MD

Oh they're bitching and whining about it here at Silverbell with the AZ 1/285th. WAATS has already converted to UH-60 training from Apache training. The writing is on the wall.

Big difference between this scenario you post, and the current BS of deploying ARC units just for the sake of deploying them, oftentimes having them sit and do nothing. The traditional reserve/guard people can't work on a high ops tempo and still expect to be in good standing at their place of employment. The Army Restructuring Initiative makes complete sense for swapping the Apaches for Blackhawks in the ArNG. If I'm not mistaken, this has already occurred with Apaches in the Army Reserve. Conroe and Ft Knox come to mind. But it makes complete sense. The A-10 retirement......what a mess dealing with some of the extreme elements both sides of the issue, especially when many of them are no more than fanboys.

Yup. Mather's club made the Auger look like a Denny's, just with an underground location.

Things really got bad when ARC units started figuring out they could be BRACd. Not necessarily shut down, as they're state units, but their federally-owned equipment removed and reallocated, leaving them as a unit with nothing. The Tacos in Albuquerque learned this the hard way, in a related way, with their figuring out they had little leverage over anything. The ARC has seemingly strained to remain ready/relevant/reliable, and has more and more been whoring itself out, almost becoming a mini-active duty. This is especially true on the ArNG side, but can be seen on the ANG side too, with some states and units worse than others. Not so much a matter of a good deal lifestyle (maybe for some people in some cases), but moreso their being a distinct difference between what the ARC component is supposed to be and how they're supposed to be utilized as part-time military, versus the active duty component whose one and only job is military. Start making it a situation where 1. it's not worth it to stay in the ARC due to being treated as a full time military, 2. making it so some guys are actually losing money by having to be on leave of absense from their civilian job in order to keep getting called up for military duty, especially for non-contingency operations, or 3. make it so the ARC begins losing support of civilian employers due to the expectations for them under USERRA becoming unreasonable; and you will start to see people exiting the ARC, and the ARC having a difficult time remaining ready/relevant/reliable.

Already tried that. AZ Guard initially thought of going to Luke before DM; wing there didn't want the RPA mission there, even though it was only MCE ops. Luke is ok. for the west side. Willie was where it was at back in the day. Next to Mather, was the best ATC base around.

People that do these articles and similar stuff, do so because they want to. To some degree and for some reason, however small. It's still their choice ultimately. It's nothing right or wrong, but lets just not sugar coat that part of it and try to polish it up to somehow they are forced in some way. Because then we are playing PC ourselves if we do that. It is what it is.

Most of the cartel scouts on the mountains here in AZ are packing AKs or ARs, along with their surveillance gear. Primarily for use against other cartel persons, but if product is involved, for use against LE as well. Already have had a few BP agents killed recently, one Campo-based agent (outside San Diego) executed in an ambush by the people he was tracking, one run over and killed near Yuma AZ by a vehicle he was attempting to spike and stop, and one killed in a gunbattle near Rio Rico, AZ, the case which uncovered the whole Fast and Furious scandal.

Truthfully, I'd like to see what the USMC has to say about it when VMFA-121 goes full operational here in July. Interesting what their take will be.

We used to have gun rate high and low back in the day, Selector switch on the gun panel. @4000 was high, 2000ish was low. They were all permanent high rate by the time I showed up.

Talking HAS or LAS here? LAS incorporating three-target (or more) strafe nowadays? 60 HARB, manual pipper, non-computed, mil-crank bombing with Mk-82s. Fun stuff. About as much as 10 pop CBU mil crank bombing.....as a qual event.

As was said, there is no assembly line for it and the tooling that had been stored at the boneyard has all been disposed of.

I think we need both platforms, for completely different reasons. And the F-16, it can do CAS, just as other aircraft can. Just not necessarily in the same way the A-10 does, or other planes do. Like anything, it has capes and lims. As Hogs can't be everywhere, all the time; sometimes the best CAS aircraft, is the one overhead with ordnance when the crap is hitting the fan below.

Nothing good comes from it. At best you break even. At best.

ESCAPAC. Same seat in the A-10 prior to the ACES; as well as a host of other aircraft.

