BitteEinBit

Maybe because we don't focus on flying? I'm starting to see a trend here....

...or no threat milling around at groud level, ground speed zero focusing on everything else but flying....

I checked the Spur Cheerleader website and there were no girls that matched that description...or were you talking about the girl you were going to meet? :) Either way, you just admitted to banging a 300lb chic monster...and since we believed your original story, we believe you now too! No taking it back!! Actually, I really did check out the website for the cheerleaders and found this little gem...anyone know the chick at 0:40? I have a budget question.... https://www.nba.com/spurs/meet-2011-2012-silver-dancers

But you said you got her numbah...how you like dem apples?!? You should at least call. Remember though, you have to wait two days and then call... Anyway, You could have found a way to visit the chick you were visiting anyway AND bang the cheerleader. It can be done. If I were you, I'd be planning an additional trip to SAT very soon...unless you're telling us the chick you were visiting is hotter than the cheerleader...in which case you have to post pics of both so we can see if you made the right choice...

"And break a major rule of engagement? I heard The hard-deck for those hops will be 10,000 feet...there will be no engagements below that. The rules of engagement are there for your safety and the safety of your team. They are not flexible and neither is the CFACC...obey them or you are history" (Especially in tis time of the RIF). My buddy Commander Mike Metcafl from the CAOC told me this.....

They aren't going to screw this up....we have the "best and brightest" making and executing these plans. I have confidence in this new predictable plan (plan #4 in my short time: Composite Wings, AEF, Modified AEF, this one). It is going to be perfect this time! I'm betting none of the airlift/spec ops units will fall into this dwell plan. It will just be shoes deploying once every 18 months, changing rules every time so they leave a mark. Sounds familiar, except instead of 120 day deployments, it is 180. I remember when it was 90 (old man voice "back in my day." Up next: 365s standard for all my friends! Remember, the boss (CSAF) said he'd rather have a smaller, better force than a larger hollow force. Lets see how long the best and brightest of "Generation Me" are willing to put up with it....Good thing these wars are ending soon.... Good luck! We're all counting on you!

I think the practice of "wellness" as a lifestyle will help slow the rise of the costs of health care for the Air Force, but costs will continue to rise...along with personnel costs. Wellness means people live longer, which means benefits last longer, which means the Air Force will pay longer for those living longer (the other part of our personnel cost problem...hence the "retirement pay" debate). We've been doing this new PT thing for the past 8 years and costs keep rising...so saying AF PT is about cost savings is laughable to me. IMO, the new fitness test is a force shaping tool...and that is it. I have done the same pushups/situps (57/54) and run times (12:00ish) for the past 8 years and the only thing that has changed is my score (the standards). I think the requirement to max pushups/situps went down for one test when I was in the 35 and above bracket before the new test came out. I only had to do 44 pushups and 47 situps or something to max it...but I'm no more fit today than I was when this PT Test started 8 years ago. Eventually, when I turn 40 using the current standards, I'll be scoring an excellent on my PT Test while still running the same slow and easy 12:00/1.5mile pace with my fat 37 inch waist that I have been the past 8 years...am I all of the sudden healthier? If they want to kick people out...they'll just make the standards a little harder to encourage the min runners to fail...just like they did with the current standards. Like I've said before...the test isn't that hard, but people both skinny and fat fail it. Easy to cut people who don't meet standards.

I wouldn't let these professors get under your skin with their opinions. Notice, they have an opinion that differs from reality, but the reality hasn't changed. I think that means their "opinion" is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. We're still going to go to war, and war is still going to involve deploying overseas and killing people who want to kill us. Nothing against lawyers, but just consider this...while these professors have every right to express their biased opinion on what they think the military is all about, they are the same ones who defend murderers, rapists, child molesters right here in America. Their very profession, at least on the defense side of the house, actually calls it "success" when they win a case and their otherwise guilty child molester, murderer, rapist goes free....and this jackass is responsible for teaching those defenders...must mean he supports the crimes (using his logic). These are just typical liberal professors talking out of both sides of their mouths because they think they have an agenda. No one will know who that jackass is two weeks from now. Let them speak freely, it won't change anything. The fact remains that they support rapists, murderers and child molesters right here in America (generalizing and using his logic).

