Majestik Møøse

Park it by the squadron. Best Squadron Bar ever!

Here's the problem Vertigo, the radical Muslims trying to establish a Caliphate aren't simply looking to be left alone to live life as they see fit. They want the rest of us, as varied and diverse as we are, to be assimilated completely into their way of life. If they had their way, the Islam police would be rolling down every street in the world enforcing their interpretation of the Koran. They're against multiculturalism more than anyone here.

So...are you saying someone did or did not put their hoohah in one of your orifices?

I propose a Foreign Exclusion Zone encompassing Syria, Iraq, Iran, Aghanistan, and Pakistan. It'll essentially be a regional cage match bounded by well armed countries that (more or less) have their shit together like Jordan, Israel, KSA, Oman, India, and the former USSR. No one is allowed in or out of the FEZ. Then the Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Pashtuns, Persians, Pakistanis et al sort it out. Sykes-Picot is out the window and the belligerents redraw their own borders. The extremists want to start suicide bombing? It's up to the local populace to crush their nuts. Pakistan wants to nuke everyone? Go for it, it's on them. Once the new borders reach some sort of equilibrium and show they can behave like 20th century nations, they are welcome back into the global community.

GE noise=freedom, then.

I've been to a few veterans' cemeteries, including Arlington, and noted how uniform the headstones were regardless of rank or stature. Of course, Presidents or generals like Grant or Lee have bigger monuments, but the majority are intermixed with everyone else. Examples: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/jjpersh.jpg http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/31054ea2-1cb4-43f8-b984-c95882ba061f.JPG http://image2.findagrave.com/photos250/photos/2001/222/arnoldhenry.jpg http://www.doolittleraider.com/images/DOOLITTLEJAMESH.jpg It was just an observation, and not a political one.

All the headstones at Arlington are the same size. Just saying.

And that's why you'll never be a general!

Has anyone at McGuire wondered out loud why the Travis guys aren't trying to go east anymore? That place sounds terrible.

This is valid. A torn ACL could keep a dude from serving, but I guess punch a hole in his eardrums and he's good to go. There's also no reason deaf guys couldn't just work as GSA/contractors.

Oh my, they changed his push line to MAJCOM staff, the horror. We are seriously retarded when we are still inserting secret push line code words into a referral OPR.

Why start now? The people still have a Middle Ages "oppress me" mentality.

At least you could wear your American flag patch during that hardship tour.

By including real estate prices in the index they've eliminated all of the places that the rest of the country actually want to live.

We'll never be able to kill every member of al Qaeda, why try at all? We'll never stop all the highway accidents, why even have a speed limit? We'll never win the championship this year, why bother playing any of the games? Not building a fence because "some will still get through" is a logical fallacy.

To summarize (from Wikipedia): 'The Peter Principle is a concept in management theory in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on their performance in their current role rather than on their abilities relevant to the intended role...The authors suggest that people will tend to be promoted until they reach their "position of incompetence".' 'Peter suggests that "n time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties" and that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence."' Yeah that's pretty much what's wrong with the Air Force. I've noted before that every leadership position in the Air Force above Sq/DO is filled by an inexperienced rookie. "Hey, you're great at this job, time to move on to a different one."

People change. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Maybe now we can finally get that "Home of the Fatty Pilot" sign at Travis.

I figure I'm safe unless the next CoS is a MAF guy. And that's coming from a MAF guy.

Geez if that dude locates the Virginia warehouse holding the rubber Afghan boats you can kiss your $8m goodbye.

So we can all immediately halt our Master's degree work UFN? Rad.

Flying officers tend to try and avoid court martial boards at all costs, but based on my experience during the JAG portion of SOS, they're desperately needed. Lots of the non-flying guys had issued plenty of NJP and seemed kinda proud of it.

