Leaderboard

We benefit from more options, not fewer. Thanks for dropping in. You'll have a tough time competing with Trident, but if you do in sure we'll see the testimonials here in a matter of weeks. Good luck to everyone, I suspect the housing market is going to look really ugly really soon.

I think there is a whole thread on this forum somewhere discussing when the concept was originally announced. Believe the idea is to just stream line C2 at the wing level. I think it's a good idea honestly. The group level of command seems largely unnecessary to me. I know a lot of people don't think NAFs are necessary and I largely agree except C-NAFs. C-NAFs fill an important niche as the air component to sub unified commands and work theater level operations in geographic AORs too large for a MAJCOM to focus on. (IE Korea/7AF) Edit: I actually just found the old thread. It's from 2018 and I bumped it for you.

And some Wg/CCs too. Just ask the boys at the 89th… 👀

As an IP, you’re always instructing/viewing performance through an IP lens, regardless if you’re writing a grade sheet that day. You should do the same as an evaluator, meaning you know how an individual is doing overall when they get to an eval. So, take the big pic approach and don’t be the douche who downgrades a guy on a mistake he just happened to make that specific flight. If you can’t take the big pic/is-it-a-trend approach, you’re a shitty SEFE. I hope this helps a young SEFE in the future be a good one. To answer the original question, I’ve seen one Q3 and one Q2 in my entire fighter career…both are patches after the fact and one is a graduated SQ/CC. Downgrades happen occasionally, but are fairly rare.

I don't think complaining about a biased media helps but I'm going to keep complaining anyway. Over the last 4-5 years, Think of the very long list of "bombshells," "the walls are closing in," and "the beginning of the end" declarations based on "anonymous," "off the record," or "sources inside say" information that were total fabrications yet the media slobbered over those stories endlessly. No facts, no problem. Yet, any story that contains factual credible information that might shed light on the corrupt dealings of their own party (yes, most media works for the democrat party) gets ignored.

Had to look that one up. I agree: Old man rant ahead…… The original Top Gun was successful due to a simple two-part formula: The Tom Cruise Movie + Naval Aviation. “The Tom Cruise Movie” is a term coined by some movie reviewer that I can’t recall. But, in general, it’s an acknowledgement that much of Tom Cruise’s success in the early years was a product of remaking the same concept over and over. Tom Cruise is a young, idealistic character (often with some demons from his past). He’s placed in a new, challenging situation, where he must somehow persevere. After some challenges, he ultimately comes out on top. Along the way, there is a love interest. Often an older mentor figure. Risky Business: Tom Cruise and Early Adulthood Cocktail: Tom Cruise and Bars Days of Thunder: Tom Cruise and NASCAR The Firm: Tom Cruise and Evil Corporatism A Few Good Men: Tom Cruise and the Military Justice System Modern military aviation is cinematic in its own right. It’s hard to make military aircraft not look good on the big screen. Naval Aviation gets you the added bonus of military aviation at sea, making it even more cinematic and adding to the potential drama. “The Tom Cruise Movie” plus Naval Aviation resulted in an instant classic that made the studios a ton of money, catapulted Tom Cruise to ultra-stardom, and made the job of Navy recruiters much easier for years. Based on the trailers, I’m not sure what formula Top Gun: Maverick is following. Certainly not the original formula. It looks to be more like: Big CGI + Complex plot + Some sort of Goose-related conflict + Many, many head nods to the original. I’m sure it’ll be cool and make a shit ton of money. But it all looks so overdone, and just not as much of a fun movie as the original.

The problem with solar and wind is one of time. Their peak production is not aligned with peak demand. There's also a square foot of land for production vs. population density problem if the suburban NIMBYs ever lose their fight. Although I suppose we could just turn the desert southwest into a giant solar farm and storage facility. The problem then is that the entire production system needs to be very oversized (expensive) or a storage system is needed. All the current storage technologies are not really suitable (huge and expensive), at least for now. The other option is dispatchable energy sources, natural gas currently plays that role in Texas. They ran into some issues with the big freeze, but that was mainly a system design problem not a fundamental problem with their concept. They use a lot of renewable energy. In the longer term, less reliance on oil/fossil for energy is a good thing for multiple reasons. Nuclear power production technology has been stagnant for a long time, and I'd be fine with some R&D grants/competitions/etc to get the technology caught up. nuclear good idea fairies: Fusion: obvious, but also may be a pipe dream Recycling reactors: something like 80% of the energy is still in spent fuel from legacy reactors, France does re-refine the spent fuel to reuse. Negative: produces plutonium as a by-product. New design fission reactors: goal of reducing proliferation concerns, improving safety Ramp-able reactors: current reactors can't ramp up and down quickly, and are only designed to completely shut down a limited number of times in their lifetime. Not sure if this is a pipe dream too.

Saw ‘Uncharted’ this evening with my better half. Thought (hoped) it would be a little bit better, but it was decent I guess…corny at times and of course a lot of the action scenes were a little over the top for what they were trying to do. Not nearly as good as when I saw the first ‘National Treasure’ 15+ years ago.

This isn’t exactly the low credit score, lower income, denied previous mortgages crowd. read the room dumbass.

I'm not sure I can withstand the outrageous level of bogosity.

FEC (Federal Elections Commission) fined Hillary Clinton, personally, and the DNC as an entity for lying about paying for the false Russia dossier. True, only a token $8,000 for her and $105,000 for DNC, but at least it's on the historical record that she cheated.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Until you get a shit stick sq/cc, that was somebodies boy, and is an untouchable HPO. Then youre fucked for 2 years.