brabus

Interesting...you say you've been dicking around since Sep trying to get the $450 reimbursed, yet I had the fee waived (and never even billed to my account to begin with) last month. I'm not saying what you were told isn't correct, BUT the vast difference between my situation and yours seems very strange. I think it's worth another call and talking to somebody different. By the way, I also had a different AMEX card waived in Jan as well. I assume you brought up SCRA (which is the keyword for AMEX).

Nobody is carrying this operationally. In fact, LRIP hasn't even started. So yes, more sensationalism that people with no SA use to "legitimize" their grip on the anti-F35 bandwagon.

Not gone, just well hidden, at least some places.

Yeah I know...it's was tongue in cheek to an extent. It is relatively useless in the current fight, but the same can be said for a lot of current, relevant platforms in tomorrow's fight. So does that mean we scrap every bit of those once the next big war kicks off because "we'll never use those again!" Avoiding the current conflicts is not the answer, but neither is sticking your cranium in the sand regarding the future conflicts. OK...and it will never change (at least for hi-tech requirements). Things are too advanced and our process is too fucked to ever go back to the days where we could roll new shit off the line in a matter of months/1-2 years in response to emerging threats. It's not an F-35 problem, it's a "this is the world we live in" problem. The F-35 is our LO strike fighter, essentially a "strike version of the F-22." That's it role. Sure you could put some bombs on a C-Model, but there's a reason we have that aircraft and F-16/F-15E. I'll take the F-35s right now (call it 5 years from now). Additionally, many targets are not CAT I pre-planned. More often than not we don't have the luxury of just BOC'ing on CAT-1. That said, there are definitely things worth putting specific UAVs against as the primary asset, but that doesn't mean they work well across the spectrum. Well if we're doing full up Force on Force CAS - we're doing it after several days or weeks of IADs and key COGs destruction. As in, we're cool with 4th gen or 5th gen with hardpoints flying overhead to provide CAS. You're right, a 4th gen can do that job by that point in the war, but we also need to replace our 4th gen for the fact they're falling apart. On that note, the F-35 still brings a lot of good sensor capes to such a fight all of us 4th gen guys cannot. And yes, I know it can't sparkle - got it, but picking one thing out of the many capes it brings is a bit ridiculous. I'm sure it will sparkle in time; I'm not losing sleep over it. No argument on the gun - what a farce. Again, not an A-10 replacement, or a CAS machine by any stretch, but it will be decent enough, which is all we can afford right now (no money for niche aircraft). Other than internal payload limitations, I wouldn't worry about it's A/A capability. Again, it's complimentary to the F-22, and will also do just fine by itself, internal payload not withstanding. Should we have shit-canned the Viper just because a standard SCL is 3x1 and it's radar is smaller (which is a non-issue with the F-35)...well the C model carries more and has a bigger radar, therefore we should just have C-Models! Dumb. It surely won't be a BFM machine - and that sucks. But, it's something we have to live with for better or worse. The Strike is a pig in BFM, but that doesn't mean it's not a great aircraft with awesome capes or we should shitcan it/should have bought less. Again, one data point that honestly is very small in the grand scheme of things.

If you want to consider the F-22 revolutionary, then yes, I think the F-35 will be revolutionary in it's own way. Again, one can go round and round about how X should or not have been done, but in the end, our capabilities well be far better in mission sets expanding well beyond traditional strike roles. America chose to lean on LO, adversaries chose EA. There's good arguments for both sides; in the end it is cheaper and easier to develop EA, but that doesn't mean LO doesn't have its place. More 4 or 4.5 gen fighters is not the answer, but merely a bandaid fix. I'm all for upgrading 4th gen with 4.5 gen capes right now, because honestly we need that bandaid to cover us for a while / compliment 5th gen capes. We can't ride the bandaid fix for decades, so yes, we need to make the full faith leap eventually. All of our eggs in one basket is not good, but it's what we have to deal with for now - we just don't have the money to do otherwise. I'm not a fan of the VTOL/STOL - I agree it will be decades, if ever, that we see one of these operate out of a truly austere field in combat. I'm not sure this has anything to specifically do with the F-35. This scenario could create a "legs" / AAR problem regardless of fighter aircraft type. Our capability to deal with AAA and kill movers has drastically improved since those days. AAA is still a threat, but not nearly the same threat to an LO platform with a lot of good capes than it is to a Thud raging down the valley below 10K. That's an awesome story, seriously. But we have much better capes today to take care of the same situation in 4th gen, let alone with 5th gen and the things newer technology brings. Yes, there are enough weapons...within reason, unless we're talking some egregious amount of vehicles. Sure they can low angle strafe - but will they even have to? I love raging at 100 ft, shooting the gun, dropping CBU, etc...but admittedly there are better ways to solve problems nowadays. That said, the jet can still do it and will do it if in a situation where that's the only way to solve the problem. Engines fail - got it, but they're pretty damn reliable today. As you said, we've been flying single engine fighters for a very long time. I don't know the answer, but I'm willing to bet if you actually found total amount of F-16 flight hours in the world, and then took the number of F-16s that crashed due to engine failure, it's be an extremely small and almost inconsequential number (from a pure numbers standpoint, not a human/emotional standpoint). As a guy who flies single engine, it doesn't bother me nor has it ever. Our effectiveness/capability skyrockets with the F-35 and other "5th+" gen capes. I'm sure there will be risk adverse bullshit, and it's use may start out slow, much like the Raptor. But just because "they" were very risk-adverse to using the Raptor for years, doesn't mean it wasn't a great idea to buy it or it's not a great jet. The Raptor has finally had it's day to a small extent, and we'll all be thanking God we have it when we're doing more than killing goat fuckers in the mountains. Lastly, a lot of questioning directed at the program is very CAS-centric. This jet will do CAS fine; it will not replace the A-10. People need to step back and realize there is a massive world of non-CAS warfare out there, and a lot of what is involved in that drives the need for the F-35 and like-technology. We will not be flying permissive OIF/OEF/OND type CAS forever and we cannot afford to get caught with our pants down when the proverbial shit hits the fan. There are a lot of platforms who do great work in current AORs, there are also a lot of platforms who are basically useless in a lot of other conflicts - at least until day X.