In Arizona, Gila Bend AFAF back when it was military manned before going contractor, was a CONUS remote. As was the former Mt Lemmon AFS communications facility in the Catalina mountains just north of Tucson when it was the hub for SAC comms with the 18 Titan II ICBM silos here.

Well that sucks. That thread was was some good discussion. Of course, it appears PYB is his usual self.

And this is where judgement as an LE officer comes in, along with experience and being able to read a situation as being something, or being nothing, in very brief time you have to do so in order to comply with the "reasonable brief detention" that these checkpoints are. Sadly many national parks located on the borders of the USA are known smuggling areas for human/dope/weapons, many of them highly dangerous (Big Bend not as much so as Organ Pipe, where a NPS Ranger was killed in a shootout a few years back). However people......USCs.....still use these National Parks for their intended purpose that their tax dollars go for: for public enjoyment. So an officer has to be able to balance these facts, and instantly apply them in the brief time he encounters someone, along with noting any anomalies that would appear out of place warranting further questioning (RS), or even something articulable which could generate PC. Thats the challenge of interacting with the public at these points: while illegals are the prime target, there are many instances of USCs committing crimes such as smuggling, etc, and passing through these checkpoints (why they don't just avoid the fixed and known checkpoint locations, I have no idea). A person or family coming through with what appears to be normal camping gear, nothing odd about their vehicle, normal brief interaction when you say hi to them? Chances are there's nothing at all there going on (unless some elaborate family-based smuggling scheme). That's where the good judgement, knowledge of surroundings and normal goings-on in the area, and quick decisionmaking are key: so you can catch things that are wrong or out of place or blatent......legitimate ones, yet not unreasonably restrict someone who is doing nothing illegal or wrong. Curiously, why were you handing your CAC card over? Voluntarily or requested? Because at these points, ID is only asked for (and then required to be presented) if it's determined, whether voluntarily or otherwise, that you are not a USC.

The previously mentioned case law covers it regarding these checkpoints. They're legal, the very brief detention and/or a question is legit; and no search can be done without standard 4th Amendment protections (unless the 4th Amendment exceptions exist, which 9.9 times out of 10, won't exist at a fixed checkpoint). People need to not confuse being asked a question, to making the giant leap of logic to it being free-reign for the government to automatically search you without PC or a warrant. Nothing changed with the 4th Amendment here. As I mentioned before, unless at an extended border, FEB, or actually on the border itself, PC or warrant is required.

Not so, but nice try. The indicators have nothing to do with race or ethnicity, no matter how you desire to spin that. Plus, USCs aren't what are being looked for, Hispanic or otherwise. The indicators really have little to do with the human being themself, but moreso the mobile conveyance. Regardless, Suspicionless search is only at an actual border, extended border, or functional equivalent. At these checkpoints, unless the requirements for extended border can be met (not possible with a regular vehicle), then standard PC or warrant requirements of the 4th Amendment apply. No suspicionless search allowed. On any questions asked, The question was "are you a US citizen", one that takes no more than a second to answer (pointless as the question is), and isn't a kind of incriminating question or one that should necessarily cause anyone to be startled over. Why? Because your answer is taken at face value. You aren't asked for any identification, unless you answer no, which then it would be reasonable to ask for identification. On the one question of immigration, people are creating a problem where there isn't one, and wasting their own time (and everyone else's) when they could be gone and on their way in 2 seconds. Selected conclusions from U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte: "It is agreed that checkpoint stops are "seizures" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment...... In Brignoni-Ponce, we recognized that Fourth Amendment analysis in this context also must take into account the overall degree of interference with legitimate traffic. 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 882-883. We concluded there that random roving patrol stops could not be tolerated, because they "would subject the residents of . . . [border] areas to potentially unlimited interference with their use of the highways, solely at the discretion of Border Patrol officers. . . . [They] could stop motorists at random for questioning, day or night, anywhere within 100 air miles of the 2,000-mile border, on a city street, a busy highway, or a desert road. . . ." Routine checkpoint stops do not intrude similarly on the motoring public. First, the potential interference with legitimate traffic is minimal. Motorists using these highways are not taken by surprise, as they know, or may obtain knowledge of, the location of the checkpoints, and will not be stopped elsewhere. Second, checkpoint operations both appear to and actually involve less discretionary enforcement activity. The regularized manner in which established checkpoints are operated is visible evidence, reassuring to law-abiding motorists, that the stops are duly authorized and believed to serve the public interest. The location of a fixed checkpoint is not chosen by officers in the field, but by officials responsible for making overall decisions as to the most effective allocation of limited enforcement resources. We may assume that such officials will be unlikely to locate a checkpoint where it bears arbitrarily or oppressively on motorists as a class. And since field officers may stop only those cars passing the checkpoint, there is less room for abusive or harassing stops of individuals than there was in the case of roving patrol stops. Moreover, a claim that a particular exercise of discretion in locating or operating a checkpoint is unreasonable is subject to post-stop judicial review. The defendants arrested at the San Clemente checkpoint suggest that its operation involves a significant extra element of intrusiveness in that only a small percentage of cars are referred to the secondary inspection area, thereby "stigmatizing" those diverted and reducing the assurances provided by equal treatment of all motorists. We think defendants overstate the consequences. Referrals are made for the sole purpose of conducting a routine and limited inquiry into residence status that cannot feasibly be made of every motorist where the traffic is heavy. The objective intrusion of the stop and inquiry thus remains minimal. Selective referral may involve some annoyance, but it remains true that the stops should not be frightening or offensive, because of their public and relatively routine nature. Moreover, selective referrals -- rather than questioning the occupants of every car -- tend to advance some Fourth Amendment interests by minimizing the intrusion on the general motoring public. As we have noted earlier, one's expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one's residence. And the reasonableness of the procedures followed in making these checkpoint stops makes the resulting intrusion on the interests of motorists minimal. On the other hand, the purpose of the stops is legitimate and in the public interest, and the need for this enforcement technique is demonstrated by the records in the cases before us. Accordingly, we hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints...." What really needs to happen is people need to push their Congressman/Senator to actually fight for control of the actual border. Because the only reason for any kind defense in depth, which is what these checkpoints are, is due to the fact that we don't have the stones as a country or as either political party, to actually practice controlling our border at the border. The internal checkpoints then become a legally accepted workaround that LE comes up with to try and get their mission accomplished, because our own idiots in D.C. won't do their own jobs, not to mention not letting BP do theirs. That's where people need to focus their efforts......making change from the top of the funnel down, so to speak with government, rather than fighting from the bottom of the funnel up. With regards to the general checkpoints themselves and separate from the actual questioning issue above, as an unrelated benefit the checkpoints do at least offer a law enforcement presence in areas where there generally isn't one, or where response times from state/county/local agencies to calls would be extended due to their own limited resources or distant locations. USBP agents routinely respond to motor vehicle accidents, do motorist assists, and also respond to state crime felonies such as domestic violence / robbery/ home invasion/ shootings/ murders etc at the request of local agencies to handle the scene until the local agency can take over. This particular one was just down the road, a few miles north of the I-19 checkpoint, where the fire department response was about 15 minutes: http://tucson.com/news/blogs/police-beat/border-patrol-agents-rescue-man-from-burning-car/article_1d0f279a-f82f-11e3-9277-0019bb2963f4.html This one was the month prior, 1.5 miles south of the Sarita, TX highway checkpoint on Hwy 77: http://www.kveo.com/news/border-patrol-agents-rescue-man-burning-truck This one in California, in the El Centro sector: http://www.ivpressonline.com/quicknews/two-men-agent-help-unconscious-woman-from-submerged-vehicle/article_3c704e6e-d4b4-11e3-aa80-001a4bcf6878.html