Comments concerning the U-2 vs RQ-4 in the current FY15 NDAA House Appropriations Committee Report. GLOBAL HAWK, U–2, AND HIGH ALTITUDE ISR "The Air Force’s fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes to retain the RQ–4 Global Hawk Block 30 fleet while preparing for the divestment of the U–2 fleet in fiscal year 2016. This proposal constitutes a reversal of the Air Force’s previous position on the two platforms. The Air Force has explained that its reversal primarily is based on declining operation and sustainment costs for the Global Hawk, making it a more prudent long-term investment. The Committee views the U–2 and the Global Hawk Block 30 as complementary, rather than rival, systems for high altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; at the same time, the Committee acknowledges that budget constraints in current law have driven the Air Force to choose between the two platforms. "The Committee is concerned, however, by the Air Force’s present plan to initiate and complete a precipitous drawdown of the U–2 fleet in fiscal year 2016. The U–2 possesses flight performance, sensor, and other capabilities that the Global Hawk Block 30 does not presently have. Among these U–2 capabilities is carriage of the Optical Bar Camera (OBC), which provides vital imagery enabling American support of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. The Air Force to date has not proposed a mitigating solution for the loss of the OBC capability after 2016. The Committee understands the Air Force is reviewing alternate options for divestment, including the option of a temporary mixed fleet of Global Hawks and U–2s beyond fiscal year 2016, in order to address these concerns. "The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014 provided the Air Force with an additional $10,000,000 to conduct a study of the feasibility of adapting U–2 sensors or similar alternatives to the Block 30. The Committee believes that a favorable solution to improving the electro-optical/infrared capability of the Block 30 would involve a sensor that provides imagery intelligence comparable to or better than that provided by the SYERS–2 on the U–2, including National Image Interpretability Rating Scale score, range, field of regard, and area coverage; preserves the ability for simultaneous carriage of the synthetic aperture radar on the Block 30; does not unduly compromise the availability of SYERS–2 units for U–2 missions in the event that the Air Force opts for a mixed fleet; minimizes the integration work necessary for adaptation to the Block 30 using the Sensor Interface Module; and can be developed and procured at a cost not exceeding the ‘‘parity’’ option identified as meeting Air Combat Command sensor attributes in the report of April 2013. The Committee understands that the ultimate solution will involve reasonable trade-offs between these parameters. "In addition, the Committee believes that it is critical to invest in upgrades that will provide Block 30 with necessary weather avoidance and anti-icing capabilities; improved sensor capabilities are of less consequence if inclement weather remains a significant limiting factor on Block 30 operations, especially in the Pacific Command area of responsibility. "To date, the Air Force has not presented the Committee with a requirements-driven, accountably resourced, and realistically scheduled plan for improving capabilities on the Global Hawk Block 30 and mitigating the loss of U–2 capabilities such as the OBC after fiscal year 2016. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to present such a plan to the congressional defense committees prior to taking any action to divest the U–2 fleet. The Committee will review the progress of actions by the Air Force in this regard when the fiscal year 2016 budget request is submitted, and intends to take intervening action against full and immediate divestment of the U–2 fleet if such plans are not satisfactory. The Committee also notes that the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014 requires the Air Force to produce a transition plan and prohibits the Air Force from taking any steps toward retirement of the U–2. The Committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to use previously appropriated funds to continue critical sustainment programs for the U–2 until divestment of the fleet is authorized by Congress."

Comments concerning the KC-10 in the current FY15 NDAA House Appropriations Committee Report. "The Air Force has indicated that should spending limits contained in current law remain in force in fiscal year 2016, it will propose to retire the entire fleet of 59 KC-10 tanker aircraft by fiscal year 2020, saving an estimated $2,300,000,000 over the future years defense program. The Committee believes that eliminating the KC-10 fleet poses a serious risk to the Air Force's ability to carry out one of its stated core missions, that of providing global reach for the armed forces. The KC-10, with its ability to deliver 150,000 pounds of fuel at a range of 4,400 nautical miles using both the boom and drogue methods, is a critical element of providing the air bridge to combatant commanders across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. "The Committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to be more forthcoming about the operational impact of retiring the KC-10 fleet, a proposal which appears to be driven primarily by the Air Force's stated preference for ''vertical cuts" that eliminate entire fleets and their associated infrastructure to achieve the requisite level of savings under current law and Department of Defense policy. Current acquisition plans for the KC-46 will not provide an adequate replacement for the KC-10, since the Air Force already plans to replace the older fleet of KC-135s with KC-46s on a one-for-one basis. The Committee notes that the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 prohibits the Air Force from taking any action toward divestment of the KC–10 fleet and requires the Commander of the United States Transportation Command to submit an operational risk assessment and mitigation strategy to the congressional defense committees along with any proposal to divest the KC–10 fleet in the fiscal year 2016 budget."