nsplayr

Same for the Big 10 and their automatic spot in the Rose Bowl. Mich State, Ohio State, and Wisconsin all 11-1, only 2 of them can even make the big bowls (i.e. one gets royally screwed), all three are in the top 10, but highest BCS rank (Wisconsin) will make the Rose Bowl. All 3 "share" the Big 10 title. Gay...can we take the top 10 teams and have a freaking playoff already? My solemn hope is that Oregon loses the season finale (despite that I sorta like Oregon), and Auburn and TCU play for the championship. If TCU wins, beating the unbeaten SEC champ, hopefully that will shut up the entire "we're soooo good" SEC and make the entire system explode. I kinda wanted BSU-TCU in the championship game but then people would still talk sh*t about neither of them being good. Whatever outcome makes the BCS die a horrible death faster is what I vote for... The current system is exciting week-to-week, but it also kills hope. Oh, your team lost once, they are F-ed completely. No Cinderella stories like George Mason in NCAA basketball, no Jets from the NFL playoffs last year, none of it. There will be at least two undefeated teams from the automatic qualifying conferences almost every single year so if you lose a close game early on to another good school, your season is pretty much worthless if you were gunning for the title. Agreed. The only reason I even like BSU is because everyone hates on them for being no good when all they do is win. This is America God damn it, winners should be celebrated. Let the best teams play each other at the end of the season and we can settle this on the field instead of in polls, computers, and sports talk shows.

Once again? This is the first time they've lost in 2 seasons...they may not have a lot of competition week-in and week-out, but the kids win damn near every game they play and that's all they can do.

Feel free to look into stuff, but be 100% sure you want UAVs before you apply. Like some of the guys here have said and you implied, it's a manning black hole and if you want to actually fly something (i.e. as a nav or pilot) UAVs isn't a good launching platform for that later in life. Good luck on whatever you end up with.

Interesting...hope the new program produces a better product overall, to me the old RND program was heavily weighted toward learning how to nav a C-130 which is great if you're going to herks and not so much for anyone else. Shack. Listen to his advice any CSO wannabes/current students. What you learn in training may be tangentially related to what you'll do in your airframe, but it's very important to both learn how to learn and how to have the right attitude.

Agreed...the WG/CC down here flies with my squadron. Apparently he was pretty much a regular crew dog from what my buds who flew with him said. Our squadron commander/DO both are full up CMR and fly downrange almost as frequently as any other member of the squadron.

So wait, now you want to engage on the issues? Or do you still want to "retroactively abort" me? I'm confused... If you don't like my tone, then point taken, but throwing bombs is not the way to correct that. I might sound like a snarky asshole sometimes but based on the usual tone here on BO.net I didn't think that was outside the ops limits for discussion. I agree with everything you wrote here. This issue won't be touched because it's won't really solve the deficit meaningfully, and can't be backed politically. The only reason we're debating this is because the OP linked the army times story about this particular aspect of the Domenici-Rivlin plan. This isn't some pet issue of mine, I can't wait to get my 50% pay if/when I make it to 20. Hell, it's not something that's even gonna change, but, the story was posted and since outside groups are looking at this for ways to save money, I think it's smart to have a discussion among ourselves about what possible alternate systems might be acceptable WRT costs, retention, etc. If those in the military don't have an acceptable counter-proposal to whatever is being brewed up in think tanks and debt commissions, then we'll definitely be forced to bend over and take whatever is coming down the pike. Based on attitudes expressed here, apparently any changes, or even talk of changes, will cause the world to end and/or everyone to seek out guard positions; at least we know where we stand I guess. My idea was based on this premise: We're supposedly saying military retirement (or "retention") benefits are based on having been earned. Logically then, if we all get the same benefits in retirement assuming same rank and TOS, then we have all earned them equally. Really? Some 11B ground-pounder shooting it out in Iraq/Afghanistan has "earned" the same amount of retirement benefits as a desk jockey who's primary job is virtually identical to some GS civilian? We don't get paid equally while on active duty (flight pay, HFP, family sep, etc.), so why the feel-good, everyone's the same attitude once we hit 20 years?