You don't want to give away all the acquisition secrets on here...there may be people watching and scheming up ways to counter our creative smuggling techniques.... Beware of the SNAP user post #1 "Hey guys, I'm getting ready to deploy to the desert and I heard there are no more tobacco products for sale there...How are guys getting tobacco over there?? I can't live without it...please help!"

Come on....clearly they aren't the same...the one on the bottom depicts giant faces without bodies...all of the ones on top have bodies. Too easy...

They should be fired...

I'm putting my money on the crossflow option...it is the quickest, least expensive fix so it would make the most sense....when it happens, it will also mark the time the Air Force finally figures out that it really doesn't have an overage of 11M pilots, or rather the reason it appears to have an overage is because they keep giving 11F/B programmed (T-38 track) UPT graduates airlift assignments. I think someone's lightbulb just lit up... In any case, good news for new pilots who want to be fighter pilots..... Anyone taking bets on the next rated recall?? I'm saying within 15 months from TODAY.

The Air Force has that theory, and they use 35in as the magic number for those with "potential"...but in my opinion (and I'm not a doctor, I only play one on TDYs) the "potential" for health risks in the future based on waist measurement is a joke. I would tend to agree that people with larger waists (I'm talking in the 45in+ range) probably do have a higher potential for health problems, but at the same time, I'd be willing to bet the majority of those 45in+ people who are MOST at risk also can't do 69 pushups and situps or run a 10min 1.5 miles. I realize there are some professional athletes (NFL linemen) who are the exception, but to say that everyone with over 35in waist is a health risk is just dumb especially if they are in the "low risk" range on all other components. They are no more of a health risk than the smoker with the 32in waist who can't max the pushups, sit ups, or run and barely passes with a 75%...but somehow those people aren't "identified" as high risk. I have the potential to get cancer...as does everyone else in the Air Force because humans get cancer..are we all health risks? Health care costs are rising for the Air Force not because we have a bunch of fatties, but because health care costs are rising for EVERYONE. Like I said before, if rising health care costs are the rationale for kicking people out of the Air Force, then in theory, health care costs should start to decrease. But they won't. Not to mention health care costs for dependents. What are we going to do, kick people out because they have fat kids and a dependapotamus wife? Are they not health risks with potential costs? These cuts are about end strength and end strength only...this is just one way to justify the cuts. When we were at war, the Air Force didn't care how fat anyone was as long as we were able to support the manpower requirements. I think we can better identify those with "health risks" by taking out the waist measurement all together...the weak swimmers fat and skinny will stand out. If a fatty is really a health risk, his/her score will reflect it without the waist measurement bringing it down...but it also prevents the skinny bubba from getting extra points on top of a min score JUST because he has a 32 inch waist.

