nsplayr

This concept is happening already with other PGMs using existing datalink infrastructure. Not meant to be a cost-reducer, but meant to increase accuracy for fast-moving targets that may escape outside of the view of the weapon's laser seeker during typical flight profiles. Look for more to come in the very near future. Like I alluded to before, DoD and industry aren't spending R&D as much money on lower-cost solutions so much as they are spending those dollars on increasing first-pass, "clean-kill" capabilities. It's what the JTACs, GFCs and higher HQ demand, and if that means adding a datalink to an already expensive laser-guided, GPS-aided PGM, so be it. The ideal weapon delivers in one shot from outside of visual & audio detection range, with no sonic boom, rocket motor bloom or other warning to the target, with fast time of flight, and delivers low CDE scores but high Pk in the target area. Right now you get to pick a couple of those options at the expense of the others - gonna have to science the shit out of today's weapons to work toward ideal. My long-term prediction: lasers fulfil all of those requirements above...

Sure, it's Tom Barnett's Leviathan & SysAdmin concept from "The Brief" and the follow-on book The Pentagon's New Map circa 2004. I read it at the time and while he put together a series of thoughts worth publishing and that made a splash in the DoD intelligentsia, his ideas weren't exactly brand new either. It's 13 years later and out of a marathon of needed change, we're maybe 3-4 total steps closer to having a real SysAdmin force so I'm not holding my breath. I'm just hoping light attack ends up in AFSOC. As you said, they're probably the least likely to fuck it up due to bureaucratic, doctrinal or tribal resistance to new concepts.

Re: the article Clark posted...low-cost direct fire is great and all except that the GFCs want single-pass clean kills in very small windows of opportunity. Taking multiple strafing runs to kill a target, while much more cost effective, isn't going to fly IMHO. This is the driving force behind PGM use and why A-10 dudes don't get to use the gun as often as they would like. The necessary innovation to break the upward cost spiral needs to happen in the lower-cost PGM space, a la APKWS, as well as in volume discounts for things like the Griffin, SGM, SDB, etc. Honestly laser weapons are the ultimate low-cost, endlessly renewable, zero-time-of-flight, low-CDE weapon we all really want and need for precision strike against soft targets. Re: needing a separate COIN/LIC command...it's almost as if we need a component of the Air Force that's not undertaking conventional operations. Perhaps we could call this newfangled type of deal "special" operations? IDK, just throwing spaghetti against the wall here... If we can create that at scale, man, what a place to stick a light attack fleet!

Yea, missionary vs doggy vs reverse cowgirl can be a tough call sometimes. Not sure if the Koran calls out a preference...

myPERS listed specific special programs and the requirements for each. There was also a general "rated officer" listing without details as to what unit you'd be assigned to, line flying vs schoolhouse vs test etc., i.e. lots of key details missing. I'm assuming functionals or someone st AFPC would have more info, but then again that's counting on A1 doing a good job, which the lack of that is why we're here in the first place...

I guess I'm just more of a pragmatist. Not going to lose my mind when Congress decides to make relatively small changes to a government program, even one I directly benefit from. Crying wolf is all the rage in the hyper-partisan political environment today and I'm not a fan. I'd rather save my outrage for truly damaging cuts and reductions that have no logic to them or don't have a foreseeable benefit. I want vets groups to maintain a higher standard of credibility rather than being just another special interest that scratches and claws for every penny for their particular niche. All that being said, I would rather Congress just appropriate more money from general tax revenues if the GI Bill accounts really need more funding to be sustainable.

It's not rocket science man, the SCIF has thick walls for a reason. My squadron on AD was the test bed for EFBs in AFSOC and I believe one of the first if not the first squadron in the AF to be full-up EFB for flight ops. With wifi in the building to wirelessly sync to a pubs server. And we did it with SCIFs in every building and TS being processed on the planes. For something that makes this much sense, the obstacles the OPSEC shoes throw in your path can be overcome, I've seen it up close and personal.

Hey, good on em I guess. Glad more guys want to serve once again and I hope they don't get screwed. I guess I'm just not regretting my move to the ARC one bit and based on the opportunities there I would vector anyone who asked my opinion into open ARC positions before considering a return to AD.