That mentality is rampant today; unfortunately there's a lot of really dumb, lazy people in America.

You can't blame the instructors, it was definitely a fighter pilot who made them do it. That's the only logical explanation.

Good points Danny - I understand what you're saying. Maybe the best way is to just accept that those who want the 20 years of flying, more control, etc. are just going to go guard/reserve/out completely regardless of what AD does. But, it still wouldn't hurt to at least loosen the death grip the AF has on the idea that everyone should want to be a WG/CC+ until they are deemed unfit and sent another direction (deservedly or not). For the most part, it is still a potentially very dumb move to show any cards leading to other than "I want to be a WG/CC!" while still on AD, at least until you're at the point you have to show them to move in the direction you want. I think that's a foul, why can't AD just accept someone's desire to do that and let them serve out their full commitment without fear of retribution. If anything it would do a great deal for morale and in turn get better productivity out of people until the very end.

Danny - what I mean is seeing dudes who are good officers and pilots, but because they choose (I agree, it is a choice) to not walk the more or less "cookie cutter" path to leadership big AF traditionally desires (school-staff-DO and on), they start getting the shit deals (TDYs, deployments, etc), undesirable assignments, being directly told "do this or get out," etc. A lot of good O-4s get out of AD because their option is do it the big AF way or face a very increased probability of the aforementioned. Or at the O-5 level, good dudes play the game and then get the "have we got a command deal for you!...or go fuck yourself and get out, your call" line, and now the poor bastard who's put in almost 20 years to the AF is faced with a undesirable deal that sucks wholesale for his family or he can decline and get out...great. The AF "raises" officers to all be on a track to WG/CC, COCOM, etc., but doesn't seem to understand that not everyone wants to be on that track. It subsequently doesn't understand what to do with these officers when they try to jump off the track - which I think is a big reason AD is bleeding so much officer and tactical talent into the guard, reserves or worse, completely gone from military service. It's a shame and something that needs some real, hard looks from senior leadership. I do not have a great answer, what do you think? There has to be something real the AF can offer to keep talent on AD who aren't going to be the next WG/CC or higher, but they still offer a great service to the Air Force. All that said, there are certainly the O-5s that somehow stayed mostly on their desired "non-standard" career track and are doing just fine. But, they're certainly in the minority.

Agreed - it's a two way street. I've seen it several times, just luckily haven't been the poor bastards directly under that "school/staff" guy's command. Like I said, everyone should chill the fuck out and thank the dude who is willing to walk the career path to leadership, as well as thank the dude who says it's not for him and stays on board in some manner to continue the tactical advancement of our Air Force from a flying standpoint. The problem is the latter are more commonly shit on/shoved aside than those who check the appropriate career advancement containers the AF deems more important. You can absolutely do both, the problem is not many people do both; I am grateful there are good dudes who can do both, just wish there were a lot more of them.

I didn't read his post to say he thought anyone doing the "leadership" route were auto-douches, just that it's not for him and he shouldn't be looked at like he has a dick sticking out of his cranium for professing said stance. Maybe I missed some other post earlier, but if not, I think you're putting a lot of words in his mouth. Bottom line, there are a lot of great leaders who did school/staff, and came back to the jet with a decent amount of tactical ability given their position at the time; as you said, there are several who are great leaders and good in the jet as well. However, it shouldn't be a shock that the path they walked is not desirable for a lot of dudes, including A LOT of dudes who are not "off the path" because of a lack of capability to do so, but by choice alone.

