[Master's Degree Madness]

So we can all immediately halt our Master's degree work UFN? Rad.

[Altus DUI punishment]

Flying officers tend to try and avoid court martial boards at all costs, but based on my experience during the JAG portion of SOS, they're desperately needed. Lots of the non-flying guys had issued plenty of NJP and seemed kinda proud of it.

[U-2 Dragonlady info]

Comments concerning the U-2 vs RQ-4 in the current FY15 NDAA House Appropriations Committee Report.

GLOBAL HAWK, U–2, AND HIGH ALTITUDE ISR

"The Air Force’s fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes to retain the RQ–4 Global Hawk Block 30 fleet while preparing for the divestment of the U–2 fleet in fiscal year 2016. This proposal constitutes a reversal of the Air Force’s previous position on the two platforms. The Air Force has explained that its reversal primarily is based on declining operation and sustainment costs for the Global Hawk, making it a more prudent long-term investment. The Committee views the U–2 and the Global Hawk Block 30 as complementary, rather than rival, systems for high altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; at the same time, the Committee acknowledges that budget constraints in current law have driven the Air Force to choose between the two platforms.

"The Committee is concerned, however, by the Air Force’s present plan to initiate and complete a precipitous drawdown of the U–2 fleet in fiscal year 2016. The U–2 possesses flight performance, sensor, and other capabilities that the Global Hawk Block 30 does not presently have. Among these U–2 capabilities is carriage of the Optical Bar Camera (OBC), which provides vital imagery enabling American support of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. The Air Force to date has not proposed a mitigating solution for the loss of the OBC capability after 2016. The Committee understands the Air Force is reviewing alternate options for divestment, including the option of a temporary mixed fleet of Global Hawks and U–2s beyond fiscal year 2016, in order to address these concerns.

"The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014 provided the Air Force with an additional $10,000,000 to conduct a study of the feasibility of adapting U–2 sensors or similar alternatives to the Block 30. The Committee believes that a favorable solution to improving the electro-optical/infrared capability of the Block 30 would involve a sensor that provides imagery intelligence comparable to or better than that provided by the SYERS–2 on the U–2, including National Image Interpretability Rating Scale score, range, field of regard, and area coverage; preserves the ability for simultaneous carriage of the synthetic aperture radar on the Block 30; does not unduly compromise the availability of SYERS–2 units for U–2 missions in the event that the Air Force opts for a mixed fleet; minimizes the integration work necessary for adaptation to the Block 30 using the Sensor Interface Module; and can be developed and procured at a cost not exceeding the ‘‘parity’’ option identified as meeting Air Combat Command sensor attributes in the report of April 2013. The Committee understands that the ultimate solution will involve reasonable trade-offs between these parameters.

"In addition, the Committee believes that it is critical to invest in upgrades that will provide Block 30 with necessary weather avoidance and anti-icing capabilities; improved sensor capabilities are of less consequence if inclement weather remains a significant limiting factor on Block 30 operations, especially in the Pacific Command area of responsibility.

"To date, the Air Force has not presented the Committee with a requirements-driven, accountably resourced, and realistically scheduled plan for improving capabilities on the Global Hawk Block 30 and mitigating the loss of U–2 capabilities such as the OBC after fiscal year 2016. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to present such a plan to the congressional defense committees prior to taking any action to divest the U–2 fleet. The Committee will review the progress of actions by the Air Force in this regard when the fiscal year 2016 budget request is submitted, and intends to take intervening action against full and immediate divestment of the U–2 fleet if such plans are not satisfactory. The Committee also notes that the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014 requires the Air Force to produce a transition plan and prohibits the Air Force from taking any steps toward retirement of the U–2. The Committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to use previously appropriated funds to continue critical sustainment programs for the U–2 until divestment of the fleet is authorized by Congress."

[Is the KC-10 going to be cut?]

Comments concerning the KC-10 in the current FY15 NDAA House Appropriations Committee Report.

