Leaderboard

Yup, they are still using them.

Here's how watching the "news" from our lovely mainstream sources like Fox and CNN goes for me: 1. Watch Fox because I'm on the right side of the political spectrum (in both senses of the word). 2. Get pissed off at how stupid Fox news is after roughly 10-15 minutes. 3. Switch to CNN so I can view the issues from the opposite side's perspective, which allows me to convince myself I'm a worldly thinker who approaches every issue from a neutral point of view. 4. Get pissed of at how stupid CNN is after roughly 5-10 minutes (I have a shorter fuse with CNN). 5. Angrily turn off the TV, curse politics, and decide to do something meaningful with my time (read: inebriation).

It's fairly clear, if you want to be perpetually at war...drafting/conscription is necessary. If you just want to shit up and stop, a volunteer force more than happy to comply (knowing casualty is possible). I love taking care of the "kids". They are far from it. I don't want to deploy. I don't want to be away from my kids. When I am, I'm going with someone else's kids...as an FGO. There is plenty of reason for to be here...plenty beyond money. I like money. I want money. The airlines are offering lots of money. I'm staying here for now. I want to motivate, lead, and win. I don't care that you're better, but are leaving...haha , "thanks for your service." If you aren't running for public office once you leave, I think you should shut your face. At a minimum you should be conspiring to lobby congress...MOAA or whatever...too much talk, no action...just as bad as the bottom of barrel. I agree there is a hideous problem here...if you want to bail out of it...don't blame you. Don't just talk, do something to pressure change. If we stay "at war" we won't change anything...we're just a dude trapped in the car before it's completely filled with water...just sucks it has to fill before we can get out. I hope the cost of having to wait for it isn't too large. Bendy Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

It's a weight issue so they can conserve the little gas they have... Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Gents, I wanted to take the opportunity to honor a friend and this seemed like the most appropriate location. Please relocate, if not. My good friend and mentor died just a few hours ago. Though not Air Force, he was a life long aviator, Navy Fighter Pilot, and warrior. He was an A-4 driver in Vietnam and was hit over South Vietnam and severely injured when he ejected over the South China Sea. My friend, Navy Lt Rocky Kranz, died today of liver cancer. Here's a toast...

Thank you so much! This was so clarifying and helpful!

Keep pushing. One of these days I'll just get annoyed enough to tell it....

You want pics of a dude? To each his own...

There I was, flat on my back....

I'm with you, got Toro to tell his in a round about way, trying to get DFresh to tell his and more to come.......

I'm just glad MLB is back on. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

I have never once in my life felt like voluntarily wanted to listen to Kenny loggins. Thanks King Cobra!! And Colonel Major Chappy! Or is it Major Colonel? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

OH you can do better than that, 10% rule and all.......

Story time!!!!

Ouch

I disagree, as I see it all the time. For some people choosing the AF carrot has become such a habit, they don't even realize it anymore. How many O-6s are still on their first wife? Of those, how many does the wife wear the rank just as much as the husband? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

All the pilots I know are talking about how to get airline jobs. They're either retiring, or separating, and while a few are going ANG or Reserve, there's a fair number that are getting out entirely. As for the "get back to winning and you won't need a bonus"...ask yourself what it is that the Air Force has done to make a job every kid wants to do and turn it into a job that people refuse to do for a $400K bonus on top of an already decent paycheck? THAT is where you'll solve the pilot retention problem. Not with money, because money will only buy so much happiness and there are plenty of good jobs on the outside for college educated, quick-thinking, cool under pressure candidates. Until the AF starts improving QOL, you're probably going to see the pilot shortage continue. It's not even about winning, in my estimation...it's about showing guys that leadership understands that aircraft and the guys who fly them are the backbone of the force, and we aren't actually equal with the guy checking ID cards at the gate.

Ever heard of a "no-stepper"? Try it out sometime. It'll fix SNAPs pretty quick. And, it can be fairly therapeutic:

Thank you for your perspective and service.

