nsplayr

What's your source for POTUS saying the Russians played no part? I would genuinely like to read/hear/watch that if you have a link. Election rigging via voter fraud (Trump's accusation) and election meddling via hacking/leaking (intelligence community's assessment) aren't the same thing. And we're not taking about not accepting the results of the election. Hillary conceded and is off walking in the woods still. Obama has met with Trump and there will be a peaceful transition of power in January. Those things are settled facts as well. I point back to the DNI/DHS statement from October, back when Hillary was leading in the polls. That was the United States and the Obama administration officially accusing Russia of meddling in the election. The statement was put out when Obama's preferred successor appeared to be winning and wasn't a sour grapes maneuver as the election hadn't happened yet. The argument could be made that Obama wasn't nearly forceful enough in denouncing Russian interference at that time. This is part of why political debates are so frustrating today. There are apparently no facts and no bipartisan national objectives anymore. It is a fact, according to public statements by the US intelligence community, that Russian state actors deployed cyber attacks to meddle in our election (exact intent is still up for debate). Russia is a geopolitical adversary and we should not accept their interference in our critical internal national affairs. I would hope those two statements would be agreed upon and agreeable to everyone...if not I'll show myself out and I wish you all good luck in thawing relations with Russia in a way that's beneficial to the United States. In all seriousness, I sincerely hope that when Trump is President he follows Congress' lead and brings the full weight of the USG to bear on this investigation because no matter who benefited or who was hurt politically, the integrity of our democratic process was hurt by Russian actions and that's a wound we shouldn't accept lightly.

The DNI absolutely said that the Russians conducted offensive cyber operations to interfere with the US election process. That much is not in disputed whatsoever. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement What is currently up for debate is what the Russians' intent was. Was it to sow general confusion and disruption or were their efforts specifically intended to hurt Clinton and help Trump? The CIA apparently concluded in a classified assessment briefed to Congress that the intent was specific. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html The DNI apparently isn't 100% sold on those conclusions, and communicated while they don't disputed the CIA's conclusions, they can't prove them either. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/310112-dni-not-sold-on-cia-assessment-of-russian-hacking-report Look, I'm not in the camp saying Russians hacked the election and that's the reason Hillary lost. There were a lot of factors at play, including her own weaknesses as a candidate and Trump's particular strengths in the states that ended up mattering. Trump won the electoral college and will be the next President - that's a fact. But the reason a bipartisan group of senators is investigating Russian involvement is because it 100% happened and no matter the intent, it's bad. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/amp/sen-mcconnell-backs-senate-investigations-russian-breach-n694876 I don't want foreign powers interfering in our elections to help either my allies or my political opponents and neither should anyone else. The Russians do not have our interests at heart and I don't want them hacking the RNC or the Trump administration any more than I want them hacking the DNC or the Obama administration.

25 years is apparently what changed. Your point is my point exactly - the Russians don't have our best interests in mind and I trust our own intelligence community more than I trust RT and the Kremlin propaganda machine. Can the same be said uniformly across the right? Now look to the President-elect's administration as the one wanting closer ties to Russia, as not believing the CIA's assessment that Russian hacks were meant to help get Trump elected, etc. Flynn and Tillerson (National Security Adviser and Secretary of State to be [rumored]) have extensive ties with Russia, as did Paul Manafort, Trump's one-time campaign manager. That's why I find it ironic. The "liberals are commies and love Russia!" meme doesn't quite hold today the same way it did in the 80s. Some liberals are commies and fuck 'em, I agree, but let's allow our distain for Russian intersts to cross party lines when necessary as well. Today it's the incoming GOP administration that can rightfully be charged with cozying up to Putin, not the Democrats. Edit to add: I'll also say that I remember laughing when Obama mocked Romney during the 2012 Presidential debates re: Russia. "The 80s want their foreign policy back, etc." I was wrong then and so was the President, Romney was right to identify the Russians as the biggest (or top 2) geopolitical threats to the U.S. VEOs aren't an existential threat...Russian undermining of Western institutions (EU/NATO/U.S.), grabbing land in Europe and energy deals in the Middle East and offering a shitty alternative to Western-back norms and power is an existential threat, and that's what Romney was getting at I think.

Wait, you're insinuating that it's the liberals who are sympathetic to Russian sources of news these days? That's pretty funny man...ask Gen. Flynn about how legit RT is if you run into him around the White House. Reagan is rolling over in his grave re: Trump's ongoing connections to the Russians and apparently even the GOP NATSEC crowd is finally taking notice.

