Nasty2004

There's no ADSC for AMIC/ASPM. Yeah, IP school is a short course, but it costs a bit more than 4 weeks of classroom instruction, so it makes sense that there is an associated ADSC. Although there was no ADSC for my AC upgrade...

Took 42 minutes, but I'm in. Can't believe how painful that was. Or can I?

What are you saying? That the matrix is completely erroneous? Source?

But where is the AFPC list of eligible RDTM codes for a given year group/AFSC?

So are we going to see a list of eligible RDTM codes or do we just have to apply and hope that we are eligible? It's like a game they way they release info, then withhold it, then release it while at the same time describing add'l requirements that they are withholding.

What document? The only source for eligible AFSCs to my knowledge was the matrix. What am I missing?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140108/CAREERS/301080021/Lists-show-who-s-eligible-ineligible-early-retirement Link-within-the-link: http://projects.militarytimes.com/pdfs/Officer-Voluntary-Program-Eligibility-Chart.pdf This is the old, outdated info. As usual, AF Times simply takes available info and puts it in a blender until it turns into some sort of slurry. Still no updates since before Christmas.

Don't get caught up in semantics, or you'll risk becoming like them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This isn't congruent with the email leadership sent out Friday regarding eligibility rosters being held up pending "eligibility issues." That seems to indicate that VSP/RIF eligible personnel have not been identified as of yet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At $250 million per copy, they would need to be pure electric to save any money in the next 20 years. $250 million per jet would buy a lot of JP8.

One of the many reasons it will be a great replacement for the -135s. This adds zero capability when compared to the KC-10 since it also has receiver capability.

I understand that the budget savings on the KC-10 will be 100%, but my question is what percentage of those costs will end up being spent on the KC-135 since no one is talking closing bases or reducing personnel (pilots at least). Nor is anyone saying that we will reduce our tanker ops. Since it takes approximately 50% more -135 airframes to complete a given Coronet, I'm asking: What percentage of the savings associated with the elimination of the KC-10 will be realized by the DOD, and is that savings ultimately worth the loss of capability? What percentage of the $590 million/year is personnel? From everything I've seen, those costs will be retained. Again, is the net savings worth it? I guess if you're talking about the intricacies of logistics, then yes, I'm new. I'm definitely no expert when it comes to these things. That being said, this looks like a move with minimal upside cost-wise with potentially major impact on our ability to put our planes anywhere at a moment's notice. Yes, eliminating the KC-10 will mean we spend less money. The same can be said for every jet in the inventory. When you look at the cost of the F-35 and the "impact" cutting that program would have versus the same scenario with the KC-10, it's pretty clear that we aren't making cost-cutting decisions based on maintaining maximum capability with minimum cost. Not to mention that the KC-46 is a replacement for the -135, yet we are using its imminent arrival as justification for retiring the -10.

Since you asked, I don't know where the Guard gets its funding, I assumed it rested largely on the states' shoulders. I also don't know where the most effective cost-cutting comes from, but if it does come from eliminating an entire MWS wholesale, what about the B-1? Much like the KC-10, it does things neither the B-2 or B-52 can do, but the only thing that seems to matter in this environment is how much money can be saved by elimination. It is also only at two bases like the KC-10, and $58K/hour (according to the Time article) is no bargain. And to continue the analogy, the next-generation bomber is "in the works." Why not get rid of one bomber before the next is ready to go if it means saving some budget dollars short-term? To me, that idea sounds as dumb as the first one. What eludes me is how the move will in fact save any significant amount of money. No one is talking about closing any bases or cutting any personnel, so you're basically saving hourly operating costs by getting rid of an airframe. But if you cover the resulting operational shortfall with other tankers, where is the huge savings? The difference in hourly cost would have to be quite significant between the two to reap any real savings. This is ultimately a case of being penny wise and pound foolish, especially when you consider that this is being considered while the F-35 is continuing full steam ahead.

What did they say was best-case? Continued funding? I still think giving them to the guard is a better option than shit-canning them if the AD can't find the money for them anymore. This Time article has the hourly costs for many AF airframes, and the KC-10 and A-10 are among the cheapest on the list. Makes perfect sense to get rid of both of them... http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

I wasn't aware that a two-sentence, 39-word post was outside the definition of 'clear and concise.' Also, it's you're. And college-aged.

This statement is becoming more and more prescient... Why would the KC-10 elimination/KC-135 relocation affect the C-17s at KWRI? I think when China takes over we will have deserved it. This shit is insane.

If they get rid of the KC-10 it won't be a matter of one vs. the other for -135s. They will have to do both. Of course the load will be lightened in 2017 when there's 4 KC-46s on the line.

So are any -135 dudes being told their life is about to start sucking in high gear due to the complete loss of tankers from a certain "undisclosed location in Southeast Asia?" Yeah, yeah, I know, we'll be out of Afghanistan by then...

My brother-in-law is a junior in college and recently told my wife he was interested in flying military helos. Anyone have any insight as to whether the Guard & Reserve helo units hire off the street? Thanks.

The KC-10 isn't going anywhere. If the federal government is concerned about saving money, they could consider converting the 8 KC-10 squadrons to guard units, but we can't survive without the capabilities of the -10 without fundamentally changing the way we do business. Anyone who thinks that we'll "adapt" to the loss is in denial. Cutting the airframe out completely is a non-starter. No one can make a legitimate argument to the contrary.

If you don't have RNAV equipment, you can't legally proceed direct to a fix in a non-radar environment...see 11-217v1 5.8.1

Good point about the operating environment...hadn't thought about it like that.

I don't know how many KC-10s don't have 25K hours, but I don't think it's many. The oldest one is also 11 years younger than this jet, so I sort of fail to grasp the newsworthiness of this story. Not to take anything away from the U-2 or it's pilots...nothing but love for you guys!

If you want to fly planes, join the Guard or the Reserves. If you get a tingle in your special place just from the thought of the "honor of wearing the uniform," then you will thrive on Active Duty. Navy or Air Force, if you go Active Duty your flying will take a backseat to something else, namely flying your desk or prepping your OPR bullets. No one who has only served in either the Air Force or the Navy can tell you about the other side. What they can tell you is that if you want to be a crew dog, ACTIVE DUTY BLOWS.