Breckey

Yes to all three. They shut off Rucker for a while but it's back on now.

Any non-A given to you by lodging is good for your entire stay per Para 2. The non-A documentation could be an MFR that you sign yourself. I believe that AETC has a reg somewhere that the commander of can force you back on base for good order and discipline or something of the sort. I've never ops tested the latter, all of my schools could care less if you're off base because they're not paying the bill. Edit: Found it. It only applies to students at the school house but they can't force you to move back on base once they give you the non-a. I'm sure this is interpreted incorrectly by many lodging and finance weenies but the JFTR is the law and the AFI can't be more "restrictive" AFI34-246

There is nothing at the 58 SOW that isn't backed up at least a couple months.

Burpelson AFB was not included on the list because it lost points for having flourine contaminating the base residents bodily fluids.

Flags were not common on American military uniforms until the 1980s.

The Navy/Marines grunts don't wear the American flag, yet I'm pretty sure they know who they fight for.

There already was a big debate on this but my search-fu is weak. BLUF if you want to wear a flag patch be assigned to AMC/AFSOC or join the Army. Local regs trump your individuality.

ie Missileers at Malmstrom.

That's like saying the five most dangerous cars are sedans, SUVs, trucks, sports cars, and mini-vans.

Family is suing for $20M

Autorotate.

To get more thrust you need either higher mass flow or higher temperatures. The higher temperatures can be achieved by improved materials and aerodynamics, the higher mass flow is airframe limited. Doing some public math on the F414 results in a 17% higher mass flow than the F404. This is easily seen while looking at the intake differences between the legacy Hornet and the Super-Bug. The increase in mass flow is probably what gives the F414 the majority of its thrust/fuel efficiency advantage over its older cousin. All of this quibbling aside, I bet if there was a market need for an F-16 with a F11X engine and the developers could get their investment back then it would proceed. Re-engining any aircraft is a lot of engineering work, especially those with tight clearances and specific interface requirements.

Let the guys out of DM and Fort Bliss some practice with moving targets. Just tell them that they're commie sappers or something and let the 30mm roll.

I had an issue with the app yesterday and I don't know if I'm an idiot or its a writeup. The app used 170mb of mobile data (no WiFi) in less than an hour while running in the background. I discovered it and shut down the app when my phone sent me an alert about data usage. The last screen I was on was the "Unread" page.

It's along the Clark Fork River right next to I-90. Should be any more difficult than anywhere else. On the plus side if any of the crew fly fishes, it's in a primo spot.

The only requirements are the FAA, which has had bird strike requirements that have been in effect since 1996. The requirement is to withstand a 2.2lb bird at Vne or Vh, not the 6-10lb geese that impacted JOLLY 22. Also the H-60/S-70 was designed prior to the FAA requirement for bird strike protection. In 2009 an S-76 took a bird through the windscreen which inadvertently shut down both engines (Sikorski helos have the throttles on the overhead console), killing all but one on board. The findings in that mishap also mentioned the lack of bird strike requirements

AIB is out. https://www.usafe.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140709-005.pdf TOML

Vercher is was the genesis of the most recent round of ass-pain for the Missile Wings. As can be gathered from the quoteabove he didn't micromanage, it was "aggressive oversight." As the OG/CC at FEW he required the helicopter squadron to brief him the risk assessment on every sortie. He also prevented them from flying 30 minutes to Fort Collins to perform instruments because it was "out of the local area". Once he became the MW/CC at Minot he and the other MW/CCs had a pissing contest on who could be the most restrictive. We were prevented from flying any sortie with a flight engineer up front, even though it was required by MAJCOM MDSv1 training requirements. 20% of our FE force was prevented from flying without an IF for 6 months because they couldn't complete the required syllabus and MAJCOM and the MWs were in a pissing contest on who would fold first. His incident response to the Minot H-1 mishap was horrendous and was part of the impetus to the Huey squadrons are now leaving the MWs and will fall under a new Helicopter Ops Group. Unfortunately managers like him ascend the ladder and make policy.

The Soviets would have seen those yellow bands.

Him Him!

More F135 problems Pratt seems to be continuing to have problems with their third stage low pressure turbine. Here is another article from last year summarizing the problems. This is all very reminiscent of the teething problems that Pratt had with the F100-PW-100. Unfortunately the budget climate of today is not like that of the 1980s and I doubt that we can afford or are willing to spend money on an alternate engine program.

Fuel savings does not offset development costs for the manufacturer. Sales from countries that want the fuel savings offset developments cost. Singapore is flying F110s in their F-15s and most foreign sales of F-16s use GE engines. Fuel efficiency if fighter engines is not the performance parameter that is is in passenger aircraft. GE, Pratt, and Rolls are coming out with new high-bypass turbofans for the A320NEO and 737-MAX that are a 15% improvement over the previous engine models. The advantages of the new engines are the increased fan diameter and tuning of the compressor and turbine aerodynamics. Only one of these would work in a fighter engine. Also the new re-engine efforts are combined with a lot of aerodynamic improvements to realize the cost savings over the life of the airframe (~30k hrs or so). A re-engine effort for fighter aircraft would not be able to achieve the fuel efficiency improvement shown in the passenger aircraft because of the engine container limitations. The AF heavy aircraft (B-52, C-135, C-5) all have had space on the wing for the engines to grow in size. Plus a 15% fuel efficiency gain would only gain the Viper something like 69 seconds of flight time. Not enough to make it worth while.

She still didn't know what a Huey was while touring Global Strike.