nsplayr

Amen. See song #13. Reminds me of this:

I have my location listed and post here all the time. Then again you can also determine my location (or probably yours) via our IP addresses, so I'm not exactly losing sleep at night about the Chinese or the OPSEC police coming to knock on my door...get a grip man. But the point is that disaster relief missions are perhaps not the best match for the MC-12's combat capabilities. Does that mean they can't play or that the guard wouldn't want them? Hell no, but it means it's not the most efficient use of the aircraft we have, which are a shrinking and precious resource. I'm also pretty sure no one has said they don't want to fly disaster relief missions or any other missions the guard might get tasked to do. What people are saying is that based on what the guard is likely to do, the MC-12 is perhaps overqualified in terms of what it can be used for overseas. I can think of a lot simpler/cheaper ways to provide a civilian JOC-type setup with the pred porn they would need to map flooding, locate victims, etc. The other point which you seem to be missing is that of course the guard wants the aircraft...they want any aircraft they can get their hands on because then THEY HAVE MORE AIRCRAFT! I wouldn't expect any guard General to say otherwise. What are you brewing beer or something? "Master of your craft," that's some funny sh*t there. Keep it up man, you're doing a great job of logically convincing people to support your position.

Barber takes a slim lead.

In March. No saying it's right, Bloomberg is far too nanny-state even for a liberal like me, but it's not new news. Any idea is this rule has held up during/after Sandy?

With the ipad on airplane mode (ya know, because of all the interference it causes to the instruments...), you'd have to be on a pretty epically long sortie to totally deplete the batter only occasionally referencing pubs. If you're using a GPS puck, foreflight, ok, maybe but come on...it's just OGV being queepy if this is actually true. New thought: ipad mini as EFB. Cheaper to acquire, potentially better form factor for strapping to your leg, pretty much exactly the same capes. Thoughts?

I've definitely argued for changes to the mil retirement system at length here before, but this is way too much and unnecessary. This plan would be even less generous than federal civilians which would make no sense whatsoever. What I'd vote for is something similar to what federal law enforcement officers get plus the more generous health benefits in line with what we're getting now. Don't worry though...CAP is not particularly influential with Congressional leaders and any changes to mil benefits has to run through them. Thanks for posting though, good to see what's being tossed around out there.

Anyone get dedicated time off from their additional duties to "study in the vault?" No on in my community does, that's for damn sure. The queep monster consumes as much time as you let him and it's on individuals and instructors and FLT/CCs to ensure everyone gets and stay smart. It's a constant battle, and the thing that often loses in that battle is time off. Can we close our doors from group taskers, security inspections, Group/CC PT etc. so we can study? Even on "training days" the BS continues. So no, I won't think of their closed-door training opportunities as my time in the vault because I put in effort to fit in that time on top of 6-9 hours of normal day-to-day BS. So wait, if I take my leave like a week or two at a time, and I multiply that out by everyone in the squadron...the squadron would completely shut down and we'd fail at our mission. Seems like if everyone took a day off per week, so long as it wasn't the same day, that would actually be a better leave policy by your f-ed up logic.

Gee...wonder how you got your hired by that unit? Grandpa: Drafted for WWII (in less than 2 years, war ended before he deployed) 1x Uncle: career Coast Guard, retired as an O-6 1x Uncle: career enlisted Army Dad: Joined up during Vietnam, 4 years in the Navy 1x Cousin: enlisted Army medic, just back from Afg Me: ROTC, f*ckin' nav, first aviator in family

I mean...he is 1/2 white, so maybe he only gives 1/2 a sh*t...

Get an advanced screening or something? Good to hear, cause I thought the last one blew pretty hard, especially after Casino Royale was so good.

Yea...if you lost leave from FY12 you would have seen in on your most recent LES that came out a couple of days ago.

This good sir is not in question...I for one am now just curious what you do and at what level (not even necessarily who you are) so I know how widespread the damage you're likely causing is and if any of it is near where I am.

