tac airlifter

Do you think it would be better for our nation if Trump said he didn't respect Putin? Would edging us closer to open hostilities with Russia make us safer? And what exactly do you guys want to happen with the US - Russia relationship? We can't influence him if we isolate him, and I certainly don't want to fight them. We would lose. i just can't figure out why so many democrats (not necessarily you) are seemingly pushing Trump towards hostilities with Russia while simulataneously blocking hostilities with Iran.

Interesting point. There have been so many times in my career that a basic administrative issue was encountered, an issue I'm sure is common, and yet no one knows the standard despite having an AFI. Is there no continuity outside flying squadrons? Is there no "Stan/eval" function that can adjudicate regulatory interpretations real time? Apparently not. Also, why are so many non-flying AFIs seemingly written with obfuscation rather than clarity in mind? No good answers gents.

For your last paragraph, valid, it was a general purpose comment as opposed to directed at you. I should have been more clear. To your first point-- I don't disagree in principal. Our country is experiencing extreme partisan polarization right now. It sucks. Ideological obstacles are increasingly challenging our ability to get along with each other. My point is, this NSC discussion isn't the core issue here; the core issue is we're at each other's throats about everything, and no institution is immune from collateral effects.

Is your position that international politics is not connected to domestic politics? That nations make external decisions totally separate from internal pressures? Also, I can't help but be reminded of the previous administrations handling of Benghazi...... 7 weeks before the election and they were running on a platform of "al Qaeda is dead because we killed UBL" when in truth AQ had just murdered our ambassador. You don't think Obama factored re-election into the calculus of his response and that invented narrative about a video? I just can't figure out what the issue is, or why it's an issue now.

Good insights, thanks for the post. However, when the former CSAF was directly asked about morale, his answer was pretty darn good. In truth, it is not good and was not when he said those words, and he frankly should have known that. Consequently, a lot of folks "feel" he was inaccurate in his representation of the gravity of challenges facing our force. Im sure your observations are correct about D.C., and I'm sure the CSAF does a lot of things behind the scenes that we'll never know about. Certainty the folks who worked for him were filled with a protective zealotry in every conversation. But in life, we get judged by what people see, even if they don't have the full picture. It's unfair, but nonetheless is it true. And what I saw from that CSAF was someone almost out the door, with nothing to lose politically that still stuck to how he felt instead of what the statistical indicators said. He was incredibly fake in my single meeting with him, although I know that is anecdotal. He literally lost and never acted on the hugely important QOL survey he told us to take. His legacy, in my opinion, is one of talking a big game and failing to play with the heart we needed. When I contrast his behavior with the line guys flying and fighting, it saddens me that he didn't appear to attack his job with the same selfless vigor I see from the the average mid career mid-strat IP.

It is truly amazing what investigators can determine based on the tiniest bits and pieces left over from a crash. I'm continually impressed by this skill set.

Exactly.

They care a lot about securing classified data. Their POTUS nominee was known for careful security practices so you can tell how important this issue is.

Thanks for the opportunity to chat. My question: when will congress debate and authorize (or disapprove and bring us home) any of the current OCOs? We are using lethal authorities of the AUMF still, for enemies not listed there. Why has congresss absconded it's role in authorizing military force, and what can be done about it?

Copy. I've seen the 30 day waiver regularly. But only once a 90 day waiver; back to back 90 day waivers would be an incredible risk acceptance by the A3. So bottom line, lots of flying up there but still within the vol 3 limits? I know it's a grind, but you'll miss it eventually!

700 hours in 6 months? So, 2 x vol3 waivers in a row? Who is signing those waivers?

Sounds exactly like aviation in the later 1930s. I had one GO rationalize keeping cyber within the USAF because his vision was that we are the masters of all things which travel through the ether. I was like "wat?"

Confirm AY17 bonus is 35k for 11x not just 11F? Is this a 5 year or 9 year offering? Haven't seen anything official.

The more I think about cyber, the more I'm inclined to think the USAF should get out of the business.

all votes are equal..... within their state. States are not given equal representation nationally, they are represented according to population. "The will of the people" is not as simple as you are making it sound because the United States is, well, states that decided to unite. Why should the entire center of the country be marginalized because CA & NY share similar values? What you are talking about is restructuring the foundational philosophy of this country. If you are going to do something that big, it should be via constitutional amendment. Think carefully about an end-run around the correct process: it means the majority of a state can vote one way and the EC can disregard the will of those people in favor of the people's will in other states. That is the definition of institutionalized disenfranchisement, a historic fomenter of civil war.

True, but with the ratification of the 26th amendment in 1971 and US troops formally withdrawing in1973 one could plausibly argue that the draft was a contributing factor in ending the war. Once 18 year olds could vote, they weren't going to vote for folks sending them into Vietnam. Game changer. i don't think we would still be in Afghanistan if we had a draft. Do you?

Thank you for taking the time to write that story. My condolences.

