Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Registered User
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jice last won the day on June 19

jice had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

179 Excellent

About jice

  • Rank
    Crew Dawg

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,077 profile views
  1. If you’re talking tactical integration, it should happen outside this type of relationship at the USAFWC. For administrative relationships: I’m all for the flattest organization possible, but in this particular case I don’t think the MAJCOM the right answer. Let’s be real: ISR is always going to be a red-headed stepchild in ACC. BUT ALSO! More important than being the center of attention, ISR needs to be responsive to the needs of ACC. (Why it makes sense to live there.) That said, having the 25th Air Force provides a balance. The two star has a seat at tables that ISR (now cyber and EA as well) wouldn’t otherwise occupy, and ACC can still make demands of their subordinate org in an absolute sense. (Rather than making it a MAJCOM/DRU unto itself.) Now! If we really wanted to make a better structure, we’d dissolve the 480th ISRW and align its component parts with the collectors and customers. That, or suddenly pluck all WSOs up into their own wing with their own rules, own schedules, and admire why B-52s, B-1s, F-15Es, and the rest are suddenly not able to employ effectively. Ever shown up in the mission area an hour after takeoff only to discover that most of your airplane’s crew is out hiking 1,400 miles away?
  2. There’s also value in NAFs that own missions that are inseparable but distributed across multiple organizations. DCGS & U-2 under the 16th AF (formerly 25th). Having a CC to slap the table with force of law (who isn’t shouldering the the MAJCOM/CC role) is important That said: in that case in particular (and I’d suspect in most cases in general), why the fvck are we organized so that two parts of the same machine (front and back end of a system) only touch at the NAF and on operational sorties?
  3. Fair enough. In that case I do hope this works out for you in the long run. Honestly, I’d recommend just taking your licks and moving on. The nice thing about mistakes is that everybody makes them. Some people get hammered for them, most don’t. The person deciding whether to hire or promote either knows that or is an asshole; if you learn, grow, and move on, you’re a self-contained asshole detector.
  4. Tex, Do you think you made a mistake? If so, which? I know we like to get spun up about how dysfunctional our system is. AND IT IS! But! [still not a lawyer] This is not and never will be a test case at the Supreme Court. This is an administrative action for a lapse of judgement. The fact that this conversation is happening is evidence of that. You could try to sue and threaten to your heart’s content, but if your CC wants to give you a referral because in his opinion (and what will be the military’s official opinion) you don’t meet standards then it’s going to happen. Honestly, it sounds like you don’t believe that what you said was a mistake. Step one in making this better for you is understanding why so many people are upset. Step two is internalizing that. If you can’t: fake it. Step three is demonstrating that you have the ability not to make racist or sexist remarks that might discredit the military. In my opinion, your ADC’s advice of falling on your sword and taking full responsibility was your best chance. If your rebuttal tried to claim misinterpretation, you’re fooked. Sorry dude, it sucks. There are some things you can’t say in the wrong place. If troll: nicely done.
  5. Yeah man... it’s communication. The message is what matters.
  6. Bro, It looks to me like you made an unsolicited sex joke about a social awareness movement about sexual assault... on a forum created for Air Force officers. Does anybody honestly think that’s in good taste? The punishment: Harsh, ridiculously so. My opinion: should have been handled with an “are you fvcking stupid? You just occupied literally hundreds if not thousands of man hours that won’t be spent on combat capability...” I’m assuming you’re a young pup. In hindsight, are you surprised at the reaction? Do you think the time spent by people defending you is worth the punchline? How many lady ADCs have jumped to your rescue? How about broettes in the squadron? Like I said before, the punishment does seem harsh (again, no context of your value to the squadron). Find an ADC and/or civilian lawyer who will do a great job helping you navigate the process. Hope to get that referral stopped (within the CCs authority) and the UIF either not created or removed before your next promotion opportunity (within the/a CC’s authority). Then, choose wisely where you want to play with fire. I honestly hope it works out for you. Sometimes learning hurts; doesn’t sound like this needs to hurt this much.
  7. And also don’t be a dickhead. We’re equally guilty of being ignorant and often more guilty of believing that we’ve earned that right.
  8. Recognize that when people feel compelled to say “officer first” they usually mean “aspire to be a leader,” and don’t understand how that works in the flying world. Also realize that the type of leadership that happens in combat aviation is inaccessible to those who haven’t spent years studying combat aviation. A non-rated Captain with many subordinates may see a rated Captain with none and assume that the rated captain isn’t a leader. They don’t see the briefs with hundreds of pages worth of information conveyed in 65 plus or minus five minutes. They don’t see the planning process in which the mission commander coordinates for every domain, service, and discipline of physics to achieve a goal handed to him by the Army four star. They don’t see the split second decision-making that will drive success or failure. They don’t see the meaningful eye contact when you go over something one last time because ing it up will be a disaster. They see a tired Captain with messy hair, who’s never officially supervised anybody and therefore can’t possibly be a leader. That’s not the non-rated officer’s fault; their exposure is movies about aerial combat that’s portrayed more like boxing than war. Give them time, and they’ll get it eventually... or they won’t, and they’ll be sent to tell you that aircrew aren’t leaders. Be a leader; scoff the people who want you to prove it in a silly way. Fly, fight, and win. Don’t apologize for it.
  9. They also graduated their second WIC class yesterday. They’ve got people who get it in charge and being invited to the right seats at the right tables. Pay attention to Beale, and apply if you want to be part of a revolution in ISR.
  10. 2. Are you saying that sociology as a whole is not to be trusted or only the pop-sociology that we can digest in 30 second sound bites? 1. You’ve told us that women really want to be in historically women’s professions; I’d love to see the science (sociology) and whether there was any attempt at separating correlation from causation. It’s way more difficult than just asking. A) Ask 10 aircrew what their first choice of airframes was when they were two weeks from track select. 6-9 will lie and cite their current airframe; 1-2 got their then-first choice. All others were FAIPS. B) Even if you figure out how to get the truth, getting the why behind the truth remains a problem—know any males who quit dancing, singing, playing the piano, or doing art when it became costly socially? That’s acting on a preference and is a measured choice, but is also counter to that individual’s natural predilection. Not saying it’s impossible or even unlikely, just that the study of such a thing would be difficult. Got a source? “Google it yourself” is fine if you don’t want to point to something specifically. 3. I’ve got a bit of an issue with this one. You use the word progress, as if it’s a march towards a better state. That acknowledges a gradient, two sides. One less desirable, one more desirable. When you say “inflame the issue” when we move too fast, I have a hard time finding an explanation for the “inflammation” that isn’t simply the feelings of those accustomed to the old (less progress) and uncomfortable with the new (progress). I am certain that you don’t mean that we should avoid empowering historically oppressed groups because it might upset people. What exactly do you mean? I think moving towards a less racist world/country/system is worth a bit of discomfort. 4. Honest question: what do you mean when you say ‘human nature’? Plato, Moses, Dennett, and Kant would all reach different conclusions. It’s literally one of the central questions of philosophy. Regardless, agree that the government should stay out. 5. It’s a shame that the most outrageous ideas seem to get the most attention. Wouldn’t it be great if critical thinking skills were sexy?
  11. jice