Although there seems to be quite a few other dudes saying basically the same thing... Agreed with all.

Beep boop boop beep beep boop boop beep. 1001001110110010010. And as a proud nav, all I can say about this post is...f*cking EWOs!

Yea, valid...Iran is pretty f-ing mountainous. Another reason we should stay the F out of there.

That's assuming you think we'll be putting boots on the ground in Iran anytime soon

You're thinking too Afghanistan-specific. Where else in the world are we needing PR at 11K, let alone above 8K? It's our main conflict right now, but if we're talking future capes you have to think of future conflicts because for today's war, we're stuck with what we have right now. Think of a place that's HUGE and doesn't have almost any friendly military bases or a ton of heavy fighting and will likely be the site of a good number of future U.S. military actions. That's a place where the V-22 might be a good PR (vice CSAR) choice. Not that I know anyone who loves the V-22, but still, speed is key over continent-sized distances.

Caveat: not a pilot...but... Don't sweat it. Especially with prior flight experience you'll be just fine. Enjoy some time off (if you're less busy now) and just be ready day one to excel.

You equate rank with worth, that's always a good hallmark of leadership. It's not necessarily an anonymous forum, but there is a leveling of the playing field (i.e. Lts/Captains can argue with/debate Lt Cols and Full Birds without being out of place) and each person can kinda stand on the merits of what they have to say. That's unfortunate for you considering what you've contributed. If you browse through some BO.net history, you'll find I'm far from a Rainman apologist but you've proven nothing other than you're a complete douche. Back in the good ole' days we had plus or minus buttons associated with each post, I can only imagine the negatives you would have gotten... I can honestly say you have provided very little of value on these forums other than a perspective on what inept leadership thinks (assuming you are in a leadership position as you've alluded to). Good luck to you, troll-strong, and I hope you're happy with your rant because I'm pretty sure your taget individual doesn't give 2 shits about what you think and you certainly haven't ingratiated yourself to the young and impressionable here.

They're too busy hacking the mish to sit SOF...let's all remember who the real heroes are here...to our resident Spec Ops fighter pilot "SweetI'mSOF"

I'm hoping he is referencing getting the "pleasure" of sitting as the Supervisor of Flying (SOF) rather than being a part of Air Force Special Operations Command.

I see a lot more SLA requests in my squadron's future...thanks for the update FG.

So is it ever appropriate to negotiate with governments we oppose? Is there a better way forward WRT Iran? I'm just curious if you're interested in the status quo of letting the sanctions do their thing (although their thing is to bring them to the table and/or destabilize the government there...) or just go ahead with a strike. They definitely could be lying...hell, the admin now says there's no deal so who knows what's actually going on. But if there is a deal an opportunity to negotiate, I don't see why we would not want to take it; we have basically nothing to lose and a negotiated settlement is easily the best end-game for the whole situation other than a spontaneous, relatively bloodless overthrow of the mullahs by the people, but then again it's hard to say what you get after that happens (see Libya, Egypt, etc.).

So now the story at NYT is "agreed in principle." Interesting to see what the truth actually is. I frankly don't understand why folks seem to imply that this is a shrewd attempt by the administration to somehow swing the election. It's been their policy all along to seek negotiations with Iran, either the multilateral ones they reference in the politico story linked above or unilateral ones. That's not new or related to the election. So if someone is changing their policy, if this whole thing is even true, it's Iran. They've been dodging negotiations for some time and suffering under the sanctions instead. They could be lying, they could be buying time, but they could be sweating under the sanctions and thinking negotiating some kind of deal where they get to enrich for civilian purposes but are denied weapons they claim not to seek anyways. No one knows the truth except the Iranians and it's not like they're monolithic. It's easy to say, "Appeasement!" but ask yourself honestly what is the downside in negotiating at this stage in the game? We seem to hold the vast majority of the cards in this game and the status quo is crippling sanctions endorsed by pretty much everyone and a much-discussed potential military strike from Israel/us/both.