Blue

I think there are a lot of reasons the defense primes like Lockheed float a new program (F-16G). And not all of those reasons are because they eventually want to sell it. As the USAF retires its F-16s, I think Lockheed wants to do whatever they can to convince potential FMS customers that the F-16 is still a frontline, first-world fighter. Putting together some notional F-16 variant that the USAF "could" buy is part of that. Valid point that it's not a zero sum game regarding the total number of F-35 and F-16 tails. Should have said "every dollar spent on a new F-16 is a dollar not spent on a new F-35." When it comes to the bucket of money to spend on aircraft procurement, it is indeed, in many respects, a zero sum game. And while I don't have Lockheed's books in front of me, I'd wager they are much more incentivized (profit and otherwise) to sell F-35s over F-16s. Just some pontificating from my spot in the cheap seats of the industry.

My cynical view is that the F-15EX was bought as a form of corporate welfare to Boeing, to help them keep their St Louis site open. The fact that the Air Force was able to get more iron on the ramp was just a side benefit. I don't foresee the Air Force buying new F-16s. Lockheed's F-16 production line is busy satisfying existing foreign sales, and is in no danger of closing. And Lockheed has no desire to sell the USAF F-16s, as every F-16 they sell us is potentially one less F-35 order. Additionally, every time I see a news story about "USAF looking at restarting C-17 production," I feel like there is an embedded caveat that's missing. The AF knows they need to get a new cargo aircraft program going. And they know there are at least some in Congress who will say "Why can't we just restart C-17 production?" So, the AF (and Boeing) are going through the motions of putting a dollar figure on what it would take to restart C-17 production. Spoiler alert, the result they come up with will be: "It's more cost effective to just design a new aircraft," because that's the result everyone (Boeing, the AF, etc) wants.

I'd wondered the same, as I wasn't ready to sign on for a 36 minute podcast / video / whatever. Went wading into the YouTube comments, and I assume this about covers it........

Or incentivized. Haven't seen the 60 minutes segment. While I may be cynical and jaded, it seems reasonable that the AF would dangle a carrot in front of an O-6 to get him to give some good press.

I can't tell if users like Negat0ry are authentic people, or trolls / bots / whatever. Assuming they are actual people, espousing actual beliefs, I think they do a good job of illustrating some of the central issues in American discourse today: They hate Donald Trump, and everything about him. Somewhat because of his various policy positions, but mostly because they're buying every piece of anti-Trump propaganda they've been fed. Because they hate Donald Trump with every fiber of their being, they assume that is one of only two positions to have. You either hate Donald Trump with a passion, or you are his fiercest supporter. To people like Negat0ry, there is no possible middle ground. Related, to posters like Negat0ry, Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, and the very survival of this country. And there is no disagreeing with this fact, as far as they are concerned. Again, largely due to the endless propaganda they've been fed. There is certainly no shortage of bots out there on the interwebs with these beliefs. But I've also run into many people in my social circles who are similar. It's astounding. Along with it comes a lot of other traits you'd expect. Victimhood, amongst others.

This sounds like Truth Social is fielding some kind of machine to machine interface. Like most things with Truth Social, it seems silly and certainly not very presidential. But the reporting on it is really hyping it like it's some kind of awful crime. Complete with "unnamed sources" and "people familiar with the matter." There are a lot of things I care about. This isn't one of them.

Whatever occurs, I hope it is expedient. Fauci is 85 years old. He needs to be held to account for his actions before he succumbs to old age. Given the current glacial pace of things, I'm skeptical.

Yeah this shit is exhausting. Mainstream media runs with a nothing-burger story because it references Sec Hegseth and the word "Testosterone." And because it has those two things, every one goes wild about it for a week or two until it's forgotten, or overrun by the next nothing-burger story. Meanwhile, if everyone is so concerned about military member's health, where is the reporting on what Hegseth is doing about actually important shit like nutrition? RFK Jr is the Sec of Health and Human Services, and has come out strong on the detrimental effects of things like seed oils in foods. And it's long been known that the Army DFAC's specifically are all-around shitty. What is Hegseth doing in this arena? He talks about things like increased lethality, and logic would dictate the healthier your force, the more lethal they are, but what is he doing in that respect? If he's not doing shit, they where is the media caterwauling about that?

Wyoming ANG wing commander and OG fired.

Finally, Schedule F (now referred to as Schedule Policy/Career) is law. EO here. Fed employees are wailing on cue: Federal employees face reality of Schedule Policy/Career

From an October 2024 article: The cynic in me suspects that Smith didn't like something about what he saw during his visit to Del Pizzo's unit (VMX-1), and the F-35 crash was the most expeditious way to get rid of him. Some GO's are petty and vindictive like that. Hope Del Pizzo goes on to greater things.