The internal checkpoints themselves are useful to a point, but it's how they are utilized that should be the issue, not so much that they simply exist, as they do serve other basic LE purposes in some middle of nowhere areas where state/county/local LE isn't conveniently located.. There still needs to be PC for any kind of search, unless at the actual border, or unless it's an Extended border search or functional border equivilent (with requirements needing to met in order to be these). Search under the 4th Amendment has not changed. But the refusal to answer a simple and legal stupid question that can't be verified anyway, isn't a battle worth fighting, when in the bigger picture, it just subjects you to more scrutiny that you don't want or need. You lose zero if you answer yes and are sent on your way, again pointless though the question may be. Remember, being asked "are you a US citizen" and anything having to do with any kind of search, are two completely different things. The former is just a question....answer it however you like, as you'll be on your way shortly anyway if other indicators aren't there. U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte already validates these checkpoints for their intended purpose of immigration as well as the brief detention they are and the small inconvenience they cause. Which is why the only ones causing an issue, are the ones creating more problems for themselves in these videos than just answering a dumb question (truth or lie), and moving on either way. For the separate issue of an actual search, unless it's at the border, or considered extended border, or at the functional equivilent, then standard 4th Amendment protections/requirements still apply for any kind of search at these checkpoints or anywhere else. Pointless battle is a pointless battle. Many of the nitwits in the videos are creating more of a problem for themselves than ever had initially even existed, if any problem even actually existed. Reminds me of a guy at work who was pissed the other day because he'd gotten lunch to go from a fast food place and found when he got to work that he'd been shorted two chicken nuggets from his 20 piece order. He wanted to drive all the way back to the fast food place......13 miles, wasting the time, effort, fuel....all over "the principle of the matter!! they're ripping us off!!!" of his having been shorted two chicken nuggets. He doesn't realize he's creating far more work fighting a pointless micro battle, that has no bearing of victory in any kind of macro sense: even if he wins, he still loses overall. And I'm willing to bet it wasn't some grand secret plan of that company or it's franchise, to short him and every other customer one chicken nugget at a time, in some slippery-slope evil scheme to erode his rights as a consumer and eventually work towards shorting people 3 and 4 chicken nuggets or even more down the road and for people to feel its somehow normal. Creating far more out of one immigration question than ever initially existed, and thus wasting your time and everyone else's in thinking in these videos that they're conquering some grand hilltop, is indeed a pointless battle. Being a d-bag just for the sake of being a d-bag, is still being a d-bag no matter how one tries to couch it as some political/Constitutional/Freedom fight. Be delayed a few seconds at a legally upheld checkpoint and be on your way, or cause large delays for yourself and others by being a nitwit over one dumb question. Which is all it is, as anything search-related is not even part of the equation here.

The checkpoints are part of a defense in depth, within 100 miles of the border, namely because of how much gets past the border in remote areas as well as even urban areas. Even so, there is no "prove your citizenship" at these checkpoints with any kind of yes answer. You are merely asked (one of any number of questions you can be asked) "are you a US citizen?" If you say yes, whether you are or aren't (you could lie), you're on your way "the brief detention", the SCOTUS refers to, barring some kind of RS to suspect that you aren't. It's only if you answer no, that you'll then be asked further questions of citizenship, etc. This is common with people who are, for example, LPRs, and are required to carry appropriate ID and present it when asked. But regardless, the question doesn't even really matter, as the officer is looking for other indicators in the few seconds he has as you slowly pass the checkpoint, and often any conversation with you is merely brief enough to just say something so as not to just be a silent encounter. You can even get "hi! Have a good day," as you're waived through because you don't sport any indicators. It just varies.

In the case of USBP checkpoints, U.S. vs Martinez-Fuerte is the SCOTUS case law. While you're not being asked for papers, a general citizenship question can be asked, or nothing can be asked, all depending.

That's pretty cool. I'd wondered if the AF was going to adopt the USN/USMC E/F or equivilent laser Mav's once the Hog got TGPs. Guess that answers the question.....times have changed! Thanks! Long ways from the days of trying to get an A to lock on at 2 to maybe 3 miles from the target, or maybe gain an extra mile or two with the Scene Mag B. And actually have them stay locked and a steady cross prior to launch.

AGM-65 for CAS? Maybe times have changed. Back in my day the AGM wasn't really considered a CAS weapon in terms of using around friendlies.......what with needing specific size/shaping such as vehicles to lock on to, but moreso, too much chance of break lock post-launch and/or going stupid and heading to who knows where. It's thought that this is what happened to the USMC LAV-25 in Desert Storm during the battle for OP-4 near Khafji where USMC APCs were engaging with Iraqi armor and APCs. IR Mav being fired at an Iraqi tank, instead hit the LAV. Maybe things have changed with them now.

We don't need any aircraft there or ground troops either. Only SCL necessary is one-each Minuteman III.