GoAround

Couldn't care less that these demo teams were cut. Anyone in the air force knows that these demo pilots couldn't make it on the elite Thunderbirds.

I have no issue whatsoever with Marines pissing on the enemy...who knows, maybe these guys just schwacked one of ours and this was the Marines' way of "relieving the pressure". Agreed it was way poor judgment to film/post on youtube.

Granted, not U.S. footage, but blowing shit up nonetheless...1:38 into vid. https://www.military....n/802461906001/

One reason (maybe only one) to make 3-stars: fly cool sh!t after you retire.

I had no DG pgm during my SOS either; however, people were still programmed mentally to back stab. We had 8 rated guys (5 pilots, 2 Navs, and an ABMer). All the rated folks, except the ABM dork, clung together and stuck to the mantra cooperate and graduate...if ya know what I mean. We had a blast and I still keep in touch with a few of the bros...the 2 chicks in our class were absolute shoe clerk c-u-next-tuesdays.

Or he/she did something else before pilot training (nav, mx, shoe, etc).

No way is it even close to SoCal approach! Besides a bunch of commercial traffic, it's filled with crazy blue hairs.

Yes, most def.

I can imagine what you look like...Eminem, but tinier.

I was saving $40/mo with Travelers at my last base but switched back to usaa after my most recent move...BL: usaa prob has the best rates in most states but def not all

I agree, not all things coming from the NYTimes is "infected"... As for the JSF, I was in a briefing with a GO from the HAF who was asked, "Do you think we'll get all the projected F-35s?" To which he replied, "1700?! We'll be lucky to see anywhere close to 700!"

Although from the NYTimes, still a good read... The Pentagon’s Financial Drawdown By GORDON R. ENGLAND Fort Worth THE new secretary of defense, Leon E. Panetta, will soon face the challenge of significantly reducing the Pentagon’s budget. As directed by President Obama, he will have to find at least $400 billion of savings over the next 12 years, or $33 billion per year — about 5 percent of the current annual defense budget. His decisions will reshape our armed forces for decades to come and determine whether we live in a more or less dangerous world. Having overseen the preparation and execution of the defense budget, I urge Mr. Panetta to resist the temptation to quickly kill procurement programs and research and development activities. Nor should he make proportional cuts to programs across the board. History shows that this would result in a hollowed-out force that will embolden our enemies. It’s the easiest way to go, but also the worst. Instead, Mr. Panetta should first cut the department’s civilian workforce before reducing the size of the military force. The Pentagon rightly pressures industry to reduce overhead costs, but it is far more inefficient itself. Starting in 2003, the number of active military sailors was reduced by over 60,000, but efforts to cut the Navy’s civilian workforce failed due to onerous government and union rules and regulations. Mr. Panetta should seek blanket authority from Congress to shrink the Pentagon bureaucracy. Cutting 100,000 of 700,000 is a reasonable target. And there should be no additional outsourcing, thereby forcing the Pentagon to operate more efficiently. Second, Washington must do more to encourage the sale of defense equipment to our friends and allies abroad, like the littoral combat ship, the mine-resistant ambush-protected armored vehicle and a host of other combat and combat-support equipment. Manufacturing equipment for the American and foreign militaries simultaneously saves Washington money because more units are produced and overhead costs are shared, and it creates thousands of American jobs. The savings generated by international sales are too big to ignore, yet in too many cases the Pentagon has been only lukewarm in supporting such sales. Third, the Pentagon should put a moratorium on starting any new procurement programs. Instead, it should use the money to increase the rate of production on existing ones and complete them faster and for less. All too often, the Defense Department fails to control its appetite, with too few dollars chasing too many programs. The result is the formation of “procurement death spirals,” during which the Pentagon buys fewer and fewer units at higher and higher prices. Fourth, the new secretary of defense should adjust the military’s “tooth-to-tail ratio” — the ratio of fighters to support personnel — which is increasingly out of balance. During my time at the Pentagon, a large number of Army soldiers never deployed to a combat zone, whereas many of those who did were sent multiple times. Mr. Panetta should concentrate on cutting administrative workers — not the fighting force, intelligence personnel and front-line maintenance troops. Such cuts would greatly increase efficiency. Finally, the Pentagon should give the heads of the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force and combatant commanders more say in decisions over buying equipment, including weapons. Right now, they identify their requirements at the beginning of the lengthy process for procuring equipment, but they do not have sufficient voice later on in the process — sometimes many years later — when there are opportunities to reduce costs. Too often, outdated specifications and contract language bind the government and the contractor to expensive purchases that have only marginal benefits. If service chiefs and combatant commanders were given the chance to modify unnecessarily complex or costly features, they could save time and money. Mr. Panetta has served America admirably for decades, as a congressman, White House chief of staff and C.I.A. director, and he inherits the world’s finest military. But as he takes on his formidable new responsibility, I urge him to draw a lesson from the past. During the nearly five-year span between the end of World War II and America’s entrance into the Korean War in 1950, we let our armed forces deteriorate. As a result, America was woefully unprepared for the brutal fighting on the Korean Peninsula. Budget decisions do have consequences, and making the right ones is crucial for our nation’s security. Gordon R. England served during the administration of George W. Bush as secretary of the Navy and deputy secretary of defense.