CH, I'm not sure what your problem is here. We can disagree, and clearly we do, but we're all just regular guys BSing on an internet message board. You know of me and I vaguely know of you, so if putting a guy like me down on the internet makes you feel better then I'm sorry. I'm out, this thread has devolved beyond uselessness. ~nsplayr

Oh yea, the part where I favor people contributing more, the government spending less, and those who deserve more getting more than relative freeloaders, yea, that's liberal BS. If you don't like me, fine, but this isn't a liberal proposal...it's been offered by several bipartisan and non-partisan commissions for years. Whatever, this is clearly a no-win when everyone else seems to be close-minded and retreating to their corner and throwing bombs at anyone who's trying to take their money. I get it. Yeaa..right, it's a hell of a "retainer" then. How many people have gotten non-vol'd back to active duty this way again?? So it's a legit strategy to pay people more for doing dangerous/valuable jobs while they're on active duty but once we hit retirement, excuse me, "retainer"-age, then we're all equally valuable. If retirement isn't based on what you do while you're on active duty, why do we get so much more than civilian federal workers? I thought we "earned" our benefits, but as long as what we do on active duty doesn't matter then it's pretty hard to justify such a good deal. I'm arguing the exact opposite; a lot of military members really do sacrifice in their active duty jobs and they should get great benefits. That desk jockey at the MPF/medical/etc. that's never deployed, however, is probably not among them. Yes, the troll that is making the same argument as DOD studies. Is this really a partisan issue and you just hate me because I'm a liberal? I really don't think this is a red/blue dividing line. BL: You don't like this conversation, tough sh*t. This issue will come up periodically and if we in the military aren't thinking about ways to improve our system, one day it will all go away once the calls for radical cuts go far enough. If the tea partiers get their way DOD will not be immune to the bloodletting...

So under one theoretical option, you rely more on individual contributions and give the greatest long-term benefits to those who have given the most to the service. If you take the personal responsibility to save your own money and sacrifice the most, you will benefit the most; if you sit on your ass you benefit less. The other option is one where everyone wins equally, and the government begins giving out "retirement" benefits immediately to people as young as 38. Which one of those sounds like a liberal, big-government, status quo option? Guess all those people who wanted to reform the system, stop wasteful spending, and introduce market-based solutions to big government programs were really full of crap. The system as it stands now is great for us and I look forward to hopefully benefiting from it some day, but is it really the best, fairest, most efficient system that puts money in the hands of those who deserve it most? That's a legit question. It doesn't seem like they called for any changes in the timing of tricare benefits.

Um, yes, it should be based on something quantifiable if we're saying that retirement in the military is based on having "earned" it when compared to other federal workers. If we're not saying that, then I'm not sure our desk jockeys should be getting more than the desk jockeys at State, Justice, FBI, etc. Using AFSCs is an easy, broad-brush stroke way to do it and that's why there are retention bonuses for certain jobs and not others; we do this all the time with special pays and retention bonuses, yet when I try to apply it to retirement pay it's suddenly controversial and divisive because not everyone will get to "win" to the same degree after punching the clock for 20 years... I'm not saying "I have all the answers, elect me emperor-for-life," I'm saying that this is a good conversation to have so that if/when changes comes we have a plan to pull off the shelf that is to our benefit. I don't think you're picking on me...I really don't even think we completely disagree based on your views on turning desk jobs into GS positions. If no one in the military proposes these kinds of changes, then the starting point of the conversation will be based on what someone else cooks up, is that a better solution? If no one is willing to even think up bold, controversial new ideas about how to make our system better then what's the point? Pay that gives greater benefits to those who have "earned" them by undertaking hazardous duties that are essential to military operations. Why not incentivise retirement benefits in the same way that we do regular pay? If you fly and are deployed in combat, you earn more than the guy who doesn't when on active duty, but once you retire his "earned" benefits are the same as yours?? That does not compute.

