tac airlifter

Interesting to hear from other corners of the AF about this policy. We all have our own context, which I think affects the perception of whether this change is good or bad. For example, it never occurred to me that I should factor in transit to/from a hotel into my 12 hours; I'm accustomed to living a 5 minute walk from my aircraft. There have been times weather was rolling in and the whole crew is awake sitting around looking at mission slides, and if we don't move takeoff time 45 minutes left we'll be stuck on the field while an op is happening elsewhere. Of course we asked for a crew rest waiver-- we're all feeling great and if we don't leave earlier than expected, we miss the action. I see this change as enabling those situations, but that's my context. I haven't experienced a CC pushing me to fly when I know I'm unsafe. I guess some folks are afraid they'll be pressured into flying an extra leg when everyone is beat, or worried they won't have enough time to check in/out of the hotel. I don't have any response except: be a professional, know your limits, and speak truth to power. From my viewpoint, this change pushes authority to people with the best ground truth of a situation. If you have no faith in those people and have been previously relying on regs to protect you.... well, that sucks.

I like this change. I've asked for crew rest waivers and been denied. If the SQ/CC and AC want it and judge the mission benefit worth the risk, it's dumb that someone disconnected from the mission can deny it. I guess every corner of the AF is different but our waiver authority is MAJCOM A3 who is not tracking daily missions and will always say no, even for TIC support. So to me, this is a good change because it removes obstacles to the mission. If you're worried your leadership will now bully you into accepting missions you aren't safe to execute, well that sucks. Say no, that's always your right.

I think the JQP article was trying to make a very nuanced point that is over-simplified by saying that he is against this decision. As brick said above, this decision results in the same number of people promoting, not more, but in a smaller pool the percentage must be higher. The USAF needs that number of people to fill jobs that many people think don't need to be filled. Instead of promoting a higher percentage IOT achieve the same numbers to fill useless staff billets, why not promote less (or the same historical %) and cut the dumb jobs? That was the point JQP was trying to make, but you're right that it's been drowned out by drama queens who are salty that making O-4 will no longer require whatever knob gobbling they did to make it.

To clarify, I don't understand the persistent assumption that seperating rated from LAF would result in higher promotion rates for rated officers. Is there any evidence this proposed action would achieve the intended result? Or are you assuming the rated board would be allocated a higher number of officer positions? Because the total number of officers promoted would remain unchanged.

Regarding your second sentence, why do you assume that to be true?

Yea it's weird, I understand each individual word he types, but arranged in the order they are leaves me baffled. I feel like an archeologist looking at hieroglyphics: "ok I've got snake, a bird and river. I know those. But what does it mean all together?" And then I look at the post he's replying to and all my theories explode.

Yes there is U28 experience flying these demos. At least two solid dudes I know of. CH, why "sort of?"

The most interesting aspect of our HVI campaign is that we've persisted despite zero evidence it works. There's not a single time we've taken down a #1 target that made any damn difference; that statement isn't hyperbole, it was my ACSC research project. If AQ/IS were killing our generals, we'd make a fuss but ultimately just promote someone else. It wouldn't fundamentally degrade the US ability to project combat power; since it wouldn't work on us why did we assume it will work on our enemy? i know the real answer: leadership for years didn't have the stomach to endorse the level of bloodshed actually required to degrade our enemy so the HVI hunt was something they could get approved rather than something that would enable victory. But over time it was a tactic that became a strategy and we started believing it. Also we fundamentally misdiagnosed the character and motivations of our enemy, so we came up with a "solution" that works on who we think they are not who they really are. And when it didn't work, we tried harder and harder instead of challenging our original assumptions. The good news is that our recent campaign against IS has shown the level of brutality required to stop someone who is ideologically committed. Mosel is totally destroyed, an outcome everyone on our side wanted to avoid but the enemy forced our options down to two: cede this territory to us or crush us out. I'm estatic our leaders finally chose to increase the violence and decrease the ROE. That said, the war on terror is not over. This article is written by someone obtuse to reality. Somalia, Libya, Mali, AFG and Pak, Syria (not even close to over despite success against IS), Yemen..... soon maybe Turkey depending on how the YPG shakes out in Syria. How's the PI looking these days? Seriously, this long war will continue even if we want to quit because the enemy doesn't want to quit. They will continue to press the fight until either: they win, lose motivation to continue, or are utterly defeated. The first is unthinkable, and the second and third require significant resources, time and effort on our part to even attempt. sorry for the long lost. Summary- Author is wrong. I'd like to see the scorpion procured but I'll settle for some AT-802s. No matter what, saddle up for more war.

