brabus

Cells are the exception in the viper from my experience. Never have flown with one, and I I can count on one hand the dudes I know who do. Not saying it's a bad idea, just not common in some communities.

Valid. I can see non-vol RPAs being the one exception to my previous statements.

Let me repeat myself - it's all of the bullshit, instability, bad leadership, and life priorities changing that drive people out. It is VERY rare in my experience that people get out because of the aircraft type/mission. I know a SHIT TON of fighter pilots getting out, and I don't know a single one who is getting out because of anything to do with flying fighters, the fighter "lifestyle," etc. They would be getting out regardless if they flew tankers, helos, C-17s, etc. I know one guy who got out because he didn't like the C-17 lifestyle...he is literally the only one I know who partially got out because of a specific MDS (and that was a minor part, the first stuff mentioned was the majority of the reason). Again, no MDS has the market cornered on bad leadership, green dot training, constant TDY/deployments, more queep/less flying, etc. All the thing mentioned in my first sentence apply to ALL aircraft/missions. You can't avoid them, so you might as well go for the mission you think you'll enjoy the most for however many years you spend in the AF.

I suppose the point is the mission type is more or less a constant (sans emerging threats driving new TTP, etc.), but the other stuff as you said is always subject to change. So yes, it could next year be 1985 again and a total fighter pilot rage fest heaven. But it could also be 10 times worse next year. In both cases, you're still executing X missions. So, making a choice based on all those changing variables vs. choosing a mission you want and know will stay relatively constant is not recommended.

Definition of "lifestyle" depends on the context. My response was in the context of "lifestyle" = not working 60 hrs/wk and/or being gone a lot. I don't think the fighter world solely owns the 60 hr work week / gone all the time...in fact there are other communities who are gone far more than your average fighter guy and when at home station they're not working an easy 9-5. THAT is a poor "lifestyle" reason to choose one track/aircraft over another. The "lifestyle" all of us seek as we get out is completely MDS-agnostic. The AF crushes people equally across all MDS when in the context of your definition of "lifestyle." Very few people are getting out because they hate the "fighter life" or the "tanker life" specifically, 95% are getting out due to general AD jackassery found in all communities, deploying for no good reason doing stupid jobs (another thing no MDS has the market cornered on), etc.

Should have been above 25K, SAMs can't shoot eagles above that, it's science.

Well for one, there's some time management problems lurking in your statement, but that aside, do you think non-fighter communities work 40 hr weeks? I have a lot of friends in a lot of different corners of military aviation and I will never blow smoke up their ass saying I work more; it's just different. I think you're being sold a bag of bullshit if you think flying other platforms in the AF will lend you a leisurely life style. I will say my flying job is more difficult, perhaps even more stressful at times, than some, but that doesn't mean those others are working less hard to do an important mission (and spending inordinate amount of time doing additional duties, etc. that suck your time regardless of what wings you wear or what you fly). Bottom line, a UPT dude should pull for the mission he wants to do, not for a "life style." Maybe those two are related to an extent, but the mission piece is more important. Trying to pick a track or aircraft based on "being home more," or "not working X hrs per week," will only result in disappointment and possibly regret.

Exactly.

Is the new hotness spending really the root cause, or is the root cause that we get involved in every fucking square inch of this world, overcommit ourselves continuously, and continue to execute losing strategy while blowing billions in the process? I won't blame the new hotness until we stop fucking around and decide to win when we commit forces. For the record, I'm all for killing assholes elsewhere so we don't have to do it here, but the dumbassery that abounds around the world in the DOD is a far bigger problem than future capability spending.

You cannot for a lot of things. I'm not talking about pythons slapped on random jets. It's not about sexy, it's about an aircraft capabilities limit. One that could only, with very low prob of success, maybe be made good enough, but for so much money and "re-engineering" you just made the F-35 the cheaper option.

manning is low in the CAF, so a lot of fighter slots on the VML with only an occasional white jet. Your average and and above guys aren't going to that one off 38 slot. But timing is everything and I don't believe this was the case prior to around 2012. And it won't be the case again in the future. Doesn't mean guys at UPT are bad dudes or pilots, but that's the reality for now. So, you can imagine how some will not admit that reality and instead talk about how they got screwed, the fighter world sucks, etc.

We're doing both; There is a ton of money, time, and effort put into weapons. Advanced weapons require in many cases advanced platforms to get them to the target. You can't just slap X weapon on a Viper and call it good to go for WW3.

