Leaderboard

There's a difference between fake news (FB trash) and media sources that lean towards an agenda. Sadly, I think there are few if any truly unbiased news sources these days, so it has become a requirement to read/watch everything critically. Anybody who whole-hog believes everything that their source offers without at least considering (not necessarily agreeing with) opposing sources is a fool. I subscribe to several news sources and leading up to the election I was disgusted by the WaPo's level of Trump bashing because, separated from politics, they have had excellent investigative journalism pieces. What is sad is that the free press is what makes much of our government accountable to the people, but we're at the point where we only believe what suits us. To watch people who deny stories about Trump because they don't believe the news source - while Trump himself is tweeting in confirmation of those actions - is just mind boggling. 100% valid, but this is where the problem lies with Trump. I'm doubtful that the specific details of the conversation in question will ever be known, but I don't think this was a cognizant action by Trump. In other words, I don't think Trump was briefed on code-word classified info provided by the Israelis, to which he then turned around and said, "I'm gonna give this to the Russians." I imagine that he handled this discussion like he does any other discussion; he doesn't stick to script, he improvises (poorly), and he likes to throw in tidbits of data that he has heard from here and there to sound like he has a solid grasp of his point. I can imagine him saying, "Listen, we're gonna crush ISIS. We've been tracking them for a while and we know that they've got plans to do XYZ on commercial airplanes. We're gonna stop it. It's gonna be great." Meanwhile the guys in the room are looking around nervously because this on the talking points. The president's staff shouldn't have to go into damage control this often in response to what he says or tweets.

The term "Fake news" is being misused now. "Fake news" is a teenager in a basement in Serbia writing headlines like "Clinton has Affair with Comey" and publishing it on iWashingtonPost.biz, a domain he just registered and designed to look exactly like the Washington Post site, then posting it on Facebook. Hopefully a legit news source retweets it. Or better yet, Sarah Palin. Millions of Facebook users blindly share it because the headline looks legit. Fake News is not an article written by the WashPo that uses anonymous sources that one day turn out to be wrong. That is just "wrong news" and legit journalists and editors by profession are supposed to stop the publishing of "wrong news." The Rolling Stone article on campus rape at UVA (i think) is one of the best modern examples of the failure of this system. Everyone knows all news sources have editorial bias that often appears in regular news reporting. Cable news has basically become 24 hour editorializing. But please' let's stop calling all news we disagree with "fake news".

It's a decent idea, but a Reddit blast won't answer what's needed at your unit. One of my jobs at my last assignment was Wg/DS, where I had around 20 folks (mostly enlisted) assigned to me. A couple days after I took over, I pulled every single one of those people into my office individually for a few minutes to chat about them and to ask questions similar to that Reddit post. I got some pretty damn good ideas from one and two-stripers who had been in the office longer than I had been on the base, but they had never thought to offer them up. After our talk, an A1C told me that not only had she never been in the DS office, but the two previous DSs hadn't so much more to her than "Hello" and "Good Bye" on a daily basis. That is the problem with leadership. At least the author of the Reddit post is making an effort to look down in the trenches rather than up the chain of command.

OK... why exactly is this robot so amazing? I fly the 737-800NG, and it already has a computer on board that will fly the jet, and even do an auto-land. Get rid of this robot, and you can keep the F/O's seat installed, and have a flight attendant join you for the trip. When you've got a robot that can make complex decisions, let me know. Until then, continue to crash as many Global Hawks as you like.

Oooorrrr...you could incorporate maintenance back into OGs and have it be a legit leadership position and still fly.

Too bad they couldn't get a better announcer, though. They got some no name local.

I agree that eventually you will likely need to get your Sq/CC involved at a minimum, if not Congressman and/or IG. It's been a while (thankfully) but I used to have pretty good luck on AD going to finance and pretty much standing on their desks saying over and over, "I am not moving until I talk to an officer in your chain of command. Or all of the officers in your chain of command." A couple of times I ended up talking to Lt's, then eventually on to a Captain (I was a Captain at the time) but more often than not, some E-7 or E-8 would come out of the woodwork and voila! my problem was solved almost immediately. YMMV.

In the AF, you are fit for command when you have demonstrated the ability to excel at Exec duties. I wished this was sarcasm...

The posts above are probably the better way to handle this situation...probably best to bring your chain into the loop. As I near my 20, I lean more towards the scorched earth policy. I've just seen way too many great dudes/dudettes get fucked over to care about tact anymore. My fucks to give are dwindling at an astonishing rate. Bergmans method is fairly effective, just be willing to deal with any blowback. Had to employ this method to get a secret CD burnt at a major base in the PACOM AOR. I shit you not, there was only one (1) person on base who had secret burn rights at the time and they didn't want to do shit to help us out. They were not amused, when asked for my classified courier letter, I just pointed at my wings and told them I carry classified every fucking day. They apparently weren't happy with my antics, but thankfully my leadership are some grade A MOFOs, and I never heard anything from it.

