Disco_Nav963
-
Posts
309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Disco_Nav963
-
-
New one: Not expressly voucher/reimbursement related, but $$$ related. Just checked into an SPG property for a 2 week stay on official business, and was looking forward to getting points toward one or two free nights. Presented my SPG # at the desk and was told by the desk manager that since the reservation was booked by the Navy Gateway Inn at Andersen (a third party), they can't give me my points. I asked about "What if I cancel my reservation and re-book as a 'first party?'" She said I'd have to call the Andersen Inn and tell them to cancel (something I'm loathe to do until I actually have a Non-A in hand) it was booked by them, not me, and that she couldn't give me the government rate on my own because occupancy is high now (thanks to 70 of my closest friends staying at the hotel now). The commercial rate is, of course, above the max lodging per diem rate for Guam.
Anyone have any luck fighting it out with SPG for points under such circumstances? I stayed at this same hotel in 2014 under the same circumstances, and at the Vegas Westin in 2015 for Red Flag, and had no such issue. -
We all know what Protect Our Defenders is and what their agenda is. I take back what I said, you are familiar with the record... You are just following after Christensen in disingenuously misrepresenting what the "bathroom incident" was, just like he trotted out stories about a piano burn and fighter pilot songs to scare a panel full of MDG officers.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, one1 said:
The fact that so many people, after so much information about this case has been released, still feel this way is incomprehensible to me. Wilkerson had been 100% proven to lie under oath on numerous occasions before and after the trial. He was a proven liar with serious character flaws. I understand doubting the victim in certain circumstances, especially with inconsistencies with the story, but at some point logic dictates that the victim's narrative has more weight than Wilkerson's. Now, with all the additional information that has surfaced about Wilkerson's history of lying under oath, him secretly having another family that he apparently didn't support, once looking into the stall to watch a subordinate's wife urinate in a restroom, and multiple Air Force officers testifying under oath that Wilkerson had serious character flaw... how can you still think that the Air Force was trying to "railroad" Wilkerson? You say the Air Force couldn't prove that Wilkerson was guilty, yet a jury of his peers found him guilty. Do you understand a victim's testimony is evidence?
The fact that you uncritically repeat the "once looking into the stall to watch a subordinate's wife urinate in a restroom" story tells me you don't know what you're talking about. Read the trial record and the clemency package, then come back and we'll talk.
-
2
-
-
24 minutes ago, Guardian said:
Sorry. Having a little trouble following what we are talking about. What’s going on?
General Court Martial Convening Authority (2 star in command of AF District of Washington) did his job and opted not to refer a weak sex assault case for an Article 32 hearing. Outside advocacy org of SJWs then data-dumped a one-sided version of the case, including the accused's name/rank/assignment/age/photo, to Congress and outside media to basically ruin his reputation.
-
Yeah... True story, I was stuck at a hotel in Bloomington, Illinois with nothing to do one weekend in 2013, so I no shit read everything about the Wilkerson case that HAF had released via FOIA: the record of the trial, the clemency package that went to Gen Franklin, the videos of OSI interrogating Wilkerson and his wife, etc. Huge freaking "2" on Christensen being a POS. Now, I strongly suspect Wilkerson was guilty of some kind of collateral misconduct under the UCMJ (i.e. adultery and/or swinging), but the AF couldn't prove that to save their lives, and Wilkerson/Mrs. Wilkerson obviously had a disincentive not to admit to it in their defense because to do so would risk his membership in the check of the month club. Doesn't excuse blatant prosecutorial misconduct. Gen. Franklin is one of my all-time heroes for doing the right thing then and falling on his sword in 2013 on another case. Got to hear Mr. Franklin, USAF (Retired), speak at WIC 2 years ago and am still sad I never got the chance to shake his hand.
Made the mistake of weighing in on this current case on the Doctrine Man facebook and am currently getting eaten alive by the "Won't somebody please think of the children!" crowd.-
2
-
-
So from the filing Azimuth posted... The two alleged victims then are presumably the accused's children, and the mother in question is the ex-wife who he has an ongoing custody dispute with and who he accuses of trying to alienate the children from him. That is some pretty significant context that is missing from the USA Today story and the quotes in it from the various members of Congress, Don Christensen (the ex-AF prosecutor that tried to railroad Lt Col Wilkerson at Aviano), and the SVCs.
Not a lawyer... But it appears to me that advocates for the ex-wife, including the AF SVCs, are taking advantage of the fact that the news media has a professional standard of not identifying the alleged victims of sex crimes who don't wish to be identified. They in effect counted on the fact that the press would leave the divorce/custody dispute context out of the discussion to try to win a losing case in the court of public opinion. I don't know if the congressional members quoted knew about that context, but Christensen probably does and the SVCs definitely do. And I kind of have a problem with that.
Prosecutors are supposed to have a professional obligation not to "win," but to see that justice is done. i.e. If a prosecutor finds out that they've probably got the wrong guy, or that their office convicted the wrong guy in the past, they have a professional duty to dismiss the charges or seek to have the previous conviction overturned. How does that work with the obligations of an SVC? Obviously an SVC is supposed to be an advocate for the alleged victim... But in an Air Force that allegedly believes in "Integrity First," surely one has an obligation not to make arguments one knows are specious to try to win in the press when you're losing on the law and might lose on the facts. If this is considered "Okay" by the Air Force, then I have a problem with SVCs as a career field just like I have a problem with OSI.
-
2
-
3
-
-
Because any enlisted member with the chops to do those jobs should go to OTS and get the higher pay they deserve.
::headdesk::-
4
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:
How many missions have you flown in Afghanistan or Iraq where HVIs, VBEDs, Taliban leaders, or IEDs where identified and blown to shit from above, there by saving lives? Maybe you never got to see the Army guys eating their first hot meal in the chow hall after being on the side of a mountain for weeks. Or seeing guys close up after their vehicle hit an IED.
If we weren't in Afghanistant and Iraq to fly more missions per Gates, there would have been far more dead mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters from the Army, Marines, and Special Forces. Thanks to the USAF, lots of the enemy got the death wish they were always screaming about on YouTube. No virgins included.
23 missions over Afghanistan and 18 over Iraq, dropping 180 weapons (Danger Close 19 times) by the time I stopped counting with two months left in the deployment. GFY. It was possible to adequately support the Land Component without mortgaging the future of air superiority, which is one of our core functions and the umbrella under which the Land Component has to fight in any future conflict where the enemy has airplanes.
-
3
-
-
The white buffalo T-1 to BUFFs reappears...
-
1 hour ago, Waingro said:
The main reason top leadership got leg-swept in 2008 was because they weren't playing nice with the Army and CENTCOM's insatiable desire for RPA orbits, and wouldn't back down on 5th-Gen at a time when we were committing 150,000+ soldiers at a stretch to fight a counter-insurgency against the stone age. They replaced CSAF with a yes-man who would play ball, thus setting the service back a decade while throwing our remaining resources at the Army's insatiable appetite for ISR feeds in exchange for a GWOT participation trophy. There are a lot of separate issues that factor into the black hole we're in right now, with respect to manning, experience, and morale. But if you wanted to pick a single point along the timeline where the wheels came off, it was firing CSAF in 2008 for ignoring illiterate enemies on mopeds in order to focus on a 5th-gen war. The Minot nuke fiasco, while unsat and hugely embarrassing, made for an easy way to sell the firing, but ultimately wasn't the main driver. Hell, the pilot-in-command of the B-52 continued on her HPO track after the deal.
One of the great contradictions of U.S. military history in the early 21st century is that Bob Gates was exactly the man the DoD needed as SecDef after Rumsfeld... But was also the worst possible guy for the Air Force's long term interests. And the decision to cap F-22 productions looks worse and worse every year. Considering the Air Component + SOF + Iraqis/SDF just had to spend 2014-2017 winning back what the Land Component won in the surge of 2007-08, it is hard to say those additional RPA CAPs back then were worth it. (Because they weren't.)
