BQZip01

had to post this one too:

...but seriously...

I have dibs on Green 1. If this RB crap is going to make me a little green around the gills, I might as well go for a matching color...

I would agree entirely. Do you have a reference for that?

They can check your government computer at will, and they do. I was in Comm and you wouldn't believe the quantity of people who somehow think that no one will notice if you set up your own website for your porn collection. Or that people try to use google's image search to look at previews of porn images. Then there are the brain donors who actively distribute porn via e-mail after acquiring it (do you have any idea how easy it is to get in trouble that way? "Sir, A1C Snuffy sent me this..." The search criteria, however, is not the same for your laptop/Wifi access. That is your personal computer and they have no right to search it unless a crime has been committed. They CAN monitor what is sent through THEIR Wifi access point, but they cannot use a keylogger or spyware. You don't lose your Constitutional rights just because you are a deployed servicemember (you DO, however, lose all common sense apparently with respect to reflective belts...). As for the memos, those become a little stickier as they are public documents. The exact same e-mails could be obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request as they were not labeled FOUO (if you have any political aspirations, label every single e-mail you make with this and it could keep your butt out of hot water...make sure it fits FOUO criteria). If they were labeled FOUO and that was removed, we have a punishable crime here folks. As it stands, it makes absolutely no sense to prosecute someone for a FOIA procedural error when it is, in fact, a public document.

Yeah, I've heard that one too. Also an interesting story.

Hasn't Europe already done that (someone with photoshop skills update this)... ... Good luck my Brit friends!

C-5, Huge Russian transport, whatever. FWIW, the C-5 can launch ICBMs...I'm sure that would result in an air-to-air kill of something if its target was a major metropolitan city...

In honor of the Star Wars reference, here's what really happened on the AUAB, I mean Death Star, run Gold Two: The guns - they've stopped! Gold Five: Stabilize your rear deflectors... Watch for enemy leadership. Gold Leader: They're coming in! (sts) Three Colonels at 2-10! [Gold Two disappears in a fiery explosion...probably because he didn't have a reflective belt and was run over by a droid] Gold Five: Keep going! Don't stop! (sts...actually, all that follows seems to be an interesting sts) Gold Leader: It's no good, I can't maneuver! Gold Five: Stay on target. Gold Leader: *We're too close!* Gold Five: Stay on target! Gold Leader: [shouts] Loosen up!(sts) [Gold Leader disappears in a fireball after attempting to eat chow without a reflective belt. Gold Five eats his food faster] Gold Five: Gold Five to Red Leader, lost Tiree, lost Dutch. Red Leader: Copy, Gold Leader. Gold Five: They came from... behind! (sts) [Gold Five is also caught and executed for poor RB usage]

Couldn't find anything to verify that, but the B-52 is bigger in every respect anyway (payload, wingspan, takeoff weight, length, etc)

Interesting tidbit about the C-123. However, it is significantly smaller than the B-52 (it's max takeoff weight is less than our max payload...). I'm actually trying to improve the Wikipedia article. If you'll notice, every other sentence in the article is referenced (sans the lead which is a rehash of the article itself). This is the only sentence that isn't referenced and I'm trying to fix that.

All, What's the largest aircraft in an air-to-air kill. I'm pretty sure it's the B-52D (2 kills in Vietnam during Operation Linebacker II), however I can't find a reference for whether it is the largest aircraft with an A-A kill. Any help would be appreciated.

Ith uh conthpirathy!

I suppose it's too much to hope that they are re-thinking their policy... Tell your neighbors and friends...

I'll second that, but from a different perspective. With the standup of a new squadron and a new MAJCOM, we're in dire need of Navs/CSOs/EWOs in the B-52 community. I love my job as a BUFF E-Dub too. To paraphrase the above: You've got 67,000 pounds of hate available on call (potentially some with a Megaton-class yield!). We also have the sniper LITENING pod toys. We have both a toilet AND a urinal. The ops tempo isn't too bad for family life, and it's fairly predictable (at least at a squadron level). You'll be gone six months, home for a year and a half. There are leadership opportunities all around in this community as well. Our current and previous wing kings didn't have wings with a radiator.

Surely someone is about to retire anyway and wants to go out in a $200 blaze of glory...

Here's an interesting idea: Set up a booth and sell kool-aid by the cup for everyone going to the meeting...make sure everyone is drinking the kool-aid as the Wing King is speaking...

3! (hell, I'd volunteer for a 365!!!) On a related note, the usage of belts, where effective (i.e. the flightline), make sense. It's the excessive wearing of them and the mandated stupidishness I have a problem with (as well as my grammar and use of imaginary words...) $50 bottle of scotch to anyone who has the guts to ask why the FOX NFL Sunday folks broadcasting live weren't required to wear the belts...

Question 1: Are you a nav-select? Question 2a: Are you going to Randolph or Pensacola? Question 2b: If you are going to P-cola, when? Comment 1: I'd look at the mission before you look at location. EVERY base is what you make of it. I'm currently at Minot and, to quote my squadron commander, "Minot isn't that bad." I know people who LOVED Eielson. I know people who hated Hurlburt Field and Hickam. If you make the best of it and stay involved in the base and community, you'll probably have a pretty good time. Comment 2: Don't set your goals before you know your options. There are a LOT of other aircraft out there for a Nav/EWO with some pretty unique and interesting missions (B-52, RC-135 [3 variants], KC-135, U-28, MC-12, OC-135, etc.) C-130s: slicks (your basic -130): does lots of "trash hauling", lots of drops, lots of low level, one of the few birds that the Nav actually has a decent view. AC-130: has 3 rated navs onboard: nav, ewo, and the fire control officer. Lots of travel, lots of training, lots of destruction MC-130: has 2 navs onboard (depending on the variant...there's the MC-130E, MC-130H, MC-130P, and MC-130W). EXTREME low level flying at its finest; dangerous Spec Ops stuff (high risk & high reward) with spec ops teams (one mission in OIF had them flying 4+ hours at less than 50 feet...full power). They also do helicopter refueling, package drops, HALO, etc. EC-130: Electronic broadcast airplane and electronic jamming platform (depending on the variant) LC-130: Arctic trash hauler; lands on skis (reserve only) HC-130: Helicopter refueler for rescue choppers KC-130: Navy/Marine helicopter refueler variant...you ain't getting it unless you're NAVY (Never Again Volunteer Yourself) or in USMC (Uncle Sam's Marijuana Club) WC-130: Hurricane Hunters (only reserves) I don't recommend Wikipedia for everything, but they have a lot of information that's pretty accurate on this topic. Realize that not all of the listed variants are in current use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130_Hercules Then there's the F-130...

From the Leadership at the 'Deid thread: I would think that such a blatant public display of a lack of proper RB wear despite Command oversight in the shot could be construed as "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline," but what do I know...

I would think that such a blatant public display of a lack of proper RB wear despite Command oversight in the shot could be construed as "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline," but what do I know...

This explains the Marine O-6 going jarhead on Wing leadership... ...do these brain donors realize that Marines are not legally allowed to wear reflective belts?!?! This is just asking for a lawsuit.