Jump to content

Magnum

Registered User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    126

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Magnum

    Palace Chase info

    in Air National Guard / Air Force Reserves

    Posted

    I'm not so sure that the memo really has any impact. In my case (Viper guy), it seemed like SAF listened to the porch's recommendation. My letter said that granting PC would give me the opportunity to continue to serve while giving my family the stability we need. I also mentioned that the unit hiring me desired a report date ASAP. I requested 5.69 months off my UPT commitment, and 9 months off my total commitment (GI Bill transfer). My case had a unique twist that forced me to work with the AFPC PC office more than the average dude. He let it slip that he can generally "adjust" the approved PC date by up to 60 days.

    Stop Loss Cometh

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Just curious, is there anyone here that is unconditionally leaving AD at the first available opportunity?

    Yes. Palace chase application submitted...we'll see. In the past 6 months my squadron has seen 4 dudes either PC or just separate. In fact, since getting to my current squadron, I think I've seen 2 dudes take an assignment.

    Stop Loss Cometh

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Concur at P-gon. Like I said, senior leaders are not worried in the slightest (reference pilot bonus staying the same annually).

    Proof that our senior leaders are idiots. Or at least badly misinformed. The airlines isn't the only industry hiring pilots. So just recently the F-16 porch had to non-vol 8 dudes out of cycle to Kunsan and lost a couple dudes from 7 day opt because of it. What does that tell you?

    The only reason the USAF is in good hands is because there are awesome dudes / dudettes busting their asses to get the J-O-B done regardless of all the B.S.

    You are out of touch.

    • Upvote 3

    Aviation Continuation Pay (ACP - The Bonus)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Second post first- yes, the last twelve years have sucked from a family perspective- do not think your senior leaders don't recognize that. They simply have no tools to show that appreciation other than language.

    False. They have the power to change the little stuff that adds to the list of reasons to leave active duty. Friday patches / t-shirts and other traditions building everyone's morale could be a good start. Next, stop worrying about hurting someone's feelings by admitting that not everyone is a warrior and remind them that their job is to support the warriors. Fix the promotion system - when solid 11F's aren't making O-4 in a huge shortage, that's a leadership problem. There are tons of these little annoyances that build up a case for bolting and most of them can be fixed at low levels of leadership. Rebuilding a culture that truly focuses on accomplishing the true mission would help make the decision to leave a little bit tougher.

    • Upvote 2

    Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    Is the best way to reduce spending: A) decide not to pay me, the trash contractor, for services previously rendered and consequences be damned or B) pay the bills already incurred and decide maybe the base can no longer afford trash removal services, and choosing not renewing my contract for the future? I'll tell you what my opinion would be as that trash contractor...

    Option B would be better...if the gov't actually did the analysis to determine the trash removal was no longer affordable. The problem is, the government hasn't done this in 4 or 5 years (ie pass a budget). When people default on debt, creditors come after them, assets are liquidated and bills are paid. After that pain, those people have the opportunity to repeat their poor decisions of the past or learn and change. I'm not advocating creating pain for the country if there are other options. But the way we are going, some generation(s) of Americans will have to feel the pain. I think its only fair that those affected are the ones that created the poor situation.

    And please :bash: yourself if you still think raising the debt ceiling causes us to incur more national debt. Debt is incurred when and only when Congress appropriates more money than it takes in over a given time period. That fundamental misunderstanding may be the root of the problem here.

    Continually raising the debt ceiling without having a balanced spending plan does cause us to incur more national debt. Since we have been running a deficit each year, and since we haven't passed a budget, the continuing resolution keeps us at a deficit each year a budget fails to pass. Right now, the debt ceiling is the only thing keeping the debt in check. Yes the debt ceiling affects bills due. Why would the spenders ever want to pass a budget if they could always count on a C.R. to keep spending at the same levels?

    Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted · Edited by Magnum

    Both.

    Whether you care about political capital (and what you expect out of me) is pretty much irrelevant. The sad truth is that this is a fight that the GOP can't win. The fact that these guys are willing to send us over the fiscal cliff, do significant damage to the economy, do significant political damage to their own party's future, do significant damage to military readiness, and increase taxes for everyone because they refuse to agree to a tax cut for a rich is completely and utterly irrational. You're sabotaging your primary goal for a meaningless symbolic victory.

    If they want to self-destruct as a party, then all I can do is sit back and enjoy the show.

