Jump to content
Baseops Forums

Disco_Nav963

Super User
  • Content Count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Disco_Nav963 last won the day on November 3 2019

Disco_Nav963 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

187 Excellent

2 Followers

About Disco_Nav963

  • Rank
    Flight Lead
  • Birthday 05/19/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    KDYS

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Reportedly the backstory on this is that the services were authorized to go up to X for flight pay by Congress, the Air Force chose to go up to less than X, and the other services chose to not go up at all. DFAS was incapable of processing one ACIP table for the Air Force and one for the other branches, hence the "fix" was to keep paying us what the other services get and then issue top-off payments a week later.
  2. Pictured below: me, an AFRC CSO, reading this thread. But seriously, no shame in only putting down what you want. The AF is a giant machine that will use you as another cog in the wheel... You don't owe it X number of years doing something you don't want to do like it's your wife or something. The process of joining is where you have max leverage over your own fate. 2 on everything jice said, and 2 on going Reserve or Guard...
  3. What status is the dude on? IMA? I've never heard of someone in AFRC flying an MDS that didn't have an AFRC unit before.
  4. @hindsight2020 Didn't MT use to be longer to accommodate a longer Title 10 seasoning period, and weren't MT tours reduced in conjunction with the creation of the TDART program? Speaking for my own little slice of life (the bomber world), it used to be two years, now it's (I want to say) 260 days between MQT proper and seasoning. In fact WSOs still get two years thanks to a drug deal between units, the FAM, and AFRC/A3 because there isn't yet a WSO TDART program. I had a vague awareness of these issues from hearing about them in my B-52 unit, and when I crossflowed to the B-1 I actually called the AFRC/A3 POC on these issues (as listed on their Sharepoint) to ask about the WSO handshake deal (because I had seen it in writing in a memo from AFRC) and what was noteworthy to me was that the guy I got on the line and my FAM were not at all on the same page about the purpose of seasoning. My FAM believed that the purpose of seasoning was to get a new crewmember to CMR-E status so currency in a Vol.1/RTM sense would be achievable on a TR schedule—and viewed TDART for pilots and longer MT orders for WSOs to be the means to that end. Nothing about serving as seed corn for the viability of the ART program. The A3 POC, on the other hand, articulated it basically as you just expressed it... "Seasoning" is just the shorter MT period, and it exists to build airmanship at an intangible level (not necessarily to Vol. 1 CMR-E hours thresholds), and TDART exists for the separate purpose of facilitating the ART program in an economic manner. Wish everyone would get on the same page. I'm not disagreeing with you at all that how you're putting it isn't how it is... I just don't think the way it is is the best solution for our institution or our folks. It seems to me that the current MT lengths on the Prog Tour spreadsheet don't get our new guys to where the unit needs them to be, and at least in my neck of the woods where the unit has very little RPA and RegAF is starting to put strings on MPA, the remaining mechanism in place to get them where we need them to be forces them into what I consider a disadvantageous full time status (i.e. no USERRA, Blue Cross instead of Tricare Reserve Select, no retirement age reduction). I grant you I came into AFRC with a negative outlook on the ART program for a few reasons (health care + had 12 years active duty, so more interested in 7305 than federal retirement + am a WSO, so GS-12 vs. GS-13 for pilots was a negative selling point) that don't all line up with New Guy interests.
  5. TIL the people at Robins think we're still operating B-52Gs (ref. pg. 2). When man thought he could burn water...
  6. Since we're doing decade+ thread bumps today, GoogleFu reveals this former Lt is now a press spokesperson for Boeing's space division: https://twitter.com/kellykgeorge?lang=en
  7. ^ That, with an emphasis on a smaller logistics tail than the strategic bomber fleet... That combined with unrefueled range lends itself to dispersability and unpredictability.
  8. First question from skimming the article: Why did Australia have a beef with the Indonesians? đŸ˜‚
  9. I think the rub is that the military is inherently political, but isn't supposed to be partisan, and people often mistakenly conflate the two. Every time a service chief or a legislative liaison goes to the Hill for budget stuff, it's political. When we make tactical, operational, or strategic choices, it's political. War is politics. Clausewitz etc. etc. The issue is when you mix service with promoting a partisan candidate or cause. Likewise, impeachment is inherently political (see Federalist 65) but isn't intrinsically partisan. The founders naively thought political parties wouldn't become a thing but a decade before the first partisan presidential election (Federalist Adams vs. Democratic Republican Jefferson in 1796) they wrote impeachment into the constitution on the theory that the competing ambitions and different constituencies/time horizons of a non-partisan House (elected by the people every 2 years) and Senate (elected by state legislatures every 6 years) would equip them to keep a chief executive from abusing his power. They didn't anticipate a lot of trends that subverted that structure: the evolution of political parties, direct election of Senators, indirect popular election of the President (i.e. EC changing from a deliberative body to a ceremonial body that ratifies the results of 50 statewide presidential elections), mass media, and a series of presidents (Andrew Jackson, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, etc.) shifting the CG of the political parties away from their congressional wings and toward their presidents/presidential candidates. So today members of Congress are incentivized to stick by THEIR president in any impeachment proceeding, lest they offend their primary voters, and so much for competing ambitions between the executive and legislative branches... And impeachment is seen as partisan like everything else Congress does, e.g. budgeting/appropriations, oversight, confirmation of appointees, etc. All that being said, just because the budget is politicized doesn't mean the CSAF doesn't show up to testify in favor of the Presidential Budget. He's just supposed to say "Vote to fund this because the AF needs it to fulfill the NDS and execute our OPLANs," not "Vote for this to send a message that President Trump supports making our military great again and to own the libs." Likewise, if a military member gets subpoenaed to testify to what they know in an impeachment inquiry, well, they kind of have to do so. As long as it's "I saw this and heard this on this date, and then this happened, etc" and not "I Colonel So and So say Trump has to go. Medicare for All." And if it's service protocol that you testify in uniform, then you testify in uniform. Those who are talking about Vindman substituting his judgment/views over those of the head of the executive branch... Well, they would be right if we were talking about the "high criminalization and misdemeanoring" of mere policy differences. But we're not. Presidents including Trump have disagreed with the consensus of their interagency process before. Presidents including Trump have blurred the org chart before, e.g. Obama making Dick Holbrooke his Afghanistan/Pakistan guy in lieu of working through his ambassadors to those countries, = not all that different from Trump making Jared Kushner his Middle East Peace Czar or even in this case having EU Ambassador Sondland work Ukraine issues. What is new and different here is asking a country to play ball with someone outside government, Rudy G, as your personal attorney and representative of your reelection campaign, in order to receive aid that was lawfully appropriated by Congress. The key factors in the allegation are that appropriated funds were being withheld until Ukraine cooperated with Trump's personal representatives in promoting false stories about a political opponent. If Trump had said through Taylor, Sondland, Pompeo, the State Department janitor, or anyone else on the federal payroll, "I will oppose and/or veto future funding for aid to Ukraine until my Justice Department tells me you are cooperating with it's investigations into XYZ," that's in the realm of policy differences. When you circumvent your ambassadors and attorney general, and say "Get with my private lawyer and coordinate a public statement saying you're investigating Joe Biden for something that didn't happen and that you're investigating yourself for the DNC hack that my intelligence and law enforcement agencies all say the Russian Soviets did, or you can't have the money Congress appropriated and I signed into law," that's a potential abuse of power. (And remember, the Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional back during the Clinton years, so the president does not have carte blanche to not spend appropriated funds.) A much shorter comparison: Disagreeing with your own appointees about the wisdom of selling arms to Iran to encourage Hezbollah to release hostages, not a crime. Using the proceeds to pay for things Congress banned you from paying for (Boland amendment) in a bill you signed, maybe a problem. And when that happened, military members of the NSC got called to testify about it and they testified in uniform. [FWIW... I have much less of a problem with doing accounting tricks to pay for fighting the commies in Latin America than I do with holding "fight the commies in Eastern Europe money" hostage to your reelection campaign. But that's just my two cents.]
  10. Citing a thread by some rando begging to be RTed by Pensacola's retard congressman Matt Gaetz and a Q-Anon conspiracy theorist? Yeah, that's credible.
  11. The major benefit for me in not having one was 6 months of TAMP. YMMV.
  12. tl;dr summary, you'll probably get to stay and you'll probably get to fly a more normal amount, and you'll probably look back on it as being worth it You're young. Have patience. I wasn't at that OG/CC call, but the previous WOM I'd heard was that brand new B-Course grads are *not* being sent off to do other things. The temporary crew force redux is hitting the middle tier of experience (broadly speaking), spread out across year groups. The whole point of drawing down manning is to ensure that those who stay can fly, gain experience, and upgrade on a more normal timeline (and not get bottlenecked as has happened a lot recently) given reduced sortie availability... While those that go elsewhere use their experience to add value elsewhere in the CAF, and learn things that will add value to the B-1 when they return. The circumstances suck, but the community has weathered worse and bounced back to bigger and better things... e.g. the early 1990s trying to figure out if it still had a mission after the Cold War, and the early 2000s when the fleet and the crew force was permanently reduced by 1/3rd. You can look at this as "I missed the 18 fat years, and arrived just in time for the lean ones," or you can look at it as an opportunity to be on the ground floor of creating something great. I spent 8 years on the Octobomber, arriving a few years after the "Nukes Across America" incident when it was nuclear exercise after nuclear exercise occasionally punctuated by Guam. People that were short term thinkers looked for the first opportunity they could get to punch to something else (ALFA tours, green door assignments, rando non-flying staff gigs, etc.), and missed going to combat. Those of us who stuck around and tried to make our corner of the AF better eventually led the way when we went back to CENTCOM. Likewise, I suspect the B-1's finest hour is still ahead of us.
  13. I want to say that's straight up a Bomber Porch policy (i.e. I've seen it on their MyPers page or in a VML Webinar).
×
×
  • Create New...