Clark Griswold
-
Posts
3,038 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Clark Griswold
-
-
From the article:
“Of Emanuel, who sold his home for $14.5 million after originally asking $25.9 million, the Timesnotes: “By selling before April, he saved roughly $800,000 he would have owed under ULA”
So he took a $10M+ haircut on the sale price to avoid paying $800K in taxes? Real savvy financial move…
Yeah I read that and did a double take also, I suspect that was still a good price for the referenced limousine liberal selling before the tax took effect so while he didn’t make the Glen Gary money from this real estate sale he still must have made more money by selling at a lower price, either making money in gains or harvesting a depreciation and getting money back when he files his taxes, either way a rich leftist never pays full freight, that bullshit talking point about “paying your fair share” ends right at where they may have to pay their fair share
Conservatives duck taxes too but at least have the decency to say they are trying to do that
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
-
2 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:
Good luck with that. With the current syllabus we have about 25 hours of trans/nav, and some can barely land the plane. 25 hours of form/AD/AR with MIF as a fair. Where in there are we supposed to teach all your “advanced” training that isn’t even relevant to everyone?
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkNo doubt this is a rant on the internet with about 0.69% chance of happening but f it it's BO dot net and if it's what you think express yourself...
Curious and interested to your point on being relevant to everyone, does every concept or task taught in the T-1 syllabus have to be one that the student will be directly executing in their first assignment or is there value in exposing them to a variety of concepts to make them better aviators and leaders? We lament stovepipes in the Line of the AF culture, well this is one way to establish links between communities.
Not being douchey, naïve or cheesy in that question but there is a value IMHO to exposing them to the maximum range of air mobility operations (and ideally others too in a more robust crew bound syllabus).
These grads will serve in liaison, planner and watch officer positions, some will cross flow, some will rotate to staff, exchange tours, etc... having a basic knowledge of and some limited experience in what the other half of the mobility / big wing force is doing is valuable methinks.
If 50 hours is not enough, then argue for more. Easy for me to say but if what we have now is not working, what they are proposing is not going to work either. We venerate renegades in 'Merica, sounds like now is the time to for someone with a bird or star from the heavy world to do so.
The next generation of heavy aviators are going into a different operational environment, with capable foes that will strike their bases, target their platforms and require a different mentality than I experienced many moons ago in AMC. Starting in their specialized flying track to build that aviator who thinks in those terms is necessary.
Now, I'll finish my beer
-
1
-
2
-
-
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
50 hours multi-engine? Sounds kind of like the current T-1 syllabus.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shooting from the keyboard but seemed like a good round number but not out of the realm of possibility
Some of it could be sim time at a UPT base, I could see that being used for instrument and EP work but in my opinion a certain amount of flight time is required for the experience and evaluation of the student.
Short field work, uncontrolled fields, off runway operators, NVGs, formation, practice using SPINs, military comms, etc… some of the topics to be introduced to in this syllabus
50 hours could probably be enough to give the students a taste of each and not be a sip from the firehose, particularly when coupled with the new tech available to familiarize them to the mission before engines are running (PC based VR flight simulations, mission replay and critique, etc…)
It (the heavy track) has to be a challenging process to get thru, you’ll get strong aviators and officers out of it, and I’ll close my sermon on that point
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
I still think we should only have one trainer like before the SUPT days. Understand the desire to extend the life on the T-38 but if everyone goes to the T-7, you just assign earlier and the heavy bound folks now spend more time on XC type missions and not 4 ship and tactical formation.
IMO the focus on CRM in UPT is very overrated. CRM is a great concept but if injected too early in a pilots development, it undermines some development.
Of note, I’m not shitting on the T-1. Honestly, the T-1 trained guys in Draco were usually better than their 38 counterparts.
Single trainer is fine too, if that was the COA the Bobs took or would somehow change to I would suggest a trainer version of the Scorpion Jet
Good performance overall, reliable and modable with an affordable price in acquisition and sustainment
Not a shameless plug for Textron but it’s probably the only jet on a ramp today that could fulfill the training needs of both pointy and heavy via a syllabus split when FBR qualified guys are identified
We’re in a financial spot where we need to go VFR direct to the solution, the kabuki theater of our source selection process and the need for almost immediate replacement necessitates a low bullshit COA
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
14 hours ago, Boomer6 said:
Oh they’re well aware, and they’re either working for Boeing by now or have a gig lined up to “consult” for them.
Quite likely
The pointy nose are getting a new jet (eventually) and could have had one earlier (T-50) but don't forget the crew aircraft bound students, if the Navy can figure out how to get a new multi engine trainer we can too..
I'll be a broken record for that lurking person on this thread that can make this happen...
Students bound for crew based platforms following track select:
X more hours in the T-6 focusing on cross country and experience in new fields and mission planning (I think they already do this with UPT Next)
Establish training contract with civilian flight company for initial ME training, 15 hours.
Travel to Flight Safety, get initial type training in Beech KA 260, academics and sims, no type check but basic prof check at end observed by USAF, 6 weeks should cover it with slop.
50 hour multi engine flight training program
-
1
-
-
-
Just sayin’ this was available 5 years ago if a staffer or CODEL person is lurking on this thread
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
Gonna get weird(er) in Mother Russia as dissent of any kind dies / flees from a tightening spiral
Russia in 5 years if Putin is still alive will be North Korea on steroids while smoking meth, nukes and advanced capes for sale plus oil money and a cult of personality around a human incarnation of Palpatine
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
2
-
-
You want to own a supporting formation within an Army maneuver formation? One that has to get its organic maintenance and sustainability from the wider formation of Army it lives with?