    Its this kind of thinking that makes me hope we do fall off the cliff. That would let EVERYONE feel some of the pain from out of control spending. I find it amazing that you see this as Dem's vs Rep's. If the republicans conceded completely to the dem's, guess what? We would still have massive and uncontrollable debt. I also find it amazing that you are so confident that it would be the republicans sending us over the cliff even when most have already agreed to tax increases. How are Conservatives not caving in to the liberal demands of no spending cuts somehow the GOP's fault? Concessions work both ways, Rep's agrees to some taxes, Dem's agree to cuts. Republicans aren't trying to win a symbolic victory like you think, they are attempting to be responsible and save the country from massive debt and continued deficits. Personally, I think all taxes should be increased slightly and sweeping cuts get made nearly across the board. Or maybe...and I'm just throwing this out there...we start with a balanced budget!

    Maybe all conservatives should just say "fuc-k it" and stop trying to be the responsible ones in this country. Just let the US continue to spiral into deeper debt and roll the bones!

    Edit: Fuc-k, I can't say ######

    Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    That's an amazingly biased view of the situation. Both parties are playing politics; the problem is that the Democrats actually have all of the political capital. The Republicans have been negotiating as if they have any leverage whatsoever, and everybody knows that they don't. So, at this point it's just a waiting game as more and more GOP lawmakers start capitulating to reality, instead of living in this fantasy dreamworld where standing their ground and wrecking the economy is actually a viable strategy.

    So, I forsee two likely situations: the Democrats get what they want with a few concessions because the GOP had the good sense to realize their incredibly weak negotiating position and participate in the governmental process, or that the GOP stands their ground, we go over the cliff, get blamed for the 2nd recession, and get absolutely crushed in 2014 because people are tired of the gridlock.

    I prefer the former since it saves the economic recovery, but the GOP wants to self-destruct, I'm okay with that too. We'll just have to wait and see what they end up choosing.

    Interesting. So you think the republicans are wrong for attempting to put together a sustainable financial plan? The national debt has increased $6T over the past 4 years. Obama's plan calls for $1.6T in new taxes over the next 10 years as well as increased stimulus. Something doesn't add up here. Please explain to me how this plan would be better for the economy?

    Military retirement under attack

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    An AF Crimes article was on Drudge.

    Liberal think tank proposes cutting retirement benefits, pay, health-care, etc...

    http://www.airforcet...t-cuts-110112w/

    The report recommends modifying military retirement. For anyone currently in the military with fewer than 10 years of service, benefits would be cut. Instead of receiving 50 percent of basic pay after 20 years, with immediate benefits, the report says the benefits would be 40 percent of base pay with payments not beginning until age 60. For people not yet in the military, there would be no fixed retired pay in the future, only a pre-tax retirement savings plan based on contributions from the member.

    Here is the "Rebalancing Our National Security" report by the Center for American Progress.

    http://www.americanp...ional-security/

    I suggest you read it to know the ideas being floated. Not good.

    unifiedsecuritybudget_table1_web.png

    Funny this chart recommends all of the suggested cuts go to either green stuff or international stuff. Only one section says it should pay down the national debt. In my opinion, it should read something like this:

    $20B: Mx nukes or pay down .125% of debt

    $74.4B: Cost overruns or pay down .465% of debt

    $1.65B: 7 more F-35's or pay down .0103% of debt

    $5B: R&D or pay down .03125% of debt

    $90M: 1 Osprey or pay down .00056% of debt

    $15B: Health care or pay down .093% of debt

    $4.5B: Nuke research or pay down .028% of debt

    $2.6B: Sub or pay down .01625% of debt

    I'm ok with cutting the defense budget a bit as long as everything else gets cut and the money stays in the country.

    Stop Loss For 11F

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    BFM this,

    Here's what it boils down to. Like many have said, there is a fighter pilot shortage but not in the cockpit - in the shitty jobs no one wants. The Air Force has projections on how many people will bail vs sign the bonus vs just continue as is. So they are left with the decision of making a new fighter pilot with about 2-3x the resources it takes to bring one back from a non fighter assignment. If they choose the B-course, their fighter pilot shortage becomes smaller. If they choose the TX-course, their shortage remains the same. I seriously doubt that their separation numbers factor in morale over the last couple years. Not to mention the fact that we only recently hit the start of 10 year dudes being able to bail. I'm willing to bet that their projections are skewed which is why they think throwing more B-courses into the mix will fix the problem.