I worked at a federal department all three summers during college and the 80/20 rule of who does what was absolutely true, as is the concept of "retire in place." Was working a project where I, as a GS-4 intern, was supposed to help a GS-14 senior guy with some presentation. He literally asked me what we should be doing and I ended up doing all the work except signing the form at the end : / Many truly worthless bumps-on-a-log people...and a few outstanding ones keeping the ship afloat. One office mate literally watched daytime TV all day off a bunny-ears TV set. Oprah, Judge Judy, etc. etc. YGTBSM. Relevant to this discussion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.8488516f032d

If yall didn't know those facts from reading my posts on here over the years, I'd have to question the Wing's bonafides at collecting intelligence

As an Obama fan, a Clinton voter, and a consumer of a fair amount of left-leaning media, I don't support a pardon and haven't heard anyone talking about a pardon other than conservatives. FYI.

We do have at least one pilot from there but he's a good dude. Definitely cognizant that we're building an entirely separate and new unit culture. Liberty is dead, rest assured. Edit to add: I'm pretty sure, "Liberty is dead" is an old dead guy quote out there somewhere...

From what I remember the DoD put out a memo telling people not to go to the Intercept... Nothing wrong with the subject of Erik Prince's private AF, but the source (the Intercept) is extremely PNG for USG personnel.

Fact. I'm 99% convinced a big part of why we haven't funded a light attack-type aircraft is so we can "use up" the 4th gen fighters, thus justifying the need for a large 5th gen buy. Every time an F-16 does NTISR, a fairy loses her wings, but a huge F-35 purchase looks more and more inevitable...

^^ agree with all of this

I guess I just disagree with the OP on the "observation" role being that unique or really necessary. A lot of the fighting that the light attack aircraft could accomplish isn't in direct support of a boots-on-the-ground groundforce. Tons of work in Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia/Yemen/Libya/Philippines/Mali/Burkina Faso/et al could be done where the U.S. has little to no ground presence. And if/when we do have boots on the ground, it's not cosmic or unheard of to chop an air asset to that specific ground element, especially if they're playing for one of the varsity squads. I also disagree that current multi-sensor ISR isn't being used as an "organic part of the ground maneuver element," I've done it personally - TACON to a particular GFC for an extended period of time. All the pluses gained with familiarity and building relationships, although in a large theater, that's not a particularly efficient way to utilize a $10-15m+ asset. Finally, I disagree that sending FMV + metadata BLOS to a JOC makes you a "voice-directed RPA;" not if you're doing it right and have the trust of the GFC, the FSO and their ITCs. So basically I don't see a whole lot of "newness" in what OA-X is supposed to accomplish per Pako's article linked in the OP. I've see a lot of forced novelty from the patch/DARPA/PhD set because those guys are basically required to come up with dissertations that break new ground, it's the same problem academia has writ large. Not every budding Professor of Air Warfare with multiple patches on his shoulders actually thinks up something new and important, although they're required to write as if they had. OA-X should be a lowish-cost way to combine some of the best aspects of the MQ-9, U-28, and fast-movers. A crew aircraft with lots of radios/datalinks/sensors/weapons that still has legs and multi-int fusion capability that can be flown for less than an arm and a leg per hour would have done a lot of good over the last 15 years and would do a lot of good going forward. The above-mentioned aircraft all have pieces of that puzzle - this platform I think would just consolidate and give commanders a 1-stop shop that doesn't have the some of the same limitations of the others. BL: we don't have to reinvent the wheel, just combine a few things that already work into one platform and unleash it on all the assholes populating the garden spots of the world.

I can't reply in a specific thread after trying to quote someone. Not sure what's going on there. Also, overall, trying to quote someone multiple times so you can respond to multiple parts of their post in turn is now much more difficult with the new quote system. Any ideas what's going on there? I even tried the ole Lockheed fix...log off, log back in... Thanks! edit to add: never mind on the main part...somehow reset itself and things are working gain now. Feedback on quoting remains. Cheers!

Post 9/11 GI Bill housing stipend question for guardsmen/reservists... My wife is going to start a MA program in January and we're considering using some of my transfered 9/11 GI bill months to pay for it. Obviously the benefit is much more generous if you're collecting the housing stipend as well. I'm a part-time guardsman, so I'm fairly confident that drilling and logging AFTPs won't interfere with the housing stipend, but I'm wondering about AT or other Title 10 days. Spouses of AD service members don't receive the housing stipend, and I'm not sure if I would be considered "on active duty" for those days I'm on AT or Title 10. Anyone experienced this or something similiar? Have a great POC at the VA (haha!) who could answer specific questions?

A lot of what you're talking about as "new" or "re-discovered" has already been executed for hundreds of thousands of hours downrange in all of the recent conflicts. The rest has been discussed at the highest levels of the AF and the key players are well aware of the capes the defense industry is capable of providing. I'm not sure if you're really turning over any new leaves here but A for effort?

The CR through 9 Dec with some additional funding for Zika and Flint, MI is done and passed now: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/28/house-leaders-reach-deal-on-flint-aid-potentially-averting-shutdown/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_pp-congress-1205am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

An agreement between Ryan and Pelosi in the House is what opened the doors for the Senate to pass the CR. Seems like a 9 Dec bill is likely as well, but then again all bets are off until the election is over. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/09/28/flint_funding_deal_may_avert_shutdown__131913.html

Credible source says A-29 SuperT and Scorpion Jet will do a flying demonstration next early spring. Not sure if those are the only participants, but that's all I heard.

