Leaderboard

In all honesty, anyone who says this neither has the clearance or need-to-know to even be informed on exactly what the Lightning does bring to the table, nor the knowledge/experience to understand what that stuff it has means to the missions Lightning will be tasked with accomplishing. There are a lot of things that are not so great about the Lightning. To cast those deficiencies into believing that it is not worthy of replacing the Viper and Hog is just ignorant. To even think that the legacy platforms are even remotely equipped to deal with the threats of the next 20-30 years that Lightning and Raptor will have to deal with it just ludicrous. With that kind of logic, let's go dig out the A-1s and O-2s from the boneyard so we can really go to town in the CAS world. Let's park all of those F-16CJs and whip out the F-4Gs, let's junk the Growlers and get the Spark Varks flying again. These are ALL aircraft where people cried that the world was going to end because the aircraft replacing them wasn't as capable as the aircraft being replaced...and guess what: somehow we've managed to just squeak by with those under-capable "replacement" MDSs. In a double-digit-SAM and Flanker world, the Viper, Hog, Eagle, and Hornet are just not going to cut it with the margin that we need to ensure that we will win with the least amount of flag-draped caskets.

What would you expect when the AF often uses blues as a punishment? You don't send a kid to time out in their room and then wonder why they don't enjoy being in their room alone.

Feel free to make douchey and witty comments about asshattery to your bros in the bar on a Friday night over a scotch. When out in the real world, be the professional officer you're expected to be. Losing your cool and/or acting like an asshat is never the best solution. I don't know why this isn't a universal concept, but it's good to see most of us agree.

Some interpreted this as a pass to chaff off the regs. Some rolled their eyes and continued on promoting institutionalized missprioritization of queep-before-mission. Some took this as an opportunity to be a thinking Officer and make decisions on what could be knocked-off when faced with limited resources. What camp are you in? 1. Proven legacy aircraft? I want what you're smoking. Proven against an enemy with the same counter-air weaponry as the Triple Entente. 2. I love to sh1t on AFPC, especially when they give me the shaft. But to say the only thing preventing this latest debacle from turning into the abortion that the '11 RIF was ONLY due to the sheer number of VSPs is a stretch, and lacking factual substance. I have no idea what goes on behind the AFPC curtain, but I have a hunch that they extended their eight hour duty day and shortened their two hour lunches with the amount of work that's been piled on their desks in the last year. In fact, I'm happy I'm not doing their thankless job and I make no claim that I could do better without some firsthand experience in what's happening right now. 3. Agree with this line except the quote at the end - "no ethic problem". This is how rumors are started. Here's what he actually said: "Do we have incidents? Absolutely," Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, said in an interview. "Any organization with almost 700,000 people is going to have incidents. But we do not have an epidemic of bad ethical behavior by people across the Air Force. If you look at the numbers, that's simply not the case." also, "There's a big difference between an endemic or systemic problem and bad behavior by individuals. There's a big difference." https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140725/NEWS05/307250051/Welsh-gives-Air-Force-top-ethics-marks-Congresswomen-say-comments-troubling- Should I be diapered for the actions of a few? What would you tell congress? Would you agree with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand that there's a systemic ethical problem and undermine the vast majority of Airmen that serve with distinction on a daily basis? Or would support your subordinate's hard work and dedication despite the actions of some individuals? Fvckin'a we have morale shirts, bullet proof mustaches, BBQ cook-offs and the like. The General tries to promote esprit de corps, and you tools use it against him. I get it, there are issues. To blame them on the best CSAF we've had in the last ten years is retarded.

My last post on this topic. Here are the main takeaways for you: don't put something into the public domain that you don't want, er, in the public domain. And when you do, don't cry like a little girl and blame everybody but yourself for the fact that that information is no longer protected. Your safety world and your colleagues may have been compromised as a result of the inadequacies of your rules, as written and enforced by your employer, but it's all someone else's fault? Fuck me. You're comparing apples (FOIA requests) and oranges (interviews). 1. When an editor receives a FOIA package that features some names redacted but others not, it is perfectly reasonable for him or her to conclude that the Air Force has approved the release of those names. Indeed, the very fact that some names have been released and others not would tell me that the Air Force has conducted a risk assessment of some kind to determine that those names can be published. That is exactly the logical thought process I would have, and I have a conservative approach to this stuff - as some people here with first hand experience of my work could tell you, I don't fuck around with people's privacy or their safety. 2. In contrast to receiving a FOIA package, when interviewing members of the military, it is perfectly acceptable to offer them anonymity. So, yes, you will have seen that in cases where anonymity has been offered or requested, names are redacted by the media. This is, as I started the paragraph by saying, a completely different situation to receiving a package of material that the Air Force is, by releasing it, approving for dissemination into the public domain 3. I have already explained to you that putting a name to a quote gives it credibility, and new outlets are all about credibility. If you don't understand that, there's nothing I can do for you, but please stop saying that naming some of the speakers did not enhance the article. I for one would not have believed a couple of the quotes had there not been names in the article.