    So now we build a new fighter pilot only to let one walk out the door. Besides non-flying staff manning shortages, they are also looking at pilot requirements to fill the F-35. There is a pretty substantial shortage there as well, but they probably don't need to worry about that for at least another 6-9 years. If it ever does come on line in the numbers originally projected, there will probably be some good motivation across the board to stay in.

    Trident university TUI increasing tuition rates

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    Something to keep in mind is that at Trident, all of the classes are 4 credits. That means each class will cost $200 out of pocket. As an esteemed graduate of that fine institution, I would not have paid 1 cent for any of their "classes." I understand wanting to check the container but there are other schools that actually teach for not much more than the rate per class at Trident.

    Boss, I quit...

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Hyperbole aside, if the US government depends that much on people staying in, and there's some sort of threat of loss of capability looming in the future, then I'm not seeing a whole lot of good faith coming from the other side of the table. Part of that is because Air Force pilots seem to have a habit of grossly overestimating their individual value to the service. There are more than enough true blue patriots, kool aid drinkers, and camofare addicts that are willing to stay in no matter what. After that, the AF can fill in the gaps by throwing money at people who were less than stellar at civilian life. But give me a break, global trade isn't going to plummet because F-16's are projected to be at 90% manning the next FY or something.

    Regarding the newest Dear Boss letter, whatever effect it had has been diminished to almost zero. Nobody cares anymore that you hate the CSAF or senior leadership. At least, in 1974, it was about as new and shocking as nailing a list of demands to a cathedral door and starting a new religion. Now, 3 letters later, it just looks like the most recent petulant whine-session from some random privileged Air Force fighter pilot who didn't get enough mints on his pillow last night. Well, that's the perception anyway.

    First of all, I don't know a single fighter pilot that is reaching their commitment and not either getting out completely or transitioning to the ANG / Reserve. Of course, that's not to say there aren't people staying in, just none that I know of. Additionally, the only people I know who drink the blue kool-aid are douche bags. Kool-aid drinkers of the past have been promoting themselves for years which is why we find ourselves in a mis-managed Air Force with no traditions, no morale, and without the foresight to realize that the wars of today may not be the same as the wars of tomorrow.

    As for your filling the gaps comment, do you really want less than stellar civilians flying in the USAF? I like to think that combat pilots are the top 1% for a reason. Please refrain from any Occupy Air Force comments...

    By the way, Ram is right on. If you haven't seen the emerging / already here threat, it's pretty eye opening. The training advantage we have been accustom to in the past is becoming marginalized as is our equipment.

    Rated pipeline.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Out of all the bad ideas I've heard in fixing the fighter issue, sending dudes to the Aggressors right away is the worst. Not because of experience or whatever else but because that is going to kill someone. If you send a new wingman to the Aggressors right out of the B-course, they will absolutely require a TX before they go to their first ops unit. Why? Because 60% of the B-crs is A/G and the Aggressors fly 0% A/G, TGP, CAS, OPSAT. All of the skills that new wingman learned will atrophy and need to be relearned. So then there's the option of not wasting a B-crs slot and send them from UPT to the Aggressors. Great idea. There's a reason why AGSM is such a high emphasis item at the school house. It's because GLOC happens a to a lot of new students. So now we will send inexperienced dudes to clean Vipers that only fly A/A? Or maybe we'll send them through a modified B-crs and kick them out the door. They can't instruct BFM, let alone fly it proficiently. They won't have a clue what is happening on the blue side of a Red Flag to influence the learning. Red air isn't hard to fly, but it's the SA to stay safe in an LFE and the experience to facilitate blue learning why the Aggressors take experienced dudes.

    Rated pipeline.

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I love the way the Air Force/gov't thinks.

    - Lets BRAC 2 squadrons at Luke, the fighter pilot shortage won't hit for years.

    - Lets move 2 squadrons from Luke to Holloman thereby cutting production by 25-30%, the fighter pilot shortage won't hit for years.

    - Lets RIF a bunch of dudes, the shortage won't hit for years.

    - Shit! We're a few years from a huge shortage, who let this happen!?

    USAF Budget Cuts

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    The Proposal I saw on the news is to ax 400 fighters and 35 "strategic" bombers. This is just the beginning, most of us are sheltered working for the gov't, but things are bad in the real world, and I do believe we will take a huge hit. UAV welcome letters to your inbox soon...

    So where the hell are they going to find 400 fighters to cut? If this is actually true, I bet this is the start of the F-35 reduction.

×
×
  • Create New...