nsplayr

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.

I think we're focused too much on our small piece of the puzzle here. The VAST majority of people that joint the military are not in the position of AF officer pilots, who have extremely valuable training and the option to go to a ready-made industry. That force support or MX or AFE airman who's enlistment is up may or may not have a lot of other great options outside the military depending on the economy and their education, so their decision to stay in or get out at the end of their commitments (which are much shorter than pilot ADSCs) is quite different. You ask what motivates people to stay in past 10 years under a new sy stem? Big Blue (and Big DOD since it would apply to all the services) would have to learn to treat us like the rest of the world treats it's employees and use market forces to incentivise us to stay rather than moving on to seemingly greener pastures. What motivates people to stay with other lines of work after many many years? I think especially with the risks and sacrifices inherent in military service, either direct compensation would have to go up significantly or we'd have to return to the very socialistic system we currently have, with single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed pension, free money for education, etc. While I'm a fan of the new proposals, I'm very skeptical that they would work very long, especially if the goal is to save money rather than to create a more effective and market-based system for retention. And under the current system you walk away with exactly $0 dollars in your pocket other than your own contributions to TSP and the value of your skills and training. Look, the majority of people are not making the career-or-punch decision at the 10 year point. They're making it at the 4 year or even 3 year point and it's not a career decision, they can re-up for another 3-4 or even just take one more PCS and the accompanying 2 year commitment and stay a little longer. The calculus is quite different and I think if the forums here were better represented with non-aviators we'd be getting a different perspective WRT the thinking behind the decisions to stay versus go. That perspective I think is more in line with the majority of the active force where our concerns, while valid for our community, may not be applicable to the larger force. Like CH said, the Air Force may have some unique challenges under a new system because we rely on the retention of a smaller number of highly-skilled technical operators rather than on larger numbers of relatively less-skilled bodies like in the Army or Marine Corps. As I've said before, the new system puts money into the pockets of a huge number of people, who as you just said, honorably served out their commitments and are patriots. And it does so only for people who take it upon themselves to save for their retirement; if you contribute nothing there's nothing for the government to match. A new system like the one being proposed would both give something to a greater number of service members and would incentivise positive behavior such as savings and planning for retirement at a young age. I like all those things, especially as someone who's inclined to punch at the 7 year point; the current system has nothing for me and I'd be getting a better retirement bang for my buck if I were working a GS position. P.S. - anyone having issues with multiquote on this page? I'm probably the king of multiquote so I don't think it's operator error and it doesn't work for me on this page specifically...

China Checks Out Our Stealth Helo

I've been addicted to playing this for 2 weeks. Up late at night feeding a baby? Frag some zombies with a 105mm while you're at it. Great game.

Yesterday I heard General John Allen giving a press conference on the CH-47 crash among other things related to Afghanistan. Not that other commanders or generals don't, but he sounded extremely articulate, smart, and had well thought out answers to every question asked of him. I trusted what he was saying and I was just listening in the car driving to the grocery store. I know he's a Marine, but any of the old heads around here worked with/for him before?

If anything I feel bad for them (I know, I know...spears incoming). My least favorite days are home station when I'm not flying. Those days have the most bull and the least amount of what I became an aviator to do, fly. I've been DNIF for about 2 months and it blows...manning the shop and getting spun up on taskers and briefings is not ideal compared to days flying or deployed actually hacking the real-world mish. Could you pull some for short-term rated staff, AIB/SIBs, courts martial, etc? Probably, but anything longer than a 90 day I'd say just isn't smart because this problem could be solved as quickly as it arose and then it's back to flying. And it can't be everyone...you know that the bullsh*t in a squadron hardly stops when you stop flying...