tac airlifter

Dude, it all makes perfect sense. You just need to spend some time in the NSA vault in Maryland.

Again, so what? So we have RPAs that won't survive (you assume) near-peer contested airspace? They're RPAs; we can afford to lose a few. Also, they aren't designed for that; they're designed to do exactly what they are doing now. So why do you care that RPAs haven't been "truly tested against a real adversary's military that can actually counter our punches?" I don't care if they get tested in that environment or not, we paid for them to do what they're doing now (talking here about the 1/9). I don't understand the point of your comment, hence I asked you to elaborate by asking you "so what?" Regarding your "go to a vault and garner SA" line: what do you think that adds to the conversation? I'm not impressed by your comments about yourself.

I keep hearing that. So what?

Valid, my mistake. "Agency employee" Still falls into my WTF category!

FBI agent marries ISIS terrorist.

I'm neither deployed nor at AFSOC staff. It's bloated. As you know, staff experiences vary. Mine may be anomalous. But I've been at a major HQ for a year and have yet to see any rated person used for their rated expertise. I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but it's hard to hear statements like yours about how AFSOC is hurting for pilots. We need an audit, especially of joint billets. sorry for the thread drift.

I get it, but as an AFSOC pilot wasting my time on a useless staff I hate hearing this. We have plenty of pilots, we just aren't employing them correctly which ironically is driving more of them to leave, thus worsening the "pilot manning pinch" which is entirely self-inflicted. If the USAF said "we need pilots who can and want to fly light attack airplanes; volunteers who meet xxxx criteria will be released from less important jobs" they'd have plenty of volunteers, and my guess is the machine would keep humming along just fine. That bloated staff manning is prioritized above a genuine combat need is further proof current leadership is incapable of fixing the retention problem.

Liquid is a credible SOF GO who has asked that his privacy be respected to enable candor. I wish he posted more.

What the hell are you talking about bro?

Tribalism seems sustainable. Their agrarian lifestyle seems sustainable, at least at a subsistence level. If the country remains a poor backwater, we don't really care so long as international terrorists don't base there, right? What do you think we should be doing differently, on a strategic engagement level?

Concur all. But the people who could change it are the same people who have benefited by it and see no reason to change it. Is this an un-fixable problem?

The 24 pole year is not the same for all services, and is unique to the AF. Awesome post, thanks for contributing your first hand perspective. Regarding your point about seeing the tragedy of our AFG mission up close, I'd love to hear more anecdotes or experiences from yourself or other hands.

Well I've maxed out my downvotes on the same guys, two days in a row. That's a new one. I have noticed he up votes his own posts which is a classy move. At least he's not taking the bonus, so you have that going for you AF.....

Gross, but accurate.

You alright bro?

Sooooo, are you taking my bet?

Not meant that way at all bro. Just a bit of common ground between folks on this forum who disagree.

I think you missed the point bro. If the AF worked, there wouldn't be a need for a bonus. It doesn't, so there is. Your hypothetical "we've won so let's return the money" scenario is not what I intended by that comment.

So you didn't take the bonus but have an opinion on my rationale for taking the bonus? And you think my opinion is crazy? Thanks for your service.

Totally agree RAM. I want to be part of a winning organization and if the USAF was one, we would not have a retention problem. But I also understand we've been tasked with "unwinnable" missions. How to reconcile these seemingly incompatible factors? First, a winning organization means one built, soup to nuts, with winning wars as a clear and obvious function. That means rewarding people who are good at the mission, not assuming we're all equal and using non mission factors (party planning, masters, etc.) as delineators. In an ops squadron, my entire day should be focused on refining my lethality, and base agencies should be rated on their ability to support us. For example.... If a short notice deployment pops up and I need a guy to get CATM, CATM should jump through their ass to make it happen and be happy they found a way to enable our mission. That's what a winning organization looks like. One that is focused on successful prosecution of combat, not all the distractions we talk about. Second, if we're given impossible tasks whose pursuit hurt our readiness, I expect LEADERSHIP from the senior ranks to say so. Don't say morale is pretty darn good, say morale is terrible because our political masters have sent us on fools errands without an end state. Have some balls. Risk your career to speak the truth. If the ROE won't let us win, say that too. That is what a winning organization looks like. It's structurally built to incentivize combat success, and it's led by people who care about maintaining that organizational focus. I don't need a bonus, and I'd give up the one I have to work in a winning organization.

JPME2 was the single stupidest course of any type I've ever taken.

Ok? WRT guard/reserve: in my platform, they don't. So that world wasn't part of my calculus.

I bet 1 bottle of whiskey that he will not. Takers?