You just made a point and then contradicted it in the same post... You made a great point about "looking fit" vs "being fit" but then early on you talk about what a "fit soldier (Airman, Marine, Seaperson) should look like" in your opinion. How about measruing a person's fitness based on their performance instead of how you think they should look? How do you know that guy can't do 69 pushups and situps? Have you actually seen him try or are you just judging him by his skinny frame? I've seen skinny dudes max out the PT test and I've seen fat dudes max out the PT test (minus the tape). That is the biggest problem with the fitness test, the Air Force assumes everyone looks the same and no one cares about actual performance (sounds familiar). The tape measure should be thrown out all together! Why? because if strength, power, flexibility, blah blah is important in combat, tell me how someone with a 32-in waist can pass the PT test by running a 13:36 1.5, 44 pushups and 42 situps, but someone can run a 10 min 1.5, 67 pushups and 69 situps and still fail the test because they have a 39.5 inch waist (yes I've seen people max the cardio and muscle assessment with that big of waist...it doesn't necessarily mean "fat"). I've seen people "fail" the PT test with a "passing score" because they didn't get the "minimum component" in one of the sections...thats right...fail with a score of 90!...thats why the Air Force changed it so you get 0 points if you get below the minimum component (yet they still put the times, reps on the fitness charts with a 0 next to it). How does that make sense to anyone? Don't believe for one second that the Air Force cares about performance, flexibility, strength, agility for combat operations...lets be honest, most of our deployed AF brethren aren't out on foot patrols engaging the enemy in hand-to-hand combat (although many are). When is the last time anyone on this board had to run more than 600ft in the combat zone besides an egress from an aircraft? The Air Force will even try to make you believe that the new fitness standards are about controlling rising health care costs...that too is a joke. If that is the case, with these new fitness standards in place, we should actually see a drop in health care costs...(in theory)...won't happen with all the smokers, dippers and drinkers we have in the Air Force along with the fattening fast food joints all over base. I'm betting the Army and Marines have the same rising health care costs...and they've had this sort of PT test for decades. The guy in the picture could (based on how he "looks" compared to how a "combat soldier" should look) could fail with a score of 80 (fails pushups/situps)...is he a health risk? The Air Force Fitness test as it is today is a force shaping tool designed to have an excuse to kick people out for not meeting standards. It isn't a tough test, but people do fail it so it gives fodder to the boards. Once the Air Force has its numbers in order, the fitness test will change again...and then they'll just worry about just looking good again. I'd be curious to see how many of the RIFd personnel had negative fitness score quality indicators (as the Air Force likes to call it) on their records...

I think education is important...no argument there. I think education is an important part of developing leaders, but I don't think it "makes" leaders the way the Air Force looks at it. While we meet the "intent" (96.9% of Majors have a Master's) we completely miss the mark and a good opportunity to actually use education to develop effective managers. Instead of targeting specific people for specific degrees that will help develop those officers to meet the needs of the Air Force, we tell everyone to get a Masters as soon as possible in anything you want. But the more I attend these job fairs, the more I realize that it is exactly the same on the outside. "Advanced degree desired/required," and most don't even care what the degree is in. So me, trying to understand the rationale behind the concept, asks: "Why is an advance degree required if you don't care what discipline the degree is in?" Response? BLANK STARE. "Its just a requirement." Same answer you'll get if you ask anyone in the AF what having a Master's degree brings to the table. No one can answer...it just sounds better to say you have a degree. But those of us who have been there done that and have the degree know it doesn't take much to get one. I'm not trying to say everyone's degree is worthless. I would argue that someone who manages in the business sector would probably benefit the company if they have an MBA. Someone in the aero industry probably helps the company if they have an AE degree. Someone in computers...some kind of computer degree..(see a trend here?). If I were running a company (or an Air Force), that is how I would target the development and education of my staff. I wouldn't say "just get a Masters in anything as fast as possible" and I certainly wouldn't do it that way on the company dime. Huge waste of resources. We are the worlds greatest Air Force, but sometimes I wonder how we manage to operate. If we were a business, we wouldn't be in business right now. That is part of our problem...we aren't business savvy...we operate as if we have an infinate amount of funds and that is what makes decisions so easy in the Air Force. In my opinion, our biggest challenge in the future: Continue to be the world's greatest Air Force, operating efficiently and effectively within our means. Right now we aren't doing that at all. Decision making is going to get a little harder when you have to justify your spending...

Rusty, I've reached my quota for liking quotes today, but great post. You make an EXCELLENT point regarding retention. The Air Force has this idea that if they groom and take care of the "best and the brightest" that those individuals will somehow maintain a loyalty to the Air Force and stay in until 20 and beyond. A lot of them will stay, but a lot of the "best and brightest" are going to take their talents to the outside just like they have been for years if the opportunity presents itself. It is not a new concept at all. The only reason we have an overage and the AF is forced to make cuts today is because the economy sucks on the outside. When the economy recovers, not only will the Air Force not have its base of experienced SNCOs and officers that they RIFd, but their "best and brightest" will also take their talents elsewhere... That is good news for the young folks coming in though...opportunities for advancement will be great, they'll send them to school, they'll call them their "best and brightest," and when given the chance, they too will flock to greener pastures...and the cycle continues.

