SurelySerious

Must be one at HO since we're dropping orders for non-IP 1Lts to PCS to HO as FTU IPs at exactly 2 years on station from CH.

Nice. My school had a Sexual Violence Awareness CBT (Title IX requirement for registration), but it wasn't invasive. Frankly, the AF could probably stand to learn from it.

I think everything is pretty accurate except these two. Typically one 126.9 day deployment per assignment cycle unless you volunteer for another. I've never seen leave be that much of a problem, either, even when manning was lower than it is now. Our squadron worked with everyone who made reasonable requests, which sometimes leads to flying those 2 R days a month, so one of your bros gets some time off work.

That's a no-work zone.

There's a lot to be said for recognizing what does and doesn't transfer from your previous assignment to your new one, whichever direction you're moving.

This was totally expected, and I'm fine with it and glad to be back flying. I'm surprised anyone thought otherwise regarding the hours.

Right, I guess what I'm getting at is that there are smart people in that community and someone had to have done some critical thinking to realize at some point that the wavelengths seen through NVGs (to include IR pointers/strobes) are way different than what's listed for the Sniper IR range [in much the same way you wouldn't expect to see your IR laser designator in NVGs or TGP IR display], and then included it in training/pubs.

Thats the whole crux of this discussion, isn't it? To the planners, it fits; large PGM payload, hours of vul time, good communication ability, and NTISR. This is especially true with the drawdown of forces from bases in AFG. There are actually less CAS aircraft than there were a few years ago. MQ-9s are covering ATO fragged CAS taskings now also, but the B-1 has been part of the pillars of their plan because it's based outside of the country and it doesn't have to move out later.

No publication in the B-1 world describes the wavelength detectable by the Sniper? Questionable.

I'm not sure this is quite the same as the whole Ice Bucket thing...except that it plays social media with some #s. #BurnISISFlagChallenge

New AQ Franchise (Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent) Also Sets Sights on US Apparently before America and widespread democracy that allows people to practice the religion of their choosing, everyone was Muslim and they have all turned away since 1776. Clearly we can ignore the fact that there are 1.6B Muslim people, more than ever in history and 8 times as many as before American geopolitical prominence last century. Feeling a lack of attention al-Zawahiri? ISIS envy?

This conversation is for adults.

I personally cannot, but this is the blurb from the site for anyone affiliated to vouch.

Don't think I've seen this yet https://www.booster.com/moosetshirt?share=771409569302583

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/08/islamic-states-own-photos-were-just-used-find-one-its-training-camps/92267/ Someone in the ISIS PA department wasn't current on their information protection CBT.

Putin checked that container

Article definitely lacks in presentation since I assume it is serious. And maybe the sleep problems have to do with working on rotating shifts for more than 25 months at more than 51 hours per week. Agree with guineapigfury, times you cannot help are vastly more frustrating.

So does that rule out dunk tanks at base events, too? Edit: good catch 10%...which also begs the question on solo tanks at upt

But back to the article instead of your personal cheap shots. What I will take issue with is taking time to imagine some far off sci-fi world while the rest of us were in the real world practicing, fighting, studying and building TTPs for the foreseeable future so that we can integrate as a fighting asset in current/near-future contested environments (within limitations) or rescue package and as a reconnaissance/strike asset beyond the Army-S2-point-and-stare game. I've done actual contingency mission planning to bring unmanned to the fight in real time and for future OPLANs as well as plenty of lobbying with actual war planners, joint teams, and within AOC cells to leverage the very real skills that our unmanned assets possess. I’ve also cautioned when they're at their limits to steer the conversation back to getting unmanned assets into a viable role to achieve desired effects. And I think that's the key: useful thinking versus wishful thinking. What people ought to be reading are things like Squeeze Callahan's SAASS paper, because it can be taken seriously. This article is fantastical and does little to prove that any of what he talks about can be done at the simplest level. For instance, the AOD/commander's intent isn't a 1's and 0's programming problem like he paints mission/targeting prioritization to be. We do it with preplanned ground targets and standoff weapons, but those typically don't move and the missile doesn't interpret commander's intent, the MPC and aircrew do. And if a semi-autonomous system has to reach back to its operator at a critical juncture, it is vulnerable, whether from the increase in decision time thereby negating its computer advantage or from the transmission it just made to give itself away, negating its stealthiness. Unmanned technology definitely has a future, but there are so many other problems to solve before frying his big fish.

I've got plenty to stand on; he didn't earn his UAV, he selected it and put all his chips in because he believes in them, too much, and can't see their limitations. I read the article when it appeared, and I think it's too UAV-Kool-Aid laced with a narrow scope of the nature of and attributes required for aerial combat. ETA: This is why I said the person and opinion go hand-in-hand. He is that dedicated to the cause. I haven't started chucking spears. You started that.

Ah

Everything that emits, though, is detectable.

A 386 is cutting edge, right?