Yes, Obama's a shitbag. Just like 99% of all the other politicians we can't help but elect time and time again. He takes credit where none is due when it's convenient for him and deflects responsibility where he can. A month ago I heard Trump talking about how "tremendous" his new economy was, as if he turned a sinking ship around in a month despite the fact that nothing of any significance has changed and everybody on this board knows that even if changes were programmed, nothing in government gets done in one month. A few hundred point jump in the Dow Jones as a "thank god it's not Hillary" reaction is not an indicator of a healthy economy, which is about all you can attribute directly to Trump economy-wise thus far. Essentially, Trump was inadvertently praising "Obama's Economy". Nobody mentions the ridiculousness of it, because as disgusting as it is, it's the way politics works. And for the record, Obama doesn't deserve credit for the "tremendous" economy either...it runs in cycles and a president has limited power over it. Clinton got lucky to be in office for the .com boom so history generally sees him as good economically (this board is not a barometer of broad public opinion), but if he were instead around for the oil embargo there would have been no surpluses...it's mostly just luck. Yet they all claim credit when they can. Same as Obama taking credit for ending Iraq when he's in front of the right audience despite it not telling the whole story. I'm not talking in terms of what Presidents say: we all know it's horseshit. I'm talking about reality. Obama did not yank us out of Iraq purely on his own accord despite what Rush Limbaugh might want people to believe given the current state of the region and the convenience of putting that on a political rival. That's all I'm saying. With respect to the J.V. comment: Plenty of you will probably not appreciate this, but I just offer it as food for thought. It's partially speculation on my part but is supported by comments Obama made during his tenure. There's this sentiment that him refusing to use "radical Islamic terrorism" and other similar catchphrases was a sign that he was secretly a Muslim, or in bed with Islam, or just too politically correct to generalize about a religion. I don't think it's that simple (and again, he said as much many times). This is open to different interpretations, but many Muslims believe the Koran requires Muslims around the world (with some exceptions) to move to a Caliphate's territory, live within the state, and support it (to include fighting for it if necessary). The Koran also describes the circumstances leading to Judgement Day to include the establishment of a final Caliphate, it's expansion to Istanbul, and then it's ultimate collapse after meeting the armies of Rome. If you do enough mental gymnastics, you can make the case that IS is the final Caliphate, and the U.S. is a modern day "army of Rome" (read as a generic army of infidels from the western world). The mandate to travel and support the Caliphate only applies if the Caliphate is true and legitimate. An easy way for ISIS to establish it's legitimacy, at least among impressionable idiots looking for anything to believe in, is to propagandize the prophesy. ISIS wants us to get involved because, again with the mental gymnastics, they can point at our involvement and say, "See, there's the army of Rome from the prophesy...it's coming true, we're legitimate, and it's your duty to come support us." It won't convince many, but it takes a very small percentage of 1 billion to double your numbers. The President of the United States using language that insinuates we're at war with Islam helps with their recruitment. Everyone reading this will think, "bullshit", but we're not talking about convincing you. We're talking about convincing illiterate idiots with dead end lives and nothing to lose. Referring to ISIS as J.V. is an ill advised attempt to marginalize them because the more insignificant they seem and the less we care about what they're doing, the harder it is to leverage our opposition to them as a fulfillment of the prophesy. That means fewer recruits. It turned out to be a massive embarrassment for Obama, but I don't believe it truly reflected his impression of ISIS as nothing to be concerned about. I was "in the know" at the time and could see us making moves behind the scenes that do not square with a belief that ISIS was nothing to be concerned about, despite that being his public message for a short time. Of course you could say that whatever we were doing at the time was wholly insufficient and that would be true, but there was no political will or public support for the type of strategic operations that would have been necessary to slow ISIS's growth until the executions and Yazidi massacres made it to international television. Whether you agree with the stance or not, Obama opting not to use certain language was calculated, and not simply a symptom of him being a pussy. I would note that Trump's own national security advisor, Gen. McMaster, recommended he not use the verbiage. Because Mcmaster operates in reality, where Trump does what he thinks will get him the most retweets from the cast of Deliverance.

First of all... props for posting a picture in your actual profile pic. That is the first thing we ask for from wives and girlfriends (boyfriends if it's an Eagle driver). Second what everyone else said about UPT. After UPT, as a young married couple, things get better while he is not on TDY or deployment. Meet the other wives and form a support group. They will end up being part of your family. Expect him to be gone. Sometimes a lot in one year then not so much the next. I was away from home about 360 something days during my first 2 years after getting to my unit, then got tagged to an Exec job where I had TDYs and Deployments that I volunteered for cancelled by my Commander. I ended up being gone maybe 8-10 weeks total that year, but spent a lot of time at work taking care of an Early Promoted O-5 so he could go to school and make O-6 and higher. Got to be there for the conception and birth of all my kids but a couple of my friends have missed 1 birth (1 missed the conception too). Ultimately, after 10 years in the USAF, my family and I have decided we have had enough, but enjoyed the majority of the time we spent in. The moment I knew I was done was when I left on a deployment 2 weeks after my youngest daughter was born. When I got back months later my wife handed her to me and I could tell she didn't even know me. Now every time I leave on a trip, she asks if it's another "long one". It is a great opportunity, enjoy it, but don't let you or your husbands life be defined by it. Be open and honest and make decisions together what's best for your family even if it isn't what someone above him says is "bad for his career". Never let him leave home while you are fighting, one of our good friends' wife found out the hard way that you never know the day he doesn't come home until it's too late. Although more rare these days, it is the cold hard truth about flying. A lot of rambling from someone about to hang up the job, but hopefully it helps in someway. Feel free to ask any other questions and welcome to the forum. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

