tac airlifter

Are you quoting the article in question to disprove the article in question? To quote Comey, I'm confused and concerned.

Spending 8-10 years as an O-6 maneuvering for O-7 sounds like the shittiest deal going.

It took me a bit to digest your post, which I've truncated above, probably because I was imprecise in my original statement. To answer the bolded section directly, which applies to my post, I'll say: yes. I'm going to shit on the guy in the SQ that wants to show up and just fly..... because in MY mission set, you can't be good if you just show up to fly. TTPs, ours and enemy, change too fast. Technology changes. AORs change. Users change. If you aren't being assertive about keeping up, you're getting left behind which makes your presence on the crew a liability. And all the extra study happens on the ground, in the SQ, not while flying. When a dude says "I just want to fly" if he means 'I just want to do the flying mission' (which requires extra ground work) then let him! Become an expert, we need it! However, if he honestly means 'I just want to fly' and has no patience for the non-flight ground duties essential to refining flight skills (he's not showing up for a weekly tactics test or doesn't know the newest software, etc) then he's not the guy I want staying on the line for a career. And there are lazy pilots masquerading as line dogs, who have lost the hunger to excel, and should be purged from units incompatible with their loss of drive. Not a lot, but some, and my comments were directed only at them. as to your opening remark about money, no, it's not about money to me. I got paid enough as a major and loved being an EP & ADO, I didn't need more money to put in extra hours. I loved it. Still do. Now I hate my life and job and wouldn't continue if they offered me quadruple pay. But we're all different, and my answer is not indicative of a trend.

It's time to remove "service before self" as a core value. In principal I agree with the intent, however in practice this catch phrase is used as a cudgel to beat complex personnel circumstances into submission with implied victim shaming and callous disregard for morale. I've never known a commander to say "service before self" to the right person for the right reason. Like the other core values, I like the philosophical basis and general direction but the folks who attempt operationalizing the message always seem to be hypocrites. Why is that? Great point, totally agree. the sad reality is many of the senior O-4 fliers who say they "just want to fly" are lazy. Sure there are good ones who stay hungry for tactical excellence, continue to study, read AARs, tweak training scenarios, and are one step ahead of real world contingencies. I like to think I was one of this type (before I was ostracized to staff). But human nature being what it is, there needs to be a check in the system like you describe above. We don't want the equivalent of tenured professors laying around the SQ.

He is not going to listen or be educated, and he doesn't see the difference. You're wasting your time bro. He is one of those people convinced he understands a perspective you don't, and can't comprehend a world outside his assumptions.

I assume by correspondence? Most folks found it takes more effort to write well in residence. I agree with AMF: in res ACSC measures your abilty to write. Correspondence is worthless except as proving you care enough to suffer through it.

A "Definitly promote" in the push line, or a DP? I'm assuming you weren't selected?

Good discussion. I often hear some version of "the AF sucks at training tactical officers for leadership, we do it too late compared to the Army" or similarly worded observations. But you can be a technically proficient Army soldier as a 2LT, and OJT the details of soldiering while also leading 100 folks and learning that skillset; at least according to Army infantry folks I know. You can't do the same with an AF pilot; it takes years to grow a new pilot into a value added member of the SQ. That necessarily takes away early career opportunities to experience leading large organizations. Bottom line, spend an officers first 1-6 years leading people or honing airmenship (which involves tactical leadership). We can do one of those things, not both. In my opinion, this whole conversation speaks to the need for formally tracked AF officer aircrew paths. I think you should fly your full first operational tour then track either leadership (JQO, AF support functions, etc.) or tactical (which again, involves leadership of a different type). Some formal bifurcating of career trajectories would be a win-win for an individuals career aspirations and force management issues writ large. Too much time is spent by the system forcing people to do things they don't want, while willing volunteers for the same things become frustrated. We could solve that problem while deliberately growing folks into what they want and what the system needs. Great ideas at fixing these issues are out there and well know. The biggest obstacle is how to start. What authorities are required to initiate a change this large? Who are the stakeholders that need to be convinced, and can we speak intelligently to studies predicting the second and third order effects of said proposed change? What principals need to be philosophically aligned? What cabal of GOs will force this issue by socializing a consistent message at all internal & external levels? Those questions are the meat & potatoes of making any big change in a bureaucracy, and answers are totally lacking therefore change of this scope is not forthcoming.

