brabus

Sweet - sounds like I'll just serve out a couple months of TEB in the guard.

Thanks dude, that is good info. I'll have to read that more closely - though the skeptic in me already sees the wording "reserve unit" in there. One would think that loosely includes all ARC units, but I wouldn't be surprised if going to ANG vs. AFRC screws you. That said, maybe I'm too jaded and all will be fine.

Also very interested in the above - I don't want to lose the GIB for my kids over a few months of PC...I'll stick it out to my commitment for the long term benefit if my only PC option is to lose GIB transfer forever.

I'm with Hacker. A good excel product works great, doesn't cost money, and is as customizable as your excel skills allow. I'm not a huge excel guru, but have made it what I need - can track any type of time, approaches, etc., 30/60/90 hours/sorties, etc. Any info you'll ever need (from personal gee whiz, to unfucking the HARM office who lost your stuff, to ATP application, to airline apps, etc.) is sortable/easy to find. I keep mine on my google drive, so it's instantly accessible/editable from any device I have internet access on (or I can download a copy, edit, and upload later once I have internet access).

Mountain Herc - PM sent.

Did you guys work with the in-service recruiter at your losing base or go through a recruiter that works at/directly with the ARC squadron you're going to? Does it matter, is it better one way or the other?

I'll try to find it again. But, I was only looking at it through the lense of going to an aircraft I've never flown, so may not apply to requal in a previously flown aircraft. EDIT: Found what I read earlier; the extra 3 yr ADSC that can be past your initial UPT ADSC is only for a Qual in an aircraft you've never been qual'd in before. N/A if you're requaling, regardless of how many years out of the jet. Source is discussion from this thread, last page:

I think there's an update to that reg about a year ago. I was told (and then found it written somewhere) the AFT ADSC will extend past your UPT commitment. This was the driving reason I turned down a TX to another aircraft. Absolutely true this was not the case in the recent past, but AFPC has "fixed the glitch."

I've heard negative reviews from two guys I know who bought that holster - said the draw was clumsy, they fought between damn near unable to draw and pants so loose (to enable an "ok" draw) it was annoying. But, no firsthand experience, so take that with a grain of salt. Personally I have never had issues with good IWB or pocket holsters for conceal carry; this things looks and sounds like a gimmick more than a legitimate holster.

Makes sense - thanks Amy!

Can't buy until mar-apr timeframe, based on expected market as well as minimizing rent/mortgage overlap...anything I can do to lock rates in prior to the Fed's increase or am I too far out and just have to take what I can get in mar timeframe?

Thanks Marty! Is it possible to get through this portion of the loan approval process prior to finding a house? or does a lender reassess your LES a second time once you find a house? My issue is there is almost no way I will buy a house/go into contract prior to a DOS being established...based on several factors. However, do have full time employment post-separation.

If the lender simply needs to see last x amount of LES, seems as long as you get past that part of the paperwork prior to a DOS showing up on a future LES, you're good. Is that a valid assumption?

Does the no more than 180 day out requirement not start until submit is clicked in vmpf? Wondering if you can start the ball rolling with the ISR, get the first 1288 endorsement and voluntary separation brief, but then sit on the "click submit" part until < 180 days from requested PC date? Want to lead turn paperwork as much as possible, but not end up screwing myself over by getting something kicked back because I'm still > 180 days from desiredate DOS.

Marty - does having a DOS established, but still on AD, hurt you with getting a loan? You're still getting a paycheck, so why does the lender care...especially if you have follow on employment? Seems weird considering a civilian gets a loan and the lender would have no idea if they're about to leave their job a month after closing...there's no telling, so why would an established DOS hurt you?

Haven't lived there, but after multiple TDYs there and hanging out with several friends who do, the area east of the mountains (Mountain Green/Morgan area) is pretty awesome. Friends are 15 min driveway to ski lift, 2 min from trailhead, 20 min drive to the squadron/Ogden, 20 min to Farmington (which has a bunch of restaurants, shops, etc). You'll be able to get a .3-.5 acre lot for the most part unless you want to spend more money to build on a 1-1.5 acre lot. Anything larger than that lot size and you're looking at a further commute. It's a good area to have the feel of living in the mountains/rural, but a fairly large city is only a 20 min drive away (and blocked from your view by the moutains...a bonus in my book).

