jice

You are missing something. You’re missing a great opportunity to hold at convenient points, crossing midnight 99 times per leg and making yourself entitled to 99x Guam per diem... as long as we’re making up rules.

So to summarize ACC’s requirement to endorse EFB use over paper: EFBs are backed up with EFBs because EFBs can fail in ways that paper pubs cannot. Makes sense.

Slide 1) the benefits are huge. Force quality, flexibility, retention. Slide 2) there is real risk. You may orphan children. Likely your exec's/sub cc's (only so much time in a day) Slides 3-5) 3x points on a spectrum from exposure only through fully quallified and pushing abilities. Slide 6) weak swimmer plan. Slide 9) lead.

Is this a good buy? VID for homeland defense (their homeland, assuming some risk of intercepting a shooter) is out the window at .76 mach & the kinematics basically limit it to point defense... temporarily. Same effect less money: buy something cheap for attack and a patriot battery or two.

This is the crux of the issue. I've seen a lot of folks on this thread say that the CC can order a member to use a particular type of lodging, but what is the legal basis here?

Holy sphincter, Batman. I reached for the ring just watching that video. Lucky for the cameraman that the pilot was only issued two hands.

If we are going to have IPOE DLOs for recce/PED players then we should provide reasonable time for IPOE. 1/2 hour prior to the vul for collect that we call IPOE is insufficient. Happy to work/fly a full day on the Saturday/Sunday prior to each week for pattern of life development (yes this requires $), and to get collect that (should) have been conducted years in advance. The "all the information required has been provided" game renders ISR contributions largely OBE when the sensors on our tac assets push. Good for demonstrating that ISR has a long way to go WRT integration? Yes, absolutely. Good for the warfighter's understanding of what ISR provides prior to night 1? Not at all. Good for exercising ISR processes and skills? Not under the current construct. A small investment here would pay huge dividends if we're serious about replacing the white card with real recce capes.

Ye of little faith.

Looks like they may have a potential buyer. https://www.janes.com/article/51099/carter-to-offer-scorpion-to-india-under-joint-development-plan

Is it really even a benefit? The argument that sustaining the current state of the industry to preserve jobs is a requirement should sound familiar: we did it with the banks and automotive industries in the very recent history, but with the important difference that the addition of government money required significant restructuring. The beautiful thing about the free market is that we (in theory) do not need to redirect efforts in order to replace failures. That's why we have generous bankruptcy policies. To prop up obvious failures is theoretically the least benneficial for those who depend on the industry and only serves to retard progress. Ever wondered why soviet cars never seemed to change much yet still become more expensive and less available? If our defense industry is churning out the weapons equivalent of the moskvitch, we've got a problem.

We've had a lot of talk here about whether we are justified in our actions based on our ideas of justice for the individuals involved or the groups they represent. Those who make the eye for an eye argument are justified in their approach; it is natural to want to harm those who have harmed us. We're military members and all believe in violence as a solution. However, are the policy implications here really about justice for these individuals at all? Should we be asking whether this is helping us achieve our political goals in regions from which these people were taken? It does seem like in extreme cases (the Scalia hypothetical) harsh treatment must be justified if it achieves the desired result. The benefits of not having a mushroom cloud over LA are far outweighed by any possible impact to credibility and perceptions of legitimacy based on the way that information was obtained. However, at some point there must be a point of diminishing returns. If our aim is to stabilize a population/region/way of thinking and establish both political structures and mindsets favorable to the long-term goals of the United States, does the impact to our ability to project soft power become so counterproductive as to negate any benefit that we may gain in short-term intelligence? "Hi, we're from (country X); we're here to help, and we haven't been in the news this week for torturing your relatives. Here's a new soccer stadium (or economy for that matter), now here's what we'd like from you" might be more dangerous in the long term than what we are preventing with short-term intelligence gathering. Let's hope we've got some pretty smart folks making the decisions; I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't have any idea how to determine the exchange rate in these transactions.

This might be a ridiculous question, but what are the actual incentives for command? If an officer (with retirement secured) were standing at the fork in the road looking at getting out at considerable financial gain or staying in with the option of command, what would homo economicus do? If the answer is that the rational model would get out, spend time with the kids and buy nice toys, does this mean we are attempting to select for patriotism/internal motivation to serve alone? If this is the case, how do we discriminate between an individual calling to service and an individual calling to power?

Also somewhat concerned about pcola's question in light of this: https://www.defensenews.com/article/20140126/DEFREG02/301260027/Global-Hawk-Wins-2015-Request-Sources-Say?odyssey=nav%7Chead Does good news for the Global Hawk by nature mean bad news for the Deuce?

Found it highly political, and it had about the same content:time ratio as ASBC/SOS (without the per diem). Special effects were neat at times, but the action scenes were pretty ho-hum. Recommend taking the kids to see one of the cartoons instead and catching the special effects on the inevitable "making of."

Tried the training report, sent with a copy of the ACE recommendation. No dice. The university seems more than willing to award the credits with a transcript, but apparently Uncle Sam's signature on the training report is insufficient. Apparently the idea that a world exists outside of academia is incredibly frightening to these folks.

I'm guilty of perpetuating the problem, breaking down, and getting the degree. That said, as a practical matter: Anybody had experience generating a transcript for PIT/The B-Course? (or any military training for which a transcript is not automatically generated)? My university insists on having a transcript of some sort, though the experience of my bros, at Embry-Riddle and elsewhere, was simply sending the ACE recommendation from the ACE website and a copy of the training report. Could the CCAF generate a transcript for this training? My Ed office? The printer in my office? Thanks for the help. Edit: Redundant Redundancy Removed

I'm all for agencies getting what they need to get the job done; however, it does seem to hurt the credibility of this acquisition that they bought a "Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected" vehicle, then modified it to place the agents on the outside. Is this standard practice?

I love the "save the whales" spin the media added.

Make one of them fall in love with you. Move in together after graduation, then get married. After a few years leave with half his stuff, but leave a can of tuna and the wrench. It'll be great; you could even get his mother in on the joke.

So if the U-2 is the goal in a few years could those downgrades potentially kill the dream?

Not shenanigans on Stan-Eval's part, but seemed like an appropriate place for the question: Had a form 8 check recently, ended up Q1 with a pair of downgrades for being a bonehead at the right time and place. How much do downgrades on a form 8 checkride matter? Obviously no downgrades would have been much better, but is this something that's going to have an impact down the road?

I know guys who got out of there in 2 weeks. I also know guys who stayed much longer due to weather or other circumstances. Your best bet for getting out early: Know your stuff when you show up, study really hard and figure out a way to influence the weather. I wouldn't plan any trips during the period that you're supposed to stay there, but if the weather's nice and you don't have a difficult time with the program you should get out early. I don't think they are double turning the nav types, so if that's the boat you're in plan to stay the entire time. Weather is the biggest factor, being able to PA is a close second.

It happens everywhere. People DOR at IFS, get rolled back or DQed medically, etc. I've seen guys get moved up to a class that starts within a week. Class rosters can be pretty fluid sometimes it seems.

I wonder what the FSDO will have to say. I've met some inspectors in other parts of the country who, given the same situation, would likely attempt to violate the Wrights posthumously and ground all aircraft derived from Wright designs. (mostly kidding) I hope mr. Dusenberry comes out alright. There's a very interesting NOVA documentary about a retired AA pilot who built a model B flyer; I think it's available on PBS's website. Unfortunately, that story ended much the same as this one.