nsplayr

If it were me trying to honor those guys I'd wear a patch with the callsign of the helo. Seems like a common way to do it when we lose a bird in the AF. Not sure if that's releasable yet or what's driving that decision...

Yet when you mention changing the benefits you "get" after 20+ years people are up in arms. Isn't it still called "service" for those guys? Be honest, it is a little bit about what you get because if we all just got a pat on the back very few would choose to serve at all. There are probably 10x more people who think like this than there are pilots who's views we're more accustomed to hearing around here. Since this would be DOD wide we can't just look at our piece of the puzzle. Someone mentioned that a flood of rated guys leaving was what caused the bonus to come into being (for pilots and ABMs anyways...); isn't that exactly the response that would happen if there were changes to the retirement system that uniquely de-motivated rated guys to stay? Why pay for an unsustainable expensive retirement system for the entire force, rated, support, all the services, etc. when instead you can specifically target career fields disproportionally affected by the change with bonuses or other incentives? Part of what the DBB was talking about was exactly this, making the system more flexible and even rewarding those who serve in combat or overseas more than those who sit at a desk. As it stands now, a pilot and a shoe clerk retiring at 20 years (same rank) get exactly the same amount of money in retirement; it looks like their proposals would seek to "reward" the frequent deployed with greater contributions during their career than the guy who stays at home.

893...get some!

Surely officer, the driver of the car was: Mike Hugh Hawk 5325 Westbard Ave., Appt. #169 Bethesda, MD, 20816 DL #: (make something up here) GL fighting the case, recommend attempting to blind them with science if able. I'm surprised the ticket was only $125, especially if it was in a work zone. What, was she doing like 2 mph over? My ticket for 13-over on the 3-mile bridge into Pensacola was something like $365!

I do think there would be less people staying until 20 because it would be much more attractive to punch earlier. The negative effects of this would have to be looked at. WRT saving money, like I said, I don't think this should be about saving money necessarily. A better system that costs exactly as much or even costs some % more is worth it in my opinion. If we made some reforms to healthcare costs for retirees we'd have more than enough to pay for a better retirement system. Because your gains are 100%, immediately, on any matched funds. If you invest $1000, and the government matches it 1-to-1, you just made a great investment no matter how the fund performs. Even if say TSP funds perform 10% worse than your current funds (unlikely), you're still coming out ahead because the government is paying you to save. A Roth is a good option for a lot of military folks because our taxes are so low due to deployments and having a good deal of un-taxed compensation (BAH, BAS, etc.), but that math changes when you factor in 1-to-1 matches or even 50% matches. So if the AF is feeling like a business that flies rather than a military force, why do you accept artificially low compensation? Wouldn't the proposed changes benefit you if you're likely to punch? If there was no 20 year guaranteed income at the end of the tunnel, would you stay in with current compensation levels? Educated officers with MAs and flight training have good job prospects on the outside, changes to the retirement system would also force the DOD to work to retain talent rather than knowing they've got us by the balls. The private sector doesn't have anything like our retirement system anymore, and it shows because people move in and out of companies like a revolving door. If the DOD wants to compete in that environment, they have to make military service more attractive to a employee who can leave if he chooses. To me, that would mean less bullshit, more pay, and more incentives for performance rather than longevity. The best argument against changing the system is that while this is more market-driven and more efficient most likely, military service is so uniquely important to the nation that it's worth it to retain inefficient and socialist systems to maintain a certain level of highly experienced people. Your numbers look legit for those who make it to 20, but you have to factor in that under a matching system money goes to thousands and thousands of people who contribute and get matches but don't make to to 20 years. Those people are currently free to the DOD WRT retirement compensation. So the actual costs would be more on-par I'd be willing to bet since you would not only have many, many more people receiving some benefits, but a matching system also incentivizes greater rates of savings since your profit is essentially 100% on any money saved if they give you 1-to-1 matches.