When he made the red line speech he may very well have meant it and been more than ready to destroy Assad if the line was crossed. A year later when it was, the situation was different. Yes, he should have never made an absolute statement if changes on the ground in Syria could cause him to go back on it, but once that mistake is made his willingness to eat his pride and move forward logically, at personal expense, is correct. And given current personalities in play it would be refreshing to know a person capable of that was at the helm. Leaving Assad in power in 2013 is not an acceptance of brutal dictators if they're able to keep the "peace" through violence. It's a calculus that a horrible, yet generally sane and rational dictator who occasionally gases his own people when he feels it necessary for his own survival is unfortunately better than a group of zealots that is literally attempting to burn all of civilization to the ground in order to usher in Armageddon and the end times. Yes it's a shitty decision to have to make, but in 2013 it was temporarily the best option available. Has that changed? Maybe. I don't have a fundamental problem with striking an airfield to slap the wrist of Assad over chemical weapons. What worries me is where it goes from here with a child in the White House if we don't get the response out of him that we want. With ISIS and the Russians in play the stakes are higher than just Syria's future. It's slightly off topic, but I will also note that Obama did not decide to pull out of Iraq. He executed the withdrawal plan established by his predecessor which the U.S. was legally bound to. Why is it that anyone wishing to attack Obama has amnesia with regard to this? Obama attempted to broker a revised SOFA in order to leave troops behind, but Malaki, a man which Bush installed against the recommendations of nearly everyone in his inner circle, refused to budge on provisions that remaining U.S. service-members be subject to Iraqi law and justice. Obama deemed that unacceptable, as I assume everyone here agrees he should have, and proceeded with Bush's withdrawal plan. If you want to make the argument that Obama could have made it happen if he had the will to do so, it's speculation, but fine. However, Obama did not just come into office and turn the light switch off on operations in Iraq. You'd better append Dubya's name in your examples above. Relating to your other example, its real easy to look back at something that never happened and reminisce about how great it would have been. The reality is that it probably would have been just as much a mess as we're dealing with now. If Schwarzkopf doesn't tell the Iraqis that they can fly their gunships at the treaty signing then the Shia uprisings in the south gain traction. At that point Iran throws their weight behind them in order to support their brethren and get rid of their arch enemy. At the sight of this, the Sunnis take up arms and you instantly have a civil war with the U.S. in the middle trying to regulate it. Sound familiar? Maybe we should have ripped the Band-Aid off back then, but to talk about it as if it would have been a cakewalk is naive. I would also venture to say that the population back home would have been much less tolerant of 5000 casualties after the expressed goal of liberating Kuwait was complete. In 2003, no matter how misguided, the population still had memories of 9/11 and the GWOT to justify our presence there. You didn't have that in 1991.

There's no rank on this forum, at least not any I care about since I promoted myself to Mister. Frankness is a virtue.

Yeah let's not dance around the topic or be scared to say the truth Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't that something everyone is wishing their leadership would be doing? Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Totally agree RAM. I want to be part of a winning organization and if the USAF was one, we would not have a retention problem. But I also understand we've been tasked with "unwinnable" missions. How to reconcile these seemingly incompatible factors? First, a winning organization means one built, soup to nuts, with winning wars as a clear and obvious function. That means rewarding people who are good at the mission, not assuming we're all equal and using non mission factors (party planning, masters, etc.) as delineators. In an ops squadron, my entire day should be focused on refining my lethality, and base agencies should be rated on their ability to support us. For example.... If a short notice deployment pops up and I need a guy to get CATM, CATM should jump through their ass to make it happen and be happy they found a way to enable our mission. That's what a winning organization looks like. One that is focused on successful prosecution of combat, not all the distractions we talk about. Second, if we're given impossible tasks whose pursuit hurt our readiness, I expect LEADERSHIP from the senior ranks to say so. Don't say morale is pretty darn good, say morale is terrible because our political masters have sent us on fools errands without an end state. Have some balls. Risk your career to speak the truth. If the ROE won't let us win, say that too. That is what a winning organization looks like. It's structurally built to incentivize combat success, and it's led by people who care about maintaining that organizational focus. I don't need a bonus, and I'd give up the one I have to work in a winning organization.

Every military pilot wannabe on every JQP post/Baseops thread who is trying to get into the AF doesn't realize that the AF has NO problems getting people in. For years, Big Blue has had the pick of the litter for the best UPT applicants through OTS, ROTC and USAFA. All the OTS guys and gals going through my UPT base have all had a ton of flying experience, impressive school and extracurricular records and many had experience in the defense industry. Had one chick who was literally a rocket scientist. It isn't a recruiting issue. It's easy to find a 22 year old with a college degree who wants to get paid to see the world and fly fast in the most advanced aircraft the world has. The AF just can't keep them after they see the price tag and the other crap they will have to put up with for the other 98% of their career. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

If you're at all interested in 0-2s (Cessna 337 mil version) FAC warbird, see Don Nieser at https://commodoreaerospacecorporation.com/ Oklahoma City location

fuck

Add this to the list of rules I'll never read or follow.

The idea that this happened because al assad crossed some moral line is an absolute joke. Hundreds of thousands have already been slaughtered and millions more displaced. Trump refuses to help refugees at all but now he's concerned about the well being of the syrians? This is a power play intended to boost approval ratings and lift Russian sanctions. Mark my words that Russia will benefit from this action. The story that CNN and their ilk are peddling, that this is some reaction to a moral outrage, will be happily accepted by the unwashed masses. And the elites will continue making back room deals that benefit both Trump and Putin Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk