ForgotPassword Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 It's definitely up there now 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky_king Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I don't remember seeing a "Home of the Fighter Pilot" sign last time I drove through the Nellis gate. They did have a very large sign that said "Do it... safely". Soon to be replaced by "Do it... without sexual innuendo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Soon to be replaced by "Do it... without sexual innuendo" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustache Sally Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I just returned from Nellis. Was glad to see "Home of the Fighter Pilot" on the sign just past the main gate, in its rightful place! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Maybe now we can finally get that "Home of the Fatty Pilot" sign at Travis. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brabus Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) That a true story? When did this happen? True...2 or 3 months ago, don't remember exactly, but it hasn't been very long. Edited June 17, 2014 by brabus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 ...Home of the Comm Guy Cyber Person... FTFY, and it would be Keesler.. which is awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 True...2 or 3 months ago, don't remember exactly, but it hasn't been very long. Pretty awesome to hear. Who was the jack ass who decided to take it down? MSG/CC? Hope that person feels like a dick right now knowing they got called out by the CSAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFM this Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I'm betting that in some narcissistic way, they found validation in getting called out by CSAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravedigger Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 FTFY, and it would be Keesler.. which is awful. This is something else that is wrong with the Air Force. The fact that all comm was renamed "cyber" and that most "cyber" Airmen have no idea what is actually happening in the cyber ops world. Cyber ops (offensive and defensive network warfare) should be an ops AFSC (17D) and called cyber, because it is an actual domain that is contested and can be used kinetically i.e. "supported." This AFSC should be filled with smart people. Base comm and all of the other comm functions that have zero to do with cyber ops should be a support AFSC (33S) and called comm i.e. "supporting." This AFSC can be stocked with anybody. They also need to move Cyber Command out of AFSPC and make it its own MAJCOM. It is far too important to be a NAF in a MAJCOM that operates in a completely separate domain. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skitzo Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Comm is one of the most messed up entities in the Air Force. Between ADPE/computers, network infrastructure and telephone control officers it is redic. AFNET has made it even worse. Have a problem with email? Contact squadron comm who will contact base comm who will contact MAJCOM who will contact AFNET. In 6 weeks maybe your issue will be resolved. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zach braff Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) This is something else that is wrong with the Air Force. The fact that all comm was renamed "cyber" and that most "cyber" Airmen have no idea what is actually happening in the cyber ops world. Cyber ops (offensive and defensive network warfare) should be an ops AFSC (17D) and called cyber, because it is an actual domain that is contested and can be used kinetically i.e. "supported." This AFSC should be filled with smart people. Base comm and all of the other comm functions that have zero to do with cyber ops should be a support AFSC (33S) and called comm i.e. "supporting." This AFSC can be stocked with anybody. They also need to move Cyber Command out of AFSPC and make it its own MAJCOM. It is far too important to be a NAF in a MAJCOM that operates in a completely separate domain. Standby...There may or may have not have been a very similar recommendation on your AFSC gripe from the comm/cyber community that may or may not have been signed off by CSAF at most recent Corona. zb edit for edit's sake Edited June 18, 2014 by zach braff 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlboro BLACK Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 They also need to move Cyber Command out of AFSPC and make it its own MAJCOM. It is far too important to be a NAF in a MAJCOM that operates in a completely separate domain. I actually thought the damn cyber MAJCOM thing already existed until I saw your post. Hasn't big blue been throwing around this idea since 2006? Guess that one never made it past the board meeting. Truth to your words though. This whole cyber thing's been picking up around the globe for the last few years. Props to the good folks that play in that realm, 17D_guy et al, cuz even my dog knows I couldn't do all that gucci gee-whiz computer shit to save my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 AFNET has made it even worse. Have a problem with email? Contact