Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/20/2018 in all areas

  1. 19 points
    This reminds me of last time we deployed. We took a 777 contracted rotator out to the desert. All of us were waiting for hours of course in the pax terminal. There was this sadistic Lt Col who was the deployment office chief. She shrieked at us every 15 minutes about her arbitrary Nazi rules of when we could use the bathroom and get water, over the course of 3-4 hours. I’m not exaggerating when I say this lady’s yelling voice would make that Frau chick on Austin Powers cringe. Finally, it was time to board. She said she’d board us by rank. Lt Cols first, then Majors. Us Captains figured we were next so we got ready. Then a twist. Airmen next. Then NCOs. Then SNCOs. Ok, whatever lady, just let us on the damn plane so we can go to our desert paradise already. Nope. Lts next. Now it’s just the Captains. When it’s just us and her, she gives us her SJW speech. She says we are the group that typically comes first in the AF, so she boarded the plane to take care of the ranks that are typically not taken care of. She said we should be happy to board last and take the worst seats. After being locked in a warehouse for 4 hours needlessly, none of us were really in a mood for a lecture, but whatever. We finally board the buses to the plane. When we walk on the plane, the flight attendants point us towards first class. The contract airline has a policy of filling the plane back to front. So us entitied Captains all rode first class the whole way to the desert. Best case of instant justice I’ve seen. Though I’ve always regretted not taking a picture of all us Captains in first class and sending it to her with a thank you card.
  2. 17 points
    I'll be the first to admit that I've been out of touch with UPT for a while (winged in 1989). But, I still think this issue is getting more concern than it needs. I get it - there are some guys who might come back to UPT as instructors that have never flown a T-38. That's what PIT is for. UPT went dual track to focus some of the later training toward follow on heavy or fighter/bomber MDS requirements, but it was more about the fact that the -38 was in dire need of a break. When the dual track pipeline came about, it wasn't about producing fighter wingmen. That's never been the goal of the UPT syllabus. Teaching someone contact flying, basic acro, extended trail and some initial training in Tactical Formation doesn't seem to be the rocket science it's being made out to be. Personally, I'd be more worried about getting the guy proficient in single pilot instrument flying. I had a C-141 pilot as my primary -38 IP. He hadn't touched a -38 in 6 years when he came back to PIT. Somehow he managed to get me reasonably proficient in that aircraft. As an F-15 FTU IP I had to provide way more remedial instrument training than I did worrying about a UP flying tactical. Just my .02 i just re-read this and I’m not sure I gave my IP the credit he deserved with the “somehow he managed” sarcasm. He was good. He chose to fly a 141 and made no secret he wanted to be an airline guy. He may not have flown tactical for a living but that really didn’t matter. I look back and really appreciate his no slack attitude toward instrument skills and precise, smooth flying. Those things he beat into me saved my ass when I was shooting approaches to mins in Europe on a regular basis. That stuff was just as valuable as the other experiences the fighter pilots I flew with in UPT brought. I think my point is, regardless of their background, the IPs teaching our UPT students need to be highly competent. A mix of experience is valuable and nothing in the syllabus is that specific to a particular follow on assignment that a competent pilot can’t learn to teach it.
  3. 14 points
    A little grammatical correction yields the truth: “Mission first, people! Always!”
  4. 11 points
    Friend of patient: "What is it doc?" Doc: "It's cancer." Friend of patient: "Oh crap. Well we can't tell him that." Doc: "What? Why not?" Friend of patient: "Well you can say whatever you want, but that won't play well. He has made it clear that he doesn't think it is cancer and trying to convince him otherwise is not going to be a good use of time. It won't be an effective message for this audience." Doc: "Uhm. It's cancer."
  5. 11 points
    I'm cyber...you're a fucking dork.
  6. 8 points
    Definitely a U2 crew chief
  7. 7 points
    "Buffs - What can't they do?" Let's see: Push on time Not die in every Red Flag vul Turn around in less than 5 miles Have SA on air threats Have SA.
  8. 7 points
    The intent is that they’ll make up for the lost training at the FTUs. Can’t speak for the fighter side but on the MAF guys, the FTUs are running at max capacity and min manning. They will definitely not get their lost UPT training at the FTUs. Then they’ll show up to the units and be our problem. They will continue to be burdened with nonner duties because commanders can’t seem to follow CSAF guidance. They’ll waste time on being equipment custodian, security manager, Christmas party planner, unit piss test POC or whatever. They’ll have no one to set them straight and teach them how to be pilots because all of our experience is running for the airlines, if they aren’t shackled up at the wing exec or DS office. We are so f*c&ed.
  9. 7 points
  10. 6 points
    Says the Nav who supports even more stricter gun control laws--welcome to that big government that you love so much!
  11. 6 points
    #4 fire, #2 throttle stuck at 12k in/lbs.
  12. 6 points
    Because any enlisted member with the chops to do those jobs should go to OTS and get the higher pay they deserve. ::headdesk::
  13. 5 points
    And then the fighter pipeline will be backed up, creating a BIT program so once 30% more officers hit the new PRFs required majors board there will only be a 60% selection rate. At about this time, leaps in unmanned airplane tech will require less pilots (projected) so mass RIFs and VSP rounds will take place. The AF will overcut though, and ask the same group to come back in a few years. Sum up the next 20 years?
  14. 5 points
    My mother works as a nurse in nursing home/hospice care. Every resident she has regardless of age or level of infirm status has an ID. They have to in order to pay or have access Medicare benefits. Jesus the level of contortions people will go to the explain why it’s ok to not have any form of identification yet exercise an action as big a deal as voting is ridiculous.
  15. 5 points
    When bananas are outlawed, only outlaws will have bananas.
