nsplayr

The ANG age waiver process for RPA pilots has recently been revised to allow for older candidates with less paperwork. Something something "pilot retention crisis," guess Big Blue is finally being forced to pump the brakes on bureaucracy at least a little bit. To @Bobert, reach out to an RPA unit you're interested in joining and ask them those questions. Many of the answers will be, "It depends." A lot depends on the unit, their manning, how many CAPs they fly, local policies and scheduling schemes, etc.

I would finish it if I were you. I'm in the same boat essentially and am finishing my PPL so as to not have to deal with another unnecessary nut roll. Background: Current CSO, future RPA pilot, did previous PPL flying 9 years ago. Still worth it to try to shake off the rust and finish the PPL. For you, if you've been flying recently, total no-brainer just to press through the checkride and be done with it.

Scorpion climbs higher, moves faster, carries more payload, has better mission software, has 2x engines and the "prestige" of a jet vs a prop.* A-29 is combat proven and already flown by USAF and is likely more than "good enough" for the intended mission even without any of the above strengths of the Scorpion. I have a personal preference based on a good amount of knowledge about one of the platforms, but both seem capable and I'd love to fly either. *Jet prestige is BS IMHO, coming from a guy who rode a mighty single-engine prop steed into battle many times, but it's a valid point, especially to potential foreign customers. Princes don't fly props.

I hate to be that guy, but this process is ridiculous. Just post a link to a Google docs spreadsheet or document and update as needed. Eliminates the need for dudes to PM you. Open source the useful info and call it a day.

Press release quoted a test up to 430 knots back in 2014...that's about .75 mach. I'm gonna go with yes. LMGTFY = scorpion jet max speed https://www.scorpionjet.com/textron-airlands-scorpion-isrstrike-aircraft-reaches-50-test-flight-hours-achieves-mach-0-72-air-speed/

My wife and I call it "SMD," Standard Military Disappointment. Another deployment, SMD. Haven't been paid correctly, SMD. PCS to Cannon, SMD, etc. You're allowed to be disappointed, but the sooner you acknowledge that this level of disappointment is standard and doesn't exist just to piss you off specifically, the better off you'll be.

It'll be around for a while...the plan to replace it has been tumultuous. At some point though we'll fly the wings off of 'em, so hopefully the replacement happens before that point. Even though the replacement talk is still a pipe dream, I wouldn't worry about it - that follow-on SOF manned ISR platform will have a CSO on it. AFSOC is a good place to be a CSO for sure as others have pointed out - AC-J, MC-J and SOF manned ISR will be around for the indefinite future. Congrats on your drop, let me know if you have any questions about the community and send me a PM when you start at the 19th.

On the day that Former President Obama announced retaliation measures against Russia for their interference in the 2016 election, Flynn called the Russian ambassador to the US several times. In recounting the content of these conversations, he told VP Pence and other senior officials that he did not discuss sanctions. Come to find out, those conversations were monitored by US intelligence, and it was made known that in fact the topic of sanctions was in fact discussed. The President (but apparently not the VP in particular) was aware of these inconsistencies in Flynn's story re: the calls for several weeks, but when stories broke that Flynn had essentially lied to the VP (and possibly also the FBI), he resigned. Pick your favorite outlet, but here's an example story: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/us/politics/donald-trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn.html

AC-130J is just coming on line with 2x CSO seats. Will likely be flying for your entire career plus. The U-28 is relatively new still (although it may run out of service life sooner rather than later due to use), and its replacement will almost certainly have CSOs as well. The AF may be buying light attack jets (A-29 or Scorpion) that will probably have CSOs. BL: your potential career as a CSO is bright...just look at B-52s, flying with navs and WSOs since you're grandpa was in a flight suit!

He's flying the friendly skies now! Gotta get that line number early...

President Trump announced he's naming Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster to be the next National Security Advisor. Two thumbs up from one of the board's token liberals...McMaster would have been an excellent choice for any President to have made. To me, this is a significant upgrade from Flynn and I sincerely hope the national security apparatus of the country works well going forward.

