SFG

I don't think the CAA deployments right now are guchi, nor vacations. Combat? Maybe, maybe not, but guchi? Nah. Nuff said.

I've seen Reserve guys get O-5 without ACSC. Not sure how Guard would work, but I've always gotten the impression they give less Forks.

New Ned Stark article. Argues against strats and forced distribution. However, word is AF wants to move to an Army system of top/middle/bottom third check boxes. https://warontherocks.com/2018/11/and-miles-to-go-before-i-sleep-the-air-forces-stratification-problem

I talked to a few reserve guys (all in the same unit) and they made it very clear to me that they believed getting an active duty retirement in the guard or the reserves was a myth. They said the unit and the AF would never allow it. Something about not letting you enter sanctuary; not giving you active orders if it puts you in your last two years prior to 20. Thoughts? That advice is what has kept me in, but maybe it’s dated now, because this conversation keeps coming up.

They'll get 9 more months out of you if they wait until July.

The same way we get the fodder for the OPRs.

Yes, I hear the U-2 program is pretty terrible 😂.

Can’t say I disagree, but that’s not how things usually work.

The next source would probably be AFSOC UPT T-38 guys no? Probably a lot more of those floating around.

I heard the last crop was so successful they will be retraining heavy dudes without T-38 time now, but they are only selecting from a pool of current instructors with a history of zero downgrades, who were top 10% of their class in UPT, DG’d ROTC, have at least 1000 hours of combat time in the KC-135, high and tights, no kids, and at least one OPR with the word “tactical.”

It is actually well-known that it takes exactly the same amount of energy to decelerate a spacecraft in a closed system as it does to accelerate it... even less if you consider the friction of space and the reduced weight of the spacecraft after fuel burn. It IS well known that a de-orbit burn occurs in... orbit. Not a closed system by any stretch of the imagination. Even if your question had a valid premise, and it wasn’t your first post ever here, I doubt we would solve interstellar travel on this forum. Sorry.

Why do you think more energy would be used to decelerate the spacecraft? In other words, where are you getting the premise that there would be a net loss?

Tracking CAAs. I’ve just never heard of Advanced Advisors in AFSOC. I’m familiar with Air Advisors on the conventional side. Can you say what units employ Advanced Advisors?

What’s the difference between CAA and Advanced Advisors?

LAA is all about partnering with underdeveloped nations in the “real” long war... The majority of the world can’t afford our F-16s, even when we give them away. LAA fills that gap and makes us more friends faster. All the other talk is second-order stuff.

PAPERWORK!? I've never even heard of anyone being asked if they used their GTC.

USAF PT shirts should also sit in the back of one's closet 364 days out of the year...

I always took my family on long TDYs to try to offset the years I spent away from them deployed... when the new (now old) rule took effect it made it almost impossible to find decent places to stay where I was for 75% lodging, much less getting schwacked for 75% M&IE. Every situation is different. Good on you for making some coin.

I'd say most of those guys did the "should I go to school or not" math with the expectation of the bonus... meaning if there weren't a bonus, they wouldn't be staying anyway.

Only in the Army.

Of note, I'm pretty sure you cannot get a 179 or even a 365 while your Palace Chase application is in limbo.

No way it's 72K. At best that # is a mistake. At worst it is a rumor designed to keep people in until it's too late. You can watch the video of the CSAF telling Congress that he didn't need more than $35k when Congress directly asked him if he wanted more $ for bonuses in the FY'19 budget. Until that narrative changes, they will not be giving anyone a $72K bonus or professional pay anywhere near that. From the rumors I've heard floating around I expect to see something more like: 2000/month for Co-Pilot/Wing = $24,000 2500/month for an AC/Lead = $30,000 3000/month for an IP = $36,000 3500/month for an EP = $42,000 AFTER UPT commitment is up. Therein lies the problem. What happens when you switch aircraft? What happens if you get a non-flying assignment? What happens if you need to requal? What happens when everyone is gunning for AC/IP/EP only for the money? IF it is 72K pilot pay across the board that would be great. But it won't be. We already told Congress that the bonus is plenty big enough this year AND we don't need to raise it for next year. What's more is that Congress still requires that the AF present a tiered "business case" model for aviation bonus funding, which means they require us to pay some pilots less and some more based on statistics, forecasts, and the good 'ol 8-ball. Bottom line is that some will get paid less and some will get paid more, just like now, and if it's not purely based on Core ID (and even if it is) people will make upgrade decisions, airframe decisions, cross-training decisions, requal and staff decisions, and more based on whatever Professional Pay ends up being... and it won't be $72k. I hope it is. But it won't be. Anyone have anything more than hopes, dreams, or rumors?

Any updates on this RUMINT/more than? The latest ACTF NOTAM confirms that they are "pursuing options for replacing the AvB and AvIP programs with a “Professional Pay” construct designed to compensate Airmen for their skillsets and experience." This worries me in that if they tie this professional pay to current qualifications, guys that had to requal or went unqual'ed will be scraping the bottom of the barrel. More than that, everyone will want to become an IP or EP even when not ready or even if unnecessary, because those qual's will be tied to more money. Can we please just double the bonus and stop changing the game? Besides economic viability, wasn't stability and the ability to plan for the future one of the major factors in people getting out?

For me the deployment is the crux of the issue... I’ve missed so much of my kids lives... When I was gone 6 months without kids doing a meaningful mission it was OK. When I was gone 3 months doing a meaningful mission and missed my kids first steps it was sad, but that is service. When I was gone 2 months on a mission that was not required in a place where I could have brought my family and missed my kid talk... it was not worth it. The length is a factor, but not THE (only) factor. If the world explodes I’ll take my 4 year unaccompanied tour and go fight for America again. But if I even smell another wasted, mismanaged deployment, much less 6 monther or 365 cooking in the kitchen... I gone. Not worth it.

What were they?