Yes there is a precedent. In the early days of the U28 program several IPs were dual qual'd as instructor pilot and instructor CSO. Although some flew that way in combat (switching back and forth between crew positions) episodically and by exception, the main utility was in rapidly expanding the cadre of instructors available for home station training. To my recollection, "authorization" was in a note in our METL pub. There wasn't a true 11-2-U28 v1-3 for a few years, but I believe the pubs we used were signed by the AFSOC A3. i don't think you're missing anything. If you have a good idea to improve the mission and your idea is not specifically forbidden.... game on to execute until told otherwise.

Agreed but there is a third way: single platform with multiple mission sets and roll on/off capability. This theory was touted on the AC-130W back in 2009 ish but it never seemed to work, in my opinion. Lots of METLs. Other folks have played around with the concept of having an infil/exfil aircraft with roll on palletized ISR and strike capacity. It's not dual qual per se, but you can have multiple mission form 8s for different configurations of the same aircraft, and the configuration changes include avionics and instrumentation display differences. That said, the only folks who can pull it off with uniform quality are selectively manned units.

Well my advice, if you want it, is make an appointment with your senior rater. Bring the print out of your last 3849 with the strats, some recent OPRs, and ask him what you can do to receive his top push on your third look. it sounds corny and I never did that kind of thing. Then I started working for a senior guy and noticed successful O6s doing it regularly. If you want it, ask for it, and it's likely he'll tell you exactly what he wants you to do in order to be his #1 push. Good luck.

Why is nomination on your last look unlikely? PCS? Third look nominations for candidates are common (I was one).

All of these statements apply to Obama's original decision to force tranny acceptance onto the military, despite objections from the military.

With those strats I would expect you to be competitive for an alternate slot, but no guarantees. What look is this for you? It matters. That said, the past year things have gotten unpredictable.

3 things: first, every commanders job just got easier, not harder. I'm around a lot of joint GOs, their relief is palpable and so far, anecdotal only, but 100% of the feedback from their subordinates is reliefe. The Army was telling chicks they'd have to shower next to someone with a dick and if they were concerned they were bigots. For goodness sake, there was far more unease about trying to integrate these folks. Second, the initial rollout of the policy allowing trannies caused just as much "how do we do this?" It's inevitable with these socially charged issues that the full details take awhile to come out (pun intended). I understand the viewpoint of "have the full policy ready before releasing" but I'd rather just know the bosses intent now and standby on details. And by the way, no one even knew how the old policy could have been implemented without massive changes to GO1. So, confusion has been the defining characteristic of this issue since Obama forced it on the military. That show is have been a clue to leave it alone. Third, does tranny integration improve mission effectiveness? No. If you want elective surgery when you leave, fine. I'm not the morality police. Be as crazy as you want because freedom! But letting folks transition while on duty by definition takes them out of duty status. And we opened the door to "non-binary" individuals and asexuals and all manner of sexual confusion. Dude I do feel bad for fellow transsexual service members whose future in the service is now closed. On a human level, it's unfortunate for them and I'll show only kindness to any I meet. But this was not good for the mission, and that's where my loyalty is. Shack. The military didn't want this, Obama forced it. Since he ruled by fiat and decree, it can be undone with a single tweet.

Thanks; I've been out of the game for ~2 years so my tac acronym knowledge is weak. Apparently I can't maintain a dual qual in staff speak and tactical speak. I feel like that is somehow relevant to this discussion....

What is HAS?

I've tried (at 14 years in, not 20), was told I'd need CC's concurrence to submit my request higher. Unfortunately I don't have details on step 2 because I never made it past step 1.

TC, that's a valid and thoughtful reply. Thanks. I don't agree with everything you write, but on the whole you've had a positive impact on the service by forcing some discussions into the light and making powerful folks uncomfortable for their foolish decisions. Some constructive criticism: stay away from articles villifying commanders based on a single email. Those commanders might be wrong, or they might be right. It's impossible to know without context, and articles lacking context diminish the credibility of your conclusions. You do much better on stories like the Laughlin debacle where you've investigated both sides, or attacking the say-do gap at higher levels.

Yea, it's definitely the fault of a few random captains that the AF undervalues pilots. I'm sure congress was just about to give us 60$k annual bonuses till those guys fucked it up...

That definitely counts.

Valid, I was speaking only of the dudes who signed the early eligible then chose to opt in to the newer bonus. Should have said so. Those guys are rightfully pissed that they have an extra year, which is an arbitrary (but significant) amount of time.

Viperman, no one who signed early had reason to assume they were signing up for an additional year without the bonus. Now they have an extra year to their ADSC, without being paid for extra for it, and they are confused. Instead of empathy, you have contempt. I appluad you on posting this in an attempt to understand. People hate being treated like shit and told they are whiners for complaining, and yet this is what the AF does. Ours is a fundamentally broken and stupid organization that does not value its people, and they prove this anew with every years bonus.