Yea, you're correct. What I meant, more accurately, is that AD/Guard old system vs AD/Guard BRS is a reduction in the multiplier, which works out to 20% less money in your pocket regardless of how many years or points you have. That's what you get for doing math in public as a social science major

ARC retirement in a nutshell. Good article for the uninitiated, which included myself before I joined the guard. And I'm still a padawan at all this so if you're an old crusty guard dude and I'm wrong, feel free to chime in. You're right that the effect of the pension multiplier reduction is less the fewer points you have. For example: Old system: 2.5% * 20 years = 50% of high-three BRS: 2.0% * 20 years = 40% of high-three - a 10% delta Guard Old system: 2.5% * 10 years in points-equivalent (3,600 points) = 25% of high-three Guard BRS: 2.0% * 10 years in points-equivalent (3,600 points) = 20% of high-three - a 5% delta That being said, I've run the numbers based on my worst case Guard participation and it's still well worthwhile to stay in the old system (i.e. 2.5% multiplier for the pension annuity) and give up TSP matching rather than accept TSP matching in exchange for the 2.0% multiplier on the pension annuity. [feel free to stop reading here if you believe me..] Personal specifics and math in public Even at the more favorable 5% delta, the BRS annuity would spit out $454 less starting at age 60 (assuming O-5 with 38 YOS [you accrue YOS for pay purposes while in the retired reserve] and 2017 dollar). That's $5,448 per year. My TSP would need to have 25x that amount for me to safely withdraw $5,448 per year (up for debate, but that's the assumption I'm comfortable with i.e. 4% withdrawal rate). Also not gonna count any money I'm saving, just the government's match since they don't get credit for dollars that are coming out of my wallet in this comparison. BL: Account balance derived from TSP matches needs to be $136,200 or higher to offset the reduced pension annuity payment. Assuming 5% annual growth of my investments (up for debate but again, that's the conservative assumption I'm comfortable with), the 5% TSP matching over the course of a 10 year guard career is well short. As a part-time Guard guy, assuming 123 points is my min-run participation, I'd only be pulling 34% of full-time pay. TSP account value, only considering the government match, at age 60 would be $49,343. Big picture: if you're going to make it to 20 YOS, either on AD or in the ARC, absolutely do not choose BRS. It's less generous for those full-retirees. Those entering service after the cut-off date who do eventually make it to 20 YOS will be getting a worse deal than their predecessors. The upside is that BRS gives some benefits to a new category of "retirees," i.e. those who leave the service before 20 YOS but still have something to show for their efforts, namely the government's TSP match. Showing my work for those who care. Edit to add: I'm too perfectionist not to actually run the right numbers. Updated my spreadsheet and the post accordingly after realizing two initial errors. This now accounts for an additional 18 years of growth (60 minus my "retirement" age of 42) with no additional contributions for an equivalent withdrawal for both the pension and TSP starting at age 60.

I've been a huge advocate for a new type of retirement system for many years (on here and IRL), and I think that BRS is a really good deal for many service members. Estimates are that something like 85% of those who serve will now receive some type of retirement benefit. That being said, IMHO, if you're a pilot or otherwise served more than 6-7 years and you're even open to the possibility of transitioning to the ARC to at least qual for a reserve retirement, the old system is better. The old system is always and will always be better for those who make it to 20, hands down. You would need unrealistic market performance of your TSP account to make up for the reduction in the pension annuity, and even if you're super-optimistic, why shoulder the risk when under a defined benefit plan, the government assumes all the risk? If you know for a fact that you won't make it to 20, even in the guard, and there's nothing that will change that, then BRS is a better deal every time. Even limited TSP matching for your last few years in service is better than nothing. I'm curious to see what the continuation payment scheme will be, i.e. when it will be given and how much. The law gives the services quite a bit of latitude on that aspect of BRS and so far it's still TBD. Continuation pay is a not-insignificant part of what BRS will ultimately end up being and the sooner services figure that out and announce the deal the better. Personally, even as a huge advocate for a new type of system, I'm sticking with the old system based on my own personal situation. 7 and change on AD, a little over 2 in the Guard so far and based on my relatively new job/unit I plan on making it to 20+ unless they kick me out first, so sticking with the old system is an easy call. YMMV.

Good on ya for saving as much as possible, however you must have had a ton of cash to throw around if you can casually shift from 5% all the way up to the IRS limit of $18K annually. Unless you're making $360K per year...if so then well played! This article is excellent at explaining the pluses and minuses of Roth (or after-tax) investing vs traditional retirement investing. BL: If you're not saving the extra money you have in your pocket due to a lower tax bill now, you're falling behind vs where you'd be choosing Roth. If you put the money you realize in tax savings into another savings/investment vehicle in order to foot your long-term tax bill, then you'll come out ahead. But very, very few people do that, and thus Roth is a good crutch (i.e. pay your taxes now, and whatever money you have on the backend is yours and yours alone). Unless you know for a fact you'll be hanging with CH and the ladyboys in Thailand with a dramatically lower tax rate. My working assumption is that for most youngish, smart, hard-working, high-earning people, their future tax rates are likely to be higher rather than lower. Personally, I'd rather pay my taxes now and do my future budgeting without having to worry about unknowable tax rates biting a piece out of my pie. Cavet: if you're even having these types of conversation you're in like the top 6-9% of investors out there, so don't sweat it too much either way. It's like working out, you don't need the perfect program to be better than all the fat slobs out there, just go out and do something and you're already way ahead.