I've recommended reading this report on a different thread, but Panetta's bi-partisan commission report on military personnel changes covers this and many other issues in their recommended changes. Here's the section on DOPMA: "T-1: Replace “up-or-out” promotion processes with a “perform-to-stay” system. For officers, remove DOPMA and ROPMA field-grade-officer- strength tables in order to allow the services to extend the careers of valuable service members who are not competitive for continued promotion. Additionally, allow individual service members to voluntarily remove themselves from promotion consideration in order to continue building technical expertise while also continuing to strengthen their professional résumés to become more competitive for future promotions. For enlisted service members, although there are few statutory limitations on their ability to continue serving, the military services have implemented policies that mimic the officer system of up-or-out. Service secretaries should use their authority to ensure valuable, high-performing enlisted members are not being forced out of the military just because they are not competitive or interested in further promotion. This recommendation would take advantage of the existing military-promotion-board process. Those service members continuing to remain in uniform must continue performing at a high level as verified by annual performance reports and supervisor assessments." It's a pretty cool read if you just skip to the recommendations (we all know the issues so no reason to read the first 50 or so pages). Link: https://cdn.bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/BPC-Defense-Building-A-FAST-Force.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Sounds like a textbook class action.

You never know until you try.

Look at the newest gem the AF is hinging on to force us into the roach motels (attached and copied below in case the attachment doesn't work): So now we can't stay in Airbnb/crash pads because they weren't booked in DTS nor are they fire compliant. Who the $%*& is leading this push against us staying in decent places? Anybody else getting this letter in an email accompanied with the statement that the Air Force has to reimburse you but you will now be punished by your commander if you elect to stay in these places? MEMORANDUM FOR ALMAJCOM-FOA-DRU COMPTROLLERS AFIMSC/RM ALL WING AND SQUADRON COMPTROLLERS FROM: SAF/FMFC (AFAFO) SUBJECT: Lodging Reimbursement (Clarifying Guidance for AirBnB/Similar Lodging) Recent discussions regarding methods used for obtaining or reserving specific type lodging have caused confusion regarding the payment of claims. Some Airmen have acquired lodging outside of JTR mandated means or deemed to be not “suitable commercial lodging”, resulting in the need for further policy clarification for proper payment. There are several JTR references pertaining to AirBnB or similar type lodging that travelers and travel program administrators should be aware of...below narrative is from SAF/MRM and was coordinated with SAF/GCA and PDTATAC: 1. Online Booking Tool to Rent Private Residences for Short Term Lodging (Par. 4130-L): These accommodations are not commercial lodgings and travelers are not to use them (do not meet fire standards and are classified as “non-conventional lodging”). These are only authorized in the event of lodging shortages in a specific location. 2. Use of Defense Travel System (DTS) or Travel Management Company (TMC) (Pars. 4130-A4,A5); Fee Reimbursement (Par. 2830-G): DoD travelers are required to make commercial lodging arrangements through DTS/TMC unless exceptions apply. If a traveler does not have an exception and fails to use DTS/TMC, the traveler is authorized the actual and necessary costs of lodging but is personally responsible for any excess costs such as service fees, booking fees, etc. 3. Suitable Commercial Lodging (Pars. 4155-A, 4250-B): Travelers are responsible for ensuring lodging is safe, secure and within reasonable proximity to the TDY location. According to General Services Agency (GSA) guidance, expenses are payable (actual or limited to proper locality or flat rate) even if traveler failed to acquire suitable commercial lodging. Bottom line, a traveler’s failure to follow JTR guidance that requires use of DTS/TMC or suitable commercial lodging is not a reason to deny reimbursement. Appropriate disciplinary action by Commanders is expected for traveler’s failure to follow the regulatory guidance. Request widest dissemination to allow Airmen to make proper decisions IAW JTR while obtaining lodging. If a traveler was previously denied payment, they should file a supplemental travel claim via AFFSC. Depending on assignment level, questions should be directed to local Financial Services Office, AFIMSC Det, HQ AFIMSC or SAF/FMFC (AFAFO). Eric I. Cuebas Director, Air Force Accounting & Finance Office Lodging Reimbursement.pdf

SOS go home you're drunk and this is the promotion/PRF thread. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

STOs/CROs probably do this, as do security forces and some elements in CE. Maintenance and LRS, I think, get good opportunities to lead sections/flights. However, when an Army/USMC captain is a company commander, he/she actually has UCMJ command authority. AF flight commanders (I'm sure there are exceptions) cannot issue Article 15s, etc. Being an actual commander on g-series orders is an order of magnitude different level than supervisory flight "commander." I think fliers/space dudes are at a huge disadvantage when they are suddenly thrust into Wing command. MXG officers get a pretty decent exposure to both supporting flying operations and the mission support side (through dealing with so many Airmen). MSG officers co-exist in a multi-function group of 6 different types of squadrons. Most fliers/space Os go from operations squadron commander of their primary type of squadron, to operations group commander of their primary type of group, to Wing commander of everything there is. And its all well and good to lead through your Group/CCs, until something comes out of left field that catches you off guard because you couldn't read the tea leaves because it's a whole other language (contracting, for example).