Interesting point. You felt that event was adequately explained and the loss of life satisfactorily accounted for? That's a rhetorical question; I would not equate current events to Benghazi but I suppose that speaks to the increased polarization we're experiencing in our country.

There's always one black swan that bucks conventional wisdom. I can't explain it.

Fine with me. If the investigation finds nothing inappropriate, do you think the democrats will concede the point, or demand further investigations?

3.4% BPZ. There's one pilot with a P and no IDE that made BPZ, good for him!

I'm headed to the Paris air show in late June, anyone else going?

Based on opinion, not knowledge. Technically it is feasible now. In my opinion, "should we do it" and "will we invest in it" discussions will surmount any pure technical capability discussion. As mentioned previously, if we are moving toward more autonomy there are easier and cheaper targets I'd expect to be prosecuted before going straight to the most difficult. What do you think?

Done. Be prepared for an epic thread revival on 01 Jan 2033 when I collect.

I totally disagree, I don't think RPA airline ops are anywhere feasible within the next 30 years. We still have humans with flashlights backing airliners out of parking, driving baggage carts and pushing drink carts down the aisle.

So what's the bet exactly? Because I'll bet a 20YO bottle of scotch the US is NOT fighting in AFG 15 years from now. "Still in" lacks depth of meaning, we have embassies all over the world, on purpose, so we might very well still be in AFG from that perspective. But we aren't fighting there anymore, and if we are I will mail you a bottle of Scotland's finest.

All good points, not to mention forward basing with the teams we support builds relationships which both enable ops that might not otherwise happen and improve the quality of deliberatly executed ops. Manned ISR is an absolutely essential part of current and future operations. Unmanned is huge value added, but these capabilities compliment rather than replace each other. I know plenty of guys who have crossed between manned and unmanned ISR and they unanimously share these opinions. Dual sensor manned ISR isn't going to be replaced by single sensor unmanned. Take binoculars and a VSLIM, check in w/ GFC as sensor 3, profit.

Dude, it all makes perfect sense. You just need to spend some time in the NSA vault in Maryland.

Again, so what? So we have RPAs that won't survive (you assume) near-peer contested airspace? They're RPAs; we can afford to lose a few. Also, they aren't designed for that; they're designed to do exactly what they are doing now. So why do you care that RPAs haven't been "truly tested against a real adversary's military that can actually counter our punches?" I don't care if they get tested in that environment or not, we paid for them to do what they're doing now (talking here about the 1/9). I don't understand the point of your comment, hence I asked you to elaborate by asking you "so what?" Regarding your "go to a vault and garner SA" line: what do you think that adds to the conversation? I'm not impressed by your comments about yourself.

I keep hearing that. So what?

Valid, my mistake. "Agency employee" Still falls into my WTF category!

FBI agent marries ISIS terrorist.

I'm neither deployed nor at AFSOC staff. It's bloated. As you know, staff experiences vary. Mine may be anomalous. But I've been at a major HQ for a year and have yet to see any rated person used for their rated expertise. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but it's hard to hear statements like yours about how AFSOC is hurting for pilots. We need an audit, especially of joint billets. sorry for the thread drift.

I get it, but as an AFSOC pilot wasting my time on a useless staff I hate hearing this. We have plenty of pilots, we just aren't employing them correctly which ironically is driving more of them to leave, thus worsening the "pilot manning pinch" which is entirely self-inflicted. If the USAF said "we need pilots who can and want to fly light attack airplanes; volunteers who meet xxxx criteria will be released from less important jobs" they'd have plenty of volunteers, and my guess is the machine would keep humming along just fine. That bloated staff manning is prioritized above a genuine combat need is further proof current leadership is incapable of fixing the retention problem.