That was the goal of the original MGIB, not so much this one IMHO. Initial benefits are a recruitment tool, transfer ADSC is a retention tool, nothing more or less. It's a great benefit FWIW. I wouldn't be opposed to a buy-in if it guaranteed program stability re: future cuts (it can't), or if it expanded benefits (doesn't seem like that's the plan.) So count me opposed to this change although big picture it's a relatively reasonable ask compared to what you get in return and the vet community shouldn't lose its mind at every small change in benefits policy...keeping powder dry and whatnot. Big picture if the program need additional funds to be sustainable I'd greatly prefer Congress allocate that money via the normal appropriations process and spread the cost over the entire tax base rather than the tiny percentage of the population that's using the program. For things you want to discourage (i.e. smoking), use taxes are great IMHO. Look, you can smoke, but it's bad for society as a whole so we should and do tax it quite heavily. But for things you want to encourage like higher educational attainment, we shouldn't be throwing up barriers to using that type of program, even if it's somewhat nominal payments. If just a handful of E-1s decide they can't afford or don't want to pay the buy-in and later end up on the streets rather than in college once they separate, you just blew all of your "savings" and the net benefit for society starts to decline.

I took it to be about the clause in there that says you don't have a right of return to your ARC job. Meaning that if you take this, you have to go see an in-service recruiter and re-apply at the Guard/Reserve unit you left rather than just sliding back into your old position sts. My take is this seems half-assed if they actually wanted to get fish on the line. If you're in the IRR, could be a good deal to expedite your way back in. But for dudes sitting on even a DSG/TR ARC position, this doesn't make a ton of sense unless you want to jump on one of the special programs. Why give up a long-term deal (ARC membership in a unit you chose) for a short-term deal (3 years on AD) with no guarantees beyond that? Are they going to let you pick your base? Why no $$ thrown in? Why not guarantee right of return to your ARC unit? Are dudes in the selected reserve really having a hard enough time finding Title 10 orders that this would be a good deal? Kind of smells like a half-hearted box checking step before more drastic measures are put in place to help arrest the unintentional stall in pilot manning...

Based on everything I know about naval aviation, kills below the hard deck are not valid, no matter what Jester does while defensive.

Also not a Doc, so YMMV. I had no-shitter vasovagal syncope episodes 2x after passing out from vaccinations and a blood draw. Pro tip: don't standup too fast like a tough guy. First time sustained no injuries as I was already sitting. Second time I broke my nose, chipped a tooth and bruised up my face pretty good since I fell from standing against a marble countertop and was carted to the ER in an ambulance. Both were pre-MEPS. Sounds bad right? I was upfront about everything and was clear that I had no issues other than when stuck by needles apparently, which oddly enough doesn't often happen in flight. Long story short - I flew on AD as a CSO for 7+ years (didn't have the eyes nor the desire for pilot at the time), and now in the Guard I'm awaiting training to be an RPA pilot. The original flight doc told me I might not commission and would definitely never fly...and here I am now, having held a FC1A for over a decade and having recently passed a very thorough initial FC1 at age 31. Showed his ass! The lesson is don't take no for an answer, always follow up that you have no issues currently and are healthy & ready to go (so long as that's true), and keep fighting the good fight.

Implement the things in Bleeding Talent would be a good start. Also based priority for all support based on proximity to the fight. For example: Personnelist or finance dude works overtime to get the queep right for the MX troop who's working nights to fix jets. MX troop busts his hump because pilots need the jets to launch on time. Pilots double turn and stretch their min fuel to get a bomb down supporting the JTAC on the ground. JTAC stands exposed on a rooftop to get in comms so that his guys don't get overrun. Find your approximate place in that workflow and demand excellence from those behind you in priority and provide excellence serving those ahead of you.

Yep, same here. Plan A if we went down (sts) was to have one dude on a -152 to try to raise another one of our birds in the area while another dudes fired up the local cell to call the guys back in the TOC.

Peace talks were breaking out? In what alternate universe was that happening? France and others want to restart peace talks in Geneva, but I also want to do two chicks at the same time. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen anytime soon. Also, false flags do typically involve chemical weapons attacks against children now that I think about it...that'll really throw the investigators off the trail of who did it! If our IC says they believe Assad was responsible, I for one believe them. Everyone on here who serves should have a professional position of believing IC assessments unless proven otherwise - we bet our own lives on it. Doesn't mean they can't be wrong or haven't been wrong in the past, but we are on the same team here. These are our intel folks making the assessment. Blows my mind how many AD guys are conspiracy theorists toward our own government and then strap on jets to back up policies made from those very same intel assessments. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-russia-sarin-attack.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article Worth reading instead of wasting your time on the Ron Paul conspiracy video. https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/04/269543.htm Also this statement and Q&A with Tillerson and McMaster.