No idea on the "who's more strict" question. Poking around yielded this Reddit thread, which had some discussion. I'm sure there is more info out there. It's been a long time for me, and maybe things have changed, but the AF used to use a pretty wonky test for depth perception, that threw a lot of people off. There were various "techniques" for passing it (moving your eyes back and forth while taking it, it's never the first or last dot, etc). Lots of stuff out there. Like @brabus said, your age would be working against you for a ANG slot (albeit not impossible). There are study guides out there for the AFOQT that can help a lot. If you really wanted to fast-track a pilot's license, there are training programs that will allow you to do that too. Regarding "I may eventually need to spend significant money pursuing FAA medical certificate before I can even begin PPL training on my own dime," what makes you think that? To get a PPL, you only need an FAA Class III physical (as far as I know, it's been awhile). An FAA Class III is not a high bar, as I recall, it was just a basic eye exam and physical. As long as you could see decent-ish, and were basically healthy, you were good to go. Certainly, if there is something that is going to be a showstopper for an FAA Class III, it's going to be a showstopper for an Air Force Initial Flying Class I.

Believe Moose has previously identified himself on this board (view post history). Although the change in tone from ~10 years ago and this kind of writing below make me wonder if his account was hijacked, or maybe he wasn't who he said he was initially.

Articles like this are a little exhausting. It's a bunch of innuendo and reports from "anonymous sources." And pulls most of it's content from "MS Now," which I guess is the reincarnation of MSNBC? Very little of it has actual, verifiable facts. Just breathless reporting of "Patel is in full panic mode! Patel is paranoid!" etc.

Quit reading after this.

Not much of value to add, just kudos for going through the process to becoming a crew chief. Going from Legacy FO to Basic Training / Tech School / etc must have been an experience...... Curious if you have any insight into previous new hires at your unit? How many times they interviewed, if they were internal or off the street, etc. For that matter, any insight into who they hired this round?

@Sua Sponte , get over to the hangar, and tell them to get that depot line started back up!

22 states with Guard fighter units. From the article: Brig. Gen. Shannon Smith, head of the Idaho Air National Guard and the state’s assistant adjutant general, told Air & Space Forces Magazine that it was the first time the group collected the signatures of all 22 adjutants general who serve in states with Guard fighter units. I believe every state has at least one ANG Wing, with many states having multiple wings. For a long time, each state had at least one flying wing, but I seem to recall that's not true any more, with at least one state losing all flying missions.

Got intrigued enough to fact check it. Sadly wrong, although still entertaining. Al Gore: Mar 31 1948 Hillary Clinton: Oct 26 1947 John Kerry: Dec 11 1943 Bill Clinton: Aug 19 1946

I mean, y'all are just throwing soundbites past each other, but the Trump administration's efforts to pull back from Climate Change hysteria has definitely been a positive.

How often is it done on a prepared strip, vs unprepared? Just curious, as the TWZ article seems to point to it being on a random patch of ground in the middle of the desert. Either way, understood about it being something that's trained for. Regarding the KISS principle, was more referring to Ospreys being more simple than the MH-6 / C-130 combo. Granted, that's putting a lot of faith in Osprey capabilities...... Again, spitballing from my comfy armchair.

Will be fascinating to read this whole story when it comes out, warts and all. Particularly the planning, and how they chose which assets to use. This TWZ article has more details on the MC-130J landing site in Iran, along with some background on the MC-130J / MH-6 Little Bird combo. Had no idea it was a thing, but apparently something the 160th SOAR trains for. The latest update puts the landing zone at "...............just south of Isfahan. This puts it about 200 miles from the Iranian coastline and roughly 230 miles from a land border." By my Google Maps analysis, maybe 400-ish miles from Kuwait City. This does seem like exactly the kind of scenario where the Osprey was supposed to shine. Shades of Eagle Claw, with us leaving helos and C-130s in the desert. Not to mention, the whole concept of landing C-130s in the desert in order to launch Little Birds out the back seems to run afoul of the KISS principle. Comfy here in my armchair, though.

This forum still needs a TDS button.........

You'd previously linked this video about Starliner in the Tactical Tanker thread, also from Ellie in Space. I'm not much for YouTube, but I found her reports to be comprehensive yet concise, and very well constructed. That video focused on NASAs report of findings on the Starliner mission, released in February, including a lot of NASA head Jared Isaacman presenting the results. He's pulling from his memo to the entire NASA workforce published last month, worth a read here. The report itself is linked at the bottom of this NASA press release. 311 total pages, including 9 appendices, but a good Executive Summary on page 3-5. In short, just kind of an all around shitshow, with NASA and Boeing both being incredibly inept. Many echoes of Challenger and Columbia. One bright spot of the whole affair was Isaacman. I was skeptical of his appointment as NASA head. I'd previously figured you'd want a politician in that spot; someone who was adept at going to Congress and battling for money. Isaacman seems to be the leader NASA needs. Doing a lot of saying the quiet part out loud, even after only being in the position since December. Couple examples below. Both are from only the past couple weeks, which is exciting to me. After watching NASA falter for so long, are we finally witnessing some real change with the agency? Does NASA need more money? Isaacman: No, the answer isn't more money. We have enough money. We need to focus on the needle-moving objectives. Execute with urgency, in iterative and safe way, and empower the workforce and our partners to get the job done. Then this bit below, which deserves to be quoted in it's entirety. NASA Watch article with the comments, originally pulled from this post on X. This should sound familiar to anyone who's had even a passing association with a NASA program. Layers upon layers of outsourcing, with every associated company taking a skim off the top.

I'm sure we'll see Crenshaw landing at a K street lobbying firm by the end of the month.