    UPT Next

    Thanks for the answer about T-1s. Follow on question: Do T-38 trained folks struggle/wash out of heavy FTUs at an increased rate?
  12. jice

    UPT Next

    Honest question: What did you learn in the T-1 that can’t be taught in a sim or extended T-6 syllabus?
  13. jice

    UPT Next

    TLDR: kill IFF Not read up on the plan for UPT 2.5+; assumptions based on the discussion above. We’re all treating IFF as a sacred cow. Let’s be real; it’s an eight week top-off. A program like that can screen, but it’s not enough time to teach much beyond vocabulary and how to fake it for those who don’t have it. I know, I know... the fighter pilot attitude, aggressiveness, intangibles, Excel spreadsheet bombing! More on that later. It sounds like we are downloading expectations for basic airmanship to the basic trainer (reasonable) and at pretty much the same time phasing out our T-1 and T-38 fleets as we field the T-7. What if we killed IFF or, said another way: expanded its scope? All studs who require the T-7 (I think there’s a lot of merit to a single trainer track for some airframes, having not flown them) would start in one squadron, per UPT base, for transition to the new airframe, eventually being selected into a fighter or non-fighter track after two months. The non-fighter studs stay in the jet transition squadron and finish a syllabus similar to current phase III. 3 more months. Basic form and nav focused. AETC, AMC, ACC/ISR and AFGSC have equal seats at this unit’s post-track syllabus development table. Syllabus tailored to airframe with multiple off-ramps for each community’s needs. The jet transition squadron is manned primarily with AFGSC/MAF/ISR backgrounds. T-7 FAIPs start here. The fighter tracked studs finish UPT phase III in what was formerly IFF. Manned by fighter pilots, syllabus written by ACC/CAF and AETC. 6(+) months. Single syllabus to create a what would be a T-7 CMR wingman if the T-7 had real weapons. Begins with advanced formation and progresses to the limit of the T-7, or as deemed appropriate by ACC. No more trying to fix bad habits from a six month phase III in an eight week course. IFF is no longer screening, they’re building the product. Don’t like the intangibles? You’ve got six months to instill the fighter pilot mentality. It’s no longer a program that studs are just trying to get through, they actually have to absorb to survive, and contribute to the squadron. There’s room and time for truly valuable events to build confidence and airmanship. An ADAIR TDY to Nellis could be the capstone. If we’re going to stay ahead of the world, it’s time to rethink the model they copied. And oh yeah, VR and shit.
  14. Depends on whether you read the words or actions. Ever visited the reunification train station? It’s basically built like a movie set; pretty clear nobody actually expects to use it (likely because it will be annihilated in the first 30 seconds of the war).
  • Create New...