Jump to content

brwwg&b

Registered User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    102

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

brwwg&b's Achievements

Crew Dawg

Crew Dawg (2/4)

60

Reputation

  1. brwwg&b
    Seems like back when MC-12 and MQ-9 were single assignments with a "possibility" to recover to a CAF or MAF MWS after. Like then, I'm sure whatever plan they come up with now will be half-truths and probably more disappointments than victories. I'd be surprised if MAF leadership lets someone come in, get trained, and leave within a year. EIther use them for a full assignment (like banking pilots in the early 90s) or I'd expect them to just kick to ACC to problem solve a la black jets etc... Even Navy or Marine fighter exchanges would make more sense. Which probably means they'll just send people to be E-3 co's to ride the jets to the boneyard or something else equally stupid.
  2. brwwg&b
    Ah, yes...the ineffable knowledge of the public
  3. brwwg&b
    Winning looks like conflict not spilling outside of the region of Ukraine, and end states negotiated (by politics or by power) with Ukraine in a position of influence over outcome, not Russia. Can Ukraine win in a trench warfare slog? No! Can they outsize impact through leveraging technological asymmetry and prowess to overcome manpower disadvantage? Yes! Especially if they stop being artificially cuffed, which is the latest positive trend, and again where a lot of bang for our buck is occurring. As well, the less publicly discussed positive impact on our own industry and stockpiles being refreshed/renewed with modern tech versions. Should we intervene if every conflict globally? Certainly not. However, you're a much more isolationist minded person than I am, and it's definitely not a one-size-fits-all answer to say "Not NATO? Good luck on your own!" Distinction between the N-K region, Sudan, variety of NW Africa, etc...vs Ukraine being invaded by our recognized #2 competitor is necessary. You are acting as though we are preparing sending troops to go slog it in the trenches alongside...a far cry from the positive benefit our $ and equipment is supporting the Ukrainians to fight on their own. If your primary argument is to penny-pinch a budget, I'd suggest you take a step back, take in the bigger picture on our own budget woes, and start elsewhere. No problem with a multipolar world, it provides more opportunity for stability than a king of the hill unipolar or constant push-pull of a bipolar world. Russia alignment becoming more close with China will be an outcome of necessity and they certainly won't be the power end of that stick...not a result of our "isolation" of Russia, not directly at least. Remind me what curtailed Russia's status as a NATO Partnership for Peace member, and the NATO-Russia Council? Cool throwback. Do you honestly believe in 2012 that Al Qaeda was a larger threat to the U.S. national interests than Russia? I'm not here to make political sides arguments. Were things handled perfectly in 2014? Certainly not, but it was an indicator of the longer term and put into motion many of the things that have ultimately helped Ukraine in their current conflict. Sure, Putin won't make it to Paris (nor desire to) - but how far will you let him go in attempting to restore Soviet Union borders before intervention is required? Again, much better to do it with $ and equipment doing literally what it was designed to, against the adversary it was designed for vice committing bodies. Unchecked behavior emboldens and repeats at larger scales.
  4. brwwg&b
    Let's skip over your assertion of "unwinnable" : assume that not everyone believes that (Ukrainians, most significantly) If you believed in your nation, culture, freedoms, and independence, would you suggest that the people should fight to preserve those, possibly losing their lives? Or, would you suggest they roll over to tyranny and oppression of an invading nation? I do agree that currently there is no vital interest in Ukraine - this is why we haven't gone to war there. However, what do you think the vital interests of the U.S. are in regards to Russia?
  5. brwwg&b
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/13/bilateral-security-agreement-between-the-united-states-of-america-and-ukraine/ Bilat Security Agreement signed // uh, do you assume those lives would be better off if they were unable to fight?
  6. brwwg&b
    It'll likely mean a trip to Wright Patt and specialist to look and make a determination. I'd argue the waiver should be very likely, have heard of them being approved even if the condition wasn't totally under control by medicine. Depending how long you've lived with it / potential damage to the esophagus would be the bigger concern. Likely a non-issue, free trip to Wright Patt out of it - go check out the AF Museum during the stay.
  7. brwwg&b
  8. brwwg&b
    I bet if there was a cease fire in Ukraine signed tomorrow you'd count that as a win. LordRatner is right, you're overly simplistic and fail to understand any complexity in the world beyond A therefore B. Go back to your cave.
  9. brwwg&b
    RUMINT: He went on leave and spoke to press and supposedly the president of Kosovo - in uniform, without any oversight or pre-planning/official coordination.
  10. brwwg&b
    Any truth to rumint of near entire Vance T-6 fleet damage due to excessive winds from a storm last week?
  11. brwwg&b
    Big emphasis on generally here. The FSCL really doesn't have anything to do with defining what's CAS vs AI, and what factors are decided on where to place the FSCL is more of a factor to your point. To FourFans' point, yes going for rear echelons usually is interdiction. Might be blurry depending on if & where the enemy is capable of/is engaging with friendly forces and their maneuver. Likewise for friendlies (SOF or other embedded into the deep, etc...) Overall, semantics that are likely to be f'd up 3 ways from wednesday by any C2 / staff / GOs / civil leadership anyways.
  12. brwwg&b
    Looks similar to ones in the past, except now there's a graduated $ increase from 3-4 years (35K) to 5-7 year (42.5K) or 8-12 year (50K) options. Since this is the "Legacy" AvB, it doesn't apply yet for people who are approaching but not AT their ADSC. 11Rs still get some form of screwed (35K max, except U2 pilots with RDTM EH...whatever that means) I think they're only trying to screw non U-2 11Rs this time. Open until 15 September, will be interesting to see if there's any difference from historical take rates...
  13. brwwg&b
    Not surprised, they've rarely been able to even stay above water, much less manage anything "seamlessly". I hope someone is fighting to push the rope for you though, that sucks.
  14. brwwg&b
    The article says it'll be released on 6 June on myFSS. Reading is tough
  15. brwwg&b
    It's funny - I was actually part of the convo with their team. When they realized they needed to update the emblem, they asked for input, and had a specific idea of F-16 flyover to "rectify" their mistake. I had (begrudgingly) scoured their regs, and in fact used the "specific aircraft" (which is not allowed - exactly for the reason Scooter14 said; that it doesn't "stand the test of time") as another argument point to them for updating the patch. When I mentioned that changing it to an F-16 doesn't fix that part of the problem, they said "oh no, we DO want that aircraft on there" I guess we're beholden to living life one step at a time... I'd even made a design with "darts" which would've preserved the missing man portion of the patch, at least. YCMTSU
×
×
  • Create New...