squadron comm who will contact base comm who will contact MAJCOM who will contact AFNET. In 6 weeks maybe Call the central help line where you wait on hold for 690 minutes, talk to someone who takes a ticket and gets everything wrong, get a verification email confirming the ticket doesn't address the problem, wash, rinse, repeat, and then your issue will never be resolved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I'll post the email about the ESD going away and what AFSPC A6 had "planned" to do for the bases to get support once that happened. And by planned I mean, "Hey, we're taking this away in 2 months. Your base will take all support calls that we haven't automated (<10%). They will not get the bodies we took from them to man the ESD. Thanks for your time." ACC was pissed. O6's and GO's who've done Comm all their lives just thought they'd turn off the switch and Ops would be fine with it. Then AFSPC just signed off 'cause... you know, they care about operations. These are our "leaders" and have AAD's, PME and are hand selected. They are talking about splitting the AFSC AGAIN with 17DS or some other shite for the actual Ops folks. I am not one of those, (un)luck of the draw. Now I'm too old. Ain't that a bitch. The only thing I want to do in the AF is grow this Ops mission and the Amn to run it. Sadly.. I don't think it's going to happen. Got a few buds who are Ops and a few people who could barely understand how a router works who are Ops. I don't know how the A3 side decides who's got the hands for a fighter and how doesn't but send someone down to Kessler so we keep the drool off the keyboards. Please note that the Cyber MAJCOM was murdered by Skeletor in his infinite wisdom to recover the nuke problems. So, as I've said before - AFSPC destroyed the nuke enterprise so AF gives them the fastest growing, most technologically/adversarial challenging, and stupidly expensive domain as a trade in the 24th AF. Please note - it's stupidly expensive because they don't want to pay for O&M on the regular - normalized MX/upgrade of classified network equip, why would we want that? They also don't want to grow through training/long-term acquisition, so we just pay contractors. They also have ideas they want but refuse to fund adequately. So we're buying F-35's, missing vital avionics, OBOGS, other aeronautical crap I cant' remember. For example - not every hosting site has a full real-time monitoring system. Think about that. Also, 1/2 your Comm Sq will be deployed at a time under this AFNext or whatever it's called now. Surely.. Comm Guys with years of exp are running the 24th by now. It's been at operating capacity since 2008. Lets check - http://www.24af.af.mil/library/biographies/ FML Oh hey, any one at hosted out of Andrews in the past 3 months. How's that email working now? Can I have a flight suit now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnetfreezer Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I'll post the email about the ESD going away and what AFSPC A6 had "planned" to do for the bases to get support once that happened. And by planned I mean, "Hey, we're taking this away in 2 months. Your base will take all support calls that we haven't automated (<10%). They will not get the bodies we took from them to man the ESD. Thanks for your time." ACC was pissed. O6's and GO's who've done Comm all their lives just thought they'd turn off the switch and Ops would be fine with it. Then AFSPC just signed off 'cause... you know, they care about operations. These are our "leaders" and have AAD's, PME and are hand selected. They are talking about splitting the AFSC AGAIN with 17DS or some other shite for the actual Ops folks. I am not one of those, (un)luck of the draw. Now I'm too old. Ain't that a bitch. The only thing I want to do in the AF is grow this Ops mission and the Amn to run it. Sadly.. I don't think it's going to happen. Got a few buds who are Ops and a few people who could barely understand how a router works who are Ops. I don't know how the A3 side decides who's got the hands for a fighter and how doesn't but send someone down to Kessler so we keep the drool off the keyboards. Please note that the Cyber MAJCOM was murdered by Skeletor in his infinite wisdom to recover the nuke problems. So, as I've said before - AFSPC destroyed the nuke enterprise so AF gives them the fastest growing, most technologically/adversarial challenging, and stupidly expensive domain as a trade in the 24th AF. Please note - it's stupidly expensive because they don't want to pay for O&M on the regular - normalized MX/upgrade of classified network equip, why would we want that? They also don't want to grow through training/long-term acquisition, so we just pay contractors. They also have ideas they want but refuse to fund adequately. So we're buying F-35's, missing vital avionics, OBOGS, other aeronautical crap I cant' remember. For example - not every hosting site has a full real-time monitoring system. Think about that. Also, 1/2 your Comm Sq will be deployed at a time under this AFNext or whatever it's called now. Surely.. Comm Guys with years of exp are running the 24th by now. It's been at operating capacity since 2008. Lets check - http://www.24af.af.mil/library/biographies/ FML Oh hey, any one at hosted out of Andrews in the past 3 months. How's that email working now? Can I have a flight suit now? If the ESD etc is so short on bodies, why not give admin rights to the 5 IAOs my squadron is required to have so they can install software, make org boxes, give access to shared folders, create/delete/unlock accounts, i.e 90% of the work that the ESD supposedly has (and the stuff that takes 2 minutes to actually do but 2 months to process the ticket). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herk Driver Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 If the ESD etc is so short on bodies, why not give admin rights to the 5 IAOs my squadron is required to have so they can install software, make org boxes, give access to shared folders, create/delete/unlock accounts, i.e 90% of the work that the ESD supposedly has (and the stuff that takes 2 minutes to actually do but 2 months to process the ticket). They have to protect their home turf. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 If the ESD etc is so short on bodies, why not give admin rights to the 5 IAOs my squadron is required to have so they can install software, make org boxes, give access to shared folders, create/delete/unlock accounts, i.e 90% of the work that the ESD supposedly has (and the stuff that takes 2 minutes to actually do but 2 months to process the ticket). Are your IAO's DoD 8570 certified? Actually the majority of "automated" tasks are the IAO functions. As much as I realize it's important to "get it done" having every org on base with 2+ individuals with admin rights is a management and security nightmare. But, it might go back to that if they keep hammering the Comm Sq personnel as "not vital." Many admin tasks will be returning to the Comm Sq so, hopefully you'll see faster service once it's complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaddebate Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Not official yet, but here's some strong RUMINT of extended assignments - give this a look:http://afforums.com/index.php?threads/changes-to-assignments-including-bop.47653 MOST Officers (O-5 and below) extended to 4 years | MOST Enlisted extended to 5 years | MOST command tours extended to 3 years | Controlled tours excluded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 It was already supposed to be 4 yrs. Until your functional PCSs everybody at the 3 yr mark to ensure they have 3 assignments prior to your majors board. We've had guys PCS with less than 3 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panchbarnes Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Got this from a friend today, posting here as a follow up about my PT score comments in the Master's degree thread. I laughed when I saw the message. Requesting a Project Officer to represent the ## Wing during the 2014 Combined Federal Campaign. Please also submit a SURF and PT score sheet to ###### by COB ## ### ##. Edited June 19, 2014 by PanchBarnes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFM this Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Not official yet, but here's some strong RUMINT of extended assignments - give this a look:http://afforums.com/index.php?threads/changes-to-assignments-including-bop.47653 MOST Officers (O-5 and below) extended to 4 years | MOST Enlisted extended to 5 years | MOST command tours extended to 3 years | Controlled tours excluded This is a repeat from about 6 years ago. At that time, rated was excluded. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 It was already supposed to be 4 yrs. Until your functional PCSs everybody at the 3 yr mark to ensure they have 3 assignments prior to your majors board. We've had guys PCS with less than 3 years. There was a Sq/CC at my last base (who's a Vice somewhere...) who PCS'd all of his Pilots at 3-years, regardless if they had upgraded to AC/IP. He then realized he just kicked off of his experience out of squadron and scrambled to upgrade people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17D_guy Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) This is a repeat from about 6 years ago. At that time, rated was excluded. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Why exclude rated? Serious question, as at least my Comm Sq Lt's/Capt's get a lot of experience in their positions that just gets flushed at PCS to some staff-bitch job. There was a Sq/CC at my last base (who's a Vice somewhere...) who PCS'd all of his Pilots at 3-years, regardless if they had upgraded to AC/IP. He then realized he just kicked off of his experience out of squadron and scrambled to upgrade people. Well, good thing his poor decision making was identified... Edited June 20, 2014 by 17D_guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It was already supposed to be 4 yrs. Until your functional PCSs everybody at the 3 yr mark to ensure they have 3 assignments prior to your majors board. We've had guys PCS with less than 3 years. Yep. We were ALOing guys at the 18 month point, and the functionals got around the 2-year TOS requirement by making the RNLTD exactly two years from the date they checked into the squadron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now