Exceptional use of boom markings for the [zulu?] hand!

Thats about what I figured.... Anybody in the room who doesnt see your view point obviously isnt as smart as you... thats exactly how your opinion comes off in these threads. Like every action is a narrative and your the guy that can see through it all. You repeatedly make comments along the lines of us being Mercenaries or unwilling accomplices to the global capitalist Machine of the 1% or something of that nature... So why the hell are you still here after you've seen the truth from the inside. Do you think that your service is the inside route to convince everybody that what we are doing is wrong? If your so bound and determined if there is some sort of moral high ground that you need to stand up on to challenge this status quo what are you doing wasting your time here? You make the statement like its somehow our job to stand up to the leadership to challenge the civil authority.... Thats the kind of shit you see in backward ass South American countries where the Military decides "F this guy we know better." A thorough understanding of the constitution would let you understand that just about everybody with the exception of Ron Paul understands that an Authorization to use Force (which was given for our little romp in Iraq) carries the same standing as a Declaration of War, the title is just more politically palatable in todays day and age. No different than its the Department of Defense but we have a hell of a lot of Offensive Firepower when it used to be the War Department. Words change, meanings are the same. What are we supposed to do the day that the people in charge tell you drop that weapon on XXX, not fly? Go on camera in your uniform like those asshats on Facebook and let yourself become a tool in another nation/force/regimes propaganda? Its the military, we are the ultimate force behind the political will of our nation. We are not beholden to ourselves and our decisions on how we should be doing things beyond executing a policy. If thats your attitude your in the same boat as Caesar. Your voice in the discussion is your vote, not your uniform. And your moral objection to a nation acting within its interests is just terrifyingly short sighted. Nationalism is not a goal I would support, but to be so naive to think that if we just take some sort of moral high ground and "let it be" that everything will work out is ridiculous. Stalin didnt respond to concessions he claimed half of Europe and would have taken all of it if we hadnt had tanks in the way. Putin has effectively annexed a chunk of Ukraine and the show isnt over while we have said its not our problem. What does that tell Lithuania or Finland when our national interest is to just wish real hard that everybody understands being nice to one another is the right thing to do. National prestige, power, influence, whatever you want to call it does not exist in a vacuum. Just because we vote ourselves out of the game doesnt mean we win because everybody else will keep playing. Do you think we should just show the world that we are out of the game? Should we have let Kuwait be annexed because hey bro not my problem? Do you think China is just going to stop trying to become the big player in Asia if we tell everybody over there "we are out guys, handle your business."

Im just curious because your posts all show a trend of an isolationist "this isnt our business and its amoral to try and push our national interests on anyone anywhere," attitude.... Why are you in the military? Are you even in the military? Do your bro's in the unit or does your chain of command understand that you seem to be morally apposed to any and all actions that the rest of us carry out willingly? Seriously, any time there is a thread about any kind of military action your quick to come in here and imply that we are all unknowing or ignorant conspirators in some sort of criminal/immoral activity. Im curious if and why you would continue to serve in such an organization.

Jesus people, you're insatiable. He said 7 months ago or so that he was going to mask the master's for major and fix IDE/SDE for officers. He did. These things take time, you don't make 4-star general without understanding politics and he had to do some politicking at a few coronas to build his coalition to make it happen. He's also fixing the EPR system, or trying his hardest to fix it. I have no idea what the problem with SNCO PME is, I'm sure it's as screwed up as anything else, but if it is I have some faith it's on his (or the CMSAF's) radar and he's/they are going to work on it when he can. Give the man some credit. He's following through with what he said he would. Are things better in the USAF now than they were 3 years ago? Yes. For at least the following reasons: 1) Mission focus -- he has consistently said his number one priority for performance reports is job performance. So, master's madness is on its way out. 2) Uniform improvements -- no more mandatory blues on monday, and he even did it in such a way that demonstrated delegation and trust in his followers vice micromanaging that we all hate. Although some of the people on this message board complained that he didn't just mandate no more blues on monday. And I can wear a red t-shirt on Fridays. And so can the MXG. And the MSG, and the MDG. I think it's cool that Friday shirts are back and even cooler than instead of it being only the primadonna zipper suited sun gods who get to look different on Friday now everyone can. Reminds me of the photos from the 90s with the baseball hats or whatever you silverbacks wore with BDUs. 3) Honesty and followthrough at the top. Nothing is perfect, but he is, in fact, doing what he said he would and trying to fix the USAF. His messages have been consistent and clear and at least in my little corner of the big blue world it's starting to make a difference. So I get it dudes, we love to sport bitch. But this is way better than we were 3 years ago. Way, way better. The dude has to keep a lot of plates spinning so there will be things you aren't happy with, but overall life isn't so bad, Really. <insert "BUT HE NEVER SENT OUT HIS VECTOR THAT HE PROMISED US 18 MONTHS AGO HE'S A LIAR AND AN ASSHOLE11!!111!!" comment here>