Airlines will have a huge downside risk going fully-autonomous, with a very tiny upside. Think of it this way: the major advantage of current RPAs is that they can be designed from the ground up without humans on board, meaning much longer legs, no life support systems, etc. That is a significant upside compared to a manned ISR/strike platform that burns way more gas for way less stations time. Let alone the decreased risk of losing human life during a crash or to hostile action. On an airline jet, or any aircraft meant to carry other humans, nearly all of that upside is gone. The plane still needs to have life support systems that support humans. If you still need life support and human-sized interior dimensions for passengers, throwing a pilot in the mix buys you a huge potential upside (saving the day) for very little cost. Your marginal savings going full autonomous is basically the salary of the pilots, which in the grand scheme of airline operations is a small price to pay to mitigate the existential downside risk of a full-auto plane crashing and killing 200+ paying customers. An airline that suffered from that type of incident would be completely done, especially if their competitors still maintained a pilot on board for safety. Risking billions in profits to save millions in salaries is just stupid enough that hopefully even the most penny-pinching corporation won't try it. I absolutely think we're going to see single-pilot with a link-override capability to prevent Germanwings-type incidents, since you cut your pilot costs roughly in half but still maintain most of the capability to save the day when the shit hits the fan. But going from 2 to 1 is a much, much different proposition than going from 1 to 0.

You guys are 100% correct that the President has a ton of latitude here. The fact that this EO is hung up in the courts and not currently in force is due almost solely to the administration's sloppiness and incompetence. If they really want this thing to stick because it's so GD vital to national security, they absolutely rescind the JV version 1.0 and re-write something that makes a little more sense and is on firmer legal ground. Exempting green card holders and those with approved visas (i.e. they've been vetted already), include countries where terrorists have actually come from, give new and specific instructions to the State Department on visa approvals and DHS on screening at ports of entry, etc. For those that think this will win at SCOTUS on the merits of the case, I guess we'll see. As was stated above, once the 90 days are up I'm sure they'll have figured out a much stronger vetting system and this can just fall by the wayside right? Or they could almost immediately end the litigation by rescinding the original EO and writing a new one that more competently accomplished the stated goal. I mean, the President said that bad people are pouring into our country right now under his watch right...shouldn't he be quickly drafting a new EO to stem the tide and beat back the mongol hordes? I for one am not holding my breath on either of those outcomes, because at this point it's just a pissing contest, and the President doesn't seem to take perceived insults or losses lightly.

Well, at least you recognize that your legal opinion isn't on par with federal appeals court judges (neither is mine FWIW). Clearly the 9th circuit feel that the plaintiffs' claims are valid, i.e. that Washington State and the other plaintiffs will suffer harm should the EO be in place. The likelihood of this decision being sound is fairly high since the three-judge panel ruled unanimously, concurring with the lower court decision that originally halted the EO's enforcement. We'll all get to find out what another 8 judges thinks here shortly... Because the defendant in the case, the President of the United States, claims specifically that this is happening due to the enforcement of the EO being halted by the courts. He also went ahead and pre-blamed the judiciary for any future attack that might happen for good measure. He went from "may be pouring in" on Feb 4th to "pouring in" with some greater certainty on Feb 5th. On Feb 8th he claims (citation needed...) that there's a big increase in traffic (i.e. immigration) from "certain areas," which we're left to assuming are the 7 countries the EO addresses. This is something that is either true or it isn't, and the State Department and DHS, who work for the President, could provide the data to say conclusively one way or the other. So long story short, I completely agree with you that it's very unlikely that terrorists are suddenly flooding into the U.S. I also completely agree that we need to thoroughly vet all refugees, immigrants and people seeking temporary visas before they come to the U.S. Maybe the administration should request Congress appropriate more money for the State Department's consular operations since consular officers are on the front lines abroad actually reviewing and approving individual immigration and visa cases. But as evidenced by his public statements, the defendant in this case that's bound for SCOTUS seems to believe that perhaps there is a specific threat from one or all of the 7 countries in question, that the threat is increasing while the EO is stayed, and that federal judges rather than the CINC will be to blame if an attack were to occur. Mr. President, good luck making that argument in front of the court!

