basically saying "poor coordination between supporting LEO agencies?"

ZeroHedge with ongoing coverage, including this tweet from the BBC, interviewing a guy who states he saw the gunman get into position. According to him, he watched the gunman crawl across a roof with a rifle, and take the shots. Also,

Good. The only airline flying I do is sitting in the back. But I work with enough of the 65+ crowd on a daily basis to know that I don't want them flying me or my family around. Age-related cognitive decline is real. And those who deny it the most are typically the ones most affected by it. Which is not to say you can't be 65+ and still be capable. But for every 10 guys who think they're "running circles around all those young whipper-snappers," 9 of them are full of shit.

From the AP I'm gonna withhold judgement on this one. For now, at least, until more info comes out. It sounds like this is a case of family members battling after a death. If you've ever witnessed it, you know. Reasonable people do unreasonable things when a death happens in the family. Even more so if a step parent is involved.

I like Matt Taibbi'a reporting, and it sounds like this is going to be the beginning of a series of stories exposing the entire Russiagate hoax. CIA Had Foreign Allies Spy On Trump Team, Triggering Russia Collusion Hoax, Sources Say United States Intelligence Community targeted 26 Trump advisors for foreign spy agencies to “reverse target” and “bump” Many Reporters Paid for Covering the Russiagate Story Media figures who exposed illegal surveillance, manufactured intelligence, and other abuses in the Trump-Russia investigation almost always paid a price

My understanding is that if a candidate drops out after winning the primary, the DNC gets to "appoint" whoever they want to assume the role of candidate in the general election. That always sounded like a likely possibility: Biden rides his incumbency to a win in the primary, then drops out shortly thereafter (citing health concerns, etc), and the DNC gets to play king-maker and appoint the candidate of their choice. That said, the Democratic convention isn't until August, and the recent attacks from the Democrats on Biden make it seem questionable that he'll survive another six months. I'd heard the Michelle Obama speculation somewhere, but didn't give it much credence. I do think the DNC has had their short list of successors for some time, and have been crossing people off as they stumble, fail, or otherwise show they've succumbed to the Peter Principle (as in, they've already been promoted to their level of incompetence). Kamala Harris for one. At one point, you couldn't find a single negative word said about her in the press, even as she did nothing but spew meaningless, cackling word salad everywhere she went. Then, all of a sudden, you never heard about her at all. It's like they flipped a switch on her level of public exposure. Pete Buttigieg was another. He was touted as the next big thing, rising from Mayor to Presidential Candidate. Then a detour into a Cabinet position as the head of the DOT. Seemed like he was being stashed away for future greatness, until he started getting criticism for being relatively ineffective is what should be a relatively straightforward role. His public exposure has also gone to almost zero.

Didn't we have some long-standing record that US troops had not been attacked from the air since sometime during the Korean War (70 years ago)? Does this latest attack in Jordan end that record? We've dumped metric tons of money into development of anti-drone technology over the past 20+ years, with much of it to defend against this exact scenario (protecting a remote outpost against small drone attack). Does that technology not work? Or was it not even in place in this scenario? Why, exactly, do we have outposts with 300+ troops in Jordan?

I thought the only "recent" change in MWR funding was ~35+ years ago when everything was moved to non-appropriated funds (NAF) - meaning all MWR activities had to be self-funded. Was there something more recent? Or am I not understanding the history of MWR?

Sounds like the trend of Air Force golf courses closing has been going on for the past couple years. Relevant Reddit thread here. I know golf in general as a sport has declined in a lot of places around the country, due to the usual suspects (lack of free time, shrinking middle class, changes in people's interests, etc). The fact that the AF golf courses have to be self-funded just make it that much more difficult. Interesting to see "inclusivity and diversity" weaved into the official press release. It seems like people in command get extra points anytime they can invoke the holy trinity of DEI. Perhaps this is just the Barksdale Wing CC being savvy and tacking on "inclusivity and diversity" to anything and everything. Need to repave the main road? It's going to be the most inclusive and diverse pavement we can get, utilizing asphalt from underprivileged areas. Need to replace a snowplow? We're going to ensure the new plow implements the highest standards of equity, and drive it around in the summer and winter.

What does that mean, exactly? Did your application get lost somewhere in the admin world within your Group? Or did your leadership tell you "Thanks for the application, we'll get it submitted," and just never did?

Will hold judgement on the movie until it comes out, but that trailer didn't look promising. Supposedly it's A24's first foray into making big budget action/adventure movies, after long being more of an "art house" outfit. Which, is great and all, and I sure love me some good dystopian action flicks. However, the trailer made it look like another "Don't Look Up." Like, it will have some "Progressive Left Good, Everything Else Bad" message that it'll continually beat you over the head with. And, even if you can set aside the politics of it all, underneath will be a mediocre movie. I'm amazed at the movies that get fielded with lazy plot holes, weird subplots that go nowhere, and just kinda crappy storytelling. I used to love going to the movies, because even an average movie could hold your attention for a couple hours. But so many recent big name flicks have been such crappy movies. Civil War looked like it was headed that way, based on the trailer.

"A source familiar with the matter" seems to be the most cited reference by CNN over the past seven years or so. I wouldn't consider it "tin-foil" territory to be a bit skeptical.