brabus

It never hurts to apply as long as you meet the requirements (if you don't, then not worth your effort). If you do go to the interview, at minimum it's good experience/practice for future interviews, or maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised by a job offer.

If that's good enough for Hillary, its good enough for us!

I don't think they can force you to accept the 3 yr accompanied, but if you choose to do 2 yr unaccompanied the AF won't pay for your wife to move over. Other considerations are how it may or may not affect weight allowance for HHG shipment, whether you collect OHA or BAH at your wife's CONUS location, live on vs. off base, etc. Is the assignment location really that terrible you guys don't want to do 3 years?

No. Most guys use them in one chunk to cover a multi-week TDY, want to work a couple weeks straight at home station doing normal stuff (flying, etc.). There's not specific things you're required to do on AT, its just days meant to enable you to do whatever training is required for your job. We get 36 AFTPs per year, max of 16 per quarter, but I just do 3 per month to keep it simple. You cannot use those when on any type of AD orders (including UTA...so no double dipping on drill weekend). I think there are guys out there getting more AFTPs, but I'm not sure if that's Res vs. ANG, state dependent, etc. You normally burn 4 UTA periods per month (assuming the unit does traditional drill schedule of one per month). If you miss a drill weekend, for example you're on AD orders at Red Flag that month, then you can make up those UTA periods at any point before or after your AD orders. Your math is generally close, pre tax. I don't think Flight Pay is actually $1K (just congressionally approved, AF chose to keep it lower). If I'm wrong, someone correct me. $25-30K is about what you can plan on for part-time pay. EDIT: SocialD cleared it up, I get 36 AFTPs because I'm a technician and not a DSG.

Tucson sounds like they have shit well dialed in, and I know a few other units do as well. But, word to the wise, this is one end of the spectrum and there are other units (reserve and ANG) who have terrible technician deals. The problem usually lies with the wing and/or HRO, not OG and down. So do your research at prospective units before you dive blindly in, some are not good deals (but may still be the right short term decision to get your family where you want them).

Yeah you may be right. I was referring to only 11Fs and didn't account for individual support AFSCs deploying (which I know our unit has done). I am curious if our guys were forced; haven't heard that, but less likely I would compared to an 11F bro. So have there be any AFRC 11F dudes (in a flying squadron) get non-vol'd to a mob IA? Understand all the 1288 discussion and 11th hour volunteer examples, but still wondering if no shit this has happened in an AFRC fighter squadron or on the MAF side for that matter. I think its important to clarify for guys reading this thread who may be considering guard and/or reserve about 100% non-vol deployments (especially non-AFSC mob IAs) vs. guys forced to make a decision between deployment or leave. I think the latter is a very different animal, because there are guys who will say they were put in that position and it was total bullshit, but then you find out they were told they had to deploy the full 60 days (flying) and not 30 days like they wanted. Yeah, I'm not really feeling bad for that guy...you did volunteer to fly in support of real world operations, right? That all said, good points made on the sinking AFRC; if they don't back down after "running the pool dry" like you talked about, they are fucked for years. At least the ANG isn't there yet, but like everyone has said, it could change for the worse at any point. If that day comes, like you have alluded to, myself and 90% of my friends will have no problem walking out the door immediately.

Still haven't heard of a true, forced deployment for any ANG or AFRC fighter guy (in a fighter squadron; not in AETC, on staff, etc.) That's not a 100% statement it hasn't happened, but we're a small community and I find it nearly impossible to believe such a thing would not make its way through the entire community in a matter of days if that happened. I certainly have heard rumors, but then every single one turns out to be either completely false or worst case, the dude was given an ultimatum of deploy or stop flying for that unit (so still not forced to go, just forced to make a difficult choice).

Evil - You think its an NGB leadership problem or more local leadership (i.e. WG/CC can push back enough to stop this shit...assuming they're good leaders and not willing to do bullshit things to make a star). To be fully transparent, nobody at Bama was forced to go - they may have been told you're done flying here if you don't go, but nobody was forced against their will; they all made the decision to go, even if only to continue flying in the unit, but that was still a choice (not that I'm saying it's an easy choice, it was still a shitty position to be put in by leadership).

This seems to be mostly an issue at true TFI units (i.e. ARC unit doesn't own any iron, AD at said base does), and mostly at AFR (not ANG); is that a mostly accurate observation based on your guys' experiences/knowledge? Are there any "regular" ANG units (own their own iron/completely separate from AD) that forced deployments have occurred at? And to add fuel on the fire, I don't think you can legitimately say a deployment is forced if leadership gave you the, "if you don't go, you can't fly here anymore"...you do have a choice in this situation, albeit a bullshit situation created from dickless leadership if said deployment is not your primary job.

You know who doesn't do forced 365s or useless 179s...the guard and the airlines. Run!

