Jump to content
Baseops Forums

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/17/2018 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Hey guys, let's refrain from publishing numbers of damaged aircraft, rumint or otherwise, until the DOD releases that information publicly. Thanks!
  2. 2 points
    I think there is value in PME, but the AF should give you time to knock it out. This business of going home after 12 hours of work to tuck the kids in and start ACSC needs to end.
  3. 1 point
    Don’t forget to use “Machine Learning!” and “Artificial Intelligence!” to solve your problems. Who should I send the bill to?
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    The NDS: Professional Military Education (PME). PME has stagnated, focused more on the accomplishment of mandatory credit at the expense of lethality and ingenuity. We will emphasize intellectual leadership and military professionalism in the art and science of warfighting, deepening our knowledge of history while embracing new technology and techniques to counter competitors. PME will emphasize independence of action in warfighting concepts to lessen the impact of degraded/lost communications in combat. PME is to be used as a strategic asset to build trust and interoperability across the Joint Forces and with allied and partner forces. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf They had me dis-enrolling after the first sentence, seems like fraud, waste, and abuse otherwise. Everything else is a more wishful use of "will", meaning it hasn't happened yet (and we all know that it won't)... at least they've identified the problem.
  8. 1 point
    So when am I going to be allowed to wear my multi cam Massif with a green flight suit?
  9. 1 point
    Are they all complete losses? Time to reopen the line MAGA more Raptors... 5 more squadrons! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. 1 point
    The ROTC forum is a few pages back
  11. 1 point
    This will be the obvious result...and will result in more sub-par MSG O's getting the nod. There were 14 out of 38 IPZ passed over in my career field, 6% below the mission support average. Assuming, some of those passed over were passed over for good reason, a "fair share" quota could have the perverse effect of promoting ~3 of those, and ensuring ~3 officers in some other category did not get the nod. Hopefully they don't go with a "fair share" scheme and instead run some calculus on future requirements by category...but I don't trust the AFPC community's ability to do that sort of thing very well.
  12. 1 point
    The alternative? Nothing changes, commanders don’t rack and stack, and that everyone gets promoted? Serious question. I’ll tell you as a Sq/CC I spent more time taking care of people on reports than was required. But yeah there was a rack n stack and it didn’t always end up fair in my opinion. I don’t think there can be any other way as things stand. I also don’t think we do it right... but if you don’t change the way EVERYONE does it then doing it right doesn’t matter because you screw your people. (I.e. The only way the Enlisted force got away from firewall fives was to change the entire system) The above-center-below rating system will require some caveat I’d think, some that the Army and USMC have stipulated in varying degrees. First, all reports for each rank close on the same date (common reporting period) - although this will drive its own issues as there’s a huge difference between new guy captain wingman and old guy star on his wings WIC instructor pilot / mission commander. Second, that there is zero access to the individuals previous reports - what you did during the period of report is all that counts - no halo effect, “this guy was great last year” or “this guy was lousy last year” bias. (This, as has been identified, presents its own challenges and there’s questions of realistic expectations too). I’d say these changes have a lot of growing up to do before they are ready for prime time, so don’t hold your breath - my guess is two or three years before we see movement, though A1 states otherwise. As to the PRF, Id think the recognition that all the work put into those things is wasted is a good thing. I’d expect that change almost immediately. There’s a lot of unanswered questions, but less meaningless work is a good development. Edit: one additional I need to add after looking at my notes. Allegedly, the LAF category at promotion boards is going to be split. Pilots will compete against pilots and so on... Caveat: I’d expect quotas (i.e. ceiling to number of promotions per year) to follow in trail. So aircrew got what they wanted (a good thing, I think), now we will see how long it takes for us to start bitching about it... Chuck edited: to add the bit about promotion boards
  13. 1 point
    Hell, I say reopen K.I. Sawyer in the upper peninsula of Michigan, turn and burn over Lake Superior. Learn to love snow and cold weather OP's. Or any other northern tier old remote SAC base.
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    Having been in Hot, Africa Hot (realz Africa), the 2-piece is the bikini of uniforms. Back home, bag all the way. It was a defiance at one point in time (Blues Monday) and is my rebel uniform. Want to thow a subtle F.U. at the man, sport that verboten patch. That and pull and zip and I'm off to work. So, occasions dictate the clothes, wear accordingly. Out
  16. 1 point
    I don’t know Moose, as smart as you sound, you really should stick around. It sounds like you know everything about running a fighter Wing, fighter ops, Mx generations, hurrivac time lines, civil engineering, leadership, decision making, and accountability. Sarcasm aside, dude calm down. I don’t think “AFPC from 2013-2015” has anything to do with a 150+ MPH storm hitting a base with 1960s infrastructure. You appear to be exhibiting the very attitude of micromanaging leadership that many of us complain about on this board on a regular basis. No one knows what jets are damaged and what jets are not, and once they do know they’re not going to post those details on the inter webs. Give them a chance to figure things out and clear the roads of downed power lines before you start demanding “accountability” We’d all be better off if we tried to understand things from a different perspective, CAF vs MAF, etc. Shoot first, ask questions later is not the Air Force we want to be.
  17. 1 point
    Was there last month on an overnight. Old pile of rocks on some premium downtown real estate. A forgettable experience. 1 star.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
  20. 1 point
    "Unsponsored boards" are a Reserve thing, every Active Duty board is unsponsored. The Reserve unsponsored board is not going to be helpful with a waiver, you need a squadron that likes/needs you in your corner pushing the paperwork forward (plus, the unsponsored boards come and go depending on needs of the Reserve). Fighters would seem unlikely for you. From what I've seen they are much less likely to do age waivers, and most require a PPL at minimum. Going enlisted ANG and hoping to get picked up for UPT isn't the worst idea ever, it's slightly better than invading Russia in the winter. Really, though, it's a big "risk" (depending on how negative you'd view spending your time enlisted) for not a huge increase in likelihood of being picked up for UPT (as you'd now definitely need a waiver, and one for being 32 or 33, not just 30). My advice is that you should apply for Reserve heavy squadrons. They're hiring tons of people right now and your scores are competitive for them. Given how the Reserves have streamlined the process post squadron hire (AFRC boards every six weeks instead of six months, surplus of dedicated Reserve spots at OTS/UPT), you would have a good chance of getting to UPT before your 30th birthday and thus not require a waiver. That's barring any screwups with your medical at MEPS/FC1, neither of which are guaranteed. For comparison, my time between hire and UPT was 14 months, and that was with four months of delays for medical shenanigans and three months of waiting on the AFRC board.
  21. 0 points
×
×
  • Create New...