You also have to think Gates' couple of years as an Air Force intel officer before he joined the CIA hurt us. He was just familiar enough with us to have both a shoe-y contempt for flyers, and especially the CAF, but also enough to have the confidence to throw his weight around with us... Confidence a SecDef without a prior association with the Air Force might have lacked.-
2
-
1
-
-
Dropping 18x unguided Mk-82s just north of Tabqa Dam last March after being told for 6 years "We'll never drop dumb bombs in combat again."
-
1
-
5
-
-
11 minutes ago, Jaded said:
Just because a place sucks less doesn't mean it doesn't suck.
Fair... But if we go to the binary scale (not saying we shouldn't), probably 69% of bases suck.
And I'm completely sympathetic to the idea that since we've dicked down hundreds of people for over a decade with non-vol RPA assignments, the least we can do is funnel that mission to desirable bases. -
5 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:
Word is they are releasing ALFA tour bros from RPAs. Just in time too. Someone thought it was a great idea to turn Grand Forks AFB into a reconnaissance wing in the short term future. You think people want to be stationed in the Midwest in -20 temperatures with winter practically 6-8 months out of the year? Brilliant!
With all due respect, EABOD. I spent six years at Minot. I would have given my left nut (if it hadn't gotten frostbite and fallen off first) to move the bombers to GFAFB. Grand Forks is a garden spot compared to Minot. And I say that as someone that liked Minot.
Also help me understand something here... As a nav type, I was under the impression that all the pilots non-vol'ed to RPA land went to Preds and Reapers. I didn't realize there were a lot of people in Global Hawks that didn't want to be there. (I also assumed Grand Forks vs. Beale was another story when it comes to voluntarism...) True or false? -
Mixed feelings:
I agree it's unseemly.
I also usually take advantage of early boarding for the overhead bin space reason.
I think it's downright weird when the gate agent specifies "military in uniform," because IMO you've got to be dumb (begging for that lone wolf ISIS sympathizer's attention) or attention whoring to be traveling in uniform. (I understand the other branches might require you to travel in uniform on official travel. If so, those branches are dumb or attention whoring.) And I think the airlines do it for the same reason the NFL pays for patriotic symbolism—making us their damn mascots.
I have no sympathy for the feelings of that first class passenger since I often pay for first class upgrades myself or get them for "free" with a mileage program, and I'm usually the only one traveling in a blue blazer and slacks while everyone else in first class is in sweat pants. At least in the armpits of America we base our bombers in, first class does not directly correlate to "the respectable bourgeoisie," rather it's "more of the unwashed masses, only with more money."
The airlines brought this on all of us when they made air travel a Hobbesian state of nature—a war of every man against every man—by nickel and diming us over luggage rather than a pleasant experience one looks forward to.
I'd prefer it if the airlines got rid of the early boarding thing altogether, but as long as I live at least one connection away from the rest of the world, and as long as my checked bags only have a 0.9 Probability of Arrival, I'm going to take a carry-on with the essentials and I'll do what it takes not to have to put it where my feet go.
Completely agree on the license plates. I imagine for most veterans there's an inverse correlation between the degree to which a decoration was earned for legitimate heroism and their eagerness to put it out there for public display.-
1
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:
Maybe if the Senate had been included at the time we signed the Paris Peace Accords, we wouldn’t have left behind hundreds of POWs.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/mccain-and-the-pow-cover-up/
-
The class the BUFFs fell on...
-
^ What he said.
Barring a non-FTU F-15E unit getting stood up, the next closest thing would be whatever the Light Attack program turns into... or bombers. Or become a mercenary and fly F-18Fs for Australia. -
On 3/27/2018 at 5:51 AM, Inertia17 said:
Well, you could go fly an E-3...
The bases are certainly better in AWACS.
-
I'm going to go with "Yes" seeing as my separation move got scheduled before my 1288 was even fully complete, and your JTR entitlement is based on your separation from active service, not based on the fact that you are being gained by ANG/AFRC unit X. On the paperwork I filled out with TMO there were containers for (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "Authorized Delivery Location" and "Directed Delivery Location." The former was the HOR or PLEAD as designated on my separation orders as the place I was headed to; the latter was the address I chose which was a shorter distance from my final AD base than was my PLEAD (it could have been more and I simply would have owed the government the difference in costs). Nothing on there about the installation my AFRC unit is at.