I respectfully disagree

What I wish they would do is have an optional grandfather clause. If you came in under the old system, you can keep it if you want, or you can choose the new system. If you sign up for the military tomorrow it's the new system for you. I agree that this is being driven largely by money, but there is a real problem in creating an even more hollow force when you pay an increasing percentage of the DOD budget to retirees who aren't producing anything in the way of actual defense any more. If retirees live longer and healthcare costs continue to increase, is the DOD just supposed to do nothing about it? Some would say yes, we've earned it and I mostly agree, but there are some minor changes that can be made (Tricare fees for example). I think what they're trying to do is "bend the cost curve" way down the road because it's becoming clear that no matter how good a retention tool the 20 year, full and immediate benefits retirement is, it's unsustainable indefinitely. Healthcare costs alone will eat DOD alive just like they were eating the car companies who had to pay for generous union retirements and benefits. Many people argue (correctly) that the government is inefficient and doesn't live by market-based principles and this is a great example, very few companies today offer benefits on par with the military and are able to remain successful. Not that the military is or should be a company, but there are lessons to be learned from the private sector, which is the whole point of the board that recommended these changes in the first place. The idea of increasing fairness in the system and putting money in more people's pockets doesn't have to be necessarily tied to saving money though. Why not have 2 systems that allow people to choose, upon entry, if they wanna give it a go at a career or if they want to take TSP matches since they will likely get out before 20? There are other effects that would have to be looked at, such as creating an essentially two-track military of future leaders and short-termers and you have to address the retention issue but those aren't insurmountable hurdles. How many would take a pilot slot if they guaranteed you 10 years of actual no-shit flying and a full benefits retirement if you signed up for 20 years? How many young kids would sign that dotted line with even less on the table? Honestly anyone who didn't think they'd make it to 20 for whatever reason and wouldn't switch to a new system that paid benefits without requiring the full 20 is an idiot. That other 80% of troops who honorably serve but who don't make it to 20 would all benefit from a new system. The reason you don't hear their perspective is because they all got out.

Supposedly more levels are forthcoming...I like. My only bone to pick is that the CIVCAS restrictions make Afghanistan ROE look like WWII carpet bombing. Really, I've fragged 400+ zombies in about 5 minutes, including whatever those huge f*ckers are, saving the perhaps millions hiding out in the bunker and they tell me, "If you kill one more civilian we're gonna pull you out!" Three civilians is the max acceptable CIVCAS no matter how many enemy are killed? With all due respect, STFU and tell those damn civilians to stop running right into festering zombie hoards! Everyone put your head down and let a man get some work done up here... Needless to say I love this game; best $1.99 I've spent in a while.

I think we're focused too much on our small piece of the puzzle here. The VAST majority of people that joint the military are not in the position of AF officer pilots, who have extremely valuable training and the option to go to a ready-made industry. That force support or MX or AFE airman who's enlistment is up may or may not have a lot of other great options outside the military depending on the economy and their education, so their decision to stay in or get out at the end of their commitments (which are much shorter than pilot ADSCs) is quite different. You ask what motivates people to stay in past 10 years under a new sy stem? Big Blue (and Big DOD since it would apply to all the services) would have to learn to treat us like the rest of the world treats it's employees and use market forces to incentivise us to stay rather than moving on to seemingly greener pastures. What motivates people to stay with other lines of work after many many years? I think especially with the risks and sacrifices inherent in military service, either direct compensation would have to go up significantly or we'd have to return to the very socialistic system we currently have, with single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed pension, free money for education, etc. While I'm a fan of the new proposals, I'm very skeptical that they would work very long, especially if the goal is to save money rather than to create a more effective and market-based system for retention. And under the current system you walk away with exactly $0 dollars in your pocket other than your own contributions to TSP and the value of your skills and training. Look, the majority of people are not making the career-or-punch decision at the 10 year point. They're making it at the 4 year or even 3 year point and it's not a career decision, they can re-up for another 3-4 or even just take one more PCS and the accompanying 2 year commitment and stay a little longer. The calculus is quite different and I think if the forums here were better represented with non-aviators we'd be getting a different perspective WRT the thinking behind the decisions to stay versus go. That perspective I think is more in line with the majority of the active force where our concerns, while valid for our community, may not be applicable to the larger force. Like CH said, the Air Force may have some unique challenges under a new system because we rely on the retention of a smaller number of highly-skilled technical operators rather than on larger numbers of relatively less-skilled bodies like in the Army or Marine Corps. As I've said before, the new system puts money into the pockets of a huge number of people, who as you just said, honorably served out their commitments and are patriots. And it does so only for people who take it upon themselves to save for their retirement; if you contribute nothing there's nothing for the government to match. A new system like the one being proposed would both give something to a greater number of service members and would incentivise positive behavior such as savings and planning for retirement at a young age. I like all those things, especially as someone who's inclined to punch at the 7 year point; the current system has nothing for me and I'd be getting a better retirement bang for my buck if I were working a GS position. P.S. - anyone having issues with multiquote on this page? I'm probably the king of multiquote so I don't think it's operator error and it doesn't work for me on this page specifically...