Don't think that will go well in reality. Guys get 2-3 sorties/wk as it is right now, and that's the min they should get. Going to a 3 day schedule puts them at 2 best case (and more likely 1). Additionally, unless it's going to be no shit only 3 fly days/wk for the entire RF exercise, how does a SQ fill SOF, Top 3, VDO, etc. when a single body is now committed for 2.5 days (I'll assume debrief prep/execution is .5 days)? I don't think that will be as easy as some might think. Lastly, if you go to only 3 fly days/wk for the entire exercise, you've lost 4 vuls at minimum of what could be great training (assuming inputs above are taken into account). Other than the last week of AI phase (where the 3 day model exists), WIC does substantially more difficult scenarios with same day debrief/execution. RF should not reinvent the wheel/add another day for something that is not as complicated. The debrief problem can simply be solved by decreasing who can talk (mentioned above: link manager, ATC, etc. can shut the fuck up, they have nothing value added for the group at large), adhering to strict timelines, and accepting the fact a few MINOR things may left out in the quest for a timeline, BUT those minor things have zero impact on the overall LLs. For example, we spend about 3 times longer on a shot val than it should take...stop rewinding, stop standing up front and asking 6-9 repeat data questions trying to nats ass the perfect pairing...if you can't figure it out right away, then fucking pk miss it and move along, there's about a 95% chance that one Pk Miss does not alter the LLs that should come out of the mission. I think some bullshit pride thing drives a lot of shot val lengthening...don't get butt hurt if you get killed out when you may not have if another 45" was spent by Mig 1 tap dancing around. Do things like that and shot val gets much shorter, LLs still come out, but most importantly you have more time to develop/discuss those LL...the shot val should not take 85% of the debrief time. Edit: Provide enough ICADs machines that dudes have access pre-debrief to pre-pair shots. NE tried to do this the last time I was there, good idea, but they only had 2 computers available. If RF had about 5 computers to pre-pair, dudes could get their shit squared away prior, and the debrief takes much less time. Time spent pre-pairing is double time saved in the debrief.

Absolutely, but not in the current climate with a complete lack of will to win, massive amounts of CYA, dickless leadership abounds, etc. Tac Airlifter nailed it - when are we going to start wanting to win again and start re-thinking the way we are playing this game? Until we stop this bullshit idea of "we're not at war" war, it will not get better.

We already have several platforms shooting a ~$22K weapon...fairly cheap way to kill shitheads/Hilux in comparison to the other precision guided options. The current manned and unmanned ISR doing the HVI hunting/killing mission are very good at it. The only thing missing right now is faster transit speed, but it's only a matter of very little time until we field an RPA that can do 350 kts in transit, problem solved. I'm not so sure the proverbial we aren't trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. I don't see us not completing the kill chain because of a lack in capability from an MQ-9, U-28, etc. What is going to change if we introduce something additional? Because the number in the win column is pretty large, and I think the only major, limiting factor on its rate of growth is asset availability, not a large capability gap.

