ViperStud
-
Posts
507 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by ViperStud
-
-
9 hours ago, Ram said:
This is not about a dick measuring contest. My beef is that the porch is sending inexperienced wingmen to the Eielson aggressors because they supposedly have no choice.
Worse still, these wingmen are coming off only one year in Korea. A remote assignment they went to with the PROMISE of a follow on regular tour. Going to the aggressors essentially freezes their development as fighter pilots. It's not a problem to go as a senior 4FL or an IP, but it is a death blow to a young fighter pilot's development. A terrible breech of trust.
So AFPC breaks that promise and sends them to the 18AGRS. Fine...we "have no choice" and have a problem absorbing all the wingmen in the CAF. Needs of the Air Force and all that. Yes sir, service before self...got it.
Then, THE VERY SAME WEEK these guys are learning about the breaking of the promise, these wingmen are hearing about this crossflow. I'd be livid.
Worse still, if it were me, my mind about staying one day past my commitment would be made up. No fvcking way.
How many other young wingmen are watching???
AFPC's justification, btw, is some bullshit about a net gain of fighter pilots via this crossflow. Of course, they're not factoring the 36 CAF wingmen that just watched this happen.
Great job, fvckwits. YGBSM.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network ForumsI'll play devil's advocate - what should they do, send the MAF dudes to a Viper and the inexperienced dudes to the 35? That buys two TX courses instead of one.
AFPC is in flail mode. There simply aren't enough Capt/Maj IP types to fill up the aggressors AND CAF squadrons (still need ADOs there), because assholes like me keep getting out. So, they are making lemonade out lemons.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying necessarily, it's just that the problem doesn't have an easy solution.
-
7 hours ago, gearpig said:
If an IP is lecturing you on the airlines, remember it's not about you. It's about him trying to rationalize why he's there and many of his peers are not.
Shack. I'll admit I'm on the fence right now as I approach 15 TAFMS, but options are a good thing right? It's entertaining to watch some dudes argue so strongly one way or another when you know it's all just an attempt to pat themselves on the back for making the "right" decision.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Moose said:
James Post too.
I've never met a single person who thought this. He was my wing CC at Shaw and was universally hated. Enlisted would openly insult him in front of officers. I heard the same from bros up in AK as well. He pulled the same shenanigans, trying to get a light bar on his Wing CC cruiser so he could pull people over, trying to ruin careers of anyone who questioned him, etc.
I know my post earlier didn't make this clear TC, but I echo tac airlifter's sentiments. Despite my issues with some of your content, you've been a net positive and in some cases really made a difference. I'm glad someone established enough of a presence to get inside senior leadership's OODA loop. Keep it up.
-
11 minutes ago, Moose said:
TC here. Some fairly large judgements in the comments above. I won't go defensive and address them all, but feel free to ask questions if you're actually curious.
Where applicable, thanks for the feedback. Fly safe.
TC, for what it's worth I look at you the same way I look at Welsh's stint as CSAF. In the beginning, there was so much hope. As time went on, the hope never materialized. Welsh eventually sold out. You eventually stopped prioritizing the vendetta against shit leadership and, instead, started caring about website traffic and shitty writing for the sake of said traffic.
What happened? Did you go all-in with a new job and need to outsource JQP? If so, realize that your brand would have been better served by stepping away rather than delegating it to people who don't quite get it.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, pawnman said:
Counter point, there's a reason fighters have the worst shortage of pilots despite having the largest bonus.
This is an ignorant statement. The bonus is irrelevant. It's not big enough to change minds regardless of airframe, duration or current $$ involved.
Did anyone imagine that closing multiple FTU squadrons would have 2nd/3rd order effects when they did so in 2009/10? No, because it was all driven by politics and no one was looking at what the AF actually needed. We went through a period where training at Luke was so backed up punks were waiting 12+ months post-UPT for their FTU, so fighters stopped dropping. There was nowhere to train them. Those of us who were CGOs back then laughed at what would happen in a few years; SQ/CCs shrugged and senior leaders drank their Kool-Aid, ignoring anyone who said the sky is falling. This is a failure of leadership, not an issue with "fighters" chasing people out the door. The AF has a culture problem in general, not just in fighters.
-
3
-
-
On the ANG/AFRES side of the house, is the verbiage any different from previous years with respect to curtailing your AGR tour and simply paying back any "unearned" bonus? Specifically, confirm it's still not an ADSC, and if you curtail ARG orders the bonus won't keep you from resigning that AGR spot?
I see what the PSDM says: pays in arrears on the anniversary of contract signing, designates AFRC/A3 as waiver authority for curtailing orders...blah, blah, blah. For those that have been in this situation in the past is the verbiage the same or is there some attempt to make it act more like an ADSC this time around?
-
Any rumors on what the ARC version will look like? That being released today as well?
