Weapons Away

Awesome explanation. I was getting those "no data available" results when I tried to filter the data down initially. Your point about the per capita consumption makes sense though given the data. Greatly appreciate the thorough response and additional sources of info!

Ah gotcha, appreciate the breakdown!

Growth? Bloat? Combination? Not sure how that ties to my question about social safety net data though.

Fair point, but I have not seen any breakout of dollar amounts by race. I've gone through the census site a few times to look and filter specific data using the site's interactive data tool.

@blueingreen "particularly those in the South, have the largest concentrations of people who are significantly more likely to be poor and rely on government benefits on a per-capita basis: Black and Hispanic people. This isn't to say that there aren't poor White or Asian people who rely on federal programs; In fact, Whites receive more benefits overall than anyone else in absolute terms, but their per-capita consumption rates are far lower" Genuinely curious as to where you are seeing this data at. Everytime I've checked the census on this particular subject, I haven't seen the per capita numbers you describe. I'm seeing the following: Among the population receiving social safety net benefits in 2022 (most recent data) 75.6% white, 13.4% black, 6.3% asian, 4.6% some other race (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiving-social-safety-net-benefits.html). When paired with most recent census data on the racial makeup of the U.S. population (2020), I'm seeing the white alone non-Hispanic population at 57.8%, hispanic population at 18.7%, and the black population at 12.1% (https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially-ethnically-diverse-than-2010.html). Unknown if the white population in the safety net numbers included white hispanics, but assuming it does for now, those population numbers seem to align with the social safety net numbers. What am I missing? Edited for spelling

Really? I was a planner when he was the EARS/CC in an undisclosed location in SW Asia and thought he was pretty decent...although that was many moons ago and my homestation sq/cc was a douche canoe, so my comparative lens may have been rose colored.

I mean...I've seen worse airspace deconfliction. In all seriousness though, I don't think that what they're doing is at all comparable to MQ-9 ops. Can't speak to RQ-4s outside of the fact that they can't physically manipulate the flight controls via stick, throttle, rudder pedals. I've sat in with the Army Gray Eagle folks, and their situation is vastly different as well. There's no argument from me about the life-on-the-line differences of being inside the aircraft. There's also no misconception (at least from me) about the training levels between 11s and 18s. There's still piloting going on though, albeit remotely...whether it's employing weapons in a stack full of manned aircraft or transiting in congested airspace with shitty weather and no true sense-and-avoid capability...all while dealing with the same questionable TAC C2 vectors that you also have to deal with. But don't worry, I have a grand solution for it all. From now on, just call us Remote Aircraft Flight Control Manipulators and Doers of Pilot-Like Tasks. Or RAFCMDPLT for short.

But who was the leadership in the community at the time? The first organic 18x squadron commander just happened a few years ago.

Ahhhh yes...because rpa pilots gave themselves that name. I forgot that RPA pilots run the USAF. I also didn't present an argument or recommendation for either side. I simply pointed out that it doesn't make sense to recommend a name change from pilot to operator if you're going to keep the rpa designation in front of the word operator.

R=remotely P=PILOTED A=aircraft Strong argument you've got going there.

Long time listener...first time caller. I just wanted to add to the praise of Jon and his team (Lisa, Bri) over at Trident Home Loans. Recently financed a home through them. Not only were they extremely easy and pleasant to work with, they gave me a great rate (title company hadn't seen a rate that low since 2016). I had a good experience with USAA on my first home purchase, but this Trident experience far exceeded my previous purchase. I will definitely be using Trident as my lender in the future. WA