FLEA

CH.... why don't you take a step back and recognize that you probably only have a tiny sliver of the JROTC pie as well. I recommend you google Chicago Public Schools JROTC scandals and read through the dozens of pages of issues they've had with sexual violence, sexual cover up, discrimination and targeting of black and latino students. Your cozy suburb JROTC program might be a tight ship and well run. Almost 50% of JROTC participants though are inner city students who attend academy schools that have been plagued by underfunded and poorly ran programs for decades. I have no doubt the JROTC did some great things for maybe yourself and some people you know. The JROTC program, as a whole, has done more harm than good though when you consider that the largest student bodies effected by it were ran poorly without moral or ethical consideration to the outcomes of a child. Any officer who believes their rank holds their leadership, doesn't deserve their rank.

I love how any time you make a sensible argument the default position now is for people to just accuse you of being "woke." I'm sorry that its apparently "woke" to protect children from sexual assault. I didn't realize that was a fundamental leadership skill in the military. Cadet ranks were dumb. Period. They were an artificial authority instilled in a learning environment that didn't require it. It made individuals worse leaders by instilling a false sense of ego before they were mature and humble enough to understand that leadership and authority isn't a privledged--but rather a burden. They derailed from JROTC's goals which honestly have absolutely nothing to do with the military and everything to do with bolstering good citizenship and social responsibility. The best leaders coming out of high schools are usually coming out of team sports and you don't see an exaggerated and ridiculous rank structure provided there. And no, nothing in the military is sacrosanct. The first thing you ask when someone says "this is the way we've always done it" is "well why are we still doing it that way?" Until someone can articulate a good answer, i'm getting rid of that BS process for something probably more effective.

I get what you're saying but leadership and rank are 2 different things, and you don't need rank to exhibit leadership. Rank is an implication of authority and the hardest but most important approach of leadership is the approach where you have no authority. I mean I can see why you feel its important but I think we need to weigh the value rank brings to teaching leadership fundamentals (which I think is low) to the risk it imposes when its inherent authority is granted to emotionally immature and possibly misguided teenagers. (Also I think 1000 years is a stretch..... 1000 years ago military rank was based on status of your birth, not your leadership capability or your instinct to command)

Maybe just JROTC. He might mean they are just getting rid of the cadet ranks..... which lets be honest.... were dumb to begin with. I'm unfortunately aware that this is probably fallout from a recent scandal in JROTC in Chicago that involved A LOT of sexual misconduct. They might be trying to remove the power structures that were used to leverage some of that misconduct (upper classman exploiting younger peers).

Hmmmmmm..... but dont we count it if another pilot runs into the ground mid fight? I dunno....

Missed meal letters is something else that comes to mind.

This is a huge problem with exercise planning btw. It's a huge disproportion of Ops people who are focused on getting as many fighter squadrons there as possible and they completely forget the deployment itself is a huge part of the exercise. That means the logistics actually required to move a fighter squadron to include services, support, etc... So it never gets realized until last minute.

I agree it's bullshit. The base has obligations too. There should be an exercise opord that outlines it. If they are having people on mids there should be an obligation to open the DFAC at midnight. They may have contractor DFAC in which they push back. In this case they need to request a services package to standup a DFAC or authorize partial rate. It's been a long time since I've done this but those are the leads that come to mind to go on.

Yeah if you're going to an exercise you are "deployed" and they can use contingency lodging. Don't forget--The exercise isn't just for you. It's for the whole force structure chain. There are literally lodging plans that need tested to house people in high density locations like Korea. You're actually lucky you're getting hotel rooms. In Korea they stick everyone in a giant ass California tent with a bunch of bunks in it.

If you're referring to the leaves on the arm I think that's more ceremonial than tactical.

Bit of a thread revival but I dont get over here much. I went to staff after a TAMI21 tour and held more credibility as an 11U than I did as an 11R. The ability to understand kinetics, weapon supply line frustrations, targeting, air to ground mission doctrine in CAS/AI/CSAR/etc.... will get you pretty far. I think the biggest problem the AF faces is the generation of 18X's growing when I was there were sharp, smart, and motivated. It may have not been their first choice of assignment but they made the best of it and applied themselves knowing at the time that a promising career, at least as promising as 11X, was on the horizon. Without squadron commands or any other carrots out there I don't honestly know how many of these dudes will stay in. They can get out after 6 years and tons of 6 figure jobs await them. Not even in aviation, but literally anywhere. Finding competitive graduate schools or high end tech jobs as a transitioning officer is not incredibly difficult and the ability for RPA dudes to talk satellite architectures, EM spectrum, software user experiences, etc.... is going to land them at a place with bing bag chairs and espresso machines pretty easy. Speaking from experience now.

