nsplayr

We apparently have them in the building and are getting them ready to fly with crews. Booya! I hope we can do angry birds over bluetooth, that would be amazing...

Yes. Things that make it harder to accomplish the mission should be eliminated or reduced. Actions/programs/people who enable the mission to be done more easily should be taken/implemented/praised & promoted. I am in no position to get out right now, so ask some of the people who are on the fence. Catbox had a thread specific to his decision. There are many others right here and now, ask them, I don't think I'm saying anything that hasn't been said before. I'm actually late-coming to this whole being bitter over queep deal...I've been really happy in my assignment so far and have a reserve well of good will towards the AF built up from the last few good years. The point is not that I cannot do what needs to be done, it's that some of those things are unnecessary in the first place and therefore I resent having to do them. I still wear my blues and do my SOS practice bleeding and am almost done with my masters and etc. etc. but it's the fact that none of those things (and many more) are actually required to accomplish my unit's mission. In fact they detract from either A) the mission or B) dwell time at home that should be spent either training or with families. So when the boss says his #1 and #2 priorities are the mission and the people, yet his #3-#69 priorities are things that negatively impact the first two, I cannot take seriously the organizational commitment to the top priorities. I'd have to imagine myself as a pretty damn senior commander to be able to fix this stuff because it's not squadron-generated, at least where I'm at. You can't really believe this do you? Because the people in the squadrons and on the line are making it work that means the leadership is sufficiently "focused" on the mission? So the only way we can possibly communicate that there is a lack of mission focus is to fail? I didn't say there was a lack of mission accomplishment, I said there was a lack of focus which is different and has to do with the f-ed up priorities scheme I mentioned above. Nope, it's really not. That wears on you after a while and I've seen dudes pretty burned out and bitter, but what drives the nail in the coffin is when you come home and on your dwell time you're spinning up for inspections, practice inspections for future inspections, mobility processes that conform to Big Blue but not to logic or common sense, senseless paperwork to accomplish what used to be routine scheduling changes, briefing the OG in person every time anyone sets foot off home station for an OST/TDY/exercise, etc. That's what makes guys really lose it from what I've seen.

Apparently no drugs in her system when she died. Booze, but no drugs...seems hard to believe to me.

I know one of those guys specifically and we all knew from a mile away he had no business in the gunship. Our FLT/CC did a freaking amazing job getting people the planes they wanted (I think something like 7/12 got their absolute first choice, the other 5 got something very close), but he maybe didn't do quite as good of a job at looking objectively at where people could succeed. WRT the whole instructors at the school house thing, I think AFSOC has suffered from this for some time. When I was there I could remember 1 cool as hell gunship nav, another gunship dude who I didn't see much, and a total douche talon II guy and that's all the exposure I had to the entire command. I think they just don't wanna pay the dues in terms of bodies to put a representative number of instructors there. While I think it would help in the very long run by attracting better guys to AFSOC (especially important now since F-15E/B1 seem to be the perceived shiny pennies out of there), it makes the immediate fires of not enough 12S manning worse and therefore will not be pursued. I can think of two platforms that gainfully employ a bunch of CSOs that have exactly zero representation at the school house and the number of studs dropping those platforms has been correspondingly low. Hopefully that's a coincidence and the numbers will pick up and/or they'll release some bodies to go over there and teach one of these days.

Did someone just say snatch?