Oh no, I didn't miss the line. Part of the original point was that you end up buying your distinction so you CAN stand out when all else is equal...I was only pointing out that "standing out" because you have a Master's degree doesn't make you a better leader or even a leader at all...and certainly not worthy of promotion above someone else simply because you have a degree. That is just my opinion...the Air Force obviously looks at it differently. Get your degree and stand out...that is what the Air Force expects. No, that wasn't the point I was trying to make, although I do agree with that statement. The point I was trying to make is that you are asking why shouldn't someone with a Master's degree be promoted over someone without one "all other things equal"...and my answer is: A Masters in basket weaving degree doesn't make a leader...

Here is a concept....how about demonstrated LEADERSHIP as a good indicator of future leadership potential! If someone has a Master's degree, and in your opinion that means they have good future leadership potential, then their "demonstrated potential" by just having a degree should take care of itself. Whether or not it is masked is irrelevant. Surely you can identify who in your squadron has a Masters just by simply watching their demonstrated leadership abilities. "That is a take charge kind of guy, he must have a Master's degree" See, it's that simple.... The real question should be: Who does the unmasked Masters really help other than the douche bag with absolutely no leadership or social skills who would never get promoted based on leadership and performance alone...works both ways. Performance should be your first indicator of potential...a Master's degree in basketweaving doesn't make a leader... Edited because I have a Master's degree but still can't spell worth a shit...

"Someone gots some essplaining to do!!"

No TA? What? You mean now I'm going to have to pay for my promotion? I see a masked advanced academic degree in our future...or people complaining that they have to "pay for something the Air Force requires for advancement." Maybe this is the beginning of the end of the focus on AADs for advancement. Isn't this what the masses wanted? Less focus on AADs and more on "work skills" and "leadership?" I'm not sure I agree anymore that there will be a "mass exodus"...but I am sure that the Air Force will have less rated officers than they need in the near future, and they will "fix the glitch" by just reducing the "requirements" On paper, we'll have enough pilots, but those of you on the line will know the difference... You beat me by 69 seconds! But that is a good point regarding reinforcing behavior to get a cheap worthless degree...we do waste a lot of money supporting that behavior. I think it is a good thing that TA goes down. By the way, if you haven't looked into the post 911 GI Bill, it is a pretty kickass deal...wonder how much longer it will last...

I wonder if TIB would help someone like that who wanted to VSP!

It's ok...He was wearing a belt...The Air Force has assured him that he is safe....

"Excuse me Sir...according to AFI-36-2969 (pushing up glasses)...anything modifying the purpose of a uniform is prohibited, and well, by you putting that flashlight on your zipper, it turns your flight suit into a giant light emission source which is not the purpose of that flightsuit. It is a flight suit, not a lightsuit. Can you please remove it before you blind me, Sir?" (joking, but I could totally see it happening)

I'm not defending him, but who in the hell do they think they are jumping the counter in the first place. They deserved to get the shit beat out of them man or woman. Sure, drunkeness has been known to inhibit judgement, but they have no f*cking respect at all (I'm assuming they were drunk). My $20s get checked with those markers all the time and I don't get offended or feel I want to fight someone over it. That is what we call Generation "ME." They'll probably sue and get money even though they were in the wrong...I guess when customers jump the counter, you have to actually wait for them to injure you before you can defend yourself. The way I look at it, if they have already jumped the counter, they have entered the ass beating zone....

It is really difficult for me to believe we have come to this as a professional organization...I still don't believe it. Sure, it is a minor detail in the grand sceme of things, but seriously...there really are more important things on which to focus. Any safety types have any statistics about pedestrian deaths before and after this reflective belt push? As much as they push this shit you would think we had 6-9 deaths a day 10 years ago. In theory, no one should ever die again in low-visibility conditions since the reflective belt seems to take away any personal responsibility from someone who decides to cross a busy street without clearing for traffic. We are truly at the lowest common denominator these days. Really? Cancel Red Flag sorties because someone isn't wearing a reflective belt? There is no way that is true...(or that they'd actually do it) I remember a time when a Wing CC said to do something and it was done without question because people respected the LEADERSHIP...nowadays, they politely ask you to do something and if you don't they'll take away your toys! Example #69 of the differences between "Leadership" and Management...