"The Air Force has indicated that should spending limits contained in current law remain in force in fiscal year 2016, it will propose to retire the entire fleet of 59 KC-10 tanker aircraft by fiscal year 2020, saving an estimated $2,300,000,000 over the future years defense program. The Committee believes that eliminating the KC-10 fleet poses a serious risk to the Air Force's ability to carry out one of its stated core missions, that of providing global reach for the armed forces. The KC-10, with its ability to deliver 150,000 pounds of fuel at a range of 4,400 nautical miles using both the boom and drogue methods, is a critical element of providing the air bridge to combatant commanders across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

"The Committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to be more forthcoming about the operational impact of retiring the KC-10 fleet, a proposal which appears to be driven primarily by the Air Force's stated preference for ''vertical cuts" that eliminate entire fleets and their associated infrastructure to achieve the requisite level of savings under current law and Department of Defense policy. Current acquisition plans for the KC-46 will not provide an adequate replacement for the KC-10, since the Air Force already plans to replace the older fleet of KC-135s with KC-46s on a one-for-one basis. The Committee notes that the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 prohibits the Air Force from taking any action toward divestment of the KC–10 fleet and requires the Commander of the United States Transportation Command to submit an operational risk assessment and mitigation strategy to the congressional defense committees along with any proposal to divest the KC–10 fleet in the fiscal year 2016 budget."

[What stocks/ETFs are you investing in?]

Scratch offs are pretty underrated. They fit the definition of "buying low" and I figure big gains are right around the corner.

[Army veteran says his benefits are "too generous"]

Leave it to the media to present the opinion of 1/1000000 as a popular dissenting opinion.

If the military wants to get serious about cutting personnel costs, they'll provide an option to convert retirement pensions to the 401k/403b model that the rest of the world started using last century.

[Army veteran says his benefits are "too generous"]

You're right Azimuth, we're paying the sweaties too much!

[More SARC briefings soon.]

Dummies should've used Wickr

[So You're Getting Out...Why?]

I want out because in the big scheme, all we are is a fucking number. That's it. They don't care about us, who we are, or what we want. At the end of the day, we're just some generic number used to fill whatever requirement they need filled at the time be it a 6-monther, 365er or some random PCS. If you do manage to stick it out and retire, what do you get? Probably a divorce, a nice shadow box, and a "thank you very much" while some other number fills the void you just left.

Your civilian employer will care about you less than your AF commanders have. You are nothing more than a revenue generator.

[SGT Bowe Bergdahl Freed]

I'd say the five years he spent in captivity were more than enough punishment for his alleged screw-ups. Welcome back.

[Why Not the B-1 Instead of the A-10?]

Well I guess that would work if your country is the size of Israel.

[Military, Aviation, Spacecraft Technology that won't necessarily replace us]

Read the "Science" page on the Hypermach site for all you need to know. They're talking about Mach 4 speeds via plasma this and that and maglev engines with no oil. Of course, on the "Get Involved" page, they're selling shares for £100 each...

[Military, Aviation, Spacecraft Technology that won't necessarily replace us]

Hey, 3 engines, sweet.

[Mexican Military incursion(s) into the United States]

The whole reason we have countries is to protect our resources. Open the resources to anyone who wants them, what's the point?

[Mexican Military incursion(s) into the United States]

Vertigo, you're full of shit, dude. Protectionism of our assets is a valid reason to be able to regulate our borders. Right now we are unable to do so along much of our southern border.

[Mexican Military incursion(s) into the United States]

I don't see anything wrong with building a damn fence.

[With Russia's $650 billion rearmament plan, the bear sharpens its teeth]

That formation reminded me of my first UPT 4-ship.

[Why Not the B-1 Instead of the A-10?]

We're arguing about the wrong things, guys. The 2015 HASC-approved military budget will be about $600B in 2015. To show how insanely huge that is, the total yearly operating costs for the A-10, B-1, U-2, and KC-10 put together come to less than $6B. That's less than 1% of the pot for some pretty damn effective platforms.

Meanwhile, military retirement costs us $52B per year. That's more than the entire KC-46 acquisition, repeating every year. Canceling legacy platforms save us pennies in comparison, but it's the only thing that seems to generate attention and debate.

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/afcap-data-for-2008-2012.xlsx

[More SARC briefings soon.]

Did the Court Martial release findings of why he was wearing PT gear off base?

[WTF? (**NSFW**)]

It's being called Brokeback Top Gun. Seriously.

[U-2 Dragonlady info]

[Mass urinalysis at Dover AFB]

The UCMJ basically allows commanders a workaround for whatever right you may think you have.

[SpaceX Suing Feds/AF for right to compete]

The rules have changed a bunch since the Druyan/tanker-lease fiasco... There used to be a 1-year cooling off period if you are a decision-maker on an effort this large. Now, it's a life-time ban.

That's interesting. Is a former decision maker able to get any job with a company he has chosen in the past? How is this enforced?

[U-2 Dragonlady info]

Where is this currently being debated?

[Electronic flight bags could boost operational safety, effectiveness]

Wow. Travis doesn't have any rules like this and they were the ones pushing all the EFB development for the past 3 years.