Yes, that's exactly what's going on here. Since I'm assigned to a particular flight in a particular squadron in a particular group in a particular wing, I'm most concerned with the problems within arms reach. I'm not aiming to "strategically fix" anything with the Air Force at this point. It's not all about bitching, but it's a little about bitching. Actually I'd say it's complaining because bitching is complaining without a solution and the solution for my particular problem is to turn back the clock policy-wise and attitude-wise like 2-3 months and go from there. I'll send him that leadership should be focused on the mission and not stupid queepy shit like uniform wear and TPS reports. That stuff inevitably has to be done, but when it's priority #2 or #3 on the boss' agenda and he spends noticeable time kicking people in the nuts not for failing to accomplish the mission, but rather for failing to play by the exact letter of both the rule book and his personal, often unknown preferences as a CC, that's a foul IMHO. We should (speaking of AFSOC here) be flexible enough to provide specialized airpower anywhere in the world on a moment's notice without having to check our sock color or roll our sleeves down or file a goddam 2407 to change a take off time by ~30 minutes. Send that to the CSAF. Wasn't that the gist of what got pushed up to Gen. Welsh after his call for comments? It's not the endless deployments, it's not the state-side TDYs, it's not missing holidays that's making people pissed off, not me at least. Those things are mitigated by killing the enemy and doing some other good work for the nation. What's making guys pissed off is the stupid shit that's most prevalent back home or in other REMF-infested locations. That's what I'm complaining about WRT new wing policies and what others are talking about in the numerous threads on this topic I would venture. You have a step van? Man, I should bitch about having to walk... So what's the bigger picture here rainman? My BL problem is loss of mission focus. Other commands seem to be leading indicators, but my limited experiences with certain deployed locations as well as the fresh asspains new leadership have brought upon us have further solidified to me that this is the big problem. How far up AGL to I have to be to realize that a loss of mission focus really isn't the problem?

This was not true in my class at least. We knew we had one gunship to HRT and one to CVS before the drop. Our flt/cc did our drop differently though and let us choose on drop night instead of being assigned based on dream sheets. The two guys who wanted gunships were right next to each other (sts) in class rank, so the higher ranking dude got his pick and he chose HRT and the lower ranking guy got the Canon H-model. Non-standard but it worked for us.

Look at all those uniform infractions! Disgusting. Morale patches, zippers not to the top of the name tag, 3rd from the left has sleeves rolled up. Q3 if ya ask me...

?? Comment on the circular "supporting" vs "supported" derail...it's not that I don't care how we talk about operations or don't want the AF to get credit where credit is due, but that I don't think we're helping our case with conversations like this. I thought quiet professionals meant hacking the mish and not giving a shit if the random person on the street even knew you were there let alone if you were the "supported" service or some nonsense like that. What I do care about right now is what my senior leadership is telling me and how that flies in the face of everything I've learned up to this point and everything that I believe to be true about being an officer and an aviator. That's whats wrong with my little corner of the Air Force.

This shit again? Who the fuck cares...I vote all this dick measuring about "supporting" vs "supported" is killing this thread right now.

My big takeaways: 1. You are an officer first and a pilot or AFSOC or a particular squadron second. Anecdote about how you should not feel forced to conform to a particular squadron mentality as a young officer. I.E. "this is how we've always done it around here LT" is insufficient evidence for any officer to do or not do something. 2. Enforce all rules equally; slippery slope; can't trust you to do the big things without the little things, etc. etc. Mentioned sleeves, baseball hats, and the effect those things have on the enlisted perception of the importance of rules. 3. Don't put yourself in a situation where you can be accused of being in the wrong, especially if you have had any drinks. Accused the operative word, not necessarily guilty of anything. This was WRT several recent ARIs involving officers. 4. Be careful with social media and his personal technique is not to be "friends" with anyone junior in rank than himself. Not meant to be guidance because there is no AF guidance. Someone feel free to chime in if I'm way off base or missing something important. I could tell you the general feeling afterwards but I'm betting you can either guess or ask one of the dudes who was there in person.

Well f*cking said. 3 of my top 4 leaders I've personally served with were helo dudes so generally I hope for more former pave guys so cycle through, but jesus mary and joseph the things that were said in that auditorium made me damn near vomit. I'll enforce every rule and regulation equally on a cold day in hell. TPS reports not equal to gear down, they're just not. As an educated and expensively-trained officer I strongly believe one of the chief reasons they pay us more is because we're supposed to use judgement and discretion. Zipper not to the top of the name tag? NBD. Not on time, on target downrange? Prepare to get your nuts crushed, and that's exactly how it should be.

