egochecks

Thanks, man. I've been debating getting a subscription for months now and was just wondering if they did anything for the military. This is even better than I had hoped. I appreciate the info. As far as this article on Syria goes, I keep thinking about the report they did awhile back on the effectiveness of NK's strategy. Essentially, NK knows how to turn up just the right amount of plausible crazy to have an effect larger than they can actually back or sustain. Now with Syria Friedman made the statement that Obama needs to back his bluff so that he doesn't appear weak to Iran and NK. Us taking action in Syria because we're afraid of what Iran and NK thinks feels like the tail wagging the dog and just sets a precedence of one of them being able to push our buttons and paint us into a corner. The thought of letting either one of those countries even remotely dictate (obviously they influence) our decisions is just backwards to me. I think Assad needs to be held accountable but I think we need to slow roll this and get everyone (at least most or many here at home) on board. I'm sure there are fifty members here who can show me the errors of my over simplistic assessment so I'll learn. But seriously, thanks for the info. -Ego

"<a href="https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/obamas-bluff">Obama's Bluff</a> is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Godspeed to an AF legend. And I'm with you, Discus, I thought Welsh's tribute was well done.

M2, the purse snatcher and tennis shot are too good. -- Today's hottest in anti-drone fashion. https://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2013/mar/31/anti-drone-hoodie-big-brother

Luc was one of the three IP's on my tweet x- country. Without doubt one of the most unselfish bro's I have ever known.Had his camera with him everyday. Him Him. Rest in peace, Luc and Serene be proud.

Impossible to quantify the positive impact he's had on the services and those whom he enabled to chase their dreams, myself absolutely included. Baseops is a legacy if ever I've seen one. I hope his family knows the impact he's had. I didn't know he was so young. A sad loss. Him him.

It's been good. Bro level rather than UPTish (at least on the 38 side). Just need to stay on top of your syllabus and make things happen. 38's have ramped up which means BIT studs have ramped up as well and you'll be competing in the same pool for sorties. This has been my experience at CBM but I talked to a bro at Vance and he said his syllabus is moving a little more quickly. However, to the point of your question, it's bro level treatment all around.

Cap 10, thanks for the info. Spoo, thanks for the memorial.

Sad day. He was my IP in tweets, my dollar ride IP, and damn good pilot and instructor. He will without a doubt be missed by many. My prayers are with his family. RIP, brother.

I don't believe you can truly or fully divorce anyone from their core beliefs/motivations (at any time in life let alone when someone fills a position in an institution) nor should you try. Saying leave religious/spiritual beliefs "out of work/what you do" (the AF, government, etc.) has seeming wisdom but it's not going to be the cause of an objective/un-biased/mutually-respective workplace. Somewhere you just have to trust that regardless of your CC's or your leadership's or your subordinate's core beliefs they're going to recognize the possible inherent difficulties in having beliefs that may be contrary to another's (whether atheist or theist) and be able to account for those biases and make the objective judgments they've sworn to make. You can't expect someone's decision not to be "colored" by who they are but you can expect them to keep their prejudices from negatively affecting how they make decisions with regard to others. For me it's similar to the "race" discussion. People have different colored skin and are culturally different. It's a fact. Acting like "you can't say that" or acknowledge that fact is ridiculous. There are many positive aspects of that fact and they should be embraced not consciously and forcefully ignored (as if that was possible). What's unacceptable is assigning negative judgments to those same facts and then allowing one's prejudice to negatively affect one's behavior or decision making. I don't think there's anything wrong with the CC being explicit in making known his beliefs, however, I can see how sharing them in this way at his CC call, given subordinate expectations when being told what the CC's expectations are, can be seen as going too far in the wrong forum. I would think this should/could/would be chalked up to a bad decision or lack of a recognition of the effect his words may have had on the subordinates in his audience. At the same time, I can see how it could be seen that that may have been just his intention and thus the consternation. However, I've never personally met the General and I wouldn't feel right passing judgment on his motives. Edit: Spell checker like a mo' fo' & an idiom correction.

