tac airlifter

3 things: first, every commanders job just got easier, not harder. I'm around a lot of joint GOs, their relief is palpable and so far, anecdotal only, but 100% of the feedback from their subordinates is reliefe. The Army was telling chicks they'd have to shower next to someone with a dick and if they were concerned they were bigots. For goodness sake, there was far more unease about trying to integrate these folks. Second, the initial rollout of the policy allowing trannies caused just as much "how do we do this?" It's inevitable with these socially charged issues that the full details take awhile to come out (pun intended). I understand the viewpoint of "have the full policy ready before releasing" but I'd rather just know the bosses intent now and standby on details. And by the way, no one even knew how the old policy could have been implemented without massive changes to GO1. So, confusion has been the defining characteristic of this issue since Obama forced it on the military. That show is have been a clue to leave it alone. Third, does tranny integration improve mission effectiveness? No. If you want elective surgery when you leave, fine. I'm not the morality police. Be as crazy as you want because freedom! But letting folks transition while on duty by definition takes them out of duty status. And we opened the door to "non-binary" individuals and asexuals and all manner of sexual confusion. Dude I do feel bad for fellow transsexual service members whose future in the service is now closed. On a human level, it's unfortunate for them and I'll show only kindness to any I meet. But this was not good for the mission, and that's where my loyalty is. Shack. The military didn't want this, Obama forced it. Since he ruled by fiat and decree, it can be undone with a single tweet.

Thanks; I've been out of the game for ~2 years so my tac acronym knowledge is weak. Apparently I can't maintain a dual qual in staff speak and tactical speak. I feel like that is somehow relevant to this discussion....

What is HAS?

I've tried (at 14 years in, not 20), was told I'd need CC's concurrence to submit my request higher. Unfortunately I don't have details on step 2 because I never made it past step 1.

TC, that's a valid and thoughtful reply. Thanks. I don't agree with everything you write, but on the whole you've had a positive impact on the service by forcing some discussions into the light and making powerful folks uncomfortable for their foolish decisions. Some constructive criticism: stay away from articles villifying commanders based on a single email. Those commanders might be wrong, or they might be right. It's impossible to know without context, and articles lacking context diminish the credibility of your conclusions. You do much better on stories like the Laughlin debacle where you've investigated both sides, or attacking the say-do gap at higher levels.

Yea, it's definitely the fault of a few random captains that the AF undervalues pilots. I'm sure congress was just about to give us 60$k annual bonuses till those guys fucked it up...

That definitely counts.

Valid, I was speaking only of the dudes who signed the early eligible then chose to opt in to the newer bonus. Should have said so. Those guys are rightfully pissed that they have an extra year, which is an arbitrary (but significant) amount of time.

Viperman, no one who signed early had reason to assume they were signing up for an additional year without the bonus. Now they have an extra year to their ADSC, without being paid for extra for it, and they are confused. Instead of empathy, you have contempt. I appluad you on posting this in an attempt to understand. People hate being treated like shit and told they are whiners for complaining, and yet this is what the AF does. Ours is a fundamentally broken and stupid organization that does not value its people, and they prove this anew with every years bonus.

Are you quoting the article in question to disprove the article in question? To quote Comey, I'm confused and concerned.

Spending 8-10 years as an O-6 maneuvering for O-7 sounds like the shittiest deal going.

It took me a bit to digest your post, which I've truncated above, probably because I was imprecise in my original statement. To answer the bolded section directly, which applies to my post, I'll say: yes. I'm going to shit on the guy in the SQ that wants to show up and just fly..... because in MY mission set, you can't be good if you just show up to fly. TTPs, ours and enemy, change too fast. Technology changes. AORs change. Users change. If you aren't being assertive about keeping up, you're getting left behind which makes your presence on the crew a liability. And all the extra study happens on the ground, in the SQ, not while flying. When a dude says "I just want to fly" if he means 'I just want to do the flying mission' (which requires extra ground work) then let him! Become an expert, we need it! However, if he honestly means 'I just want to fly' and has no patience for the non-flight ground duties essential to refining flight skills (he's not showing up for a weekly tactics test or doesn't know the newest software, etc) then he's not the guy I want staying on the line for a career. And there are lazy pilots masquerading as line dogs, who have lost the hunger to excel, and should be purged from units incompatible with their loss of drive. Not a lot, but some, and my comments were directed only at them. as to your opening remark about money, no, it's not about money to me. I got paid enough as a major and loved being an EP & ADO, I didn't need more money to put in extra hours. I loved it. Still do. Now I hate my life and job and wouldn't continue if they offered me quadruple pay. But we're all different, and my answer is not indicative of a trend.