I will give them credit for cnx ASBC. CGO PME undergoes transformation

Sam Adams Summer Ale: 8/10 Had it with 2 rib eyes last night, so good with grilled stuff.

Might not be exactly what you're looking into, but you may want to consider the Olmsted Scholar Program. I know of 2 guys who completed it...one from my UPT class (KC-10) and another from ROTC (F-15/22).

Your comment would be sorta correct for the Navy in some cases, but incorrect about the Army and Marines. The Army sends all their O-4's to ILE (our version to IDE). They have a 3-4 month school and a year long school in Leavenworth. The Marines are like the USAF...they send their top 20%, mainly to Quantico.

I think that's a great idea...something has to be done about wasting money for the sake of spending it. Years ago, one of my additional duties as a Lt in a flying Sq was "Resource Adviser" (RA). I handled all the money for the CC. At the end of the year, we spent all our money on unneeded items like furniture, computers, etc. Then, on the last week, we created a top 10 wish list for "fallout money". We had the forms filled out when given the OK from the Wing RA. One year, we bought 3 new 50 inch plasma screens with the fallout money, each costing $25K (included mounting, cabling, LAN, connectivity, wiring)...just because our Wing CC didn't like the grease boards we used for Sq flying scheduling. Well, the connectivity didn't work, so 2 were eventually used to broadcast CNN/Sportscenter and the other was used to play XBox...the DO was actually a helluva HALO player. Talk about a waste of $75K...that same year, my sister lost her teaching job b/c there weren't enough state funds to pay for all of the teachers. Man, that $75K sure coulda been used better, but as Lone Star alluded to, it shoulda been sent back for things that really mattered.

Excerpt from "Fighter Pilot: the Memoirs of Legendary Ace Robin Olds"... ***The chaplain showed up and sauntered up to my desk. He was in uniform with his captain's bars on one collar and his chaplain's insignia on the other. He was sort of a roly-poly and just stood there. I looked at him and asked quietly if he considered himself an officer in the United States Air Force. He acknowledged that he was. "Then salute!" I said, which he did with some difficulty.***

I agree with RSD for the most part...but the last time I was there was 2007. It was nice having Charlies, Sq, Sim, Gym, etc all within walking distance. I stayed off base the first time I went through. It was nice being close to Walmart and ... well, that's about all there is in Altus.

I just got MS Office 10 downloaded + a backup CD for about $20: 1. Click on Microsoft HUP Program Link 2. Enter work email and program code (I used my @us.af.mil address; my COCOM address didn't work; for program code, google one that works--I tried a few till I found one that one was valid)

Fighter fundamentals course leaves 2 bases In (actually 3): Randolph, Columbus, Sheppard Out: Vance, Laughlin

"2"

That's so cool that you fly at 300', fly through mountain valleys, and go inverted in your trash can...don't really care and I'm not impressed. The guy before asked my opinion...and I gave him my opinion--I said we shouldn't have any demo team. I speak from just a little bit experience, which includes being on a 17 demo team, airdrop lead, and chief pilot for my Sq (stan/eval). This was all before flying the desk I'm on now. As a senior captain, I didn't see any issue with a demo team. Over the next few years, after incidents at Rodeo, airshows, and training lines, my view changed to the one I hold today. It's not worth the risk so I don't support demo teams.

I personally don't feel that the C-17 should have any demo team. It's a heavy cargo plane that should fly straight and level--then vectors to an ILS full stop. C-17 pilots should know their role in the circle of life. Our plane isn't a fighter and we aren't fighter pilots. We haul cargo and trash. Period.

When I applied for IDE (AF Form 3849) a few years ago, I used my 9 year old GMAT scores. I was selected for a program that "required" the GMAT, but I found out when I showed up that a lot guys never took the test and still got into this particular small school IDE program...some didn't even have the min gpa that was advertised as a prereq. My advice: If you want to open your options for IDE programs, just take the test without worrying about the prep work/programs or practice tests. Merely having the score on your record shows your determination.