nsplayr

I seriously doubt Soliman (said intel chief now VP) will actually make it to power. I think this thing is going down big time unless the Army starts really bloody crackdowns ASAP. If they hedge or even join the protesters as has happened in some places, the whole regime is done for and who knows whats next. ElBaradei seems ok in principle because he's an educated, articulate, moderate with lots of experience on the world stage, but A) he's not that connected to the people on the streets since he's been abroad so long and so recently returned, and B) he's not exactly thrilled with U.S. policy in Egypt the last few decades, so no one knows how he'd move forward WRT us.

Real mature. Not quite as eloquent as the Dear Boss letter and definitely addresses some different issues...either way it's popcorn worthy for the discussion alone. Either way, sir, you have huge balls for a post like that and thank you for your many years of service

Wow, ::popcorn out::

This is exactly the problem. Despite talk about al-Qaeda "hating us for our freedom," their real beef is with our support for dictatorial Arab regimes and for U.S. troops basing/operating on historically Muslim lands. Our long and deep (sts) partnership with Mubarak is going to be a problem if some of the more radical elements in Egypt gain power, and the same situation exists for many of the other Arab nations this could spread to. Are you talking about the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war? I'm thinking a closer potential parallel is Iran circa 1979; seems that the Egyptian protests aren't as ideologically fueled but I'm no expert and it's hard to know how this is going to turn out. Edit to add: CNN reporting looters on motorcycles are wielding samurai swords...now those guys are ready for the Zombie Apocalypse!

Question is though, what conditions would warrant a mass evacuation? The current government is an ally of ours, but that's not to say the next government won't be. Unlike say Vietnam when our allies were getting their assess handed to them by a mutual enemy, I don't think any of us knows who will take over if Mubarak is thrown out. I think this is my greatest concern for the region: We've all seen what happens when mummies get disturbed...

One of numerous stories on the ongoing protests in Egypt. Figured it's an appropriate topic since Egypt is both a big U.S. ally in the region & also unfortunately has quite an iron-fisted regeime. For all the talk of us supporting freedom we need stability too and those competing interests have put us in a tough spot. Thoughts on implications for U.S. interests?

Blog doesn't always equal shady. The one you linked is by the editors of Foreign Policy Magazine, not some Joe Blow anonymous who posts on the weekend. Anyways, well done China, you've successfully demonstrated your ability to shoot down F-5s from 1986...

Didn't we have authorization for them like a year ago and then the money got turned off last minute? I know that was one of Deacon's pet projects (figures...). Either way, we're probably f-ed now that the Army is eating up all the capacity to produce the things and since we just got those spiffy ABU two-pieces.

Not a pilot, but general rule is ask for what you want. If they say no or you drop something else then so be it, but always make your preferences known to your leadership and on your dream sheet. Seems like since the RJ isn't necessarily a hugely sought after pilot assignment you might have a decent shot all things being equal. GL.

Now that's a goddamn oxymoron.

13:36 is the cutoff if you're under 30, so honestly you were probably closer to failing than you thought. However, if you normally run a 10 and change outside that's gonna be a problem for people that aren't that fast under optimal conditions. Seriously, you should have a foot to stand on if you can get sympathetic leadership to talk to the person who "approved" that run course to. Obviously winter conditions make testing outdoors tough, but seriously, if it was a legit indoor track, that makes sense even though you would still lose time (example: Randolph AFB has a 1/8 mile indoor track). But using a basketball court or whatever you guys were forced to use with 69 turns is not a fair assessment and should not be an "approved course" as is required by the regs. Unfortunately for you the regs don't delve into what an approved course must consist of, but whoever does that approving must have guidance of some kind somewhere...

Took the PFT this morning and the whole "have a buddy count for you" seemed to work well. The people from the FAC were too overwhelmed to be pushup Nazis and I think most people are ready and willing to not be dicks now that they see what the alternative is. On the other hand, a chick from the FAC did fail to count about 8 of my situps for not going all the way down, which is unusual from what I've seen in the past; did 60 good ones anyways just a a little FU to the powers that be. Hopefully the bad idea of the FAC will be allowed to fail and we can go back to testing on our own. If we're so worried about integrity issues there are other ways around that, but the only thing the FAC is good for in my opinion is employing 6-9 individuals who would probably be jobless otherwise. Newest wrinkle at my unit is that based on the new guidance, deployment waivers are no longer required (i.e. a member's PFT expires while they are deployed). If that happens, you are exempt while you're gone and for 42 days once you get back. Seemed like a way to get rid of paperwork, good thought. Except now how in the hell is the FAC (which is the only place data can be entered into the AFFMS system) supposed to know when my guys are gone vs. if a dude just goes non-current because he's lazy/forgetful. Approved solution is to send a memo when members deploy versus a CC-signed waiver. Great, trade one dumb process for another. Progress at it's finest...

I'm not a pilot, but cooperate to graduate man, can't go wrong with that. Doing well should not trump being a good bro (within the bounds of what's legal and right), and frankly doing well is more difficult if you're not. Also, probably should move this to the "road to wings" section. Take heed of those who have asked dumber questions here and gotten their nuts hammered. Technique only, make your second post in about 6 months after you've read all you can handle and opened your ears for a little while or at least stick to the road to wings section as needed. Good luck to you.

