Blue

Yup, that there is the rub, isn't it. They don't need to get all their nukes airborne to cause a big ruckus. Or even some of their nukes. They just need one.

Ehhh, I bristle at any talk of "We must retire platform X to pay for platform Y." It's just another example of a bureaucracy's favorite logical fallacy: The False Choice. If the Air Force's mission really was "Fly, fight and win - airpower anytime, anywhere" like it says on the front door, then we'd have F-23s, F-32s, C-27s, AT-6s, A-29, etc, in addition to the current fleets. Supporting a larger number of aircraft types costs more in operations and sustainment, but it gets you more flexibility and more options in a time of war. Flexibility is the key to Air Power, or so I was taught long ago. It also gives you the opportunity to keep a robust, varied industrial base, which encourages competition, drives innovation, and incentivizes competitors to reduce cost. However, the mission isn't "Fly, fight and win." The mission is "Jobs, graft and lobbying." That's why things always tend towards a fewer number of operational platforms, and incredibly complex acquisitions programs. Flying a fighter jet or cargo plane are pretty straightforward from a cost perspective. X dollars per flight hour, etc. It's therefore pretty hard to program in a lot of graft (although they do try and succeed pretty well). Something like the F-35 program on the other hand is so incredibly complex, there are all kinds of profit-taking and other incentives built in. Congress critters get defense work in their district, the defense contractors get a large long term program to take their 10% profit margin off the top, etc. But, perhaps a conversation better suited for a different thread.

The whole idea of retiring EA-18 Growers en-masse seems like nothing more than a negotiating tactic by the Navy. It's been a long time, and my recollection is a bit fuzzy, but didn't the AF and Navy agree for the Navy to take on all responsibility for Electronic Warfare when the AF retired the EF-111 in the late 90s? Believe the Navy took on all responsibility for tactical reconnaissance, too, when the last RF-4's were retired about the same time. As part of the deal, I believe the Navy was promised some kind of additional funding, in exchange for taking the EW responsibility for the whole DoD. I'd suspect there have been some budget games afoot, the Navy isn't getting their promised $$, and so they're resorting to political gamesmanship. Maybe someone closer to the EW community can clarify.

The vast majority of American's don't want any kind of mask mandate, and are happy the airline mandate went away. The minority of people supporting the mask mandate are: The current crop of Democrats Most of the mainstream press That minority of grown-ass adults who are impressionable and struggle with critical thinking, who buy into everything they are told by the government and the media. Those are the people in your Facebook feed, and quoted in such esteemed rags as The Atlantic and the NYT. White women tend to be overrepresented here, but that's a topic for another time. A special mention goes out to every mid-level white collar employee out there who has been able to seamlessly transition from poking at their laptop in an office building, to poking at their laptop in their home office, while wearing their pajamas. The so-called "Laptop Class." These are the people who are comfy in their homes, and only have to don a mask when going out for groceries, hitting the local Home Depot, or maybe the occasional trip to a restaurant. These are the people who haughtily say "What's wrong with you, masks aren't so bad!!!" They retreat home, with no thought for the rest of the populace out there working masked-up all day long in the grocery stores, restaurants, factories, and elsewhere. The midwits of the world can angrily post to Facebook all day long. No one fucking cares, except their fellow zealots. Everyone else has moved on.

Increased power in the Executive Branch is something that has been creeping along for some time, at least since the 1970s. There are many examples. Executive Orders are one thing. The War Powers Act of 1941, along with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 moved the balance of power in declaring and executing war from Congress to the Executive Branch. The 1976 National Emergencies Act cemented a lot of power in the Executive Branch related to declaring "National Emergencies." I think most people would be surprised to hear that, in addition to the National Emergency declared for Covid, there are currently 42 National Emergencies in effect, each renewed yearly by the President. Biden just declared his latest National Emergency last week: Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Russian-Affiliated Vessels to United States Ports. Ostensibly to prohibit Russian-affiliated vessels from entering into United States ports. It's Biden's 6th declaration of a National Emergency...... Checks and Balances between the three branches of government is a cornerstone of our form of government. For sure, there will always be some messiness and fuzziness around the edges. How does the old saw go, something about "Our government is a terrible form of government, the only thing worse is the 100s of other forms of government that have been tried and failed?" It's a crucial problem in government that needs to be addressed, and I don't know what the answer is.

I'm with Pooter. It's been a long time since high school, and even then, it's not like we went into the minutia of how the federal courts work vs state courts, the power of the federal judiciary below the Supreme Court, etc. I get that it happened, and I'm thrilled that it did. I'm just equally surprised at the scope of thing (a single federal judge overturning a Presidential EO), the long timeline, etc. Again though, glad that it was overturned. And, surprising no one, all the typical players are taking the typical sides, using the typical talking points. Such as: NPR: The judge who tossed mask mandate misunderstood public health law, legal experts say You see, she made the cardinal sin of the Church of Covid. The judge didn't listen to "the experts." Also, it was just her that did it. This one judge. Not like there is an entire legal system behind her. It was just the one rouge judge who is determined to kill us all. [/sarcasm] NPR: What to know about Judge Kathryn Mizelle, who struck down the travel mask mandate Another article looking at the judge herself. Nominated to the bench by Trump in Sept 2020, when she was only 33. Some questions raised at the time about her limited experience, but ultimately she was confirmed. Some comments about her right leaning views, because, surprise surprise, right leaning presidents tend to nominate right leaning judges. She's a....she, so it must be so frustrating that Judge Mizelle can't be Kavanaugh-ed out with some salacious #meetoo accusation. Although maybe they'll dredge up some law school classmate (male or female) with an accusation of impropriety. But when you can't use sexism, go to racism, homophobia, and the newest bugaboo, trans-phobic! It's all so fucking tiresome.

That's frustrating that the tests don't match. Does seem to point the finger at the AF tests being wrong, but who the hell knows. I can't add much on the ETP process. Another avenue to potentially explore is to work with your local flight med clinic. It takes a bit of work to get through the bureaucracy of the clinic, especially as a non-rated dude. But if you can find a flight doc or someone else there who's willing to take a look at your record, they can potentially shed some light on it. Also, I got the sense that the flight medicine world is small, and they have connections within the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) that can make things happen. Whereas the USAFSAM won't answer calls from 2nd Lt FlightVector wanting a retest, they may be more responsive to Maj/Lt Col Flight Doc from Base X. If nothing else, I found that Air Force flight medicine is a big, byzantine mess, like anything else in the military. A knowledgeable flight doc can help you navigate it. Your unit commander can potentially help here, and talk commander-to-commander with the Med Group folks. That is, assuming you have any kind of flight med at your base. Not what you asked for, but hope it helps.

Obituary link below. Saw it posted on Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook page: https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/plano-tx/travis-whittemore-10710448

What's "Viking?" Not familiar with that system, and couldn't find anything on the interwebs. Also, at the risk of stating the obvious: It's troubling to see the AF planning any kind of aircraft divestitures due to a "pivot" to peer/near-peer, or "pivot" to anything else. Several quotes below, but most succinctly: "We have a perfect record in predicting future wars. And that record is 0 percent."

Disclaimer: This is all recollection from ~15 years ago or so. I'm not a doctor, verify all this info before taking action. I don't know how the FAA measures phoria, and how it compares to how the AF measures it. I do recall the whole "cover/uncover" test the AF does, where they cover an eye and then uncover it and measure how much your eye deviated. Not sure how they do FC1 physicals now, but back-in-the-day, you'd get them at the local flight med clinic, and the quality of the testing was mixed. Not a dig at flight med, they just didn't seem like they did a whole lot of IFC1s, and some of the technicians were pretty junior. I recall hearing something about IFC1s only being done at Wright Patt or something now? If that's the case, then hopefully there was less chance of technician error. Things like phoria aren't cut-and-dried. If you're tired, your eyes are going to drift more. If you're well rested, your eyes won't drift as much. Also, doing a lot of staring at a computer screen right before a test can be detrimental. Also, I suspect there is some subjectivity to the measurements (i.e. one tech might measure you at 8 diopters, one might measure you at 10). I've heard of doing "eye exercises" to strengthen your eye muscles, but after talking to a couple of ophthalmologists and doing research on the web, it seemed like there isn't 100% consensus on whether eye exercises help or not. Bottom line, my recommendation would be to first see if there is a path to passing the test, before going down the road of the ETP. See if you can find a civilian ophthalmologist who will work with you to understand the AF's test, and work with you to see what your options are. Note "Ophthalmologist," not "Optometrist." Optometrist is good for getting you fitted for glasses, Ophthalmologist is someone who understands all the mechanics to how the eye works.