Sounds about right. The only part of the SECDEF's comments I didn't like was an acknowledgement that many current service members would benefit from a change. If they grandfather people in (and they damn well better), it should be optional so those who know they're getting out can switch programs and get something out of the deal. Good thoughts all around though

I believe we've clearly experienced this phenomenon in the F-15 community already

Zrooster, had to reach way back in time to find this (thanks google site search!) but I know I've said the exact same thing on occasion around here too. Here's your quote from 2009 (I kept the best parts intact): Having said this in 2009 and knowing you sat in the same room I sat in today, I unfortunately think everything you ranted about here was just validated as the new policy of a certain installation. All rules are equally important; officers are not allowed to exercise discretion; rolling up your sleeves somehow telegraphs to your troops that they can break rules; etc. etc. etc. And to top it off, if you're in a situation where you can be accused of breaking a rule, especially if it can be written up as an ARI, you're are guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer just for being in that situation. Never mind if you're actually guilty of anything or were even actually taking part in said event...disgusting. I threw up in my mouth at least 3 times in about an hour's time span.

I got this infared last year. Have a small patio so needed something that wasn't so damn huge and this fit the bill. The infared has been surprisingly awesome, cooks a mean steak. I like it a lot and a buddy of mine just got the bigger version and has enjoyed it as well.

No way man, the 40mm is my bread and butter. With the civilians running so close to the zombies I like the 40 much better. CH, nice score.

If it were me trying to honor those guys I'd wear a patch with the callsign of the helo. Seems like a common way to do it when we lose a bird in the AF. Not sure if that's releasable yet or what's driving that decision...

Yet when you mention changing the benefits you "get" after 20+ years people are up in arms. Isn't it still called "service" for those guys? Be honest, it is a little bit about what you get because if we all just got a pat on the back very few would choose to serve at all. There are probably 10x more people who think like this than there are pilots who's views we're more accustomed to hearing around here. Since this would be DOD wide we can't just look at our piece of the puzzle. Someone mentioned that a flood of rated guys leaving was what caused the bonus to come into being (for pilots and ABMs anyways...); isn't that exactly the response that would happen if there were changes to the retirement system that uniquely de-motivated rated guys to stay? Why pay for an unsustainable expensive retirement system for the entire force, rated, support, all the services, etc. when instead you can specifically target career fields disproportionally affected by the change with bonuses or other incentives? Part of what the DBB was talking about was exactly this, making the system more flexible and even rewarding those who serve in combat or overseas more than those who sit at a desk. As it stands now, a pilot and a shoe clerk retiring at 20 years (same rank) get exactly the same amount of money in retirement; it looks like their proposals would seek to "reward" the frequent deployed with greater contributions during their career than the guy who stays at home.

893...get some!

Surely officer, the driver of the car was: Mike Hugh Hawk 5325 Westbard Ave., Appt. #169 Bethesda, MD, 20816 DL #: (make something up here) GL fighting the case, recommend attempting to blind them with science if able. I'm surprised the ticket was only $125, especially if it was in a work zone. What, was she doing like 2 mph over? My ticket for 13-over on the 3-mile bridge into Pensacola was something like $365!