Godspeed

Ugh...can we leave the conspiracy theories for people wearing tin-foil hats? The reason your internet skillz have failed you is because this particular proposal on military pensions is from the Domenici-Rivlin "Restoring America's Future" plan, as commissioned by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a bipartisan think tank. Read an op-ed authored by Domenici and Rivlin in the Washington Post here, and a story from military.com specifically about proposed changes to military retirement and tricare here. Overall, their plan marries up closely to what was proposed by the 2008 Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, proposals that were entirely ignored by Congress. This is not a conspiracy...this as well as the President's debt commission (Simpson-Bowles) are attempts at bipartisan brainstorming at how to help reduce our national debt. Will these proposals pass Congress, we'll see but considering both sides have identified things in each proposal that are red lines for them I'm not holding my breath. Ok mr employee, I'm game. Is suggesting that people with truly dangerous careers should receive more benefits (i.e. they have "earned" more by actually being away from their families, being shot at, injured, etc.) than those sitting desk jobs so crazy? Ok, sounds good to me. I never claimed to be working the "hardest" job or the most "dangerous" job, but does flying in combat zones and frequently deploying sound harder and more dangerous than working the MPF? Yes. Does spending 15+ months at some sh*tty FOB getting shot at and seeing your buddies get killed sound harder and more dangerous than my job? Yes again. So...I'm not really sure what you're insinuating. I'm gonna assume you're a pilot and you have deployed several times since 9/11, is that fair? I'd say you've probably earned benefits similar to me and most of the guys on here, so I'm confused as to why the stereotypical "shoe clerk" (my Amn Joeblow from before) should earn as many retirement benefits under a revised retirement system. In my view, they should not if the reason we're giving such a generous retirement plan to military personnel is because they have "earned" it. If that's the case let's make it more generous for the people actually busting their ass and less so for people wondering how long they can sit in the food court of the BX before they have to get back to their cubicle. See post by Chicken. I honestly wasn't full-up on what Congressional pensions are based on, but I would have guessed it'd be similar to other civilian federal workers. That seems to be true based on what Chicken says so there ya go. Look it up yourself and if it seems unfair write your congressman/senators and next election only vote for candidates who support reducing congressional pensions if it's that important to you. I love on these emotional issues it's fine to cut stuff as long as it doesn't affect you directly. For that reason, you won't see Congress voting themselves less money or retirement benefits because if you allowed members of the military to vote for their own pay and benefits, do you think we would lower them as some great gesture to a nation straddled with unmanageable debt? Hellz no. Luckily for us Congress is ~535 members large, so their retirement benefits really have no effect on the deficit. And honestly neither do military pensions either so really, don't sweat it because this issue is not only political poison for anyone who even mentions potential reform, but it's also a drop in the bucket if we're really trying to lower the deficit. Arg...for all the calls to "Read the bill!!" it seems like no one actually did. If you can find in the bill where healthcare was supposed to be free I'll buy ya a beer. Name me a government program that's truly "free" and I'll call you an idiot. We pay taxes to support social security and medicare and every other government program out there. And "Obamacare" isn't really a government-run program anyways, it's a requirement that you buy private-market health insurance and a set of guidelines on what those programs need to include at minimum. If this were a single-payer system, yes, you'd be getting healthcare from the government...kinda like you do now under tricare. Unfortunately IMHO, that kind of system isn't sustainable on a grand scale unless you raise taxes in the short term to pay for the initial costs and it would have totally re-made the employer-based system we have now which insurance companies would not have been happy about. Ahh...whatever, this is completely off topic... To the point pawnman was trying to make, IDK if you would be immediately eligible for tricare if we changed the system as Domenici-Rivlin propose. The military.com article I linked to above highlights the plan's proposals WRT raising fees for tricare to cover more costs (i.e. when tricare started member fees paid for 27% of the program, now it's down to 11% b/c we haven't raised fees once since 1995). Honestly, it probably wouldn't matter much deficit-wise to allow retirees to keep tricare upon getting out a @ 20 years b/c the majority of people aged ~38 are not costing a lot for healthcare. Healthcare costs for old people is what's gonna bite us in the ass.

This is exactly what I mean...there are other potential models that could work and still entice people to stay. Regular federal workers currently get TSP matching and their pension is 1% of your top-3 for every year you've worked (i.e. you'd only get 20% for 20 years). That's a potential problem in an up-or-out military compared to the feds where you can sit as a GS-13 indefinitely, but it's a place to start the conversation. And you are also correct that this shouldn't be about cutting the deficit b/c the impacts are tiny since there's less than 2 million military personnel, and not nearly that many go the full 20 years, and there are waaaaaay more people trying to pull medicare in the near future. I know people got all excited about cutting spending/the deficit this last election cycle, but remember there are smart ways to go about this and dumb, broad-brush ways to do it as well.

