daynightindicator

I wonder if we (DOD) also happened to make this mistake at the worst possible inflection point. When requirements were being drawn up and put under contract, the internet was a novelty, cell phones were just moving out of he zack Morris era, computing power and data storage was very limited, concepts like cloud storage, social media were in their infancy, and end-to-end encryption was still the sole property of major world governments. The democratization of data and technology unfolded at a blinding pace while this machine was moving at the speed of government. Bad time to get caught in bureaucratic quicksand. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I'm in the process of getting orders. School/staff matches are complete. Regular moves are in the works now. If you're expecting something, check vMPF every day. I saw my assignment about 3-4 days before the robot email. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I've seen and experienced the shift as time goes on for exactly the reasons stated. I was dying to go on my first deployment, but honestly I reached my lifetime USAF goal as a 1Lt when I heard a JTAC tell me our bombs saved his life and he didn't think he'd make it back to the FOB that night. That was it - career validated in that moment. On subsequent deployments, my satisfaction with the larger mission waned, but I was able to find satisfaction in other things. First and foremost, I saw it as my mission to protect US lives on the ground above all else. Regardless of the politics, I was there to help get that 18 yo private back home safely. I was fortunate to have a mission that allowed me to rationalize that way. I also found satisfaction in teaching young dudes and watching them excel in combat. While I would never turn down a mission lead or mission commander opportunity, I was more than happy to see the young guys get their turn. I also found some level of satisfaction in things like Top 3 and other ops-leadership jobs. I don't have kids yet, but I did several deployments with SO's left back home. The ups and downs of that don't necessarily get easier, but they do soften a little bit, which sometimes turns it into more of a grind. Id imagine that is different with kids, as I've seen that with my bros. I still enjoy waking up and going to work most days. Once that balance changes to the negative, I'll look at my options. YMMV. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Looks like their not trying to collect retroactively - someone I know was told that when the card is up for renewal they will charge the fee, but not until then. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I think it would take a whole new concept of an instrument approach. Have no idea what that would be. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Think again: Will circular runways ever take off? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39284294 Weird concept, not sure how I feel about it Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

That won't be the case for any war with a near peer. I know those wars (thankfully) haven't materialized but we have to prepare for them. I'm not a 5th gen groupie but the day we face off with Russia/China I'll be their biggest fan. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

$15K/year (9.3 after tax) for 12B...I don't think I'll take it. Sounds like a guaranteed way to catch a 365 to run a post office in Kabul. I can drive for Uber at night and make more than that. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Hell or High Water is really good. Great storyline and acting, and a really accurate look at the hardships of life in rural West Texas. Good action sequences as well, without sacrificing realism or the storyline. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I think finance did it correctly and I already have the "flight pay resolution" email stating that it started up again after my physical. FWIW I told the doc and hinted at backdating the date of the physical to the date of expiration, but he didn't bite. Overall I lost ~$500 - not the end of the world but stung a little. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

It's also already done in the DT world. Actually works really well, as you get highly experienced aircrew who focus on only flying and test reports as opposed to ancillary training and ground jobs. The continuity is awesome as well. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

My understanding is that they'll still send you to collections for non-payment, and that will be reported to the credit agencies. I never had this happen so I could be wrong, but maybe someone knows for sure. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Copy shot. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Heard a great quote on a show I was watching recently. "I'm not talented enough to be unprepared." Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Did a search but it didn't turn up anything specific for this... I'm in the NCR on a non-flying assignment (school). I got an email from the servicing HARM office at Andrews saying my physical would soon expire and that I would begin losing flight pay. The email was sent on the day my physical expired, which of course didn't leave me any time to get a new physical. I made the earliest possible appointment at my servicing flight med clinic (JBAB), which is in late Feb. Andrews HARM told me I will lose flight pay for the duration of time I am "disqualified" (about 3 weeks). They said there is no waiver process or really anything that can be done to avoid losing money. Anyone else ever deal with this? Am I just hosed on this? And yes, I know ultimately I'm responsible for ensuring I don't let the physical expire, but to be honest, I don't usually keep that date locked in my crosscheck (got used to ground scheduling taking care of that in the ops unit), and since the reminder email was sent on the day of expiration, it's kind of shitty.