Dude, this is bull sh*t! I'm from North Stafford and lived in that neighborhood for 7 years. Hope they catch the guy and let Dick Cheney have a little fun with water...

Just read this on Danger Room & thought about posting. I think the expectations the company sold got a little blown out of proportions. At 2 fps how the F were you gonna track man-sized targets in an urban environment? Either way, the idea is potentially good but maybe the technology isn't quite there yet. Wonder how we can possibly digest all that video even if it does work...

Yup, the way I'm looking at it these changes are the first indication that the FAC concept is failing. You need a ton of people at one time to give tests to groups as large as 30 (since there's only 3x tests per day, 4 days a week at my base), but they only need to be there like 4 hours a day and there are large breaks inbetween tests. That means either paying workers to sit around and do nothing, or using common sense and tapping the vast amount of "free" labor available on base in the form of other airmen. We're taking bets on how soon we UFPMs can start testing folks again due to FAC undermanning...can't come soon enough because I could personally test every member of my unit (while I'm home) and alleviate 100% of the work the FAC is currently doing and it would add maybe 4-5 hours to my normal work week, not counting the time I'd save not having to schedule people online and/or constantly call the FAC to schedule walk-ins...

Holy thread-bump batman...

Exactly. That's why I like that in my community we're called CSOs. I think based on the divergence in the 12XX career field CSO will be the thing that makes the most sense going forward when you have dudes transferring across platforms with vastly different mission sets. But really, whatever communities have historically used kinda makes sense too because it promotes a little heritage that the AF is sorely lacking...the dudes that get wrapped around the pole (sts) over the fact that they're a "WSO" or that think the new training is gonna make them more awesome are the ones who need the attitude check.

I hope we can all agree that the PFT standards are a joke...really, a waist measurement? Nothing to measure power, only muscular and aerobic endurance? Anyways, if women want to play in the big leagues of ground combat there should be one standard that's a true measure of what's needed in combat. For the other 99.5% of women who want to be in the military but not in the infantry, they can have whatever standards they want.

The Forever War by Joe Haldeman. One of the greatest sci-fi/military books of all time and I just got around to reading it recently. Really interesting critique of the Vietnam War when it was written and it's also very applicable to today. Cool ideas about time dilation, weirdly appropriate look at changes in society based on some recent events in the news.

Yea, seen that before but the way our unit deploys it would be very difficult to get that. We fall just short, and therefore will be prime targets for a short tour after doing 2 on, 3 off for 6-9 years in a row. We're gonna have dudes gone an average of 220 in 18 months but you'd pretty much have to extend twice in order to get to 300, so from our perspective the rules are BS. It works out to being gone 40% of the time, year after year. You have to be gone either 54% of the time in an 18 month period or 49% of the time over a 36 month period to get a non-consecutive short tour; we'd all agree that's a pretty stout amount of time away from the fam. Whereas the dude who does 1 consecutive short tour in, say a 5 year period, is gone 10% of the time but is sitting pretty in the eyes of big blue. YMMV depending on how you go TDY/deploy. I'm sure for that dude that does one 185 day tour in 10 years, or even every 5 years, the rules are great. IMHO, when the short tour list come up and there's a bill to pay, it should be total days deployed instead of all these ridiculous rules.

So you're saying WSO makes sense not because you employ kinetic weapons, but because you are qual'd to operate the entire "weapons system" in terms of 12XX duties? Wouldn't an AWACS nav fall under the same definition then since he's the only nav on board? Or a slick herk nav? Or a U-28 CSO? I always figured you were a WSO if you employed actual explody-type weapons, but that buff radar navs were still called navs because that position existed before the term WSO existed. I guess gunship dudes are kind of in the same boat. Anyways, not that one is better or even fundamentally different than the other, but interesting semantics I guess and it's good to know how other communities view the position.

I'd caveat that to say I have no idea; not a bomber dude. The point was that there really isn't a reason other than heritage that Buff navs/radar navs aren't called WSOs since their mission clearly involves the direct employment of weapons. Any reason a bone guy would tend to think differently?

Yea, definitely. If they can't train with the boys they can't fight with the boys, simple as that. If then can then have at it.

Not as far as I know...but I'm not army/marines so it's possible that they weren't allowed in the initial push into Marja or circumstances like that. I think that was one point in the commission's report; since there aren't really front lines anymore and since commanders are currently skirting the rules by "attaching" rather than "assigning" women to units with dangerous missions it kinda made the rules seem unnecessary. There are women on PRTs and other units that are out there knees deep in the Afghanistan/Iraq populations. For my part I think if a woman can perform a job adequately then she should be allowed to do it. If that involves lifting heavy things, rucking for miles, dragging a full-grown man to safety, then so be it. I don't think PFT scores are exactly indicative of combat performance or tasks, however, I do think it's BS that their run times are so much slower. A little slower at the top end, maybe, but honestly the max passing run time for women is 16:22 vs 13:32 for men @ <30 years old...really? If you can't run a mile and a half in less than 16 minutes you should be thrown out immediately; I can probably hop on one foot that fast.