Ok, let me say first off that I am a big fan of the military retirement system and look forward to potentially reaping the benefits of it some day. I also think among almost all the workers out there, many people in the military have well earned the above-average benefits we'll all enjoy (also folks like firefighters, cops, etc. that do hard, physical jobs). However, compare the benefits of a mil retirement, 50% of top-3 pay at potentially age 38 (or whenever based on when you came in), damn, that is insanely generous compared with what the civilian sector is offering today. Back in the day most good jobs had a defined benefit pension, now days not so much. Today it's almost all defined contribution and if you're very lucky you might get an employer match to dollars you contribute to a 401(k). Even handout-Queen, non-military federal workers don't get nearly as good of a deal (and I just ran bar-napkin math on this recently out of curiosity). What I'm wondering is this, is there a better way to A) retain talented individuals while at the same time B) both lessening the financial burden on the government of a very generous pension plan and C) encouraging more personal savings. For instance, if I'm 18 year-old Amn Joeblow working at the MPF, I can contribute exactly $0 to my own retirement, and if I manage not to screw up and am totally average at my job, I can retire at 20 years of service and get 50% of my E-6 pay for the rest of my life. With 2010 numbers, that's almost $21,000 per year for, let's say 38 years (Amn Joeblow lives to an average of 76 years old). For this let's also assume that there are never any raises in retirement pay for inflation or anything else (i.e. this is an unrealistically conservative exercise). Now, that's not going to be a very good retirement check on it's own. But did Amn Joeblow, who works an office job not unlike most civilians, really "earn" almost $800,000 in lifetime retirement pay?? I'd argue no. He didn't contribute $1 dollar to his retirement savings, yet gets paid quite a large amount and can start drawing that money when he's easily young enough to work another more-than-full, 30 year civilian career and still completely retire at age 68 along with everyone else. At which point Grandpa Joeblow is pulling his military retirement, whatever pension/401(k) money he's got from his long and distinguished civilian career, as well as social security. Anyways, just compare that to what's being offered on the civilian side of the house these days and honestly we have it made. Yea yea risking life and limb and all the queep and deployments and etc., but it's possible to avoid a lot of that and get the exact same benefits as the most steely-eyed door kicker out there. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have an honest conversation about whether or not our system is the best, most efficient way to do things. To me, you could put more emphasis on personal contributions, tailor retirement benefits to those who have "earned" them most, i.e. days deployed, particularly dangerous or hazardous career fields, etc. The civilian retirement system has changed a great deal in the past 20-30 years and the military is easily the best game in town WRT getting a good pension these days. I don't realistically think that Congress will touch this with a 12 foot pole, but even as just an academic discussion I think it's a good one to have. Edit to add: Just to emphasize, cuts like this won't even be a drop in the bucket unless we fix medicare. Even if we totally scrap social security and make extremely painful cuts to every department of the federal government, we're still f-ed in the A by medicare. So I vote we fix that and expend our creative talents figuring out that nut before we start squabbling around at the margins (i.e. cutting earmarks, foreign aid, mil retirement, federal employee pay, etc.) Addition: while we're wishing I'd change the system to allow people to pull something at the 10 years mark, a little more at 15 years, and get full benefits at 20 years. The system we have now is awesome if you stay 20 years, and terrible if you don't since all you get is whatever you put into TSP and there's no dollar matching whatsoever like you have if you're a civilian federal worker. Hell, it's almost like what you get in the straight up private civilian sector...

Haha, yea, ask the guys who went through the Randolph program what their thoughts on the new program are. It sounds pretty freaking cool, flying T-6 formation, getting to use the new sims, etc. and meanwhile we were stuck on the mighty, and now retired, T-43 pretending to navigate since only one person could actually do that at a time. Basically, you've gained a cooler, better program for some uncertainty as to exactly how it will go down and what career options are out there. Not better or worse one way or the other (vs. the old & somewhat outdated but more stable program). Anyways, keep your eyes and ears open b/c I know the way it went for me, I dropped an aircraft that didn't exist when I started nav school and it's turned out to be awesome. Roll with the punches, don't suck, and things will turn out fine for 69% of the guys out there...