@tac airlifter so you upvoted @daynightindicator's post and so did I...guess we can agree after all! BL: no need to go crazy war-hawk and start threatening to nuke Russia, but no need to tickle Putin's balls either. Several previous admin have tried a middle ground somewhere in between those two, I guess now we'll see how far kissing the ring gets us...

^Agreed This isn't a black-or-white characterization. You can absolutely say that you want to improve relations with Russia while at the same time decrying their invasion of Ukraine, killing civilians in Syria and meddling in our democratic process. In fact, that's exactly the position I would advocate - you don't want to purposely and needlessly piss someone off, but you don't have to suck their d*ck every chance you get either. I'd love to have "phenomenal relationships" with all the rogue regimes around globe, just as soon as they stop being flagrant assholes at every opportunity. When we can improve things and work deals that are to our advantage, we should, but rhetorical capitulation and ass-kissing isn't typically a great negotiation strategy... Russia is typically a bad actor on the international stage and they're heavily invested in breaking the liberal democratic Western order that the US built and leads. Putin has killed opposition figures with comic book bad guy tactics (polonium poisoning after being stabbed with an umbrella) and the US President thinks, "(sic) He's doing a brilliant job." Great. p.s. - the US would "lose a fight with Russia?" Seriously?

No relationship with Putin huh? The acceptance of Trump cozying up to Russia by much of the right is the most confusing thing to me. Being oddly aligned with Russia isn't a Republicsn position, it's not a conservative position, it's not a patriotic position. O'Reilly is right - Putin is a killer and drawing moral comparisons between his regime and the US is an insane position for a US President to take.

Cite one source that Rove ever attended an NSC meeting. My understanding is that he was never permitted to attend. Access = power. This is court politics signaling that Bannon has more power than someone like Coats as DNI or Dunford as CJCS, which many people find very troubling. A permanent seat at the PC table is way different than occasional attendance to broader NSC meetings when the President seems it appropriate. Also Rahm was the Chief of Staff, like Reince, and has a far different role than the political strategists. Let's talk apples to apples here.

Dudes, there's a huge difference between a reporter getting something wrong and some guy just making shit up to get clicks. The paper posts a correction and updates the article plus admits mistakes. Fair enough. Should have got it right the first time and verified sources better. Romanian guy writes that Trump is eating little children's hearts for breakfast at the White House. Unrepentant and will even tell you directly that he just made everything up to get ad dollars from clicks. One of those is fake news and the other is the normal ups and downs of journalism. Or it's all the same, morally equivalent. https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/54120 Kind of like Putin is a killer...there are a lot of killers or there. Are we so innocent? Y'all know you would have completely lost your GD minds if Obama had said that, regardless if there's a kernel of truth to it.

This story highlights exactly why you don't want high level political figures (like Bannon) involved in national security decisions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/02/04/the-white-house-cabinet-battle-over-trumps-immigration-ban/?postshare=7731486222921115&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b20f15d565f1 Good on Sec. Kelly for refusing Bannon's "orders" and using the chain of command (i.e. POTUS). Kelly, Mattis, Tillerson, CJCS, are in the chain of command for their various agencies and departments and all report to the President - Bannon or anyone like him is distinctly not in that chain. Re: Rhodes...call him unqualified if you want, but his portfolio was NATSEC issues based on his role as Deputy National Security Advisor. President Trunp has several of those in his admin and they are all appropriate attendees to NSC meetings and that decision-making process. Not as principals (that would be Flynn), but I'm sure they're in the room and they should be. Unless the President wants to dual-hat Bannon as the National Security Advisor, he has no place on the PC. Unless he's also a deputy NSA or NSC staffer of some kind on top of his role as chief strategist, he shouldn't even be in the room, let alone trying to tell the DHS Secretary what to do. In my opinion, W did this right based on accounts of the process he ran. He had his political folks and his NATSEC folks and they had a bright, clear line between those two portfolios. He, as the President, sat in the middle and over everything and alone or with the VP made the appropriate decisions on if and when politics played a role in national security decision making and vice versa. Now, I think Bush made lots of foreign policy mistakes, but FFS they at least ran the interagency process in a logical, deliberate manner and respected and upheld the institutions that exist solely to help the President succeed.

Ben Rhodes was the Deputy National Security Advisor.