I'm not advocating a WWE-style rant about how terrible Putin is. Rex Tillerson made a tactful reply during his hearing when he stated that he couldn't state that Putin was a war criminal (he is) because of the international legal implications of that statement. You can say things that get your point across without stating "I don't respect him." You could simply state that you respect the Russian people and that you do not condone the actions of their President, and that his actions are massively destabilizing. I don't want to fight them either. I'm well versed on the threat and I disagree with your assertion that we'd lose, but I agree this isn't the forum to discuss it. There are other ways to pressure Russia. They are exceptionally dependent on hydrocarbons and they have terrible internal issues (demographics alone may bring them down without our help). I also don't want to see Russia collapse entirely due to the effect on the European and international economy. We have other tools to bring to bear to influence their decision matrix. Sanctions have been effective, and there are ways to exert our own influence in a similar manner to how they've influenced other nations in Eastern Europe. We need to step up our own information operations in that region to counter their propoganda. Russia is Putin...for now. The Russian people like him because they see him as having made their country powerful after the humiliation of the 1990s, and something in which they can take pride. The history of Russia is one of nationalism and patriotism - for the state, not for the individual leader. Since their history is also one of monarchies and authoritarian rulers, it's easy to confuse that with blind loyalty to their leaders, but the fact is they support a great(er) Russia, and will support anyone they think can effect that end-state. Putin is that person right now, but won't be forever. The reigns of Russian leaders usually meet abrupt ends.

All true, just want to add that a good functional and supportive leadership can go a long way to helping out that situation. But Helo is correct, they're not obligated to help you out. Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-kara-murza-acute-poisoning-blood-israel-kremlin-critic/28285215.html Another Putin critic turns up in the hospital...suspected poisoning. Actually, the 2nd time in two years he's been poisoned. But Putin should be respected [emoji849] Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Burning down the house because the living room is messy isn't my preferred solution, but to each his own. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Totally agree there. The anger on both sides and hyper-partisanship is pretty bad and discouraging. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

My position is that it's not the intended role of the NSC to inform policy decisions based on domestic or partisan political considerations. The administration can do whatever it wants with the advice it gets, and can act based on whatever considerations they want. All administrations have done that, and that's not what I'm arguing. I'm specifically talking about the role the NSC plays in the process. Also, I never brought up the Obama administration in any of my posts, nor did I mean to imply that any past admins or past NSCs have always handled things well. I only noted that no previous administration has ever appointed a political strategist as a permanent member of the NSC's PC.

Huge difference between international politics driving decisions to go to war (as they should and do) and domestic political strategists bringing up poll numbers and re-elect-ability when national security decisions are at stake (and I'm not suggesting we're there yet, but that's the slippery slope). It's completely true that the President can make whatever decisions and listen to whoever they want...and I understand that in the past some presidents have marginalized the NSC or other agencies/positions when making their policy decisions. But the fact of the matter is that the NSC is supposed to provide non-political advice on what's in the best interest of national security, which is why there has never been a political strategist as a permanent member of the PC. In fact, as the article posted earlier shows, most of the time, when a political staffer attended meetings, it was met with strong rebukes from others in the administration/NSC. Edit to add that the NSC works for the President, so obviously he's free to appoint whomever he wants on the council. I just disagree with the judgment. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Please, name names. As actual NSC PC principals. In the 70ish year history, the NSC has not had permanent PC members that were political strategists. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

It's worth noting that for the first time in history, a political strategist will have a permanent role on the principals committee of the NSC. You can be as cynical as you want to be, and say that all decisions are political, but the facts of the matter are that no other NSC regularly included a political strategist. And in those cases where one was invited to meetings (I.e. Axelrod) there was significant consternation. Politics has no role in national security decisions, and past presidencies have borne that out in the constitution of their NSCs. This is a new, and concerning, twist. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

They'd probably just put you in the old gunners seat. Also, not sure they'd give you the option - wouldn't look great to the deployed squadron if a support unit dude refused to fly with them. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums