nsplayr

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/11/paul_ryan_opposes_strike_on_syria_119914.html This is also useful: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/07/us/politics/congress-quotes-on-syria-airstrikes.html

This is true. Just reference President Trump's statements at the time, very big (bigly!) on not striking Syria, getting Congressional approval, getting into Syria being a dumb idea, etc., and I don't totally disagree. I grant that Syria (and DPRK) are a shit sandwich-and-a-half, but that's part of the job as POTUS. Very few President don't inherit at least one tasty shit burger from the previous admin because unfortunately the enemy gets a vote, their priorities and motivations change, our priorities and motivations change, etc. I'm actually not opposed to strikes in response to the use of chemical weapons and would have been in favor of Obama doing the same with or without Congressional approval (with a preference for Congress approving obviously), but it's a situation where pretty clearly our strikes are going to be marginally effective if at all in the long run, bring us no closer to any kind of progress in Syria in general, yet are necessary because inaction is also a bad option. If punatative airstrikes were so effective why were our limited strikes last year not a deterrent for the recent attack? If Obama would have ordered limited strikes in 2013, based on the evidence from Trump's strikes in 2017, do you really think Assad or Putin would have acted significantly differently given their interests? I would argue Assad's self-interest in staying in power and not being prosecuted for war crimes far outweighs our interests in Syria and he knows that. Short of going all-in, what exactly is our plan to stop Assad from murdering his own people? I don't have the answer to that one. This issue in particular doesn't have to be and really isn't partisan...Americans across party lines are divided about what they think is the best course of action going forward. I'm actually more inclined to be in the "do something" camp (including use of force w/o broad international agreement or authorization) all other things being equal, and many of my fellow left-leaning folks would disagree with that. A lot of Republicans, including the President based on past statements, seem to be inclined more toward a non-interventionist posture, which is derided as weakness by the typical Bush-era Bolton/Cheney hawk faction of the GOP. I'm not sure I'm even saying anything helpful...other than maybe can we try to not have this break down along familiar partisan lines that would leave both sides looking extremely hypocritical? Worth a read: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/middleeast/syria-us-chemical-weapons.html

The guys with "the right stuff" have been ID'd for a while, so it makes sense to me that the brass can look at the field and see there ain't enough shiny pennies around to fill all the seats.

I've been saying this all along too. Being an "enlisted pilot" is a pretty shit deal for the folks who might do it. Same responsibilities as a commissioned pilot, for what, half the pay? Screw that. Give Wing Commanders the ability to nominate folks to dedicated OTS slots, quick turn around, and boom, you have a new officer ready to become a pilot. Absent a Warrant Officer program, sending high performers who would be great pilots to OTS real quick seems like the easiest solution.

I didn’t know him personally, but Mike is a plank holder of the 319th SOS and will be missed by the U-28 community. Those currents in NWFL can be no shit, a friend of mine received the Airman’s Medal a few years back for saving three kids caught in a rip current off Okloosa Island.

Hell, I’ve been waived above 120 hours per month downrange several times between 2010 and 2013...obviously different than home station steady-state, but we always seemed to fight the Global War in Hours with gusto where I grew up. While in operational squadrons bar napkin math says my average hours were a little over 30 per month over a 5 years span. At the end of my AD time as an instructor with heavier shop responsibilities, unfortunately I was sometimes trying to fly less at home station just to keep the machine running, and it sucks that that felt necessary. The problem was that shop work doesn’t always shrink when flying hours grow, you just end up working more. I agree though that monthly flying below a certain threshold is bad. Would love to see shredouts that break that one big average being thrown around down by MWS, unit, rank, crew position, etc.

Stay safe out there flying the friendly skies! And always carry a sick sack or two...

In AFSOC at least my experience was that pilots and CSOs were not treated differently in terms of career potential; both rated crew positions are essential on most AFSOC aircraft. So my off-the-cuff analysis would be that pilots, especially now, have more obvious lucrative outside employment opportunities and are getting out at a higher rate vs CSOs who are only jumping ship closer to the AF average. Both are treated similarly when the command is looking for future leaders, so therefore more CSOs are left to pin AFSOC eagles relative to their total share of the rated CGO population. Not sure that applies to the MAF nor if the data for AFSOC would validate my hypothesis, but it's a WAG based on what I see with my peers.