-
1 hour ago, 08Dawg said:
Just heard through the Bomber functional at AFPC...the SECAF is announcing the details of the FY17 bonus tomorrow and the PSDM will be up at 0800 CDT Tuesday. No details other than there is going to be some quote-unquote good news.
Good news for us....or for Big Blue?
-
2
-
-
Dude you see everything in black and white. Either kick everyone out at 1630 with piles of work left to do or...god forbid some leaders demand mission priorotization over hacking the clock, they're burning their airmen out. No area in-between huh?
I've seen officers spending time after work on PME, degrees, fitness, etc. Teaching your troops time Mgmt skills rather than letting the let orders/vouchers/etc pile up - that's a skill that'll pay dividends the rest of their lives. Letting them off the hook and teaching them that group PT is more important than the mission is what makes one a failure of leadership. I'd be curious to see the raw amount of Facebook/amazon logins as the mission work piles up. I bet you'd make excuses for that, too.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, hatedont said:
in Korea, I worked a 6 on, 3 off schedule and my supervisors allowed us to still go to school. You just had to ask and she would let you leave work
Sooooo coddled. Well, here it is folks - the reason we can't get shit done with some people.
-
1
-
-
Just now, hatedont said:
Not trying to be a dick. Have you gone to SOS?
Wow, I'm speechless. Your straw man argument is still intact.
Focus on one point, find out a flaw in it and act like I'm not right at all. Throw in a shoe flag reference for good measure. My point remains that there are many ways to get more actual work done in many functional areas and it requires putting mission accomplishment first. I'm not claiming that ops is the most efficient with our time, but having the "goal" set as getting shit done (rather than hitting a specific time) is a HUGE first step. Putting a flyer in charge would change some aspects, like instilling a focus on getting shit done, rather quickly
Ok I'm done feeding the troll now, guys. My bad. I'll sit back and watch New Scoobs rant now.
-
1 hour ago, hatedont said:
Is someone going to die because you receive your TMO orders late? Or do I need to take away their morning PT and have half the squadron fail the test?
There is a huge disconnect between how you view the AF and how I view things.
Yes, a huge disconnect. Nice straw man argument, numbnuts. What are TMO orders, are you even in the AF?
I don't expect someone to keep people so late everyday that they can't get their kids. There are a plethora of ways to chip away at that work though: stay an hour late 1 or two days, have working lunch (like most of us do), cancel/consolidate "training" hours used as fluff. I even really like your suggestion - cnx PT in favor of that little thing called the MISSION; if that causes half the sq to fail the test then holy shit there are bigger problems with that group of individuals.
Lots of people in Ops are single parents; unfortunately we have a lot of divorces. We have the same life issues everyone does. Yeah, I worked 12-hr days as a single punk. I'm not advocating that for everyone; far from it. That being said, treating 1630 as a sacred departure time without consideration of mission accomplishment, that's how you breed a group of non-supporters. There's a happy medium between what we have and your fairyland where everyone fails PT tests and loses their kids if someone has to work a little harder.
-
4
-
1
-
-
Frog, the argument wasn't that having flyers command some support function would reduce queep for that person; it's the flyer in such a position would add needed perspective to what they're actually supporting. Quick personal example - two weeks to go to PCS with no orders, TMO/training couldn't do anything without them, etc. Guess who still punched out at 1630 every day even though the flight CC said they were behind? That's right - the FSS. The same dudes that think we show up just to fly and work a 4 hour day. Leaving at 1630 with work piled up is a no-go in ops; it should be the same in the MSG.
Flyers leading some of those functions as majors (the same rank of their current CCs) would lend some perspective and give those dudes valuable leadership experience before being a flying CC. Many MSG people have several command tours; we could eliminate the multiple tours AND get flyers valuable leadership experience.
-
5
-
-
3 hours ago, skibum said:
I don't think the plywood shack I made and lived in for months in Afghanistan met fire code either, but big blue didn't seem to have a problem with it.
This is the kind of shit "leaders" are ignorant of. They actually think we are a huddled mass waiting for their guidance. Reality may be a bitter pill, indeed....
-
Mods, can we put this retarded conversation about an LT measuring his wife's legitimacy via credit score where it belongs - in the WTF thread?
-
4
-
3
-
-
14 minutes ago, Guardian said:
Tell that to my buddy who was passed over major and told yesterday he wasn't selected for continuation.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network ForumsTell him to join the guard. Plenty of dudes are doing that to finish up and they're getting to pin on, too. If you get passed over and can't get a guard/reserve gig as well, there are probably other factors a play.
I wasn't thinking about the continuation piece. Where is it spelled out about bonus recoupment if continuation is declined? Is that in each year's ACP release? I'm not saying guys are going about it wrong, just that there seem to be a lot of WOMS in play.
-
1
-
-
So, who is smart on how much the bonus is really an ADSC? I've seen some AD dudes in my guard unit lately planning on getting out of it.
Case 1 - passed over for O5 and hoping to get passed over again. He says then he can separate and pay back the unearned portion of the bonus ("earned" 25/yr since signing, so ultimately pay back the difference between that and the sum of the up-front and annual installments he's banked so far). Is this how it works for passed-over dudes?
Case 2 - similar dude claiming that even if he promotes APZ he can do the same. To me, this would mean anyone can get out of the bonus if they pay it back. Any truth to this? Can one really peace out ~4 yrs into the 9 year bonus if they have the coin to pay back?
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, DirtyFlightSuit said:
The problem isn't lack of a good idea, or any idea for that matter. The problem is complete inaction.
Also, and I think the bigger problem, a la Nowland:
These managers are so used to being fellated by their coattail mafia that they still think their words/promises are powerful. I really thought/hoped Welsh would be different only to see him accomplish nothing and sell out post-retirement. Dudes with birds/stars on their shoulders no longer get the benefit of the doubt. We don't care what's being "worked" because we've seen management fail sooooo much - all I believe is what I observe. So, until it actually happens, I simply know you're full of shit.
Nowland getting up in front of everyone and trying to sell us on their "wish list" just shows that he still thinks a general's words are meaningful. Sorry dude, you guys lost that credibility a LONG time ago. They don't recognize that yet, and won't accept it for a very long time.
-
3
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, dream big said:
"If there is a major conflict...." --> this right here is my biggest fear with all of the problems surrounding the AF.
Fortunately, I think we actually have this part covered. If a meaningful shooting match broke out, so many of the experienced bros would drop Mil Leave and be chomping at the bit to kill sh!theads for the USA. I know I would.
I'm not talking about another "Operation Deny Christmas" that our inept politicians seem to seek out, but if a real shooting match happened, commercial travel would take a crap and the bros would get shit done. For this reason, I think the steady-state "peacetime" ops of the AF are actually the more complicated challenge.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, cantfly said:
I was looking at some AFPC slides regarding selection for 365s. They look at the following: STRD, number of short tours, prior time puts you out of your year group, and TAFMSD.
While technically that's correct, once someone becomes "hot" for a remote that still doesn't mean they'll get tasked with one. AFPC won't slip someone already on a VML or fragged for school soon, they'll simply find the next unlucky dude for the 365. Also, high-vis hand-picked short tours (general's aide, etc) are typically ID'd a little further out and, once matched to a specific person, keep them safe from the random 365 tasking. A bright & shiny won't be derailed from their mentor's game plan simply because the STRD/TAFMS math made them "hot" on the 365 list.
-
55 minutes ago, pawnman said:
I thought the 365 list was exactly this - based solely on short-tour return date, which starts with the date you entered the service until you get a short tour. And it moves forward one day for every day you spend deployed. Is that not how 365s are decided?
When my porch dude told me I was top 10 before I separated a few years back, he was careful to note that over half of those dudes ahead of me could be protected at any given time: school, staff, PCS, aide-de-camp, etc. Keeping the Hippos moving frequently between those duties protects them. When they are vulnerable, a pepper-grinder deployment is often loaded even if several months out to keep said dude for even getting consideration for a BS 365.
The process is anything but objective.
-
18 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:
The official email a few months ago was STRD of 1998/1999 for O-5 365s an 2002 for O-4 365s.
If the O-5 list has already jumped to 2001...fence in quickly.
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network ForumsSomehow I doubt this. I was bros with my porch guy and he told me (in 2013, almost 4 yrs ago) that I was top 10 of Viper majors with a 2003 STRD. I realize you're talking all-AF, not just Viper guys. Can it really still be that far back?
-
Interesting insight from leadership at a massively successful company - one that has to answer to people (shareholders) in a way the AF does not. When your superiors answer to no one but a revolving door (on ~4 year schedules) of bereaucrats playing their own cards in the political arena, is it any surprise the system lacks true leadership?
His first point is far more poignant when you subtly replace "with" with "for" and his second point is spot-on: reference AFPAK hands, meaningless 365s, straight quotation marks, OPR/EPR hell - the list goes on and on.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:
No one. Which is why Chang is fishing for suckers. "You'll make O-6" and "you'll make General" and "it's a career rocket" are the corporate motivators. I'd rather drop MOABs, which seems a bit more effective at killin' bad guys. Besides, anyone can sell their soul and make O-6, but only a few can say they dropped the biggest fuckin bomb we have... well I'd like to see a bunch more that can say they dropped it.
Out
I know Chang is just a troll staff weenie, but it does show how out of touch these morons really are with the bulk of us. Spend 2/4 years in the biggest shithole on the planet with no real strategic endgame, just so you can rub elbows with a bunch of O-6s, most of whom got there by sacrificing credibility and warrior ethos in favor of exec jobs and coattail riding. And he sells it like it's a GOOD thing!?! We have some truly clueless management.
-
4
-
"We're not training commercial pilots."
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by ViperStud
I wouldn't consider living down the street from you as any kind of good deal. Most people plan to avoid such things. :)