A. What? B. If you get selected for school, that's it...wait for school. C. If you don't, get DL done ASAP...it won't get easier to fit I in...barring any special circumstance making immediately undesirable. D. Drink one for me. E. What? Bendy

So this is probably going to get me flamed but here it goes: I never understand the animosity towards wearing blues if you're in an office environment. IMO if you work in shops like Wg/Staff, finance, MPF, and other back offices that never require and manual labor or getting dirty then there's no reason to wear a utility uniform. If you get the uniform fit correctly and tailored, it's not uncomfortable. I know a lot of the civilian business landscape has changed WRT to wearing a suit and tie to work (ie Mad Men) but that doesn't mean that the military needs to have everybody wear a utility uniform to make them feel like a warrior. If you're job is a support organization that is in an office environment, you should look like it. Granted supervisors that require blind adherence to the "blues on a day" policy take it way too far when they require personnel like CE, cops, MX etc to change when they post or perform duties that actually require a utility uniform. Policies like that are retarded. Wearing an office uniform if your job is in the office seems like common sense. Flame away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO20mLbSPqEClassic Robin Williams clip

The KAC 2 Stage trigger literally can be "tuned." And I'm probably not using the correct phrase to describe what was happening. I pulled the trigger once and two rounds came out...after two or three times of this occurring I swapped lowers to one with a CMMG LPK and the problem did not reappear. The two lowers had the same brand buffer, tube, and spring. Only difference was the trigger. I am going with Leupold because it's the "correct" optic for a Mk12. Basically I am building a Mk12 Mod0 clone, so trying to keep the parts as correct as I can. Personal preference, but my SHTF gun would be a close/medium range weapon (ie: AR-15). I have a tricked out M1A for distance (not a bolt gun but it's still sub MOA), the soon to be completed Mk12 for an SPR, and an M-16A4 clone for shits and giggles. I haven't heard of anyone having reliability issues with lightened BCGs. In fact, the competition (3-gun) competitions are full of them and reliability is just as important to them as to anyone else. Really, I don't think light weight AR's sacrifice any reliability compared to a full weight. Sure, if you ran over a polymer lower with a tank I am sure it would crack...but baring that unlikely scenario... What part has you worried? (And the barrel for my lightweight is a 14.5 that will have the FSC 556 pinned to bring me over 16" so it's not an SBR...damn you Illinois!)

Said someone in the Air Force for the first time ever.

I'm in the camp that totally supports the CSAF's intention here. The problem is, if the chain of command between me and the CSAF doesn't support his initiative, it really doesn't do me a whole lot of good to chaff off the regs... Which camp are you in?

He was in charge when my vsp got approved, for that he is better than Curtis freakin Lemay in my book.

https://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/08/strange-events-on-the-uss-cowpens/ In the comments.

Where's the link with her husband?

Your friend is an ass. If he had legitimate complaints about the service he received from finance, he did not address them in his fake apology. If he took leave enroute from a deployment, they need to know where he took the leave and how he got home. Finance doesn't make this shit up, they follow laws and DoD policies. He says he forgot which cities he flew through on leave. If this is true, he is a moron. Vouchers are a pain, welcome to the federal government. Nobody said we were good at paperwork. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms about how centralizing DFAS at Ellsworth and manning the center with contractors hired into a poorly written contract was a horrible way to save money and manpower. And there are plenty of instances where a lack of focus on quality customer service, failures of leadership and incompetence have caused undue delays on vouchers. But bitching that it is unfair to expect you to document how you returned from a deployment is ridiculous. The only message he sent was that he is a tool and not fit to lead anyone, handle weapons or solve problems.

