Danny Noonin

How does speed affect the altitude you'd lose in 10 miles on a 3 degree glide path?

Good post Beer Man. Agree 100%

In the AF Reserve, a master's degree is required for O-6. Very occasionally, someone will get picked up without it, but statistically the odds are tiny. Nice to have for O-5 but not mandatory. PME is mandatory for both.

Whiteman is slated to get F-16s to replace their A-10s....IF congress allows divestiture of A-10s. Not looking like that will be the case in fy16 according to the markups.

No

They don't.

Exactly right. Crossflow to fighters would solve nothing. Crossflow guys would still need a b-course and an absorbable billet.

It's a T-38. Loops. Straight-ins. Tac turns. Short days. San Antonio. Don't think any of that even remotely approaches a pain threshold.

pretty much all of them are.

There aren't laws restricting the duties of AD in the same manner, so there was nothing to figure out in the case of the wing cc other than getting the governor and SECDEF to sign off. The laws on ARTs and AGRs were all written long before TFI and affect not only the Air Force but the Army/NG, Navy reserve, USMC reserve. Not all of them are keen on changing the laws because they don't operate the same as the AF does in this arena. And they get as much say with congress on these laws as we do. Perhaps more when you talk Army guard. The fact that there finally appears to be progress here after years of tryingis a good thing for everyone

The current limitation on reserve component instructors really only affects the percentage of full-timers. That limit is based on how the statutes define the allowable duties of AGRs and ARTs, which right now makes their primary duties reserve-component-centric. They are trying to change the law to amend those duties to include "train RegAF" so that a more appropriate number of full timers can be involved in things like UPT and FTUs than current JA interpretation of the law would allow.

How's that 11F problem working out for you?

Slick. what the fuck.

Holy shit, you just can't help but act like a fucking idiot, can you.

Fair enough. I get what you're saying and agree...partially. The problem lies in the big picture. Someone has to do the "undesirable" assignments. It sucks, but it's true. And while I'd rather go to war any day with a bunch of crusty old experienced guys, we have to make room in our squadrons for young pups...every single one we can. Because we are short on 11Fs and the only way we can fix that is to create more. If I create more, I have to be able to absorb them. To absorb them, I need room in a squadron. If we prioritize having all-star teams of experienced guys now, we won't have ANY teams later. It's just a math problem. There has to be a balance. To say that the solution lies simply in retaining the ones we've got wont work either. What could the AF do to retain them? Give everyone a "great" assignment? Let everyone fly for 20 years? Not fill COCOM taskings for 365s to the Stans because we don't want to hand out bad deals? I'm telling you, dudes will get out anyway because the reasons people get out often have little to do with a bad deal. It's because they want to move on. It'd because they want to settle down and move less often. Its because their necks and backs fucking hurt and they want to go out on top before they are perma-DNIF. It's because they want more say in their lives. It's a combination of all of the above and more. And--agree or not--right now it's heavily about opportunity. A-words are hiring. Dudes recognize that they can get out now, get a line number, and still contribute to Uncle Sam in the form of 6 sorties a month and a deployment every 3 years in ANG/AFR instead of 8 sorties a month and more frequent deployments on AD. Not a bad trade off--even if you love what you do. Despite all the bitching here and everywhere else, most dudes in the AF still love what they do. But the shine has just worn off a bit. Or a lot. Mind you, dudes on the fast track still face all of those bad deal things and most of them have spent a year in multi cam somewhere already. So dudes not on the fast track are not alone. Shitty desk job? Check. Moving every year or two between s-word to s-word to DO/CC then on again to s-word, s-word, etc? check. Ripe for 365? Check. Getting little say in your life? Check. I say all of this as a dude who has made non-standard choices I'm my life. It's worked out well for me, but I've been lucky. I just think (know) things are pretty damn complicated in the big picture. And what looks on the surface to be easy conceptual answers are not realistic in the bigger scheme of things.