I do think there would be less people staying until 20 because it would be much more attractive to punch earlier. The negative effects of this would have to be looked at. WRT saving money, like I said, I don't think this should be about saving money necessarily. A better system that costs exactly as much or even costs some % more is worth it in my opinion. If we made some reforms to healthcare costs for retirees we'd have more than enough to pay for a better retirement system. Because your gains are 100%, immediately, on any matched funds. If you invest $1000, and the government matches it 1-to-1, you just made a great investment no matter how the fund performs. Even if say TSP funds perform 10% worse than your current funds (unlikely), you're still coming out ahead because the government is paying you to save. A Roth is a good option for a lot of military folks because our taxes are so low due to deployments and having a good deal of un-taxed compensation (BAH, BAS, etc.), but that math changes when you factor in 1-to-1 matches or even 50% matches. So if the AF is feeling like a business that flies rather than a military force, why do you accept artificially low compensation? Wouldn't the proposed changes benefit you if you're likely to punch? If there was no 20 year guaranteed income at the end of the tunnel, would you stay in with current compensation levels? Educated officers with MAs and flight training have good job prospects on the outside, changes to the retirement system would also force the DOD to work to retain talent rather than knowing they've got us by the balls. The private sector doesn't have anything like our retirement system anymore, and it shows because people move in and out of companies like a revolving door. If the DOD wants to compete in that environment, they have to make military service more attractive to a employee who can leave if he chooses. To me, that would mean less bullshit, more pay, and more incentives for performance rather than longevity. The best argument against changing the system is that while this is more market-driven and more efficient most likely, military service is so uniquely important to the nation that it's worth it to retain inefficient and socialist systems to maintain a certain level of highly experienced people. Your numbers look legit for those who make it to 20, but you have to factor in that under a matching system money goes to thousands and thousands of people who contribute and get matches but don't make to to 20 years. Those people are currently free to the DOD WRT retirement compensation. So the actual costs would be more on-par I'd be willing to bet since you would not only have many, many more people receiving some benefits, but a matching system also incentivizes greater rates of savings since your profit is essentially 100% on any money saved if they give you 1-to-1 matches.

I respectfully disagree

What I wish they would do is have an optional grandfather clause. If you came in under the old system, you can keep it if you want, or you can choose the new system. If you sign up for the military tomorrow it's the new system for you. I agree that this is being driven largely by money, but there is a real problem in creating an even more hollow force when you pay an increasing percentage of the DOD budget to retirees who aren't producing anything in the way of actual defense any more. If retirees live longer and healthcare costs continue to increase, is the DOD just supposed to do nothing about it? Some would say yes, we've earned it and I mostly agree, but there are some minor changes that can be made (Tricare fees for example). I think what they're trying to do is "bend the cost curve" way down the road because it's becoming clear that no matter how good a retention tool the 20 year, full and immediate benefits retirement is, it's unsustainable indefinitely. Healthcare costs alone will eat DOD alive just like they were eating the car companies who had to pay for generous union retirements and benefits. Many people argue (correctly) that the government is inefficient and doesn't live by market-based principles and this is a great example, very few companies today offer benefits on par with the military and are able to remain successful. Not that the military is or should be a company, but there are lessons to be learned from the private sector, which is the whole point of the board that recommended these changes in the first place. The idea of increasing fairness in the system and putting money in more people's pockets doesn't have to be necessarily tied to saving money though. Why not have 2 systems that allow people to choose, upon entry, if they wanna give it a go at a career or if they want to take TSP matches since they will likely get out before 20? There are other effects that would have to be looked at, such as creating an essentially two-track military of future leaders and short-termers and you have to address the retention issue but those aren't insurmountable hurdles. How many would take a pilot slot if they guaranteed you 10 years of actual no-shit flying and a full benefits retirement if you signed up for 20 years? How many young kids would sign that dotted line with even less on the table? Honestly anyone who didn't think they'd make it to 20 for whatever reason and wouldn't switch to a new system that paid benefits without requiring the full 20 is an idiot. That other 80% of troops who honorably serve but who don't make it to 20 would all benefit from a new system. The reason you don't hear their perspective is because they all got out.

Supposedly more levels are forthcoming...I like. My only bone to pick is that the CIVCAS restrictions make Afghanistan ROE look like WWII carpet bombing. Really, I've fragged 400+ zombies in about 5 minutes, including whatever those huge f*ckers are, saving the perhaps millions hiding out in the bunker and they tell me, "If you kill one more civilian we're gonna pull you out!" Three civilians is the max acceptable CIVCAS no matter how many enemy are killed? With all due respect, STFU and tell those damn civilians to stop running right into festering zombie hoards! Everyone put your head down and let a man get some work done up here... Needless to say I love this game; best $1.99 I've spent in a while.