SurelySerious

They really started at an extreme there.

Solid "who gives a ?" going on.

Bonus if they caveat it with they weren't authorized to speak on the matter.

Interesting observation; with the proliferation in some communities of upgrading people because "it's their turn" or "they need it for the board," I can absolutely see that as a furthering of qualification inflation.

Maybe the Qataris should use those C-17s for something other than transporting the crown Lambos and Tigers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerion_AS2 Possibly

The AD boards are as described by Chaff.

So what you're saying is you didn't read, nor have you learned to construct an argument with supporting facts. However I think you're saying that: -only enlisted could ever lead enlisted -every career field should be insular Sounds like a recipe for success.

I'm throwing the bullshit flag; first, because your points are contradictory, and secondly because they're incoherent. If you think pilots aren't good leaders because they aren't around enlisted people, you should be 100% for putting them there. It's not going to get any better unless you expose them to it sts earlier on so they can figure it out. And this has already been mentioned, but what specially qualified a finance officer to lead his section? A 4 week tech school? No, being put in charge of the people and finding a good SNCO to mentor him, which takes time. Which is, again, why we probably ought to put fliers in that position sts as well if we expect them to ever grow in the same manner. Lastly, people in support functions should absofuckinglutely be exposed to what it is they support and where it fits sts in the big picture. Half the problems we have getting comm to respond, for example, might be resolved more quickly if they understood what a screeching halt our squadron grinds to when our mission planning system is tits up. Well, that and the base comm to have the appropriate authorities etc, but I digress. It is the same concept as this: when a young flier makes a stupid decision in the grand scheme of an LFE because he was only thinking about his jet and not the whole strike package, we debrief him on it and then teach the larger group the lesson learned so hopefully the other LTs don't make the same mistake.

No truer words have been spoken.

I'd buy that. It's essentially what our OSS/CCs typically get; it's also what on occasion, from what I have heard, can help keep them sane. And also true. The few people these days I hear desiring command are egomaniacs who see it as a stepping stone, with no regard for the responsibility of commanding the AF's core unit. Sts.

GMAFB. If the mission suppression functions were that coherently organized, we might not have all these stupid issues like finance problems to bitch about. It's been said enough times: the Air Force has lost its way as a fighting force. Pilots are 96% of the Air Force's actual war fighters; if the Air Force cared about functioning as a war fighting organization, we'd figure out how to promote and retain those people.

Sport bitching about 11F vs 11R aside, whatever, I guess my main things in suggesting AFSC typed boards are this: 1) the records will be more apples-to-apples than when you have entirely different career fields with board members reading between the lines 2) it makes it more straightforward to promote the AFSC that you know you need X number of '0Y 11FZ. 3) if we're not putting any non-rated dude in charge of the flying sq, ops group, flying wing, or flying MAJCOM, why are we competing against non-rated officers anywhere below 0-6?

Yet again more evidence promotions should be separated by AFSC types.

Could be their only chance in life to perform OCA. Edit to add parody:

Just a single scope investigation? I thought it would have to be a moderator majority, and he'd have to include M2 and ClearedHot at minimum as well.

I thought the approved 3-1.CS section on trouble tickets said to just delete said ticket, then when queried by the requestor blame it on a "new ticket system" and have them re-submit.

If I recall correctly, the sticking point on sniper was GA didn't want to let the software integrate.

My initial reaction is, what college age adult in this information based society wouldn't know they could be a pilot in the military? However, an under 40 dual PhD at Sandia (i.e. not a slouch) recently was surprised women could be military pilots in a conversation...so possibly.

edit: nevermind #readingcomprehension

Copy, makes sense now.

Is your point that it's the same amount of time because it's still a 1:2 ratio?