I’m not a finance nerd and maybe I’m taking crazy pills...but why don’t they just look at the number of aircrew per squadron, multiply by the standard number of AFTPs allowed per quarter (12), and load that many days in the account on the first day of the quarter? Some wouldn’t be used and could be pulled back later, some guys would be overclocking up to 16, but I figure it would more or less come out in the wash. That seems like a hell of a lot less work for everyone compared to loading days onsie twosie every day of every week of every quarter until we all die.

The President advocated for taking people’s guns without due process, that’s what happened. Thanks Oba...wait a second... No worries though, anything Trump said was null and void as soon as that meeting was over, as he has demonstrated repeatedly and on a variety of issues.

I don’t know anything more than the next guy, but I am familiar with a HPO AFSOC 2-star who reminds me a lot of Darth Sidious. Smart, ambitious and devious, a very deadly combination. If he were to command AFSOC one day, woo boy no thanks. Honestly I don’t see why many folks in AFSOC in particular stay beyond 20. You’re working at a ~35% discount because you could just quit and get your retirement check, plus you know the price to pay is the previously mentioned downrange 365 command tour in an endless war to add on top of possibly a dozen or so previous deployments. God bless the true patriots and the good dudes who stay because there aren’t enough of them.

Time to mint some brand new 2BPZs! Don’t worry about retention guys, we’ll just make more...

Emet is a good dude, I second the recommendation.

New audio clips apparently uncovered from the Russian mercenaries that attacked US troops in Syria. https://www.newsweek.com/total-f-russian-mercenaries-syria-lament-us-strike-killed-dozens-818073 Best quote, “We got our fucking asses beat rough, the Yankees made their point.”

Re: sensor cost... > $1million for the most capable ones that you would want. My understanding is the Scorpion's advertised fly away cost includes it's currently-integrated sensor as does the A-29 and AT-6. For comparison, the MX-15DiD that was fielded on Scorpion for LAE is vastly superior than the old-ass FLIR Brightstar equipped on the A-29, and that sets aside that the Scorpion has been tested with and could field something like the MX-20 or MTS-B that would not fit on the smaller AT-6 or A-29. BL: Scorpion has a much better sensor out of the box and gives you the option to go Gucci in the future with more $$, whereas the A-29 or AT-6 almost certainly lock you in to a 15" class sensor, and at some point you just can't squeeze out more fidelity without larger optics. Re: speed...the Scorpion is much faster in transit than the A-29 or AT-6. The sensor weight isn't super relevant in that statement because transit speeds are compared with a combat load, which includes all fuel/sensors/humans/weapons/etc. that you would want on each platform. Re: backseaters...well that's like your opinion man. AFSOC certainly isn't getting rid of CSOs, and even if you just fucking hate navs, you could fly with another pilot in the back. I mean light attack is supposed to be a component of the new ramp-up of UPT production now right? It's also a moot point because all platforms at LAE were dual-seat, so it's not a differentiator between the platforms.

I'm not a constitutional law professor (let's elect more of those!), but the article below was written by one is the first result on google. TL;DR - yes, because long-held SCOTUS legal precedent says so https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/t-he-constitutional-rights-of-noncitizens/

This. If they are stretching out the timeline to buy into FY20, why did they artificially cull the field last summer? And TBH the cut happened even before the actual LAE flights because of the way the requirements were written. Air tractor and Scorpion knew going in that they didn't meet all the requirements (some of which were bull IMHO). Whoever wrote the requirements wrote them basically to a T for the A-29's current fielded capes. Also could not agree more that the Scorpion jet is an amazingly capable aircraft and really the only one that fits the SECAF's light attack talking points re: modularity, plug-and-play, expandability, future-proof, etc. Much higher, much faster, more payload, internal payload options, more stations time, two engines, tons of power generation from those two jet engines, far better sensors, datalinks and avionics, etc. etc. etc. Granted it's less mature and Textron has some issues where they shot themselves in the foot as a company, but as a crew dawg it's frustrating when what I think is clearly the most capable platform wasn't selected. Especially when Scorpion could have continued to mature over the 2+ years between LAE and the actual buy. All that being said, something is way better than nothing and if the money is there we should just get on with it and standup an A-29 squadron at Moody tomorrow.

Like I said, I know you won’t believe this...