Yeah - i remember it mentioned in the Air-Land Battle concept from 70's - 80's but Google is not readily supplying a reference for that. Found an AU article on the subject though that supplies a good analysis on the difference between BAI and AI, basically saying that BAI is in support of friendly forces engaged but does not require detailed coordination ala CAS where AI is more upstream, preventing enemy forces, support or logistics from being brought to bear. Article: https://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/spr90/2spr90.htm For this next generation mission driving the need for a Light to Scalable capabilities platform IMO, the doctrine has to be written to give this more footing, LAAR seems to get dismissed as a niche capability but it is not. This is an on-going, established requirement again IMO that is demonstrated from our 15+ years of COIN / LIC which is now morphing into Grey Zone Combat Operations. Not exactly persistent ISR with kinetic effects capability if called, we've got that covered with Tier II RPAs, MQ-9 and successors. Not exactly traditional Attack as it is longer in duration and target development (usually) than receiving a call for fires message and delivering effects with the main concern being friendly deconfliction, currently covered with several platforms, hopefully with an A-X dedicated platform in the future. The new mission is air operations conducted on a repetitive not persistent scale, tailored effects as required, usually in permissive environments but capable of up to low+ / moderate-, network and comm focused for dynamic collaboration while capable of independent operation from C2 and with a flexible logistical footprint to allow for operational flexibility. That's just my musings but looking at that, you come back to a two crew manned platform with room for growth, basically Scorpion.

Rucker 17-07 Huey Minot ND 2 x Osprey Hurlburt FL

The argument isn't "was this legal," it's "was this the right thing to do." The Pres can declassify, but as Toro said above it was probably him spouting off to sound self-important and may have put intel assets/collection at risk. It's basically the same damn argument we have on here when CC's give LOR's when they can't get a Art-15 to stick, PT stupidity, RIF's, etc. Interesting to see people line up on certain sides.

Am I the only one that noticed at 1:14 while setting the autobrakes it shoved the yoke forward? But hey it would prob b**** less about its wife than the actual FO.

Valid point about current BS metrics. It is not a stand-alone solution, but revising DOPMA and up-or-out is certainly a part of any real solution. Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Those of you who support Trump should go to the_Donald on reddit. It's an echo chamber with lots of conspiracy theories, jingoism, and nationalist rhetoric. It's truly a sight to behold - any poster that writes anything but blind trust in and allegiance to Trump is immediately and permanently banned.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

So with an overall promotion opportunity of 85%, that equates to a 75% I/APZ selection rate if the 10% BPZ opportunity is used completely. If I was a betting man, I'd put this year's IPZ rate at 73% and APZ at 5%. So: There were around 1439 IPZ elibles. the 85% opportunity equates to ~1223 promotions available. ~122 are available for BPZs. That leaves ~1101 for I/APZs to share. The IPZ DP rate was 50%, so there were 719 DPs, so 382 Ps that got promoted in the I/APZ category (assuming 100% of DPs got picked up). So the P selection rate for I/APZ (with ~1063 APZ) was 382/(719+1036) or 21%. Realistically, that'll skew towards IPZ vice APZ. Historically, IPZ rates are (from AFPC): 2016: 74.13% 2015: 72.03% 2014: 67.00% (opportunity was only 75% that year I believe) 2013: 74.40% 2012: 75.43% 2002-2011 average: 73.69% So, USUALLY (2014 and 2012 being probable exceptions), 10% gets taken off the 85% opportunity to give to BPZ. Some small percentage of the remaining 75% goes to APZ guys, and the rest goes to IPZ.

I'd say it's a very good idea, actually. As long as he can separate the wheat from the chaff, I'm sure some of the responses will be valuable.

This is nothing new and not the first time a Russian Ambassador has seen the "Big Board".

Sheppard has its own IFF squadron. The squadron is not backed up per se, they have a timeline just like other IFF units and are obliged to stay on the timeline. The larger issue is the pipeline as a whole and the choke point is generally the FTUs. Guys graduating UPT on a fighter track in the same class may have IFF classes that are months apart, and guys graduating from Sheppard might end up going to Randolph while Columbus guys come to Sheppard. It's all about aligning the dates to their FTUs, not necessarily finishing on a first come basis.

Are you talking about reddit or this thread?