The speculation I've seen about Putin is all over the board. Everywhere from "He's isolated in his ivory tower, suffering from a fatal, incurable disease," to "He's 100% in control of all of the levers of government." I assume the truth is somewhere in the middle, but who knows. Would love to see some kind of palace coup, with a bloodless transfer of power, and a negotiated end to the war in Ukraine. I worry about the results of a cornered Putin. Cornered via continued losses in Ukraine, or via some kind of internal struggle. The cornered rat bites the hardest, and all that.

I'm gonna be petty and judge individuals. If you look in the properties of that linked .pdf, it shows the author. If you look up the author in Linkedin, you see someone who was probably successful based on all of the things outlined in that doc (additional duties, awards, and I counted three Masters Degrees). It's all so very bizarre.

So many gems in that doc, it's hard to pic just one. Although I enjoy the reference to the "rhythm" of Air Force life. Link for the doc on the AFPC site.

Had to look that one up. I agree: Old man rant ahead…… The original Top Gun was successful due to a simple two-part formula: The Tom Cruise Movie + Naval Aviation. “The Tom Cruise Movie” is a term coined by some movie reviewer that I can’t recall. But, in general, it’s an acknowledgement that much of Tom Cruise’s success in the early years was a product of remaking the same concept over and over. Tom Cruise is a young, idealistic character (often with some demons from his past). He’s placed in a new, challenging situation, where he must somehow persevere. After some challenges, he ultimately comes out on top. Along the way, there is a love interest. Often an older mentor figure. Risky Business: Tom Cruise and Early Adulthood Cocktail: Tom Cruise and Bars Days of Thunder: Tom Cruise and NASCAR The Firm: Tom Cruise and Evil Corporatism A Few Good Men: Tom Cruise and the Military Justice System Modern military aviation is cinematic in its own right. It’s hard to make military aircraft not look good on the big screen. Naval Aviation gets you the added bonus of military aviation at sea, making it even more cinematic and adding to the potential drama. “The Tom Cruise Movie” plus Naval Aviation resulted in an instant classic that made the studios a ton of money, catapulted Tom Cruise to ultra-stardom, and made the job of Navy recruiters much easier for years. Based on the trailers, I’m not sure what formula Top Gun: Maverick is following. Certainly not the original formula. It looks to be more like: Big CGI + Complex plot + Some sort of Goose-related conflict + Many, many head nods to the original. I’m sure it’ll be cool and make a shit ton of money. But it all looks so overdone, and just not as much of a fun movie as the original.

So, I didn't say any of those things. And I'm not sure why Tesla's stock price is relevant to the current discussion.....

This whole post is full of nothing but useless whataboutism.