Except people can and should learn that exact lesson (take care of your people, find opportunities for them, mentor them, put effort into their OPRs, etc.) without having to be an exec. In my experience, I've worked with a good amount of dudes who clearly did learn that lesson and did well as flt/cc's, ADOs, etc. who never did an exec job. If an exec job is the only way in community X to gain those skills/learn those lessons, then that community is epically failing. I'm glad you took something positive out of your experience (and a very important lesson in my opinion), I really am, but its a shame you spent 2.5 yrs as an exec and got the same lesson you should have received well prior to exec-dom. You're not the exception di1630, lots of dudes think that way, myself included. I don't shit on guys for wanting to go to school, be an aide, etc. Great if that's for them, even better if a good bro decides to walk that path...hopefully it results in a good dude being a CC. But, it's not for all of us, and choosing to not walk that path should in the same manner not be looked down upon by the school-types, etc.

Plug for the Chronospace - it's an awesome watch, do it.

If so, that's new - I know many dudes over the last several years who for many different reasons left for a non-ops assignment as an inexperienced dude. It really comes down to what are the needs for a 11F/12F (?) wingmen, flight lead, etc. around the CAF on this VML. Hopefully it works out for you and there's need, but it could also just be shitty timing and there's no need for an inexperienced guy to go to base X.

Only part of the fleet has v3s.

Definitely agree. The bullshit trail is a two-way street. Everyone has to eventually make a decision best for their family/themselves, but regardless if it's get out or stay in, they all deserve a "thanks for your service" without finger-pointing.

So the AF pulled a bunch of bullshit on Vetter (and on a lot of other dudes), he decided it was best for him to get out vs. eat the "Capt until 20" shit sandwich and somehow he's putting himself ahead of others? I don't know Vetter personally, but I do know several good dudes in the same situation he was in - none of them were shitbags or bad officers, they simply got thrown to the side by an AF who doesn't give a shit about anyone. Let me guess, you're one of those people who thinks those who get out pre-20+ are selfish, screwing others, don't understand the meaning of service, etc. We certainly need good dudes to stay and be good leadership in the future, but those who do not want to take that path are not bad officers or putting themselves above others. They did their time and gave a shitload more than 99% of this country - good on them, they deserve a "thanks" at minimum, not this bullshit.

They probably didn't, but they were enormous dickhead prima donnas. I get Lawman's point - they hindered mission accomplishment all while saying, "fuck off, we're above you" to all the Army bros. I have many reasons for joining the AF instead of the Army, but I think you can only go so far with the "well you made your choice" when it comes to something like this.

Same here. It took 48 hours to get every fee waived, including late payment, etc. (not that I plan on testing those waters). Good on AMEX for supporting the military. Honestly I would not have picked up AMEX cards without the fee waived since I just don't spend enough money to get enough perks to make it worth it (at least for the $475 Delta Reserve annual fee), but their support/willingness to waive the fees was a deal maker for me.

Just think about the poor bastard who has to file all those hurt feelings reports every time a wing/cc wears his flightsuit.

It's too good to be true; they'll find a way to non-vol people if they have to. Just imagine, getting non-vol'd to TIB. Suicide rates would sky rocket and we'd then have quarterly don't-kill-yourself days.

From what I've read about Rat on here, yes.

I think you made a good decision; good luck with finishing up and getting a UPT slot.

Current advanced SAMs proliferated around the world right now have made 4th gen nearly obsolete without 5th gen support by western standards (i.e. we're not willing to lose 6-9 fighters/1-2 bombers every vul). The upcoming stuff is even scarier. That said, I completely agree with you on the draining current requirements. The low number of "good hellfires" is bad and hopefully can be rectified...hope's a plan, right? The truth is I don't think anyone in upper management (mil or civ) can figure out a 1/2 way decent balance between the now and the future, but then again I'm not the guy getting paid the big bucks to make those calls; sucks to be them. Not so much an IADS, but it's a good example of how advanced/long-range advanced SAMs are very quickly becoming flavor-of-the-month around the world (or at least have the potential depending on how much money states and/or non-state actors have).

Lawman and SurelySerious covered some big picture points. A healthy time spent on JWICS doing some true threat study (well beyond 3-1.threat) will provide a lot of supporting evidence as to why we need the F-35 (or 5th gen capes period), in addition to the big picture things already mentioned. Additionally, this is NOT a jab at all, just a simple observation: you don't know what you don't know. This is applicable to a whole shit ton of people who continuously ask, "why do we need it and what's so great about it anyways? Can't we just do this with Block 60 vipers?" I can assure you it is very necessary and no Block X viper, Silent Eagle, etc. will match what it will bring. Despite my support for the program's existence and necessity, I by no means am trying to downplay the heinous running of the program at all levels. I completely agree it could and should have been ran much better, on a quicker timeline and at a lower cost. It is the poster child for how fucked our acquisition process is and ludicrous levels of mismanagment on multiple parties' accounts. That said, we are way too far into it to go back/start over with something else - this is our 5th gen multi-role fighter; the 6th gen boat has essentially left the dock (i.e. no use in arguing adding things to the F-35 to make it closer to "6th gen") - we need the F-35 ASAP because God only knows how many decades it will be until 6th gen is even worth talking about.