Fud

If you pick space command, you will likely get a missile assignment out of the starting blocks. In this line of work, and the space side, you will pull crew shifts with another officer (missiles), or a mixed crew of enlisted/officers. These will sometimes be men, and other times be women. We had a guy up here a while back who did not want to pull alerts with women, and he was given an ultimatum, either serve where you are told, or get out of the USAF. He chose to get out of the AF, and do something else. This fella was catholic, and stated that his religion did not allow him to pull alerts with members of the opposite sex. I don't know where that rule is in the Bible, but I'm catholic and have no problems performing the mission with anyone of the opposite gender. On the religious note, I would keep all of it to yourself once you commission, because there is nothing worse in a unit that someone who seems to preach to his fellow soldier. I have seen it happen enough, and when they do it to me, I tell them to knock it off. I pull crew duty on sundays, and miss church all month sometimes, but I do not expect Big Blue to bow to my every religious desire. I agree with what some have said already, that you should choose a different line of work, or become a chaplain in the military. You sound like you would be an asset to this community, but any other career field probably wouldn't work for you. Edited because I left this out...all women in the USAF want to jump your bones...every last one of them.

I agree with you statement about the times, and I think that it is wise of the AF to tighten the reigns quite a bit. We are overextending ourselves in two wars and spending more money than ever before. I hope they stick to what Gates has chosen, but there will be a lot of political rhetoric in the future. As in previous program cancellations, we will see the congressman start to complain about jobs lost, since parts for the F-22 are made all over the US.

Look on page 89 of version 2 of the AFI 10-248, and it says that AD members are not held to the height/weight requirements that accessions are. The problem comes when you get to Brooks and have a doctor tell you that your BMI is high. This is not a real problem for the AD folks, but could be depending on how the Air Staff views it. I just got finished with Brooks, and this was my only issue, and they were still not sure about the requirement. The AFI also says that AD members will only be evaluated on their PT score, and if their waist is above 40inches. If you've been in the USAF for a while, you will see that some AFIs are followed and others were not. When I mentioned the paragraph on page 89, the flight doc told me that i could stand to lose some weight, but that I looked good in uniform, and that I could PT well. I wouldn't worry about it unless you are an accession.

Article from the US Army on Toxic Leadership: https://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/dclm/Toxic_Leadership.pdf I never knew or served under Fogledouche, but I have experienced many people like him in my short time in the military. I think one of the worst things is seeing a leader try to leave his legacy, and enact more useless programs at the end of their tenure. I would say these types get promoted the majority of the time, because they are willing to do whatever their leadership at the top wants them to do. I wish the "Peter Principle" would be adhered to in these cases, but I do not believe this will ever happen.

The only reason these people exist is to sue the US government over their rights being violated (free speech). A couple of them are lawyers, and want to be thrown off of the curb so they can sue, and get more money. I think Fred Phelps got his law license revoked, but both of his daughters are lawyers as well. When confronted with this, they got very defensive, and started saying "God hates fags" over and over again. I agree with Toro here, and think all hippies should be punched in the face...repeatedly.

I second "None Braver" about the PJs in the GWOT. Very good book so far. I'm also reading "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young", and "We are Soldiers Still..." by Hal Moore.

I believe it was Robin Olds who started the tradition, or at least he made it more popular. He grew an out of regs handlebar mustache that caused his men to love him even more. I highly recommend reading about him, he's an interesting guy.

I think he was quoting "Happy Gilmore", but yes, a simple "wrong" would have sufficed.

I know it's already been said, but I think they were flying the mission for an airshow. We have a couple of the flight docs ride along on those to maintain their currency.

Does anyone know if a book has been written about Robin Olds?

"Boyd" and "American Patriot" by Robert Coram "The Pentagon Wars" by Colonel James Burton USAF (Ret.) "Eye of the Viper" forgot the author The top three books (two boy Coram, one by Burton) highlight the inadequacies in defense contracting, and how senior leadership, in all services, does not have the soldier's best interests in mind. I find it interesting that the majority of men who have been awarded the Medal of Honor (I know most receive it posthumously), do not make it past the grade of Colonel. There are exceptions, but I say this because most great warriors that I have encountered are not of high rank. These men (i.e. Boyd, Bud Day, and Burton) have done more important things that we can even imagine. I hope that I see "Boyd" on the CSAF's reading list one day. *"Boyd" also has some great chapters about how the USAF's promotion system works, and the intricacies of the service. I found those chapters very interesting, and have read them over and over again.*

Salutes for spouses=a bitch slap sort of resembles a salute.

I 2nd the motion.

We had a guy on our base recently receive an article 15 for remarks against the POTUS. It was in the base paper, so there were no details, but my guess is that it was bad.