I know y'all won't believe this, but there is the idea that these kinds of things shouldn't be political bomb-shells dropped right before an election. I think that's what Casey is getting at, and would also note that he has absolutely no say in what Mueller does or when he does it whatsoever. Not dropping what can appear like partisan bombshells goes for the original Russia hacking when Obama was in the seat. As soon as McConnell said he wouldn't sign on to a joint statement that sealed the deal. Think back to how you would have reacted if the Obama admin put out an intel report saying that the Russians were running an influence campaign trying to elect Trump while the GOP leaders in Congress said that they disagreed. "Politicizing intel!! It's a brazen move against Trump!!" And like, it would have seemed that way even if the report was a very straight-laced accounting of the facts as the IC knew them. I somewhat feel the same way about the Mueller investigation now. It would be better if it wasn't an October surprise right before the midterms, assuming it'll be nearing conclusion by then. I think that's what Senator Casey is getting at...anything released right before an election will inevitably influence it, and that's generally not what you want even if some of those bombshell thing help your side. That being said, I'd default to letting the special counsel be on whatever timetable the investigation requires, because even saying anything at this point gets politicized, as evidenced by your questions about Sen. Casey's motives. Let the investigation play out and let the chips fall where they may. None of us in the peanut gallery can do anything else anyways.

So either I’m taking crazy pills this morning or AROWS is different. Looks like there’s no more inactive duty authorizations, just certifications. When you go into certifications instead of picking from a list of approved authorizations, you create a new duty type and proceed from there. Anyone seen any guidance on the change? Seems like a positive development in that you don’t have to route paperwork twice for the same period of duty, although now do you basically have to work the days on verbal orders before finding out if the paperwork in the system is approved? There is also a new Duty Summary page that is a nice backup to the excel sheet I currently use to track all my days. It breaks down all orders types per FY and per quarter for things like AFTPs. Edit to add: sorta answered my own question with more digging. From the AROWS homepage before you select the “member” menu (says), click on “AROWS Information Repository.” That takes you to a share point page, scroll down to a folder labeled “AROWS Release Management Notes.” Scroll down and open the PDF for Release Notes Build 41 15 Feb 18. Buried on page 11 of those release notes it says basically that inactive duty authorizations are gone and the streamlined process means members only do certifications. Doesn’t fully answer the questions about the new process but at least it’s a start. And yes, for anyone wondering, things are slow working AT on a federal holiday...

Thanks for the add...it’s a pdf I attached so IDK why the forum isn’t handling that well.

Let’s wait for the conclusion of the Mueller investigation to make any final judgments. Today’s announcement was not the first indictment and my prediction is that it will not be the last. Re: faith in institutions. I’m for letting the FBI and DOJ do their work without disparaging or discrediting what they’re doing. If the President and his administration officials are totally innocent as they claim they should be happy to do the same. Strong law enforcement institutions do their work on the level, indict the guilty and exonerate the innocent, and people believe their conclusions. When judging today’s actors, ask yourself, “Is this how an innocent person would act?” Nixon and his folks discredited the special counsel at the time and obstructed congressional and DOJ investigstions because they were guilty of knowing about and trying to cover up the watergate break-in. Clinton lied to the investigators and the American people because he DID in fact have sexual relations with that woman. Time will hopefully reveal the truth and even though I’m somewhat impatient, I’m willing to wait and let the chips fall where they may. If Mueller concludes that POTUS is innocent of all crimes I plan on accepting that.

Mueller announces grand jury indictments for 13 Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities re: 2016 influence campaign. 371672481-U-S-v-Internet-Research-Agency-et-al.pdf

Thank God they're not considering Contractor Undergraduate Navigator Training...I did a double-take the first time I saw the CUHT acronym for the helo dudes. Overall it seems like Big Blue has gone full-auto, spray-and-pray at the wrong target, so I've got my popcorn ready for the next 5-10 years of this mess! ANG is much better, although I am currently mired in a multi-year UFT production bottleneck...

I agree with Justin Amash here, and we don’t agree on a lot. My preference on these stupid memos is: 1. Release none, let investigations play out without needless Congressional partisan posturing. ...big gap... 2. Release the memos from both sides and let the public decide what seems more credible. ...Grand Canyon... 3. Release only one side and suppress the other. Unfortunately as of today, we’re apparently going with door number 3.