raimius

Hm, might be a decent jet trainer...

No issue. That wasn't whining about units not wanting/trying to go, but about the show. "Talking" on the internet can do that.

Yup.

Good. Last year was kind of weak showing, IMO. There was a MV-22, an HH-65, and a static C-17. T-birds put on a good show, but I'd rather see a demo from a non dog-and-pony fighter.

They added an F-16 sporting a pair of B61s, with some working pseudo-nav. lights. They were working on a couple statics a month or so ago, but in general, they still need a lot of mx to look nice.

I think you may have low-balled (sts) the cost.

OV-10 reincarnation would be pretty sweet. I like the gun turret! ...or PA-48 Get a little pseudo-mustang going https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer#/media/File:Piper_PA48_Enforcer_USAF.jpg

17D If the AF didn't allow me to occasionally fly their aircraft and all I had was AF office work, I might be a civilian by now. There is obviously a lot of disconnect between parts of the AF. It's sad and almost funny when another agency/squadron assumes they can just ask for a flying squadron to do something with 18hrs notice, not knowing it takes WG/CC or MAJCOM level approvals to do said thing. I'm sure you have seen similar things. It tends to leave a poor impression when people try to get stuff done, but the customer service window at whatever agency they are dealing with is only open when they cannot go, due to flying, crew rest, etc. It seems non-sensical to take 2-3 weeks to get 30 minutes of work done, because the only people who can submit your documents or conduct an appointment are never around when you are not otherwise committed. I realize that many support agencies are undermanned, and many of our processes are so convoluted that we probably generate 75% of our own misery, but that doesn't help the frustration. That said, the subject matter expert for travel vouchers should be the SrA/SSgt in finance, not the C-17 IP. In every support squadron/agency I've dealt with, there are always at least 1 or 2 people who are clearly experts at their jobs. I certainly appreciate them, as they get things done right, even when the customer (me) has little to no idea what's going on. The AF needs to figure out how to retain and promote them! ____________________ Do you even internet, brah? That would be nothing compared to the average CNN/Youtube comments section.

Dan Wessons are very nice. I wish they were about $400-500 cheaper, like they were about 5 or 6 years ago (granted, they use slightly better small parts now). The $1K CBOB was a good deal, in my opinion. 1911s conceal pretty well in a Crossbreed Supertuck.

Only 11 in a class? They do something weird to the classes down there?

My unit has minimums for charge, but it's less than 90% (our sortie duration is a bit less than the heavies). You can Q3 for it, but I haven't seen it done. Our CCV also maintains a loaner iPad in the event of someone's having issues.

What are your thoughts on Tim Kane's research and proposals from Bleeding Talent? (I'd also dispute your conclusion that money solves everything by citing things like Afghanistan, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and public education in the US.)

First, saying we do something terribly, but better than the other guy does not win you many points. Second, we don't know if we cut the bottom, top, or middle. We don't know how to measure this! Having the skills to write a strong "C" on your OPR is a poor indicator of talent and skill in both your primary AFSC and leadership abilities. On the E side, everybody is a winner as well. It's amazing that all our children are above average! Until we figure out how to measure our talent pool, we won't have more than a hazy idea of who we want to keep and who should go. Third, what do you consider "extreme stress on the system?" Is that too few people to fill nominal billets, too few people to operate normally, or too few to win the war? From the ground level, I sometimes wonder. Fourth, throwing money at people won't retain your best talent. Some may be great, but bonuses tend to attract those who either already want/plan to stay or those who don't see better options. Heck, I barely read anything on personnel/talent management and I realize this! More money is nice and all, but pay is not the top reason most people decide to stay or leave. Finally, I have GREAT pride in parts of the Air Force. Those parts would be the airmen doing their jobs with care and precision, getting the mission done regardless of the enemy or other obstacles. The personnel system looks more detached, disconnected, and arbitrary just about every time I read about it. Why should I take pride in a system that is so inefficient and reactionary? If that sounded like a bit of a rant, you are right. I know I see things at the micro level, but I'm not an idiot, nor are the people I work with. Your cheery picture does not fit the reality that they and I are experiencing.

Sam Jackson with a lisp was rather odd. I did like Firth's line just before the rampage!

A stand-alone non-mil network for pubs, T.O.s, etc. works pretty well. We also wound up having to use some commercial internet for things like iOS and Foreflight updates. We wound up with 3 different non-mil networks at one point. So, you might want to be careful, as problems increase as the complexity does.

Not sure we'd want to set the precedent, but under the Geneva convention, can't unlawful combatants be tried (and executed)?

Kinda like all the hubbub about camo patterns. Lots of hate and envy when we should be talking about what works and is efficient. If you work in an office environment, you should probably wear blues (as much as I hate them, due to material and cut). If you work in the field, you should probably wear an infantry type uniform in effective camo (what the ABU should have been but isn't). If you work in an industrial environment...probably just wear the infantry type stuff, if it works (keeps logistics easier). If you fly, wear a flight suit...you know, the thing purpose built for the task! If you do work in multiple environments, pick what works best. ...besides, pilots don't think they're better than everyone else because of the flight suit. They'd still think they're better, even in a leisure suit. ;)

Sounds rather similar to the Air France sequence. I wonder what the data recorders will indicate.

Certainly a well written and thought provoking piece! I suspect there are plenty of people out there who can come up with improvements, but I fear they are either not offering their solutions or they don't have enough "mass" of advocacy to actually change things. ...or we just keep "fixing" things until they are so screwed up by new issues that we "fix" them by going back to the old systems.

As much as I hate the "blame the pilot" game, there plenty of times where the flight crew were the primary link in the crash. ...even when your instruments go wonky, you have got to figure out that pulling back on the controls for 1 minute-plus is going to cause a stall.

AFE reg, and varies by airframe, if I recall correctly.

Which is odd, considering USAF H-1s have had mini-gun set-ups since the 20th SOS was flying F/P models in Vietnam and elsewhere.

2

I haven't kept up on the drops from Rucker, but a lot of CV-22s lately have been from fixed-wing tracks. As far as I know, all the TH-1Hs are at Rucker.