Except for our FID efforts in the Philippines and the potential to use low-footprint light-strike/recce against JI et. al. that have attacked us in the past... I get what you're saying though. 100 aircraft = a shit-ton of support and personnel that don't exist right now and probably won't in the future considering our budget situation. You can get a lot of bang for your buck when you utilize a niche capability correctly and the OA-X could fill a smaller role really well for a lot less long-term cost.

Well played.

That's funny right there... Even better, well said man. Overall it could have turned out worse but what a waste of time and money...

Ralph Peters is a f*cking idiot and I simply refuse to read the BS he puts out on a daily basis.

I'm predicting Michele Flournoy who's the current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. And I for one am a big fan of Gates so here's to hoping the talk of his demise is premature. P.S. - the Woodward book is very good and interesting for those into political back-stories and/or those with questions about how decisions about the war in Afghanistan came about. I'm only 1/2 way in but recommend it so far.

Facepalm. Run faulty sarcasm detector checklist.

If you can't meet the mins for pushups and situps you need to reevaluate your life. If you can't meet the mins for the waist and you happen to be 6'5" then I'm sorry, when I'm CSAF I'll change the test. My point is that the test should be harder, more about functional fitness, and we should all be passing it without all this bitching and moaning. Yes, I understand you don't need to be super-fit to do well at your job, but you're a god damn military officer; show some toughness and stop the excuses. *Not directed at you Crew, just in general*

I guess I agree from a logical point of view b/c in theory you only need to be as in-shape as your job dictates. Along those lines, do fighter guys have to maintain the ability to pass/do well on the FACT? In theory that has a purpose and it at least asks you to train more major muscle groups than the standard PT test. Plus it makes you do curls for the girls and that's never a bad thing to throw in either. Because to get max points the reps were higher. It was something like 80 in 2 minutes rather than 62 in 1 minute. In my view that allowed you to maintain good form because you didn't have to do more than 1 per second and also made you do more reps which is a better test of overall output IMHO. Same went for situps. I know for myself I have to work harder to get 80 total reps without a failed rep than I do to get 62 in a minute on the current test. Point taken that not very many of us are "warriors" and need a warrior-level of fitness. Flyers are pretty much as tip-of-the-spear (sts) as it gets for officers (other than officer JTACS and etc. etc.) and we still are essentially sitting in a seat for hours on end. Can I do my job if I'm out of shape, sure. On the other hand, what I respect about the Marines and wish the entire military would emulate is the actual focus on being martial and showing some old-school toughness. Does every Marine paper-pusher/finance officer/etc. need to get an excellent on the rifle range qual or max his PT test? No, but there's a greater expectation for officers to lead from the front and not be a puss in general and I think that unfortunately the AF is on the other end of the spectrum, where officers can bitch about everything and be fat and lead their troops via email. It's an attitude thing that isn't gonna get solved by a stupid PT test but it's just a symptom of the greater problem that we can't even pass an easy freaking test and are worried about how our people look versus how they lead.

I think the trend is at least in the right direction. I'm too young to actually have been there, but the VO2 Max test on the bike seemed like we tried to boil fitness down to a science a little too much. Now at least we actually run. I remember back in good ole' ROTC days out PFT was a 2 min pushups/2 min situps/2 mile run...may have just been a local thing but that was harder and I was surprised the actual AF test was easier. Anyways, the Marines have a functional part of the test where they drag dummies and sprint and lift ammo cans and etc. and the Army is supposedly working on something similar. I don't always trust the Marines b/c they led us down the hell hole of different uniforms but I don't know too many fat ass marines either so maybe they can lead the way on this one. The army is also taking crossfit seriously and although this particular study wasn't perfect it at least shows that doing more than long, slow runs and some pushups and situps actually makes you fitter; what a concept. See attached. It's also a 69 page article so I guess I'll throw in a sts for when you open it. Edit: Ok, it's too big to attach. Follow link if you are a CFJ subscriber.

Exactly...like I said, we've beat this specific topic up repeatedly.