I think unless you have someone like John McCain running, who has VERY detailed knowledge of and biases for/against specific AF programs, it's all very broad-brushed generalities. In terms of budgets and leadership, look at each candidate's proposals re: the DOD budget and their foreign policy views in general and judge for yourself. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/foreign-policy-and-defeating-isis/ Both parties (as you asked it) or more specifically both current candidates would have a large effect on the US military as a whole in their future role as Commander in Chief, so I'm not sure one would have "more" of an effect than the other.

Some quick counter-points, just to cut down on the hyperbole: Let it be said that statistically, it is much easier to get a pilot slot by going to the Academy than by cold rushing Guard units as an off-the-street guy. Going straight to flying in the Guard is what I would recommend to young guys as well, but I also mention that this route often includes a detour as an E in the unit while you go to college so you can build up the type of relationships typically required to be hired in the first place. A) The exit rate is obviously not 99%, but you know that. B) An O-4 on flight pay at any location in the United States makes more than first year airline pay. Your pay potential is much higher at the airlines and you catch back up and exceed AD pay quickly, but don't pretend like you don't have to take an initial pay cut going from AD to the airlines. C) Everywhere has nonsense, you sometimes get to choose your flavor and even more rarely, the amount. 20 years ago was 1996 for those of us who can do math. Are you seriously saying that the USAF of 1996 was led by more "warriors" than today? By what metric? The most senior dudes back then like the CSAF took part in Vietnam, but the average O-6 of 1996 likely did not or did so very briefly. Today's average O-6 has had the opportunity to see combat time in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/Syria/GWOT et al, and that opportunity has been sustained unlike almost any other conflict in our nation's history. I'll give you that today's leaders are not exactly Moses leading us to the Promised Land by virtue of their occasional dips into CTZE zones and that a Viper doing NTISR over Afghanistan isn't the same as running an F-4 over North Vietnam, but I'm just trying to call out some obvious fallacies in your argument. //break break// For reference against my advice below, I am an '07 year group AFSOC CSO currently in the Guard after doing AD, so YMMV considerably. My answer to the OP is that flying for the Air Force was absolutely worth it for me and I'd do it all over again mostly the same way. I flew with great people, made some humble but tangible contributions to the nation's security and efforts to combat global terrorist organizations, and was paid well and learned a lot while I was at it. Many of my civilian friends from high school and college have nice lives and careers, but their answer to, "So...what have you been up to for the last 10 years?" isn't nearly as good as mine. My career luck and timing was good in once sense (missed that whole "huge recession thing" while I was suckling Uncle Sugar's teet), but bad in others (I left active duty frustrated and somewhat burned out after 8 deployments and being sent on an assignment that I had 7-day opt'd...not what I was expecting). Learning to be as stoic as you can about life was helpful...control what you can, including how you react to the things you can't control. On the back side now with 2 years mostly in the civilian world under my belt, I'm looking forward to getting back into the fight via my new home in the Guard and I have a better appreciation for the idea that things have a way of working themselves out exactly the way they were supposed to. BL: Decide for yourself whether you'd rather heal the sick or fly, fight and win, and then give one of those your 100%. Talk to both doctors and pilots in real life and used their advice to inform your decision. Good luck!

Seriously? I don't get offended whenever I pick up a ratchet strap to tie down some gear (the Ratchet 33 crash killed 4 bros in my community, one of whom I had flown with several days prior to his death). I'm pretty sure the MC-12 bubbas who spread to the wind don't get offended on every July 4th i.e. Independence Day (Indy 08). This was very explicitly a tribute to the Doolittle Raiders, which Sec. James mentioned before bringing up Gen. Doolittle's co-pilot, Lt. Col. (Ret). Dick Cole on stage at age 101 to reveal the name "Raider." Sorry if I sound crass, I know your community is still hurting from the loss of Raider 21, but look at it as an unintentionally positive tribute to those guys rather than an unintentional snub to their legacy.

Thanks for the recommendation Amen brother, I'm ready!

All of the Powell emails were pretty amazing. Dude is keepin' it 100 and not holding back on anyone. Sucks that he got hacked, but as a political junkie this was an unexpected early Christmas present! "Dicking bimbos at home" is also a masterful turn of phrase...bravo sir, bravo. This story from the Post has many of the best gems from the large trove of emails.

Those are definitely some upgrades. Now let's talk spreading out more across time zones and they'll really be on to something. About 15 years late but hey, better late than never I guess!

If anyone's curious on this one, hit me up via PM. 185th SOS, AFSOC MC-12 Guard unit in Oklahoma City. Believe this was our first nav school stud going through. Good dudes, can put you in touch for recruiting if you're interested.