Dude, I'm the first person to bash anything and everything that is Maxwell AFB. I think it's a low-payback investment for a years worth of time and money (for the AF, not necessarily for the person). But I think you've got it backwards. The AF picks those that it feels has the most potential to be commanders, etc, and sends them there for development. They don't get to lead because they went there. They get to lead because they were high-enough quality to get picked up in the first place. IDE, SDE, etc. are the results of that, not the other way around. Execs are a slightly different animal (drastically different in some cases) because of the ways those are chosen. OG/wing exec decision process may be affected by deployment cycles, PCS cycles, other jobs/needs within a wing, etc....i.e. timing. But it still is seen by many as a developmental job intended to show a guy a bit about how the world works outside of a squadron. Some are more developmental than others. I'm sure some are quite secretarial as someone said and a million examples of bottom feeders being execs. But that's the general intent. It's a perfectly fair argument to say that we pick guys too early for the leadership track. But IDE is when it is. It's only a couple of years before command anyway. So we have to make a cut somewhere. This is where the AF does it. I don't necessarily like it, but I don't really have a better idea either when taking into account the big picture. I'm the worlds biggest proponent that operational squadrons are the heart of the AF. But there is a bigger AF too, and we need to develop people to function in roles outside a squadron too. There is a big world out there that requires people with operational SA to be involved with (i.e. Staff shit). Like it or not, we can't scoff that stuff entirely or the real results will be that squadrons and their capabilities will suffer. Group/Wing Commanders who understand nothing about the outside world are frequently ineffective. A large part of what they do is interact with staffs and the outside world on behalf of their organization. There's way more to it than just personal leadership skills.

Serious question: how so? What do you consider "shoved aside" for an older (O-4/O-5) fighter pilot who is not (by choice or otherwise) on a leadership track?

Newsflash...if you get picked to be an aide de camp or a 2-star or better's exec, you were getting promoted anyway.

Are cops, finance and contracting dudes getting promoted at some ridiculously high rate? Nope. Is Pawnman qualified (or would he want) to go be a security forces, finance or contracting squadron commander? Probably not. So I guess I don't get your point. Gumshoes aren't out stealing promotion opportunities away from rated guys, despite what many think. Just look at the promotion stats. We need some of them to get promoted too and we don't exactly have a glut of them at the O-5 level. And as for your deployment rate comment, If you haven't heard, cops are among the most deployed career fields out there, and they don't always go to an island or the west coast of the gulf when they do. But they are sometimes going out into Afghan villages and wearing body armor. So should they get promoted at higher rates because of that? You know what career field deploys at a 1:1 right now? Not bomber guys. FSS officers. Yeah, that surprised the shit out of me too, but there aren't that many of them and they do glamorous work like casualty affairs. So should they get extra credit for deploying at a higher rate than 12Bs in your mind? I would say no. Because deployment rate, in and of itself, is an irrelevant statistic to use and tells me absolutely nothing about your quality and potential. Be careful what you wish for if you think stuff like that should be the discriminator.

I agree for the most part. I think we put people on the express train to colonel too early (IDE list). But I still think it matters to develop leaders and the associated skills for the O-4 and O-5 level. You learn by doing. Otherwise, just keep being a captain for the rest of your life.

You're missing the point. # of bombs dropped, pounds of gas given, pallets of rubber dog shit delivered is great stuff....but it isn't generally unique in this day and age. It tells me more about what you did than it does about how well you did it. It is also all stuff that can and is done primarily by captains. So what is it about people that shows how well they can do as a major or lt col? Those ranks should be increasingly about being in charge of teams, projects, issues, etc. not just as recognition that you were assigned and completed tactical missions as a captain. Plenty of clowns have the same statistics. I don't know where all this party planning crap comes from with you guys, as I've never seen that shit on an OPR (except maybe a lieutenant) and never put it on a PRF. But success leading teams and projects is relevant to the question at hand--is this guy capable of leading at the next rank. If a guy has never done any of that, then how would we know? I think we've all seen dudes who were awesome pilots and bros grow up to be shitty bosses. Showing experience and success with smaller scale leadership tasks at least indicates something about potential for success with medium to larger scale leadership tasks. And I'm not talking about leading a crew or formation. That's a totally different ballgame and tough if not impossible to convey on paper anyway. Air Medal-type data generally tells a board little about your true potential, other than that you have a foundation of combat experience that is very critical toward developing an officer, but again it's generally not unique and therefore doesn't set you apart. So ideally an OPR or PRF will highlight combat experience and achievements to make a point, but if that's all you got, then you probably haven't made a convincing case that you can successfully lead teams, think and act strategically, etc. Because either you haven't done it, or you chose not to include it because it was "lesser" or not important. If you just load up on combat stats, then you are essentially beating a dead horse. Deployed a lot. Was in combat a lot. Got it. Good stuff, but point made. What else? That's why good OPR and PRF writers try to include the "lesser" stuff. It shows breadth and depth. It helps tell the story of why you'll be a good major, lt col, or col rather than just a glorified captain.

Still a clown

Biggest douchebag post I've seen in a long while

USERRA exempt does not mean it's unprotected. It means that it doesn't count against your 5 year cumulative mil leave limit. Interesting. I personally cannot see congress changing the law but who knows. As for mobilizations, I think they are going to be common from now on.

USERRA protects you, volunteer or not. Did someone tell you otherwise?