raimius

Quite the cvr in the links.

2nd Captenant rank?

Not sure I follow. You have a M&P 15-22 that you want to convert?...to what? For cheap optics, I'd probably look at Primary Arms or Holosun. They seem to get decent reviews.

True, but I think whoever was looking at it from HAF (if anyone) probably bit off on the flattening of the bonus vs takers chart at the $30-40k mark. That would indicate that above that amount, the bonus will sway fewer people per dollar added. It would still keep getting more takers through $100k, but the "efficiency" of bonus money goes down above that $30-40k mark. The AF is calling it a crisis, but still wants to pay as little as possible, even if that means prolonging the crisis and losing more experience along the way. Based on the ACTF Reddit AMA, it's because the AF is too afraid to ask Congress to up the bonus to the RAND results. (Left unsaid is that they won't even pay people the full flight-pay amount because reasons...?)

To be fair, the RAND study did show a drop off in added retention above $30-40k. You get the most people to stay by giving $100k, but you still get a bunch of those at $30-40k. That said, if this was really a "crisis" to Big Blue, HAF would still ask for the $100k to keep the most people--that they don't have the guts/desire to even ask says something.

Yeah, I've seen maybe 1/6th of the promised improvements (cutting of CBTs was noticed, but moving additional duties to the CSS which is also staffed mainly by aircrew didn't do much). The bonus is also right back to what it had been for my AFSC, but the civilian airline opportunities are dramatically greater than 5 yrs ago... Seems more like lip service sts than a response to a real crisis.

🍺

Some airlines are starting rotary-wing transition programs...so, I'd expect help take rates to start declining, if that keeps up...

The general seems to be waking up early every day to think about this. ..but Neither flight pay nor the bonus will increase. (Blame Congress, except for the flight pay--Big AF apparently needs to make it look like we are trying to save money even though Congress allowed us money to help this very problem!) Those QoL improvements are still mostly unspecified Manning in all the cited communities looks decent on the spreadsheets The complaints about feeling valued via promotion, recognition, support, etc mostly went unanswered

Other than IL or some of the liberal coastal states, most don't have any kind of ownership permit or registration process. Please don't think of IL gun laws as "normal," sensible, or effective. They are none of the above.

False. Only certain AFSCs get the full $35k/yr. Helo pilot bonuses have decreased the past two years, and are back to $25k/yr, for example.

Did he need an STS, or was he making multiple observations?

🍺

Sorry to hear that! Be a good father. Don't let her sins damage your ability to be a good parent. Act as the better man. That means be civil ALWAYS, and also plan ahead to prevent her from taking advantage of your politeness. ...and yeah, get a good lawyer and follow their advice.

Hate to say it, but "not a requirement inside the Air Force" kind of talk makes us look straight-up dishonest as a service.

Huey's go to Kirtland (school house), Andrews (alert DV support), Minot, Malmstrom, FE Warren (ICBM security), Fairchild (SERE school support), or Yakota (DV airlift). Talking to a former Army pilot, AF helos are a mix of what Warrants and Army Officer pilots do. So, be ready for that.

In all sincerity, thanks for reminding me I don't always have all the details. My argument is really a legalistic/nitpick of naming conventions (a ship that already sailed). Champ Kind, don't judge Huey crew dogs by my late-night arguments.

🍺

By "direct effects" against the enemy, I mean that the weapon/system used kills bad guys or breaks their things. I try to avoid double-speak, but I'll yield on your other points. It's a big AF, and I'm not an expert on your job.

UH-1s. No weapons school for that. Also, concur with Breckey. AFGSC Huey's don't have the course we should have, but a full-up Weapons School probably is not the right answer at this time, either.

Probably stated my opinion in a better way than I put it. It is partially semantics. Unarmed infil/exfil, Intel gathering, refueling, etc. are all important functions, but I would argue that they are not employing weapons to fulfill those functions. I can see EW and offensive cyber, as they can disable enemy systems directly. Calling a school that teaches tactics for an unarmed aircraft/system that does not have direct effects on the enemy a "weapons school" rings hollow to me. I call it political posturing because that is how you get the tactical experts in some communities to be taken seriously (e.g. people look for patches). The patch and title of "weapons school grad" gives a base level of commonality and familiarity across communities. Yes, when I meet AMC dudes who have a patch, I assume they are good at their jobs. What I don't think to myself is "wow, what an impressive weapon" when I look at a KC-135. To me it fits in with the "everyone a warrior" idea. Not everyone is a warrior. That doesn't diminish their value. We need docs, logisticians, engineers, network admins, etc, etc. If you are in uniform, you should have training in combat skills, but that's for contingencies in most AFSCs.

Having tactical experts is a great idea. Calling all .mil aircraft "weapons" and having "weapons schools" for each muddies the waters, IMO. As of 4-5 years ago, AF UH-1s had zero mounted weapons, just armed pax. We had plenty of tactics to make that work. Having a "Weapons School" would have been a misnomer. Having a school to teach and refine those tactics would have been nice though. Having some sort of place to teach tactics is a good thing, I just think it's dumb political posturing that every community wants a "Weapons School" to do that. IMO it dilutes the seriousness of the task when transport and ISR communities have to argue that they are weapons.

Question: how often has a large conflict been stopped/contained by a large initial strike? It seems the popular psychology is that the bigger the hit, the more anger and demand for a strong response occurs. I'm not sure taking out x-hundred targets on day 1 will give pause. (Granted, if you are going to fight, taking out a lot of enemy capability at the start is a good move.)

Weapons School isn't about weapons? Man, we must really suck at naming things! Here I thought it was about realizing our fighter pilots weren't trained well enough to maintain the 10:1 kill ratio from Korea, and trying to fix that.

I'm not sure his dismissal of tactical fighters and air superiority is well thought out. Having long-range strike in quantity is a good idea though.