Speedy & Tunes, Thanks.

For me personally, to C-5's. For the bigger picture, there's no consideration of the "tactical" requirements of the follow on. It's simply the last a/c flown which I'm assuming makes the most sense in time required for familiarization.

Thanks, man, and wilco.

Looks like I'm headed to Dover. Don't start FTU until early FY13 (Nov 2012 at the very earliest) so I don't expect to be at Dover until Spring/Summer of 2013. Looking forward to flying the M. Tunes, sending a PM your way. -Ego

Those of us returning to fly got our training dates and locations yesterday. Looks like the POC at AFPC did a great job for all of us and it's very appreciated. Looking at the list I would say most guys (if not all) got their base of choice. Here are some of the details for those interested. First guys will begin training (either H2O, SERE, or Refresher) in March with first PCS's taking place as early as Jun and the last of us (C-5 guys) PCS'g most likely around this time next year. Refresher course will be prior Phase 3 a/c. T-38 course will be roughly 10 weeks, Tones roughly 7 weeks, and the two T-44 guys will tentatively spin up in the T-6 for roughly 7 weeks. Refresher training will take place at the various UPT bases (Vance, Laughlin, and Columbus) throughout the year. Knowing now that we'll be spinning up at the UPT bases are there any IP's/FAIP's that have been a part of setting up the Refresher course who have any gouge or a general overview of how the training's going to look? If so, any info would be appreciated. Thanks. -Ego

Are the B's at Travis AMP jets? I won't know location for some time but any info on either location is appreciated. Ego

Tunes, Thanks. I have a further question with regard to the upgrade but don't want to hijack the ADP thread any further so it's posted it in the C-5 thread. Ego

For those interested in the UPT-D return to fly... Results are out. For those interested in Ego's return to fly... C-5's, destination as of yet unknown. First choice and hella stoked! Any current info/gouge would be highly appreciated. Cheers, Ego <insert frothy "das boot" icon here>

Personally, I liked this quote, "It 'is specifically designed to go after very dense targets … where enemies are putting things that the president of the United States wants to hold at risk.'" In other words, the President's pimp-hand just got a whole lot stronger.

Hacker, Understood. My comments were more to the fact that I don't think flying RPA's inherently made a pilot less able to return to a fighter a/c than say the finance gig of an earlier banked pilot rather than as an evaluation of the success of the banked program. Gen Hostage made a visit to the base today and I presented him with the question of whether or not the lack of fighters in our drop was a deliberate policy decision or based on current needs of the AF. His response was that to his knowledge it was based on needs, though it was kicked down to the obligatory note taker for a follow up. So we'll see what future drops look like. For those interested, we're still awaiting the results. Latest development was the addition of 5 AFSOC a/c to the mix. 2 x CV-22, 1 x PC-12, 1 x DO-328, & 1 x U-28. While this naturally causes an additional delay, it's good for those who want to go that route. Ego

Thanks to all. Should know by the end of the month. Ego

Hoss, Understood. I agree that all in all it is a good drop all things considered and thanks for the elaboration and the advice. Many of us in this group tracked 38s both from SUPT and ENJJPT. As I'm sure you know, 38s got hit pretty hard (sts) when they decided to dip into UPT to meet the UAS manning shortfall. Of those from that track, I'm sure there's a mixed bag of talent. Even now transitioning to the heavy world, our "spin up" will be through the 38 again and I don't think any of us are disallusioned as to the challenges that will pose. Not much of flying RPAs, apart from maybe the LRE, does anything to preserve actual flying skills. At the same time, the amount of time (well over a thousand hours for everyone up for a cockpit) in the operational environment pays it's own dividends in SA and even airmanship (imho) that will find some translation into the bigger picture as we return to the manned AF. Like I said, if the AF was able to get banked guys back into fighters, I can't see that flying UAVs will make that job more difficult. Of course the real proof will be in the pudding and we'll see what the results are about this time next year. Thanks again for the advice and the well wishes. Ego