China Checks Out Our Stealth Helo

I've been addicted to playing this for 2 weeks. Up late at night feeding a baby? Frag some zombies with a 105mm while you're at it. Great game.

Yesterday I heard General John Allen giving a press conference on the CH-47 crash among other things related to Afghanistan. Not that other commanders or generals don't, but he sounded extremely articulate, smart, and had well thought out answers to every question asked of him. I trusted what he was saying and I was just listening in the car driving to the grocery store. I know he's a Marine, but any of the old heads around here worked with/for him before?

If anything I feel bad for them (I know, I know...spears incoming). My least favorite days are home station when I'm not flying. Those days have the most bull and the least amount of what I became an aviator to do, fly. I've been DNIF for about 2 months and it blows...manning the shop and getting spun up on taskers and briefings is not ideal compared to days flying or deployed actually hacking the real-world mish. Could you pull some for short-term rated staff, AIB/SIBs, courts martial, etc? Probably, but anything longer than a 90 day I'd say just isn't smart because this problem could be solved as quickly as it arose and then it's back to flying. And it can't be everyone...you know that the bullsh*t in a squadron hardly stops when you stop flying...

With the new rules on flight suit zippers (top of the name tag...WGBSM), I've found I can successfully wear my three wolf moon shirt in uniform. Perhaps my new friday shirt... Edit to add: Win!

Love that shirt, actually got it as a gag gift last Christmas and now I use it on max effort days lifting. It's unnatural wolf powers really help you rep out the weight. The reviews on amazon are priceless.

I think we were moving in that direction anyways with the draw downs. Could Joe Biden be right on a foreign policy decision? That doesn't seem possible... Anyways, WRT the guys who shot at our boys, f em and I hope they're burin' in hell

M2, Have you shot the LCR? Anyone have thoughts on it?

Did that include 12S?

After living here for two and a half years I think I can finally credibly say that I don't know what the big deal is with traffic on 98. Growing up on the East Coast and going to school in a city, traffic here is laughable. I've been caught in no-shit, you're now late from work as soon as you hit the highway traffic maybe 4 times total. In two and a half years. This was a monthly occurrence in Northern VA/DC area. Yea it's bad down in downtown FWB or destin on a Friday or Saturday night during tourist season, but that's typical of anywhere where people want to be. Total sidetrack, sorry to ramble. I think it's a plus that dudes will get to enjoy HRT versus suffering out at Canon and it's a good sign that the AF realizes you don't have to co-locate control stations with actual UAVs. Opens the doors for even better assignment possibilities in the future.

+1 hobbitcid, do I have to repeat myself? Leave the tactics and speculation aside and use those brain bites to donate to the SOWF.

Where are your troops and may I count them?

Hurlburt Field preferred for MQ-1 remote split-operation unit. Wow, I almost can't believe this. Is the AF finally getting the idea that you can put control stations at non-shitty bases and have them operate UAVs physically based in other locations? Yet another good deal for reserve bubbas...come on down and enjoy the emerald coast.

Son of a bitch...what a loss. To the fallen

Portal, fitness and health links, Air Force Fitness Management System. Can view, print all your current and past scores there.

This is the attitude that is killing the AF; it's taking a Patton quote and using it to kill mission focus. "If you can't tuck in your shirt, how do I know you'll drop your ordnance on time and on target?" Because one is more important you idiot and most rational people can prioritize. If you can't prioritize whether it's more important to properly wipe your ass versus doing your job in combat then I feel bad for you. And if some airman or NCO tells an officer, "Take your sunglasses off the top of your head," as E-9 Randolph suggests, he should get his ass chewed; what are the chances our officers are aware of their responsibility in that area? The secondary problem with this whole message is that it has no mention of proper time, place, and tone for making any suggested correction and you end up with asshat enlisted troops who think they can tell officers what to do; great situation for military discipline.