1. Too many players with too many "Red Flag-isms" (i.e. self-inflicted pile-ons to 11-214). I've been to 6 RF-A and 2 RF-N. The one's at Alaska are far better because they don't try to jam way too many jets in the airspace and they use 11-214/don't arbitrarily add on. I get it that we want to get everyone a swing at the bat, but the training factor is very watered down when you have a 20 ship SEAD package where 8 will do (as an example). It is deconfliction flag to an extent - and that is not good tactical training. Mitigate this by allowing less squadrons (may not be possible, I get it) and/or potentially lengthening vuls to allow multiple pushes....or instead of one long vul, do 2x back to back morning vuls and 2x back to back afternoon vuls. 4 vuls a day, but close enough that it really is 2x goes for MX, just with 45 min in between launch of one 4 ship and the other. Debrief each separately so the first guys aren't waiting another 1-2 hours for debrief to start. Run the debrief efficiently - stick to timeline limits, shot val rules, etc...you miss a shot by > 10", fuck off we're not going back. 2. Brecky hit PR - the CAF sucks ass at PR...probably the thing the CAF should be the most embarrassed about it's lack luster performance in...and I'm looking at every fighter pilot out there, I don't care what you fly, you have a role in supporting PR events, so put some damn work into supporting the PR plan, not being a shitty/useless OSC, etc. A pre-planned PR vul can speed things along to not drag out a training vul, but real time shoot downs can at least exercise initial OSC/AMC duties, and the pre-plan can be the next day to get that guy (i.e. for range time you can't shoot a guy down 30 min into vul west of the container and have Pedro push from El/Cal, I get it). No tanker - shit happens, wave the "ALR exceeded, I'd abort in real life" card and then go execute for training. Copy all, it'll be 2x60s and some Sandys against the world...and they'll probably get shot, but there's still training to be had. 3. Focus on basic integration in OCA/DCA/DT vuls. Johnny CAF isn't going to solve the F2T2EA problem for ALRS, in fact, he's going to fuck up the mission planning whole sale and lead an abortion the next day. That's not his fault - in real world, he'll be handed a plan, and he won't be the guy leading the whole thing anyways. Leave "next gen" problem solving to WIC advanced integration phase. Let the CAF figure out how to put a cohesive plan together that defeats the Nellis IADs, destroys appropriate-to-the-scenario targets, and gets everyone back home. I agree the threat level needs to be increased, but the point is basic integration...it is trying to do too much and has negative effects when we try to force the "WWIII" problems on the line CAF guy. There's a reason not every CAF dude is read into CW, etc...he doesn't need to be, the right people need to be who will be planning/have a unique understanding of the capabilities and can leverage those with their squadrons come execution day. 4. Airdrop guys - If they're not getting enough LFE training (are you guys really being left out of RF-N that much?), get them in there. It's not difficult to add an air assault, SOF resupply, etc. into a couple OCA vuls per week. I'm not saying it needs to be a full on JFE vul, but at least get a couple MAF/AFSOC assets doing a resupply on the west side of Belted or something along those lines. It'll be great training for them, but also for the SEAD and ESC guys who have to keep SA on a C-130 at 300 ft, protect him, and have a gas/TOS plan to not lose coverage. And at worst, the C-130 does its mission, there is zero interference with the rest of the war raging overhead and if he gets shots, well there's going to be some good lessons learned for the CAF guys who probably didn't have a good plan to begin with. To minimize the "everyone gets a trophy" thing, don't do MAF and PR in the same vul. Watch out for that dick head Roland guy. 5. Three weeks is long - but if you keep doing three weeks, consider making the third week dissimilar BFM/ACM week. When that square peg doesn't fit the round hole of airspace scheduling, etc. for every jet out there, make some CT-ish DCA vuls, i.e. smaller vuls where nobody is doing a MC upgrade, you can have a North and South vul, etc. Northern Edge in AK does a lot of this...i.e. first vul of the day is the WWIII problem, second vul is all CT. Some squadron gets tagged for MC, they're given the assets and range space/time, go from there to plan/execute whatever you want within some constraints (for safety, etc.) Airboss can make sure it doesn't get out of hand/go down some road it shouldn't. There will still be a lot of learning, but with less of the "RF bullshit" attached, and everyone is less "burned out" at the end.

Several guys I know did AFIT en route to TPS. If TPS is a goal/something you're interested in, then AFIT is reasonable after your second-ish flying assignment. There is a program that allows you to commission, go straight to get a masters (civilian schools as well as AFIT), and then go to UPT after that. The latter puts you behind your peers and likely closes doors in the flying world...but hey, you got that shiny diploma on your wall (know two guys who did that route and would not repeat it).

FWIW, both the 16s and 15s don't sunset until mid 2040s...so nobody should make the decision based on longevity. Both will be around longer than a guy in UPT right now will be flying fighters. Now if we could afford 2000 Raptors and 2000 Fat Amys it might be a different story, but that's not reality.

As one data point, my T-38 drop had 5/6 fighters...the very next drop had 1/4 fighters. Not a track select, but shows how much the pendulum can swing in a matter of 2-3 weeks between assignment nights. You can't predict, all you can do is work your ass off, have a good attitude, and the rest is luck and timing.

One has a nav, one doesn't....choose wisely.

The B-52 community flying with the Raider callsign probably really struck a nerve with the Doolittle Raiders because several of their bros ended up executed in China...what a slap in the face to those men that the Buff community would dare fly with the callsign Raider. Buy you know, yay heritage!........wait, that didn't happen because none of those Doolittle Raiders were a bunch of whiny SNAPs. Sounds like some of your friends need to get over themselves. Not a bomber guy, but I think the name pays a great tribute to not only a historic bomber raid in WW2, but also to the bros who were lost in 2008. Seeing it any other way is beyond ridiculous and extremely self-centered.