Hoss, It may be that I I'm a few beers in on leave or just slow...but is your reference that the UAS community should be embarrassed at the lack of fighters in this drop? If so, I think it's an unfortunate misunderstanding of the quality of folks who have found themselves here. It seems that to many of those in big blue RPAs/UAVs/whatever-you-want-to-call-them, that this community is the last step before an FEB and that the quality of pilots here reflect that. As I said, I think that'd be a big misunderstanding. We have our fair share of dousche bags and bad pilots/operators but it's by no means the epedemic some assume. I don't want to derail my own inquiry any further than this or "rant" against what could very well be a misunderstanding of your comment on my part. I sure as hell am not offended by the comment I just think it might be indicative of a large majority of folks looking in from the outside. Edit: If the airforce can successfully return banked pilots to single seat cockpits, I can see no reason why flying a UAV would make that job more difficult. Cheers. Ego

CH, C-5, C-17, C-130J, C-130E/H, KC-10, KC-135, RC-135, E-3, & B-52. Around 19 a/c for about 55 dudes, so it should be interesting. At least it's getting the ball rolling. JP, I imagine it looks a lot like a FAIP model. Our SQ/CC's a good dude and has done his best to keep us in the loop. It seems, however, that the flow of information (probably to the Group) is somewhat sporadic and sparse in some areas. I imagine a lot of it is based on this being the first iteration so no one has an exact bead on how it's going to work. Just looking to see how this process might look from the AFPC side of the house and how we can best present our cases so as to maximize this opportunity. Ego

I'll tag this here although it could probably double in the UAS thread. The first UPT-D bubbas to UAS are up for reassignment. The process for listing a/c preference is an ADP. There are 9 different a/c available in this first drop. The process being somewhat UPT assignment-esque vs. a standard next assignment from an already established MWS makes the ADP sort of an oval peg in a round hole (sts). For example, if following the ADP format and honoring the MAJCOM/AFSC/Location tier to listing prefrences, the five ADP slots can be taken up with only three a/c listed leaving six a/c unlisted due to locations within various MAJCOMs. Direction from above has been a little piecemeal on exactly how to make this whole thing work. To top it off, it's been made known that while one may be released from UAS to AFPC, there still exists the possibility that there may be a "mismatch" at AFPC resulting in not receiving one of the available assignments. Due to the first set of available a/c being airframes only without any mention of location, our current guidance is to fill out the ADP with our first five preferences with no regard to correcty marrying MAJCOM and Location and use the comments section to rank order the remaining four airframes. So we do have guidance, however, this possibility for a release but then subsequent mismatch makes me want to make sure we have all of our ducks in the right rows so as to maximize our potential for receiving an assignment. Based on this info, my own inexperience with ADPs, and the "oval" use of the ADP in this process, I do have a couple of questions for anyone (Rotorhead and any others) who have worked the ADP process from the AFPC side who can elaborate on how an ADP used and submitted in this way might effect the process of assignment selection for UPT-D UAS pilots. Essentially, will ignoring the MAJCOM/AFSC/Location tier format flag somewhere and cause a delay or worse the "mismatch" or will the people receiving the ADP understand what is meant and work through the ADPs in a logical fashion. If there is a mismatch or discrepency will the AFPC folks notifiy you or will it flag and force some sort of rejection due to inproper formatting, etc? Lastly, is there a better way to submit our ADPs so that our preferences and intentions will be better understood and most obvious to AFPC? Thanks for any info and assistance in regard to this. As you can imagine it's an oppurtunity none of us want to miss and I'm just looking for ways to improve upon the guidance we've received rather than attempt to jettison it completely. Additionally, this is sort of an ASAP inquiry as we have roughly a week to submit. Cheers. Ego Edit: Mods, haven't been around in a while and didn't even know there was a full up UAS section now. If this discussion is better served in that section I will remove and repost.