brabus

We should be - continue to destroy the IRGC. They are basically a terrorist organization with a lot more money, materiel, and organization than others. They only speak death and destruction; diplomacy is a non-starter. Continue diplomatic discussions with the more moderate civilian govt while specifically targeting IRGC.

The only actionable thing I can suggest is attempt to get more specific feedback from a pilot on the hiring board. Doesn’t have to be the board lead, just one of them who was there. If it’s age-related, I would think they’d say that outright. If it wasn’t for age reasons, then it could be: 1) You just don’t personally mesh with them/some specific people who have a lot of sway in the squadron 2) They already had their “winners” picked and nobody, including you, was going to change their minds Those two hypotheticals are potential reasons - not saying one or both are the situation, just saying they both are real across many squadrons, and it’s not crazy that your squadron may have one or both at play.

RTM adjustment isn’t that onerous. Starts with DOC statement - primary vs. secondary missions. You make CSAR, CAS, SCAR (e.g. Counterland) primary missions and OCA/DCA secondary. Secondary missions do not need to get much love on the RTM. Good example is F-35 can knock out all CAS reqs in a 2 week training phase per year. Similarly, ANG vipers in this hypothetical could do about 4 weeks of A-A focused training and call it good for the year.

Did you do any interview prep? How much, and how well, do you perceive you interacted with pilots in a social setting?

Nailed it.

Don’t make it out to be anything beyond hanging out with dudes in your squadron. Act/talk like your normal self - they’re just dudes hanging out over beers, just like you. Don’t get shitfaced - know when to take a break/stop.

Yep, and I personally think that’s still the best answer. But, just need to have it all lined up vs. scrambling at the 11th hour (I know, wishful thinking). A great move would be Boise - getting Blk 40s, just have them transition to the new jet with no/little change in DOC statement. Profit from the shit ton of experience they have (who are all about to leave ASAP…so, maybe just a theoretical win at this point)

We started this in 2015-16 timeframe, but ACC better figure out who’s taking CSAR (fighter-wise) and “CAS culture.” The A-10 will die someday, even if it has another surprise lease in the future. Should be a prime focus for someone in the community. You got 4 years, don’t fuck it up!

Sure, it’s MCO. The fact is we’ve been so used to GWOT-level risk for 30+ years, so MCO-level risk to infrastructure/our mil assets seems insane. The thing is we’ve actually done incredibly well and the impact has been extremely limited when looked at through an MCO lens. For sure. Lots of people, in addition to the Ford, have spent 10+ months deployed over the last year and change. I have some real problems with force apportionment at the operational level for both AD and Guard.

Exactly, PUBLIC. Not sure why it’s so mind blowing for people that there is way more to things than what’s going to be stated publicly. In your open source based opinion, we are “far from a cohesive reason.” Those who are fully informed know that’s not an accurate statement. My biggest recommendation to you and others is understand there are great people doing amazing work for good reasons - and just because you aren’t personally in that realm/in the know doesn’t mean it’s not true. Also, open source (including admin press conferences) is primarily dead wrong, mostly full of shit, or intentionally vague/misleading.

@Pooter M2 summed my answer up quite well. It’s very evident your opinions and arguments are predicated on open source trash, or at best, some vaguely informed intel bro who read this one thing on SIPR (e.g. basically NIPR these days). You are far from accurately informed on this subject, but you talk like you’ve got it all figured out. There’s a lesson in this, if you can find it.

Why do you say that? There are very rational reasons for FISA, and I think people generally don’t understand how it works (hence why someone like Trump said “kill it,” then subsequently changed stance when he learned how it actually works and what it produces). That’s not to say abuse doesn’t happen, but that abuse is happening whether rules exist or not. So, why bureaucratically hamstring us on foreign intel collect that saves lives and wins fights?

The numbers actually do support the “they really shined” comment. I know that emotional, subjective assessments may differ. You’re not wrong about needing more interceptors or that the Army needs to put more effort into cUAS. But, your overall tone is Iran accomplished a lot - they did not.

@Clark Griswold …

That’s a very naive and objectively wrong statement. Additionally, I’m not tracking anyone here that said there aren’t any cons to a blockade. Thus, everything you said following said statements is invalid. Feel free to make your case starting from a true and accurate premise. You certainly don’t need to come to the same conclusion as others, but if you can’t start from truth, then the rest doesn’t matter.