China apparently claiming they have detected object in their airspace now and preparing it shoot it down.

I'm going to be really disappointed and frustrated if this was it because we've had these discussions on everything from dirigibles to RPAs. Its like, this isn't knowledge we didn't have but there are a whole lot of group thinkers at the staff level that continually try to view air warfare in the context of GW1. Between balloons, commercial drone swarms, and other developments in the last decade I hope we are starting to think more outside the box.

My experience on the Herk is everyone communicates a lot on the flight deck except the FE. Then when the FE opens his mouth almost everyone shuts up. Its always something like "heh.... thats interesting....." and suddenly both pilots and the nav are dead silent with their shoulder turned. I don't know if they train them like that or what but its like a ridiculous CRM tool. I could tune out a landing gear horn probably but I will never fucking tune out a Flight Engineer that says "heh.... thats interesting....."

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/11/politics/norad-additional-object-northern-canada/index.html A third object shot down by NORAD. This one in Canadian airspace under Trudeau's orders. Chess pieces are starting to rapidly move on the boards. This is very interesting.

Always out of fucking position.

These statements are 100% false. Allowing Ukraine to keep weapons was a very minority opinion at the time that contravened NPT principals. The nuclear arsenal was also minimally beneficial to Ukraine as the warheads were built to target the US and had a useful range that was inappropriate for targeting Russia's western state. Ukraine had administrative control of the weapons but not operational control. Also there very much was a SU when Ukraine left. Ukraine seceded after a vote of its parliament in August 91. The Soviet Union retained its sovereignty until December of 91.

Dude I literally just read this right before checking this post. Wild!!!!

In case anyone wants to know what ChatGPT thinks: It is not clear who specifically sabotaged the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, as the exact details of any incidents are typically not disclosed to the public. However, there have been reports of opposition to the pipeline from various groups and individuals, including environmental activists, and some countries have imposed sanctions on the project. In December 2020, the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was temporarily halted due to the threat of U.S. sanctions. The U.S. government had expressed concerns about the pipeline's impact on European energy security and the potential for it to be used as a tool for political leverage by Russia. It is also possible that the pipeline could have been damaged by natural causes, such as rough sea conditions or other environmental factors. In any case, the exact details of any incidents affecting the pipeline are typically not disclosed, so it is difficult to say with certainty who was responsible.

A bit of a loaded question because there are a lot of facets and disciplines that intersect on those communities, operational, strategic, academic, legislative, compliance, oversight, etc..... But I think what you're getting at is operational. The short answer then would be yes but the longer answer is, definitely not as deep or long (so to speak) as others. Its worth noting that there are a lot of DoD programs that are coordinated under IC direction and its also worth mentioning that not all of them are directly tied to SOCOM (but many are). That said, just based off what I know and my experiences regarding your expressed carve outs, I would have significant concerns that if this were a US operation, about it being a primarily DoD "thing." The biggest problem being that there is a long standing international consensus that attacking a maritime instrument of commerce is a very clear act of war. That is a standard that goes far beyond the general IPOE's that the DoD is generally allowed to pursue without congressional oversight and reinforces the necessity that it would need to bear plausible deniability concepts.

There isn't a right party. There are two narratives, composed by two opposing entities, that have 2 separate agendas. That's your problem. You think there is a right and a wrong here. They're both wrong. Its up to you to find whats right by inferring what you can.

I think there are just a lot of people out there that are more keenly aware that we guzzle as much propaganda on a day to day basis as your average Russian or Chinese citizen as well. Everything you read was written with agenda. I think its healthy to ask what that agenda was and what behavior did that writer feel compelled to manipulate into you through that writing. Dont believe free press protects your societal level group think that pushes contorted narratives to meet some odd ends. The only thing that changes with free press is the auditor of that media, not the objectivity.

By law, the DoD could not have done this. It would have to have been planned, staged and executed by the IC, with support from the DoD. Look up Gang of Eight, Covert Operation, Clandestine Operation and Plausible Deniability for some just gee-wiz on where SOCOM lines end and IC lines begin. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/intel/R45175.pdf

While I don't generally support military adventurism I do generally accept that there is a stronger case to intervene in geographic neighbors than there is with people on the other hemisphere. Very Monroenian.