raimius

They do go through a lot of specialized training. Whether you consider it "bad ass" is up to you.

I don't think we are the driving force behind HTS. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't closely follow the insurgent groups there

Are you ok, dude? That's a high grade crazy kind of claim. Global thermonuclear war isn't in anyone's best interest.

I haven't heard of many T-6 chip lights lately. Which base(s)?

Don't worry. The T-1 sim is going away. They'll go straight to the FTUs from T-6s. ...leave it to the AF to "save money" by getting rid of the T-1, so people can do their training in the (oh, so much cheaper) C-17, KC-135, etc... I knew the AF had problems, then I got assigned to AETC...

Have you considered something like 125grn SSTs?

I think you are misinterpreting that quote. It argues that Russia did not want to intervene, but may feel compelled to in a Ukrainian CIVIL WAR. It does not imply that Russia would feel forced to invade to keep them out of NATO. Invading was Putin's choice to try to regain a puppet state/buffer zone. The idea that Ukraine's choice in alliances is an act of war against Russia remains, as it always was, dumb.

Don't worry we are designing a pubs-case stowable ladder for the F-16. It'll only cost a little over $500k to prototype... Not joking...

Sounds like a good 1st Amendment lawsuit...maybe even criminal charges.

Not an act of war. Are you arguing that a neighboring nation joining an alliance your nation is not at war with is a valid reason to invade them?

The Russian proposal puts a lot of restrictions on NATO and essentially negates protecting the newer NATO members until after hostilities commence, while posing far fewer limits on Russia. If Putin was serious about promoting peace, he would stop invading other countries without valid cause (trying to join NATO is not an act of war, btw).

So, Russia wants everyone to be friends, and leave all the recent NATO members vulnerable....I don't think that's going to go anywhere soon.

Who said that? It doesn't check with anything I've heard or the AF has done lately.

Depends a bit on your job. If you are a flt/CC, ADO, etc. Plan to double turn most days (except when MX can't supply tails/wx days). If assigned at the OG/WG, you might fly a couple days a week and do office work the rest of the time. So, line IPs stay pretty busy flying and try to fit in office time where they can/have to. 10-12hr days are pretty common. Attached IPs--depends on the job. Expect a weekend XC every couple months, unless you volunteer more frequently. The faips take most of the XCs, to get out of town. You'll be home most days, but it may vary between 1800-2030 pretty frequently. Laughlin experience, anyway.

There are actually more than two presidential candidates. Vote for whoever you think is best.

Are we not doing phrasing anymore?

Well, being prepared for emergencies is FEMA's third priority.... https://www.fema.gov/about/strategic-plan

I've been out of the Huey for a bit. What is the gouge on the -139? Performance, handling opinions, unit ops tempo outlook, etc...

That's something we really can't test until more history plays out. A sub plucking an LT out of the ocean in WWII had little impact on the war, but that dude became President later.

Those in power tend to place the good of the nation below another objective...

When you shoot someone multiple times in the upper torso, they will likely die. The cop was using lethal force intentionally. Killing someone intentionally, without proper justification, is generally "murder." I'm sure that the cop thought he was justified in that moment, but the film doesn't seem to offer any reasonable justification for lethal force...aka he was not justified in his intentional use of lethal force. I'm not saying he wanted to murder, but any charge based on unintentionally killing is probably the wrong charge to bring. He killed the guy because his judgement was wrong not because the gun accidentally went off a half dozen times.

IF the guy had been an actual threat, he should fire as many rounds as it takes to end the threat...but looking at the video--there was no threat.

I don't think you can argue dumping half a magazine into a guy answering his door is unintentionally killing him. I also don't know what non-violent felony the LEO would be charged with. Thus, it would be tough to convict on that definition.

Not accurate. Some fighter FTUs are backed up, and they are looking at dropping more heavies out of -38s, with potential cross-training back to 11F/11B after an assignment in the MAF/AFSOC world.

This is a forum... dialogue is the point.