Lawfare is a really excellent source for issues like surveillance and unmasking, Rice, Nunes et al and most of the Russia investigation. Highly recommend them. Harvard law professors, Brookings and Hoover think tank folks, very highly informed commentary. In particular, this story about unmasking and what some of the issues might be as well as this related story about the implications of accusing the IC of politically motivated spying. Fair warning: not for millennials who love Snapchat or old farts who are addicted to cable news. Requires actual reading comprehension and a longer attention span.

I mean, I hear ya, but honestly you're kidding yourself if you think CNN has some kind of monopoly on bullshit or slanted takes on news events. Your exact same critique could be said of Fox News or MSNBC or a handful of other networks depending on your political views. As another example, probably no one on TV makes me madder than Stephen A. Smith, but I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bath water. Re: a choice, don't watch cable news at all. Don't watch CNN in particular. Don't pay for a cable bundle. Call your cable company and tell them you want unbundled, a la carte channels, I'm right there with ya on all these points.

You realize this is the business model of every channel on cable right? The popular channels pay for the less popular ones when they're packaged together. No one pays $169 a month for The CW, but it still gets a slice of our subscription by being bundled with the channels peiolw actually do watch. ESPN is in fact by far the #1 cost in any cable bundle, so for those who don't care about sports they're paying quite a bit for that one channel. https://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/06/how-much-would-it-cost-to-get-your-favorite-channels-a-la-carte.html I'm a cable cutter and fully support a la carte channels like HBO that let you pay just for that channel and you can cancel anytime, but your critique could be said of every single cable channel. CNN is hardly unique. FWIW I also never watch cable news and don't have any particular love for CNN. Everyone would be smarter if we read more journalism and watched less "news."

Good move by the President to (again) reorganize the NSC and remove his senior political advisor Steve Bannon. Appears Lt. Gen. McMaster is throwing his weight around the WH more and I am a fan of his. Having Bannon there was a big deal and I'm glad that decision was reversed. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/05/steven-bannon-no-longer-a-member-of-national-security-council/ Also a refreshingly tough statement aimed at Russia today by Amb. Haley at the UN over the Assad regimes chemical weapons attack on civilians. Not sure people are taking her words super seriously if not backed by additional action by our government, but it's a good start. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/05/haley-slams-russia-over-syrian-chemical-attack-warns-us-may-take-our-own-action.html Lastly, President Trump claims ownership of the Syrian conflict and strongly reacts to the use of chemical weapons on civilians. I agree with him that the current situation in Syria is unacceptable, but it's a devilish problem with no real winning solutions. Good to see him condemning the obviously horrible attack and vowing action despite the Russian lie that the attack was carried out by anti-Assad rebels. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/at-un-trump-administration-assails-russia-for-protecting-assad/2017/04/05/28179558-1a0c-11e7-bcc2-7d1a0973e7b2_story.html And that's all from your irregular update on the politics of foreign policy! Tune in next time...

Hell, even pre-overpass I never had huge issues with traffic on the aircrew schedule. Coming in at 0430 for a first-go, no traffic. Flew a third-go last night and coming in closer to 0930, no traffic. No matter what shift I flew I'd try to never leave between 1545 and 1715, which was easily achievable, and would also result in no traffic.* *no traffic = minimal/reasonable, no more than a normal populated area Post overpass I don't drive it every day but I visit frequently and I say it's helped noticeably in terms of both getting on base in the morning and well as getting off base in the afternoon. I thought Navarre was great for family life for all the reasons others have said: more house for the money, new construction available if desired, better schools, closer to Pensacola, Navarre beach was always more enjoyable and less crowded than Destin or Okaloosa Island. It's truly a Hatfields vs McCoy's on west-of-base vs east-of-base. Pros and cons to both for sure. My best advice for HRT inbounds is to live directly on the water if you can afford it. A friend of mine has a great setup where you can launch SUPs, kayaks and jet skis directly from his dock and you're smiling 30 seconds later. I've been on the water more in the handful of times I've visited him than the 4+ years I lived in NWFL simply do to zero barriers to entry for water activities. I lived about 1 mile from amazing white sand beaches but went far less often than you'd think.

Director of staff

Hahahahahahahaha! Good thought man. In my experience, no.

The services have not announced that critical component of BRS. Assuming they will need to before anyone opts into the new system starting next Jan but who knows, maybe they'll get away with playing the "I have a secret" game...

Fun fact, there are pilots currently in the $650 bracket who were not born yet the last time ACIP was increased.