While I agree this is an odd request, I do think it is wise to be more fiscally responsible as an air force. By doing this, we will hopefully get the best weapon systems possible that meet the need of the customer. However, I know what I just said is wishful thinking. We will still have useless programs that will suck up money faster than it can be alloted. I also wonder why they say 10%. Is this a round number, or is someone just blindly requesting this amount. What will the 10% saved be spent on? Bailouts would be my guess, and we'll continue to use all of our older equipment.

Here are some more good articles on this subject as well...interesting reading if you ask me. https://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml https://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0216.shtml

stoleit2x and everyone else, I apologize for mis-speaking/typing about the YF-17. I think I got the aircraft confused. I also did not mean to say that the F-22 and F-35 were flown head to head, but there were flyoffs. I got a better website for use on this as well. https://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0236.shtml Again, I apologize for the mistakes, but I was trying to point out the fact that all of these newer aircraft have so much technology that they will be doing way to many missions in the future.

I think he should grease himself up with vaseline and wear some pants like the avatar on Jenk's profile. He'd definitely get some crazy looks.

AirGuardian, What we need is another man like Col John Boyd to head up a reform movement, and get airplanes that actually deliver on the promised results. The problem also stems from politicians wanting to create jobs for their constituents, thus adding more "gold-plating" to the aircraft. I do not believe that the F-35 will be a very good replacement for the A-10, simply because it will fly too fast. You do not need radar to see tanks in a CAS aircraft, but you do need to be able to fly slow enough and loiter so the troops on the ground can bring the rain. I hate seeing aircraft like this put into production, because the stealth technology is not all it is cracked up to be, and it is really expensive. They need to have fly-off competitions like they did for the F-16. If you are not familiar with this concept, I will explain. The USAF contracted two companies to build prototypes for a flyoff many years ago. The companies came up with the YF-16 and the YF-17. The flyoff took place, and the USAF chose the F-16, which is probably the best dogfighting aircraft around, even now. The US Navy decided to choose the YF-17, added another engine, and it is now the F-18. This process met all the required needs of the politicians and the DoD, which was unprecedented at the time, and has not happened again since. The F-22 and the F-35 performed side-by-side in a competition, but the fighters are so expensive, that talk is now surfacing about killing the F-22. I'm sure most of you knew all of this history before, but it does help us learn some lessons so we can apply them in the future. (1) We need the DoD to foster competition amongst the contractors so that the troops on the ground get the best product. (2) We need to keep the mission sets of most aircraft separate (I wouldn't be surprised to see the next generation fighter have a refueling capability for itself and other aircraft). Finally, (3) the USAF needs to support the CAS mission and keep building aircraft like the A-10. While fighters, bombers, refuelers, and CAS systems all service different missions, and we all should be working together to support the infantrymen on the ground. I like to see cutting edge aircraft enter the scenes, but not at the expense of the airmen it takes to operate them. Technology has progressed to a state that some think we require less people to use it, but that is also not the case. The people are the mission, not the hardware and whoever believes these to be the other way around should be shit-canned.

Vertigo, The fact that your wife is Austrialian probably will not affect your clearance status that much. A guy I work with is married to a girl from Iraq, and he has a TS clearance. She is also in the US Military though.

I don't understand why squadron leadership flying any airframe would downplay the importance of the U-2. What exactly is a "dead end" job in the flying world? Is it one that doesn't get you promoted to general officer, or one that simply isn't satisfying? I would rather do some very important work for our troops on the ground in this fantastic aircraft, and you would also be able to see some really interesting stuff. I found this website describing the U-2 and many of its characteristics. I'd fly it. https://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/u-2.htm

I would try clepping out of as many courses as possible. We had a guy do this at my base, and he had his bachelors degree in a year and a half. This is very rare, but it can be done. Also, I wouldn't decide on an airframe until you get into UPT and see what you're up against. I have been given this advice by everyone who has gone through UPT so far, and I'm adhering to it. You could also double up on your classes, and take a crap-load of hours. You'd have no life for a while, but if you really want to fly, it will be worth it.

I know that people have been talking a lot about how bad "fad" diets are, but for the short term, you could try some of those things. Taking out carbs for a week won't kill or hurt you at all, but I recommend something different. I don't want to sound like a spammer, but I always was on the losing end of the weight issue back in college, but I could still PT better than 3/4 of the people there. It was maddening, but my commander (also a fatty, and had triple bypass surgery a year after I commissioned) almost did not let me commission because of it. I joined up with weight watchers over a year ago, and have lost 40lbs in a healthy, slow way. If you are not in shape, you will not do as well in UPT, and that could effect your chances of getting your favorite airframe, or even graduating. I hope this helped.