  16. 5 points
  17. 5 points
    So from the filing Azimuth posted... The two alleged victims then are presumably the accused's children, and the mother in question is the ex-wife who he has an ongoing custody dispute with and who he accuses of trying to alienate the children from him. That is some pretty significant context that is missing from the USA Today story and the quotes in it from the various members of Congress, Don Christensen (the ex-AF prosecutor that tried to railroad Lt Col Wilkerson at Aviano), and the SVCs. Not a lawyer... But it appears to me that advocates for the ex-wife, including the AF SVCs, are taking advantage of the fact that the news media has a professional standard of not identifying the alleged victims of sex crimes who don't wish to be identified. They in effect counted on the fact that the press would leave the divorce/custody dispute context out of the discussion to try to win a losing case in the court of public opinion. I don't know if the congressional members quoted knew about that context, but Christensen probably does and the SVCs definitely do. And I kind of have a problem with that. Prosecutors are supposed to have a professional obligation not to "win," but to see that justice is done. i.e. If a prosecutor finds out that they've probably got the wrong guy, or that their office convicted the wrong guy in the past, they have a professional duty to dismiss the charges or seek to have the previous conviction overturned. How does that work with the obligations of an SVC? Obviously an SVC is supposed to be an advocate for the alleged victim... But in an Air Force that allegedly believes in "Integrity First," surely one has an obligation not to make arguments one knows are specious to try to win in the press when you're losing on the law and might lose on the facts. If this is considered "Okay" by the Air Force, then I have a problem with SVCs as a career field just like I have a problem with OSI.
  18. 5 points
    Patriotism is what gets you to serve a 10-year ADSC when you are young and single. Money is what helps keep you in past your commitment once you have a family. All the General’s I’ve been exposed to seemed to think that no amount of money would affect people’s decision to stay. I think they have it backwards. The people who are going to stay regardless don’t care about the money. For plenty of folks on the fence money is a huge factor in their decision I’ve talked to plenty of guys on a bro level who will readily admit that a $50-60K annual bump in pay (without stupid long ADSCs attached to it) post ADSC would likely have gotten them to stay in. It’s not that the AF ever had to match airline pay, they just needed to provide a decent increase to make pilots continue to put of with the BS and lower QoL inherent in military service. Hell, even just making the $35K annual professional pay would likely get a few guys to serve an extra year or two.
  19. 5 points
    PRFs should have four lines for the senior rater to fill out. 1. This candidate meets all eligibility requirements for promotion. YES/NO (no requires mandatory comment) 2. I have reviewed this candidates record and found no derogatory information. YES/NO (no is mandatory comment) 3. Strat. My #______/________ for this board. 4. DP/P/DNP Everything else the PRF communicates is already captured in the promotion record.
  20. 5 points
    Yes, it passed in the house in 2017 but died in the Senate due to AF opposition at the time. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2810/text/eh#toc-HD6CAA416CAF74D1B9DE4FC89CF24A69F Text below of what passed. Based on today's announcement of it being organized similarly to the Marines relationship with Navy, I'd expect it to be similar to what passed previously ----------------------------------- Establishment.—Not later than January 1, 2019, the Secretary of Defense shall establish in the executive part of the Department of the Air Force a Space Corps. The function of the Space Corps shall be to assist the Secretary of the Air Force in carrying out the duties described in subsection Composition.—The Space Corps shall be composed of the following: The Chief of Staff of the Space Corps. Such other offices and officials as may be established by law or as the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Space Corps, may establish or designate. Duties.—Except as otherwise specifically prescribed by law, the Space Corps shall be organized in such manner, and the members of the Space Corps shall perform, such duties and have such titles, as the Secretary may prescribe. Such duties shall include— (1) protecting the interests of the United States in space; (2) deterring aggression in, from, and through space; (3) providing combat-ready space forces that enable the commanders of the combatant commands to fight and win wars; (4) organizing, training, and equipping space forces; and (5) conducting space operations of the Space Corps under the command of the Commander of the United States Space Command.
  21. 4 points
    Okay. I’ve read that entire article 3 times today hoping my conclusion would change. It hasn’t. “What fucking planet are you on, dude?!” I want to drive to his house with a 12 pack and invite myself in. “My man! We need to talk!” Because clearly NO ONE he has talked to has given him the straight scoop. He might as well have said, “Well, based on my two 15 day deployments in the last 20 years, THIS is what the rated force means”. YGBSM.
  22. 4 points
    I read that as Congress didn't want ABMs (13Bs) in Georgia. Which is understandable.
  23. 4 points
    Please. Let’s not play the race card.
  24. 4 points
    I say, have them written! Why pass up an opportunity to churn out more queep as an exercise in true AF leadership. I have found that squadron/group/wing execs and CSS personnel are far too focused on things like flying, personal lives, and spending time with their families. They need the PRF practice. Then, after the PRFs are completed by every management level, burn them to the ground. Maybe we should instead just trust the wing commanders. PRFs are unnecessary waste, and our top managers can use some bullets saying they saved man hours, even though said man hours have already been spent on the burned PRFs. Screw it. Engineer the bullets for our time-saving overlords anyway and earn them another star! Then, the board can completely disregard the wing commanders. Damn. Those PRFs would have been useful since we now have to sift through thousands of records because we have decided that a faceless board of bureaucrats is a vastly better entity to judge an officer than a silly local commander. In any case, since we burned the PRFs and don’t trust commanders, we have to review the records for 6-9 stimulating months. But hey - extra queep for management! Im convinced this practice queep makes us a more lethal Air Force. Everyone wins!
  25. 4 points
    I see the benefits as follows: 1. Space will be priority for the SF, rather than a side job of the other services. 2. We will finally be more military-ish than another branch, and can make fun of them for being pussies, and still make fun of the other services for being gay retards.