It's time to remove "service before self" as a core value. In principal I agree with the intent, however in practice this catch phrase is used as a cudgel to beat complex personnel circumstances into submission with implied victim shaming and callous disregard for morale. I've never known a commander to say "service before self" to the right person for the right reason. Like the other core values, I like the philosophical basis and general direction but the folks who attempt operationalizing the message always seem to be hypocrites. Why is that? Great point, totally agree. the sad reality is many of the senior O-4 fliers who say they "just want to fly" are lazy. Sure there are good ones who stay hungry for tactical excellence, continue to study, read AARs, tweak training scenarios, and are one step ahead of real world contingencies. I like to think I was one of this type (before I was ostracized to staff). But human nature being what it is, there needs to be a check in the system like you describe above. We don't want the equivalent of tenured professors laying around the SQ.

He is not going to listen or be educated, and he doesn't see the difference. You're wasting your time bro. He is one of those people convinced he understands a perspective you don't, and can't comprehend a world outside his assumptions.

I assume by correspondence? Most folks found it takes more effort to write well in residence. I agree with AMF: in res ACSC measures your abilty to write. Correspondence is worthless except as proving you care enough to suffer through it.

A "Definitly promote" in the push line, or a DP? I'm assuming you weren't selected?

Good discussion. I often hear some version of "the AF sucks at training tactical officers for leadership, we do it too late compared to the Army" or similarly worded observations. But you can be a technically proficient Army soldier as a 2LT, and OJT the details of soldiering while also leading 100 folks and learning that skillset; at least according to Army infantry folks I know. You can't do the same with an AF pilot; it takes years to grow a new pilot into a value added member of the SQ. That necessarily takes away early career opportunities to experience leading large organizations. Bottom line, spend an officers first 1-6 years leading people or honing airmenship (which involves tactical leadership). We can do one of those things, not both. In my opinion, this whole conversation speaks to the need for formally tracked AF officer aircrew paths. I think you should fly your full first operational tour then track either leadership (JQO, AF support functions, etc.) or tactical (which again, involves leadership of a different type). Some formal bifurcating of career trajectories would be a win-win for an individuals career aspirations and force management issues writ large. Too much time is spent by the system forcing people to do things they don't want, while willing volunteers for the same things become frustrated. We could solve that problem while deliberately growing folks into what they want and what the system needs. Great ideas at fixing these issues are out there and well know. The biggest obstacle is how to start. What authorities are required to initiate a change this large? Who are the stakeholders that need to be convinced, and can we speak intelligently to studies predicting the second and third order effects of said proposed change? What principals need to be philosophically aligned? What cabal of GOs will force this issue by socializing a consistent message at all internal & external levels? Those questions are the meat & potatoes of making any big change in a bureaucracy, and answers are totally lacking therefore change of this scope is not forthcoming.

Interesting point. You felt that event was adequately explained and the loss of life satisfactorily accounted for? That's a rhetorical question; I would not equate current events to Benghazi but I suppose that speaks to the increased polarization we're experiencing in our country.

There's always one black swan that bucks conventional wisdom. I can't explain it.

Fine with me. If the investigation finds nothing inappropriate, do you think the democrats will concede the point, or demand further investigations?

3.4% BPZ. There's one pilot with a P and no IDE that made BPZ, good for him!

I'm headed to the Paris air show in late June, anyone else going?

Based on opinion, not knowledge. Technically it is feasible now. In my opinion, "should we do it" and "will we invest in it" discussions will surmount any pure technical capability discussion. As mentioned previously, if we are moving toward more autonomy there are easier and cheaper targets I'd expect to be prosecuted before going straight to the most difficult. What do you think?