Using his success in business over his life, I'd say he mostly knows how to push the right buttons to get the desired results. I don't think he'd be where he is if it was all just being "stupid lucky." His personality, demeanor, actions, etc. are a long ways off from what is typically expected in a "real" politician, but as Brick said, that's probably exactly what we needed at this point in our history. The "standard" politicians have given us shit (on both sides of the aisle), so why the fuck would the people want to elect another "standard politician?" I'm all for wrecking the political class in our country - we need to get back to what the founders wanted and away from this horrible "career politician" bullshit. Despite Trump's off color personality and questionable words/actions at times, I hope he has started the movement to bring this country back to the people and out of the hands of the unspoken "ruling class" (e.g. wealthy, career politicians).

Yep, so what I said - He never said we're getting a 10% raise. What he was wrong on was the "no raise in 10 years" and "one of the biggest raises." Although maybe (I don't care enough to do the math) with the new standard deduction this may be the most take home pay increase for a lot of mil...but that's not what he specifically said, so not a defending him, just a thought. Also, Brick fucking nailed it.

Offering an unbiased observation: his exact words were "I said make it 10!" when referring to others saying lesser numbers during a discussion. That may be entirely accurate, so he's probably not lying that he said that. I didn't see any quote that said, "you guys are getting a 10% raise" or "I just gave you guys a 10% raise." He was stating his opinion that we should get a 10% raise. Completely agree his words are not crystal clear and his MO of speaking off the cuff like he's in the bar with his bros does not work well for communication at the presidential level. He's dead wrong that the military hasn't received a raise in 10 years. He could have accurately said we've had an extremely paltry raise over the last 10 years (relative to inflation). It's not much of a raise when your 10 year average barely covers inflation.

There are a lot of 179 non-flying jobs that are bullshit and useless - we've all seen jobs that can take an A1C 15 min per week to accomplish, but the AF deploys two Capts to fill the position for 179. Almost worse is the ineptitude of how they fill certain positions, e.g. deploying an F-35 guy to BAF to do the SE job that could be done by a SE guy who flies any of the 5+ airframes that fly out of there on a regular basis (same example, but OSS/DO...seen both). They're so retarded they made a flying deployed job into a non-flying deployed job. Shit like that is what pisses people off and needs to be stopped. 365s aside, bullshit like this pushes people to make the sensible decision to skip bonuses and/or punch at first opportunity. Deploy us to do our primary job and contribute to the war in a meaningful way, but don't lie to our face and tell us powerpointing or filling out TPS reports once a week is a worthwhile contribution in anyone's book outside of the hardcore koolaid drinkers who have long since lost any ability to rationally think.

Sounds like you got your answer above...6 months sounds right for the standard limitation, but good news from Guardian that it's waiverable. Start asking about the waiver process as soon as your PC hopefully gets approved. Good luck dude, hope it all works out!

My takeaway on F-16 SLEP was not "it won't be properly done," coming from guys I worked with who are far more knowledgable in that area than I am (and it's high on the priority list). Do you have first hand knowledge that says otherwise? I won't speak for Eagle/Strike SLEP, but it's not an entirely different animal. Of course any number of things (including SLEP) can be fucked up in the future by politicians, wayward GOs, some dickhead SES, etc., but its not really noteworthy in these types of discussions due to the universal application of fuckery to any program. If you want to argue operation and sustainment costs (I probably understand them better than you think), then maybe you should be arguing why we're even using 4th gen fighters at all in the current wars. We've been destroying our jets for years doing shit a 4th gen fighter is way "over kill" for. Yet here we are, slogging away killing dudes on donkeys and dropping thousands of PGMs to move dirt a few feet. Do we need 4.5 gen fighters to take on those rolls? The reality is if something more peer-level kicks off, all that flying hour cost, etc. discussion would be fairly inconsequential when 75% of the Package AA/AB F-16s/F-15s didn't come home. How's generation for AC+ looking? Oh, and the CFACC objectives weren't accomplished either, so we'll have to re-roll a bunch of shit to future ATOs and DTs. Or there's the alternative of increasing capital in newer technology that outperforms anything that could come of a 4.5 gen fighter. It may not be cheap, but it's a lot cheaper than what the realized losses would be in the aforementioned example.