"Your friend" isn't nearly as funny of a wordsmith as he thinks he is. Dude sounds like a turbo-dork

After having finance lose some supporting documentation from my first and second submittal attempts after returning from a deployment, I returned with a paper hand receipt and I demanded the NCOIC sign as proof of receiving said documents...When he didn't want to sign, I asked for the OIC...nope...I then asked for the first ADO/FGO....he signed and the voucher was paid 2 days later...3 months after I had returned from the deployment. Cap-10 Posted from the NEW Baseops.net iOS App!

Drone pilots really don't get respect... We built drones to take the pilot out of the situation. Then send up an F-22 to protect it. I like it.

Dude, what's your problem?

Tune the trigger? I would say learn trigger follow through first before you claim the gear as the problem. For what it's worth, I would suggest getting away from the double tap mentality. Often I see students (especially from the comp crowd) who double tap because they think its about trigger speed. Change the mentality to 'scoring speed'. Seeing what you need to see from the gun rather than seeing one sight picture and hoping your sight recovery and muzzle deviation is tight enough that you slap the trigger twice as fast as you can and 'hope' you make your next shot. If accountability is an issue, get away from that mindset. Track your sights and let the gun give you the feedback during the course of fire. Not the target. If you notice where your sights lift and return, you'll be able to anticipate when the bolt has cycled forward enough that you can break your next shot if the situation dictates. Next question. Why Leupold? Do you have a reticle preference, glass coating/type, mounting solution and mission requirement? Lastly, if you're looking to build a rifle for SHTF, why are you going light? Lightweight builds are close encounters shooting. It's been my experience that even with a lightweight barrel and good ammo you lose major capability. You take a perfectly suitable gun for 700 meter shots (provided you have the right glass and ammo) and throw a LW barrel in the mix and it suddenly changes to a 300 meter one trick pony. Also, why on earth would you want a lighter BCG? That has nothing to do with building a lighter rifle. It will actually change the reliability of the rifle as well. If you want a lighter rifle why not just get a 14.5 pinned/welded gov profile barrel, a BCM KRM, and run a H3 buffer. It will be reliable and if weight is an issue, hit the gym. Choose reliability and capability over weight. Just my thoughts.

A buddy of mine actually submitted this to finance in his efinance voucher. To be fair, his voucher from his deployment, which he returned from almost a year ago, has been rejected 10 times. Yes, 10 times. He is fed up, as some of the reasons for rejection have been absolutely ridiculous. Some of them were legit but it has gotten to the point where he has had enough and wanted to send a message. Note: He is well aware of the potential back lashing, but doesn't care. To whom it may concern, The last time my voucher was rejected was because I failed to include details such as the airports from which I traveled to and from for my post-deployment leave. I realize the information I left out is very important and I apologize. So with this submission, I have furnished the requested information. Unfortunately, however, I don't remember all of the travel details. I don't remember the exact route I took from my address in Cherry Hill, NJ to the Philadelphia International Airport. I usually take Route 70 to I-295 and cross the Walt Whitman Bridge into Philadelphia, but I don't recall how traffic was that particular day. I could just as easily have taken Route 70 westward all the way to the Ben Franklin Bridge and crossed there instead. There was most likely a stop at Wawa, and if there was, I admit that I do not remember the address of that particular Wawa. Therefore I did not include that in the travel itinerary. I do remember that my seat belt was firmly buckled and that I arrived to Philadelphia International Airport safely. I also forgot which gate my flight departed from. Again, I apologize for not remembering all of the details. It has now been nearly 10 months since this travel occurred, so please forgive me for forgetting a detail here or there. As for the flight from Philadelphia to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, there are a number of details that I was never even aware of, thus I did not include them in the travel itinerary either. For example, I am not exactly sure of the route the pilots took. If absolutely needed for the approval of this voucher, I might be able to research the archives of past commercial airline flight plans and furnish this information. I'm not completely sure archives like that exist, though, and if they don't, I again apologize for the inconvenience. One thing I am absolutely sure of is that I ordered a coffee when the flight attendants were handing out complimentary beverages. One cream, no sugar. Please excuse my lapse of memory regarding these particular details. I reiterate these are just a few examples of which I do not remember all of the specific details regarding this deployment travel voucher. I know I have apologized several times already, however no amount of words can truly express how sorry I am for not including all of the travel itinerary details in the original submission of this voucher. I realize how inconvenient it must be to have not gotten the chance to pay me for this travel voucher after 10 long months. Sincerely, xxxxxxxxxxxx