Napoleon_Tanerite

Unconfirmed reports via Facebook that the crew is safe and the jet is on the ground. Edit... Confirmed via command post, jet on the ground, crew safe. Edit 2: I hate when the media catch wind of an EP. They always try to spin it as a disaster in the hope of generating hits. Fuck them in the ear for whipping everyone connected to the tanker community into a panic, especially considering Shell 77 is still a pretty fresh wound.

Is it built in the war room? Gotta make sure we are selective who is in there.... big board and all...

I take it you weren't there.... We did more kinetic business in Libya over the span of 5 months than we did over the preceding 5 years of Iraq and Afghanistan.

A day's wages? That's a steep wager!

I bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and all I got was SAPR training.

There's a BIG difference between deferring to technical expertise and being run roughshod over by the people you're supposed to be leading. I put a lot of faith in my flight engineers, and I trusted their input based on their area of expertise, but the final decision was mine and mine alone, and I didn't care how much "convincing" I needed to do.

15-08 student detected....

Continuing the derail-- having flown a combat mission seems to be a common criteria these days. Or just to piss off fighter pilots, that's also equally valid.

I think this has to do with the political move to make GSC a 4 button command-- they needed the manning to justify taking the star away from AETC. The move doesn't make much sense beyond that. The B-1 is no longer a strategic/nuclear asset. GSC was originally intended (as I understand) to somewhat literally get our nuclear fecal matter collocated under one roof. If the B-1 is under GSC, why isn't the F-15E? There's a LOT of mission overlap there, probably more so these days than the B-1 and the B-2/52. As for the crew dogs of the B-1 community... you poor, poor bastards.

Haha haha haha haha haha!!! Hope for the 11Rs? No way in hell. As far as ACC is concerned we're the disfigured troll children the red headed step children keep in the attic.

It's like being the rope in a game of tug of war. Nobody has a beef with the rope, but that doesn't mean it doesn't suck to be said rope.

Nope. Big difference between someone who finished what they started, did their time, earned their keep, and decided to seek opportunities elsewhere and someone who couldn't hack shit in the first place. As for the rest of your words.... noted, with points of agreement. Shit sucks everywhere, got it. The problem is this culture the Air Force has actively been promoting in the recent past that has fed the line of horseshit that every AFSC is created equal, that we're all warfighters, and are all the tip of the spear. As for your gripes about having to close for training and other blah blah ballwash-- there's one key difference between pilots and most other AFSCs. Our primary job lately hasn't been to fly airplanes. That is pretty much a hobby or some kind of guilty pleasure that we occasionally get to partake in, usually at the expense of our ability to do our real jobs. And when I say "real jobs" I am referring, of course, to EVERYONE ELSE'S DAMN JOB. We have more finance officers by trade in our flying squadron than the comptroller squadron. More comm guys than the comm squadron, more personnellists... you get the point. When a support type goes to work, they do the job they were hired and trained for (somewhere between showing up at ~0800, Sq PT, 2 hour lunch, and 1615 departure). 90% of the reason I and most of my colleagues work 12+ hours on a regular basis is because of all of the other ancillary bullshit we have to do because "support" AFSCs can't do their job.

The AF has no clue about what it's about to face in the next decade. It has this idea that there will always be pilots to fill billets at will. The airlines are just now starting to hire at an unprecedented rate. At the same time all the high time OEF/OIF/etc veterans are reaching the end of their commitments around the time they would be hot for a staff gig. You can't send a brand new UPT grad to staff, so even increasing schoolhouse output won't fix the pilot manning problems the AF is just starting to see. It's not a matter of money either, just look at the take rate on the bonus. They're going to have to fundamentally change the way they do business if they want to successfully compete with the airlines for the experienced pilots that both organizations are seeking. The AF finds itself at a huge disadvantage at this realm. Airlines are completely in control of what they do with their company, whereas the AF is beholden to congress and POTUS taskings.

Obligatory https://youtu.be/_CIYR_XgBSY

I'd venture to say the transition would be the same for a T-1 trained guy. A thousand hours in an MWS tends to drown out <100 in a trainer real quick, no matter which trainer we're talking about. As for cross flowing heavy guys into fighters, good luck! I doubt the voluntary take rate would be very high. Once you get used to The Good Life, fighters don't sound too appealing.

Compare contrast the tone of this thread with the A-10 thread, then realize we're talking about the same person here. The intellectual dishonesty surrounding divestment efforts for the A-10 is not happening in a vacuum, nor is it spontaneous.

The case must be pretty air tight if they're willing to weather the political fecal fusilade that this trial is sure to cause.

I think the F-15C is a far better candidate for cutting than the A-10. The exact same arguments being made to justify pulling the plug on the A-10 apply to the F-15C. It is old, it is not day 1 survivable, and is unabashedly single role, even more so than the A-10. The F-15C is also more expensive to operate than the A-10, and to top it off, the F-15C is not necessary for the kind of war we are currently fighting. I know the discussion is about future conflict and the F-15C loses there too. The big difference is there are already aircraft in the inventory that can fill the role the C model occupies.

I said the same thing back in August. Glad to hear I'm not the only guy who has this opinion.

The problem with the 2020 threat picture is that any sort of a "contested" environment is going to be a numbers game, at least to some degree. The F-35 may (at least on paper) be more technologically advanced than the peer/near peer adversaries we may face, but when it's out numbered 10-1, that advantage evaporates entirely. The logical fallacy that is thrown around about the F-35 (and the F-22 before it) is that one F-35 is worth some multiple of a legacy aircraft it is replacing. Even when that statement is taken at face value the other side of the equation can't be ignored-- the attrition of one F-35 is the equivalent of the loss of that multiple of legacy aircraft.

F-15C, Tops in Blue, all bands but the HAF Band, and 96.9% of anciliary "training". I'll be expecting change with that by the way. The A-10 is dirt cheap compared to other areas where the AF hemorrhages cash.

Yes. UPT at DLF. Crack the window, no ID. "Sir are you a US Citizen?" "Am I being detained?" "No Sir" and I'm going like a fart in a hurricane. Key is to not come off as an entitled dick who is seeking confrontation. Inflection is key here.

Trick question-- you make the assumption that I would immediately hand over my ID or otherwise answer any questions. They can lawfully stop you, but you are not legally obligated to answer any of their questions. The correct response is "Am I being detained?"