I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I can give you a guess how your representation and treatment at the big table in Division when you literally exist to be apportioned out to BCTs as needed and now you aren’t even in an Army uniform. THAAD could probably be passed off pretty easily, but everything below that is too entrenched into maneuver formations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Point taken just askin’
THAAD mission seems applicable to big blue
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Has there been any attempt to get the AAA mission from the Army?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
It’s pretty much dead at this point.
Figures
The concept art was cool, the concept not necessarily crazy but if you really want a seaplane just got get a plane that was built as a seaplane
A Fiero with a fiberglass Lamborghini body kit is still ultimately a Fiero
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
-
Float C-130 taking a few laps in development
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/mc-130j-seaplane-wont-fly-for-two-to-three-more-years
Define requirement, acquire low risk already flying US-2, profit
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
I get what you’re saying, but this is why we’ll never have nice things.
Maybe but I think we who don’t like this or similar policies need not give up either our careers or beliefs but look for new avenues of attack (legal, ethical and metaphorically speaking)
That’s not an advocacy for anything UCMJ punishable but to use the tools available
What’s necessary is solidarity, transparency, communication and mutual support - yeah it sounds like a union and I’m not sure that’s it but a voluntary association that will support those who step forward to say non hoc porcus.
The AFA could be tasked with this mission if it could have a level of support / agreement from its members on what would constitute reasons to support current Airmen taking actions to protest / challenge AF policies that this part of the AFA would stand behind the member to prevent illegal or unfair retaliation.
Media coverage / information, legal support and career support could be provided to put a net underneath those taking a risk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
It’s disheartening to watch the minions take it in the rear all because some CC wants to advance the DoD’s latest flavor of the day agenda in hopes that it will advance their career; only to leave behind a swath of destruction that leaves the boys to pick up the broken pieces when they finally leave (while said CC skates into retirement and probably some cush contract job).
…the story of the modern day military in a nutshell.
Yeah but cast no aspersions on them as it’s one thing to charge ahead as part of movement versus the lone guy who goes over the top gets taken out by the machine while his compatriots are still in the trenches waiting for the signal to all go over the top
Everything is all or nothing with the military and until there is a reasonable chance of change happening or a reversion to logic and sanity, biding your time but minimally complying with insane / immoral / questionably legal policies that the AF leadership is pushing is a viable morally acceptable COA
I’m getting short, I’ve seen cycles of moral panic and group think idiocy before, they eventually pass but leave a residue of cynicism, I just want those who are still in and pursuing a full career active or ARC to know this shit comes and goes and know that like an F-4 with a shit ton of thrust behind it it will fly, as long as Congress gives a shit ton of money the AF will continue to fly despite some of its leaders
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
lol, I flight planned this out before starting phase 2.
My planning showed me how many HOURS it was gonna take to cover half of northern MS trying to vis recce the pattern, MOAs, LL routes, etc. 100kts vs 250kts/350kts (tweet, talon). We're talking gas stops, over multiple days of flying.
...it was an idea quickly dismissed. OP's idea would cost a small fraction, and with google earth embedded in the most recent sims, not a bad idea.
Best bet is if UPT now allows open sims--->>>do that! In 2004 this was considered a SylDev, but my FC did sign off a few sessions so I could go over with classmates who were struggling.
Great minds…
I thought of this after finishing phase 2 and hated looking for the pink house at CBM and Texas shaped field at Gunshy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
Everyone complain of non-symptomatic headaches constantly with dizziness
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
Looking back I think renting an aircraft and flying in the local area on the weekends during academics is what I think would have been helpful
Just to see the visual refs and in general the local area / nearby aux fields is what I wish I would have done
Not related to the OP’s question but added FWIW
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
Newsome?!
I’m not repeat not voting for him if he becomes their nominee but Gov Face Lift Hair Gel is probably their best bet if JB can’t function or it can’t be hidden/denied any longer
If not him I would probably nominate Whitmer if I were a Dem big Whig party boss
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
27 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
Its just as bad on the DNC side, while some dems are criticizing Biden, the rank and file and most especially the donor class is firmly behind Biden. I find it shameful the DNC has already said there will be no DNC primary debates. The Biden strategy is clear for the next 18 months...run another "Weekend at Bernies" campaign keeping Joe in the basement and and away from the microphone as much as possible. Already the fewest press conferences ever for a sitting President, no live debate with any DNC challengers and I bet they are already calculating a way to avoid a debate with Trump should he win the GOP Nom.
Yup, was commenting to a friend who leans left sorta (last of the scattered tribe of blue dog southern democrats) and telling while I will likely never vote for the Dems, they have viable candidates that can speak in complete coherent sentences and remember what year it is.
The longer we pretend the emperor is wearing beautiful robes the deeper the belief that our democratic republic is bullshit takes root.
They (the Dems) could nominate Gavin Newsom, Val Demings or some other mentally competent person that I may not agree with politically but could be plausible alternative to Trumpzilla versus Bernie...
-
Trump / Carlson ‘24
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
3
-
-
Secondary effects…
Mercenary warlord's troops terrorize Russia after Ukraine service: 'Could get away with anything'
https://www.foxnews.com/world/mercenary-warlords-troops-terrorize-russia-ukraine-service
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)
in Squadron Bar
Posted
Every time I think we’ve hit peak woke (stupidity)someone raises the bar:
Article argues world must apply 'queer theory' to nuclear weapons policy
https://www.foxnews.com/media/article-argues-world-apply-queer-theory-nuclear-weapons-policy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk