Breckey

Both the F135 and F136 have the requirement to have complete commonality between all airframes. The requirement for the F136 was to be able to be able to be swapped between different models with minimum modification (LRU replacement for the Nf fan and nozzle, FADEC program changes, etc). The gas generator and power turbine would remain the same. The JPO also required that the engines could be swapped in the field with only software changes. All of the aircraft connections and system interfaces were required to be identical. The only reason the F136 had more power than the F135 was that the intake and exhaust design of the aircraft was solidified prior to PDR allowing the F136 to take advantage of the increased mass flow in the design. The F135 did not have this advantage. *Caveat: All of this was true in 2008 when I worked on the F136 program. If the JPO changed the engine integration requirements since the exclusion of the F136 then my info is outdated.

The problem is that the aircraft was not designed for supercruise. Getting enough thrust to push through the transonic region with the current design limitations would not work with today's materials limitations. The F135 is already using exotic materials in the turbine nozzles to withstand the high temperatures needed for the thrust. The engine is already the most powerful fighter engine (~40k lb thrust). The reason the thing is so damn loud is the amount of high velocity exhaust the thing is pushing out the back. Unless the F135 has problems similar to the early F100-100s, the F136 program will remain dead in the water. The F-16 is the only US fighter aircraft with more than one engine option. Having multiple engines leads to design problems with the aircraft (ref early block Big-Mouth F-16s). Pratt or Allison did not complain when the thousands of F-4s only used GE J79s. The F136 was mostly a political move from the Ohio and Indiana delegation.

Still need the funding for the aircraft themselves. Any idea if they're planing on using the T706s that SOAR is using in their Mike models or the standard 701Ds?

13Ns can already crossflow to support AFSCs (MX, logistics, PA, etc) after their first tour. This sounds like a good opportunity to increase 18X manning and provide an ops career for former pocket rockets.

It was already supposed to be 4 yrs. Until your functional PCSs everybody at the 3 yr mark to ensure they have 3 assignments prior to your majors board. We've had guys PCS with less than 3 years.

Prepare to sit around at Kirtland for a while. ABQs nice though.

They used to have 4 missileers at each LCC and they would work a 12-on 12-off schedule. Now it's 2 guys working a 24 hour shift not including the 2-3 hour drive time to the site each way and the pre/post alert duties.

I've sat almost 2000 hours of alert defending america from the terrorists and hippies. How many tater tot clusters does that entail?

What about USFS? They're not as plentiful but seem to have a better lifestyle

Tail rotor vibe checks and main rotor track and balance may be tedious but it's a lot less queepy then making sure the correct UEM posters are in the squadron and that the staff meeting slides are updated. Plus when it gets released you have actually accomplished something rather than making a stoplight chart green.

They fly out of Great Falls IAP not Malmstrom. Runway here is closed

Not in our regs. Also TRF (the cops we fly) are governed by the Security Forces Center. They (and AFGSC/A7S) have a lofty fairy tale in their head that every cop is the same and they get the same gear and the same weapons. TRF does not have FR clothing, because Amn Snuffy at the main gate doesn't need it so why would an operational support flyer? Nevermind the fact that the gear required for their mission is different than pulling over blue hairs for going 5 mph over the speed limit on their way to the BX. Also the SFC and A7S are the reasons that TRF lost the ACOGs on their M4s, and are still using an M24 for CPEC when every other service has transitioned to something more modern. In addition the FR ABU is restricted by AFI36-2903 Para 5.1 TRF cannot get it because the security forces uniforms are individual purchase. FR ABUs are an issued item, just like flight suits.

Butt-posting on the Baseops App?

IMHO the FR is because the security is almost entirely vehicle-borne and that's what the FIPers were familiar with. The airborne security is getting non-FR as well even though the fly in the helicopters where the aircrew will be wearing the FR 2-piece flight suits.

Because that will help with the "Model Defender" welfare. One of the main reasons for pushing it was utilizing the fire-resistant garments that are used in AFG, however they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy the non-FR version of the uniform. They're planning on changing the uniform reg so it can be worn all of the time, not just when posted. Also the $25/day incentive pay is going to be around $500/month for the normal security forces member (they work a 3-4/on 4-5/off schedule). Guess they won't have a problem getting people to post out in the field anymore...

It's okay guys, the FIP proposals are now in. Multi-cams, $25/day incentive pay, and a nuclear duty medal will solve all of the problems. I wish I was kidding.

Just add a rule into outlook to send all of the emails that you don't want into the junk mail folder. This is especially handy for the command post messages, and the FSS super happy fun events.

So...when the contract was awarded ULA was the only company that could meet the requirements for 70% of the launches so they won. The F9 has yet to be certified by the DoD for NRO launches and the Falcon Heavy isn't even scheduled to make its first test flight until early 2015. The Atlas V has had 44/45 successful launches and the Delta IV has had 24/25, while the F9R has had four. I fail to see what all of the criticism is about.

Atomic birth control. Boeing designed that thing well!

The AFGSC EFB policy does not allow any sensitive but unclassified (FOUO, PII, DCNI) because DISA hasn't explicitly cleared the iPad for anything but unclassified and specifically cleared limited distribution tech orders. Ours is hooked up to a stand alone computer on a commercial isp

Yeah. The last few months have been a little difficult in the Malmstrom OG. Doubt this is on the front burner.

Already happened here. We have two 3Ds assigned to our sq but the group owns them. We even write their EPRs but they don't do any work for us.

DISA and the AF do not know what to do with Apple products.

We had our 3-3 on it but again it was removed for being FOUO, even though we had approval from the 561st to have it on there. It'd be really great if they allowed DCNI on it. Almost everything we do that is mission related is UCNI, but that would make to much sense to have it useful during flight.