NSplayer, I haven't forgotten about my promise to think carefully on your reply and respond in kind, but I just haven't gotten to it yet. For now, I found a germane article by Rolling Stone, not known for their conservative sympathies, which questions the official story for the same reasons mentioned here. Most relevant part of the story is: "The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats. This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures..... But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump. The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now." http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439 I thought it was a worthwhile edition to this thread because it counters the narrative that everyone knows the Russians are responsible and only partisan fake news consumers are questioning the official account.

This is a great conversation; when I'm done suffering through AWC facilitated classes I'll have a more thorough reply to some excellent points. One thing surelyserious & kiloalpha have been saying better than me is the importance of context: this "hacking" accusation does not exist in a vacuum. Where was the current D outrage over the OPM hacks by China? It's only when their scheming was brought to light that we need to fix this, while China apparently got a pass for OPM.....twice. "Intel assures me that ISIS is JV" when the truth turned out otherwise followed by CENTCOM intel analysts say their work was misconstrued for political purposes. And let's not forget this Guccifer dude, who allergedly was a conduit for RIS to release hacked emails, originally came to importance because he was spying on Clintons private server. So..... I guess her private server did compromise national security. The apparent hypocrisy here gives me pause to accept everything I'm told. Agree or disagree with the importance of those other issues, this is the context half our nation views the current hacking allegation through. It's not quibbling for me to demand precision in our language and proof for our assumptions given the domestic political context and consequences of fighting with Russia. In this environment, the JAR was a weak ass report and unhelpful at convincing skeptics. I understand the desire to label contentious partisan issues "settled science," mock the deniers and rush action before your political opponent seizes power. But is that behavior helpful at uniting the country or discouraging future attacks? Finally, thanks again for the good conversation here. I understand your POV better, and this has been way more educational than watching people bully and shout one liners over each other on news networks.

Good post. I'll have time for a longer reply later, but definitely don't shut up on the topic. I enjoy your posts and come here to have my opinions challenged, not for an echo chamber. Surely you realize that in our hyper partisan world, every event is politicized. How do you think republicans feel when Benghazi is discussed? Again, I'll send a better reply soon but for now suffice to say I like your posts, read them all, and enjoy your perspective.

1. Who speaks for the "intelligence community?" The ODNI. No one else, that's why it was created. So without the office charged with informing us of consensus on a topic, you cannot plausibly say the IC is in agreement on the topic. Magnetfreezers link indicated ODNI saw evidence of senior Russian involvement in hacking as late as Oct 2016, that's legitimately serious. I didn't see ODNI endorsement in nsplayers link, because it's not an IC report. 2. Starting at page 5, the report is generic advice on preventing future intrusions. Yes I saw the professionalism in the phishing email sent to Podesta; 17D, I certainly appreciate your professional opinion on their tradecraft. My point is that a report on an event which spends most of its pages not talking about the event..... seems like a weak ass report. Jaded, you may disagree with my assessment but considering the stakes involved with publicly confronting Russia I'd prefer my international accusations have more granularity. 3. "Do I have any idea how this stuff works?" As I said, without a parallel classified report containing actual evidence this report alone is unconvincing. Have you read that report with actual evidence? Or are you assuming it exists? Or are you convinced without seeing evidence? Regardless of your answers, this alone is not satisfactory to me. Gents, the IC Iraqi WMD reporting convinced decision makers on both sides of party lines. It was heavy on "trust us" and weak on why, resulting in a total fiasco for our country. This is what a loss of credibility looks like, and there have been additional major IC failures between 2003 and now. Maybe I should re-frame it: given recent spectacular IC assessment failures, why should I believe this one? You may disagree and you may even be right, but unless you use an argument other than "it's secret and you'll have to trust me but I'm right" you will remain unconvincing across the spectrum of viewpoints. And in fact, a large number of incoming policy makers seem unconvinced. This is a real problem because potential evidence would be secret because it would expose capabilities. I don't know how to resolve this impasse, but it's a real issue for our nation going forward. Other than "read SIPR" (which wouldn't help on this one, BTW), I'd love to read opinions on this quandary in our republic. How does the country learn to trust institutions that have burned us, while maintaining security required for them to function? Again, I'm glad that report was posted here and I appreciate the spirited discussions.

That is a weak ass report. No offense meant to you, and thanks for posting it. 80% generic advice of how to prevent obvious future attempted intrusions. Zero evidence to incriminate Russia. I would hope a parallel classified report with actual proof exists because there are enduring diplomatic consequences for this kind of accusation; we'd better be damn certain of the truth. Wasn't the ODNI created exactly to provide certainty in these situations?

Agreed, but apparently some folks here don't. So why would you say two in one cockpit is more advantageous than two single pilot aircraft?

Of course not. I get it dude, spent plenty of time working with 2-ships. Never thought they were as good as multi-sensor platforms, at least for my mission set. So I guess that's the question: what exactly do we expect the mission set of this thing to be?

More people can handle a more complex mission and more complex systems, as long as they don't suck. All egotism and chest thumping aside, has anyone experienced otherwise?