Christmas isn't enough, you better have at least one change of command under your belt.

That's unfortunate this picture was painted for you. Recognize you're likely talking to some very jaded fighter pilots at a UPT base who feel screwed over because they're one of the few 11Fs at UPT while a large portion of their bros are still raging in fighters on their 2nd or 3rd CAF assignment (and there certainly is valid reason for why that is) . I recommend you take their views with a very large grain of salt. I also say this as a warning to any other UPT studs or prospective ones out there reading this. That said, realize a few things you described above (high deployment rate, getting shafted by the AD, etc.) is common across all aircraft. The fighter or heavy worlds do not have that market cornered...the AD will fuck everyone over equally for the most part. FWIW, my heavy friends have spent significantly more time away from home than I have...as a general statement. They may not do as many 6 month deployments, but they're routinely on the road 200+ days/yr. Maybe that's not true every single year over the past decade, but it certainly is true for a large chunk of that period...at least amongst some friends I keep in touch with who fly anything from -17s to KC-10s. Of course basing, timing, etc. all drive flexing in said numbers, but the point is I am home more as a fighter guy on average than my peers in several other communities. Lastly, the lifestyle/job is fucking awesome, and that's why I'm going to continue to do it. The AD is the problem and what makes life/work suck, it has nothing to do with community type. In my opinion of course.

Send me a PM with your mil email.

Good point. My losing SQ manning is better off than his. That very well could have been the delineating factor. Probably a good idea to address that point in the personal MFR. Tell the board how it won't hurt manning or how the risk will be at least somewhat mitigated.

I know an 11F who is going to full time position, but had non-concur from WG/CC. Unknown on AFPC. He asked for 6 mo off and got countered with 4. Where I asked for 6 and got it, only difference I can tell is mine had all concurs. Maybe SAF does really care about concur status on your app?

My recruiter said she and I would get an email once all the paperwork is done/DOS officially set. According to AFPC (my SQ/CC called them), it's about a 1.5-2 week process post-board. Now onto the next step of how do I actually get separation orders, HHG scheduled, etc. Can't wait to wade through yet another MPF shit pie.

Recommend approval at all levels. Things that may have helped, just my guess: 1. Letter of intent to hire into a full time job (the AF isn't losing me to the airlines, I'm just swapping component). FWIW, this was a 2-liner basic MFR, no position number. 2. In my personal statement I talked about how I'm going to a TFI unit and will still directly impact AD fighter pilots, as well as explained how my current squadron will not experience any net loss (my replacement is already here, he's just waiting for me to leave to take my position) 3. Asking for 6 months probably increases pk over asking for more, at least for 11F. But maybe this is now a moot point with the new "counter offer" policy.

I've never heard that, but good to hear some common sense is being applied to the process. The thing I was most afraid of was, if denied, I'd have to wait 4 months before reapplying. What an asinine policy, glad somebody had SA to change it.

Approved. 11F, 6 months off (UPT is my furthest out ADSC). I had a hiring letter, but no mention of position number, so I think the letter of intent to hire is really what matters (though I'm sure a position number doesn't hurt). Mine also sat at SAF for 7 weeks, but only took about 2 weeks from SQ/CC through AFPC to get their parts done. I learned this week SAF/PC conducts boards every so often for PC apps. So, how long your app sits at SAF is dependent on when it arrives there (right after a board just concluded vs. a week prior to a board). That explains why some people had theirs at SAF for 3 weeks and others had it there for 7 weeks.

I think he's been there for a long time; either way, always enjoyed bullshitting with him in the bar.

Disagree; cyber security is a massive concern, and the threats are only getting worse as more of our shit is connected to some kind of network (even if only occasionally). But, can't have any meaningful discussion on this topic via Al Gore's internet.

Valid point.

Not an airline guy with a dog in this fight, but the medical "drop dead" scenario is such a small risk...how many billions of single seat flight hours point A to B have occurred without the pilot having a heart attack, head exploding, etc? The thought process of another set of eyes/brain to stop a bad situation/decision is probably a better argument, but then again for every single seat accident, I can probably point to a two-pilot accident. With that said, and the systems Buddy talks about exist already, why is it so hard to believe single pilot airliners are a real possibility? It certainly is far more feasible/acceptable/safe than going the 100% RPA route.