You missed my point. Your comments on the F-35 specifically are in line with a lot of dudes who don't have insight/knowledge beyond the surface level of the program (a basic program brief and a healthy dose of invalid WOMs). That's not a personal attack, it's a fact that applies to a lot of the CAF, let alone everyone else who doesn't even work in the current, fighter community. No, I do not want to be in a Block 70, an F-15X, etc. over F-35/F-22 in several scenarios (though of course I would prefer those if the only alternative was a current F-16/F-15). We don't need a hoard of 4th or 4.5 gen fighters (a misnomer many are hung up on) - there are means to solve problems other than bravehearting our way into the fight with hundreds/thousands of manned 4-4.5 gen fighters. Our current 4th gen fighters properly SLEPd and upgraded will fulfill our defense requirements, and this will cost less/allow allocation of more funds to other things that will net us more warfighting capability than purchasing new, non-5th gen aircraft. Like you and many others, I love my 4th gen fighter and hate to see it get shoved from the front of the line, and I want to see it "survive," but that's a myopic and emotional viewpoint, I can admit that. You want to divert funds to something that will get use fairly quickly and have a warfighting impact with low sustainability cost, send it to light attack and other related programs. $1.2B on those are more useful and have better "warfighting payoff" longevity than 1/2 a squadron's worth of F-15X, Block 70, etc. Not an emotionally popular opinion in a 4th gen fighter squadron, but it has truth to it if dude's are willing to take a step back and see all portions of the big picture.

Still way too expensive...an F-35 would be only ~$15M more (~20% more for substantially more capability/survivability in the longterm). Honestly, even if the price was $50M, I still think the money could be spent elsewhere (and I'm not talking just on a fighter). Again, I don't think anyone can present a strong argument for the hypothetical of buying "3.5 gen" F-4s instead of F-16/F-15s back in the 70s. This is the same thing, different era. And since I haven't said it, the F-15X or a Block 70 Viper would be a badass airplane and have some awesome capes, but when you step back and look at the big picture without emotion, neither is the right long term move.

If you're talking about temporarily taking an AFRC job at current location, then moving to another AFRC job at a different location later, your HOR move you get as part of AD separation entitlements applies. The part I don't know is how long that HOR move is good for before you essentially forfeit the entitlement due to non-use after x months. Anything in the JTR, HOR move section that addresses length of eligibility for the entitlement?

Remember guys, "5th gen" is WAY more than just LO. I absolutely agree some people oversell LO's future value (as it currently is applied), but don't mistake "5th gen" as simply meaning an LO asset. There's far more to 5th gen technology than the brochure highlights.

The point is why would you spend the same or more money on a "4.5 gen" fighter when you can have a 5th gen fighter for the same cost? Would you have supported buying "3.5 gen" F-4s for the same price (at a 1:1 ratio) of brand new F-16s/F-15s back in the 70s? This is the same argument that occurs every generation of aircraft...somebody thinks the "new fangled stuff" is bullshit, overpriced "night one" tech we'll likely never really need, etc. and upgrading "old faithful" fits the bill better. I'm not arguing we fly Block 30 Vipers until 2050 (we won't), I'm saying we need to spend our money on technology with greater capability/survivability longevity than what a 4.5 gen fighter can ever give us. This discussion cycle will continue when 6th gen comes out and a camp of people will be arguing for purchasing new 5.5 gen F-35s for the same price as a 6th gen F-69. I love the F-16, but I'm also pragmatic about the subject. Everyone here needs to have a little trust/faith in their bros working with the science and technology world, assessing and ranking future requirements, and steering core function groups in the best direction they know with the current information. I assure all of you there is an amazing amount of things that exist in the shadows and there are very good, smart bros working on all of our behalf to make sure the right moves are made. This includes the way forward for current 4th gen fighters and keeping them safe and relevant within the constraints of technology, threat advancement, and budget.

Not even remotely what I said. We will continue to upgrade current 4th gen fighters for a long time, which is in general a more fiscally sound proposition than spending $90M+ on a non-5th gen aircraft. If companies cut the cost to $40M per, then maybe it'd be worth looking at, but I don't see any company doing that, as its not in their best interest to do so.

No, it doesn't. Those who seriously think it does make sense (especially at that price tag) do not have enough knowledge on "future us" and "future them," either via lack of read-ins, lack of understanding of said read-ins, and/or lack of understanding of future capes on other platforms (including non-fighter platforms). Bottom line, while buying Block 70 Vipers or F-15X seems like a good move to replace our aging fleet, it is not for many reasons. If we had infinite resources, then sure lets buy a bunch of each, but we don't, so as Danger said: spending $80K on a full resto on an old and busted 69 mustang will still never make it a 2019 Corvette ZR1. Lipstick on a pig and all that (and yes, that's a dig at my Ford friends!)

It's not solely about that, nor is it solely about "night 1." The Vipers and Eagles in the ARC will do just fine executing the ADA mission, the Vipers and Strikes in the ARC/AD will do just fine employing A/G weapons in low-med ALR conflicts where fighters are required (or not required, the way our politicians like to manage wars), etc. This isn't about what we'd like in 2019, it has to be about 2030+. Procuring a fighter that will not fully stand up to threats 10 years down the road is a waste of money and effort. By the way, there are current/about to be current threats I have serious doubt about the X being effective around, not even talking about 2025+.

Yes. If such a buy happens, it will be a very myopic decision to do so.