What do I think Russia should capitulate on? Honestly, I don't know. Ukraine and Russia have relationships going back hundred of years. I don't have the expertise necessary to parse all that history into something that's workable to end the war. I don't know what the right answer is. Maybe Russia takes all of Crimea, the Donbass becomes an independent state, and Ukraine gets some sort of Swedish-like "NATO-lite" membership, where they aren't a full NATO member, but still enjoy some of the benefits? In theory, we have a State Department that's full of professionals with the expertise to facilitate these kinds of negotiations. Normally, these State Department pros would have the support and backing of the White House, as they seek to thread-the-needle of promoting global peace and democracy, while ensuring global stability, and at the same time looking out for America's best interests. Instead, we have a President running his mouth about pushing another world leader out of power. And as far as I can tell, Sec of State Blinken has done fuck-all to help deescalate the whole thing. I don't have a crystal ball any more than the next person. But I'm concerned that our foreign policy of the last 20 years seems to revolve around spending our blood and treasure dredging up old foes of the 80s and 90s, like we're some movie studio bent on rebooting all the classics. We got Saddam, we got Gaddafi, and our war on Iran seems to be forever under script development. We've done nothing but break a lot of people and leave instability and chaos in our wake. And now with Ukraine, we're seeing a possibility of remaking the biggest 80's classic of all: Evil Russia vs. the Red, White, and Blue. Only this isn't some tin-pot dictator in an isolated kingdom. Russia has a lot of nukes, and a lot of economic ties in Europe and Asia. I want to see us head down the path of de-escalation. Instead, all I see is "Russia Bad, Ukraine Good," and other such nonsense.

Because Russia's invasion wasn't "unprovoked." We've been "poking the bear" by advocating for Ukrainian entrance to NATO, along with our covert support of revolutions in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014. None of that is an excuse for Putin to invade another sovereign country of course, but shows that the invasion was anything but "unprovoked." I'd love to see the Ukrainian military defeat the Russians, and push them back over the border. Would love to see Zelensky wave the Ukrainian flag as the last Russian walks across the border defeated. However, I suspect that here in the West, we're seeing a propaganda-filled picture of the war thus far. I think we're seeing Ukraine's successes being amplified, and their losses being minimized. Anything's possible at this point, but I don't think we're going to see a quick, resounding victory at the hand of Ukrainian farmers stealing missile batteries and and Ukrainian soldiers sneaking around with anti-tank weapons. Ultimately, I don't think Ukraine has the resources to mount a force-on-force battle with the Russians, so they're forced to use more guerilla tactics. Which is fine, and could maybe lead to eventual victory. But only after a long, protracted war. Meanwhile, you'll have all sorts of opportunities for some kind of "fog of war" mistake that opens up a wider conflict. After all, we've got a senile old man with his finger on the nuclear button on our side. Meanwhile, Russia has their own old timer of questionable physical and mental state on their side. The whole thing seems to be unfolding to leading everyone down the path to global chaos.

I believe Putin's "off ramp" would be for Russia to take over Crimea and the Donbass, and for Ukraine to pledge to stay out of NATO. Probably some other nuances I'm missing, but I believe that's the broad strokes. I would have liked to see Biden come out and advocate for bringing Putin and Zelensky to the negotiating table. Russia has some claims to Crimea and the Donbass, so it's not outside the realm of possibility for Zelensky to capitulate a bit, and both sides declare victory and go home. Instead, Biden is bumbling around, talking about Putin being removed from power. Along with us shipping Javelins, anti-aircraft missiles, and other toys to Ukraine. Isn't this how Vietnam escalated? Lots of bombastic talk from politicians. We ship a bunch of weapons. Then we send military "advisors." Tensions ratchet up, until one day one of our ships gets shot at. Or maybe an airliner. One way or another some kind of "act of war" happens, and then all of a sudden everyone is committed.

The entire discussion around EVs as a panacea for high oil prices seems a bit misguided. About 40% of the typical barrel of oil is turned into gasoline. The rest goes to jet fuel, diesel, resins, etc. If you waved a magic wand and turned every personal vehicle in the US into an EV overnight, you'd still have the same problems of securing a steady oil supply.

All of the back-and-forth aside, doesn't the above point to the current spike in oil prices being transitory? Looking at the oil futures, it looks like they're predicting a steady decline, dropping back below $100/barrel this summer.

I'm convinced some of the posters in this thread are Russians. Or Ukrainians. Or High Schoolers. One of the three.

FFS, no one is "validating" anything Putin has done as "acceptable."

Oh boy. Somewhere in America, some former servicemember with delusions of glory is digging a set of BDUs out of the back of their closet, stuffing it in a duffel bag procured from Wal Mart, and heading to the airport. Standing by for a photos of Meal Team 6 ending up on CNN.