-
The once in a blue moon T-1 to B-52 pipeline resurfaces...
-
5 hours ago, 17D_guy said:
That's how we roll in the "Cyber NAF." SAF/CIO and AFSPC come down with edicts on what they direct us to do on Net and Wedge has a polite (or not so polite) "Stay in your lane conversation." He's had to do it a lot since the Win10 migration stuff and people are looking to foist blame somewhere for issues. It's amazing to see someone who understands the actual purpose of a NAF and "operational-ization" of Cyber punch way above his weight on these issues. Doubly so because he's right, knows what he's talking about and has pushed us to fix so much.
Wedge is fantastic.
He was my OG when I was in Nav skool. Even then, on an AETC base replete with HQ queep, it was obvious he had his priorities straight.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, brabus said:
And there's the problem, people think sniper/litening pods are good for CDE scans. Real big picture sure, but FAR from the fidelity/accuracy of scans accomplished by the guys who actually are meant/built for such a thing. A buff should never be doing those scans, and its overselling capability to say to the Army a sniper/litening can effectively accomplish scans (especially to the level the army wants/expects).
Again, we need to tell the Army to fuck off and play each asset to what it's for, not try to make everything persistent ISR...those assets already exist.
I don't disagree, but the requirement exists to do your own scan regardless of who else is out there... in addition to the times we were just flat on our own covering deliberate targets and DTs (e.g. the war against oil) away from the urban CAS stacks. If I have to do it, I want the best tools for the job. The CFACC SPINS were somewhat good about delineating what a TGP player could reasonably be expected to see or not see, and in my experience the GFC didn't really want us scanning anyway. The biggest buffoonery I saw was TET guidance that contradicted the SPINS re: scan for things we acknowledge you can't reliably PID, and oh by the way we didn't MAAP you to overlap with any players that can help out. Gee thanks.
Big picture... Agree with extreme prejudice, it felt like Air Component leadership was handing our lunch money to Army by the fist-full... especially on counter-doctrinal, peanut-butter spread apportionment of ISR. -
3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:
No argument that not every platform should be treated as a persistent FMV stare platform, mostly I was thinking that as they have one station to carry a pod, if the OSO and DSO could each have an FMV sensor it would improve the Bone as an on demand ISR / CAS asset.
Ton of money likely required to get to that capability probably so not holding breath.
As a BUFF guy, dual sensors would be tits... Would have been extremely helpful in OIR both for simultaneous near/far scans in the villages/'burbs, and for scanning ahead of/behind movers. Even moreso in OFS where you have less assets around to help. We have a powered pylon between our left engine pods identical to the one on the right we strap SNIPER/LITENING to that right now we're only using for ACMI pods at FLAGs. Even better would be if they put it below the jet where it would never be fuselage masked.
I understand the B-1 SNIPER is mounted on one of the external hardpoints they would have put an ALCM pylon on in the pre-START Treaty days, so theoretically there is another such hardpoint on the left side of the jet? -
10 hours ago, 08Dawg said:
Here's one more papercut from my little corner of the AF...we got an email the other day that our squadron was required to offer up a body to be a green dot facilitator. We're trying to keep up with our flying mission with our manning well below 100% (just like, I'm sure, everybody else) and now we're mandated to have someone take (more) time out of their schedule to go deal with the Green Dot bullshittery....UFB. I kinda thought the point of the people that facilitate that program was that they actually had some buy-in or personal experience to share....now it's just another onerous ancillary duty and yet another straw crushing the air power camel.
You forgot to mention you're deployed hacking the mish right now as well... Worthy also of the "Leadership at the Deid" thread.
Non-Availibility lodging/letter
in General Discussion
Posted
They took away my Mermaid handles, my black boots, and dammit now my points. I don't know how much longer I can keep doing this.