ViperMan

You have some major projection going on. You need to look hard at your party and those associated with it. Pile on: Biden doesn't know Biden's policies. One of the biggest issues I have with "his" campaign is that it is being used to install a "vice" president who was so wholly rejected during her own primary that she was among the first to drop out. That worries me. It should worry all Americans.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Uh, no, that's not racism, that's data. There is data that says if you grow up black in the US you are more likely to have a relative in prison. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) There is data that says if you grow up white in the US you are more likely to live in a suburb. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) It might be uncomfortable data, but its out there. Honestly, I don't follow you. I understand there are differences among races as far as the data goes. That is well documented, and I agree. My point to you was to say that your view which ascribed a characteristic to an individual based on membership in a group (or to the group as a whole) is the fundamental, operational characteristic of racism - not that there aren't observable differences between the races. Differences between the races will likely always exist - it doesn't mean there are actual biological reasons for those differences. Coming at this problem from the standpoint of biology is awful, and it will never result in lasting solutions for our society. While we're talking about data, there is also data that says police officers are much more likely to be involved in a violent encounter with blacks than they are whites. From the Wapo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/). Why are offices far more likely to be killed by a minority than they are a white person? "There were 511 officers killed in felonious incidents and 540 offenders from 2004 to 2013, according to FBI reports. Among the total offenders, 52 percent were white, and 43 percent were black." "From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896 offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over the 33-year period was on par with the 10-year period: 52 percent were white, and 41 percent were black." In my worldview, this boils down to a cultural issues. There are legitimate historical reasons for it (racism), but that is from historical social forces, not actual racial disparities between different ethnic groups. That is my point. The differences that we observe which we are happy to pin on race are really due to deeper, underlying factors such as culture, etc. That, however, is a much more difficult conversation to have, and our society isn't exactly behaving in a mature, adult manner of late. Looking to those facts above, officers are vastly more likely to be involved in a deadly encounter with blacks than they are with whites - does that mean black people are inherently more violent? No - that is racist. What it indicates is that there are systemic issues within the black community that result in a grossly disproportionate number of violent encounters with police. It is convenient to pin it on race, but that's not going to solve any problem, because the problem isn't because they are black. What has changed since the enlightenment is we know for a fact now that humans are incapable of reason because of cognitive bias. In fact, the very term cognitive bias is defined as humans making irrational actions because of unconscious perceptions. Realize, there are over 100 forms of cognitive bias, and they are well documented. You probably talk about a dozen of them every time you do a CRM class. Recency bias? You're more likely to treat the most recent SIF you read as more important than one from the 90s. Authority Bias - You are more likely to trust someone if they are credentialed in the field they are speaking, even if their data seems illogical. Halo Effect - You are more likely to assume a "good ing dude" is immune to mistakes in the cockpit. Status quo bias: assuming the enlightenment is the epitome of philosophical thought because that's the way it has been for the last 300 years etc... This is also the major flaw with game theory as well, which presumes a game player always makes rational decisions to effect winning outcomes. People aren't rational, even when they think they are. I am always perplexed by arguments that proceed like this. We are "incapable of reason" except for the reason that lets me to conclude that humans are incapable of reason. Whaaa? Any argument that starts off with "we're incapable of reason, so therefore X, Y, and Z" has some inherent problems. I don't want to hammer this too hard, because there are different ways you could have phrased it, but to me, it does highlight one of the major themes that is going on in our culture - which is to say "there is no objective truth," which has one purpose: to empower certain groups or individuals over others. I'm aware of and know there is such a thing as bias. It's the new hotness. And this thing called unconscious bias, I'm aware of that too. I actually took an "inherent" bias test related to fat/thin (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html). Of course it indicated that I'm biased towards thin. The problem is that I am completely aware of my "inherent" bias towards thin people and against fat people. Fat people take up way to much of my airline seat, too much of my air, and too much of my pricey healthcare. Americans are too fat, and I am biased against fat Americans, but I already knew this. This is more appropriately called preference. Humans have preferences. In fact, I think a strong anthropological argument could be made that says these "biases" are the only reason there are still races. I feel like we have had enough generations all living together at this point that if there weren't preferences, we would all be the same shade at this point. I say all this, but I also don't want to disavow the importance of understanding one's own biases, because it is valuable. Humans are capable of reason, and knowing what your biases are, allows you to modify your behavior appropriately in order to counter those biases. In fact, if people weren't capable of reason, what use would it be to understand one's biases? I can't think of a reason (since I'm not capable of it). The bottom line is that I am deeply suspicious of any post-modern logic that discounts the very notion of "Truth", all the while purporting to have some sort of received wisdom/knowledge which is basically unsubstantiated. 99% of people on this forum give plenty of Eucks? about this. There are whole threads dedicated to leadership not taking care of people. How do you think people are taken care of if not through empathy/sympathy. You want to lambast the AF for poor leadership, but literally every book on leadership out there says you need empathy/sympathy for your charges. Are you really telling me, as a commander, you wouldn't have sympathy/empathy for any of your people if they lost a spouse/child/loved one? I don't think you mean that but how else do you describe that if not sympathy/empathy? I put "Eucks" to avoid the post being blocked (I think they used to be, maybe not anymore). In any case, empathy and sympathy are important for leaders. My point, which I did a poor job of making, is that we now live in a culture that seeks to put empathy and sympathy in front of fact, reason, and logic. Empathy and sympathy are all good, I got no issue. My issue is when we just go soft on people and issues because we don't want to address actual problems cranium-on.

The above, x1000... The below, not so much. To be clear, the bold part of your argument there is actual racism (not the fake news racism ala current political and social discourse, but actual, genuine racism). You are ascribing differences to people based on their external, immutable characteristics - whether positive or negative, that is racism. Your bit about the enlightenment is also off target. It's more important now than at any time in the past 70-80 years probably. The idea that individuals had worth and rights was transformative for humanity as a whole, not just the (Western) culture that enacted it. Since large parts of the world are yet to be "enlightened," it is ever relevant. And if you are suggesting there are enlightenment ideas that are "wrong" which ones? The supremacy of fact, reason, and logic? What don't we know yet, IYO? Finally, thanks for the pedantic lesson on the differences between empathy and sympathy, though I'm sure most of the fighter pilots on this board still give precisely 0 Eucks about either. This discussion has brought forth the central conflict occurring in our culture right now: facts vs feelings. I think you're on the side of feelings.

I think your frame is backwards. This isn't an election for things. It's an election against things.

You mean the movie Pearl Harbor, right? I agree, I'm still traumatized.

I separated primarily due to diminishing "good" locations in which to continue my career. So yeah.

Nope. Next question.

"The 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona found out last summer it would only get 13 of the 26 F-16 instructor pilots it requested. Rather than spread the pain, the wing commander sent 12 of the new instructors to the 54th Fighter Group at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, which will take over F-16 training as the 56th shifts to F-35 training operations." Finally, a meaningful #1/13. Just remember boys, there's no points for second place.

"The lack of instructors has led some training squadrons to implement stop-gap measures and compensate in other ways in order to use their limited resources in the most efficient way. The 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona found out last summer it would only get 13 of the 26 F-16 instructor pilots it requested. Rather than spread the pain, the wing commander sent 12 of the new instructors to the 54th Fighter Group at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, which will take over F-16 training as the 56th shifts to F-35 training operations." Finally, a meaningful #1/13...

Assess objectively? Yeah, sure. I won't disparage the bros on the line who have been charged with conducting this experiment, but to think that this "process" will satisfactorily represent the larger issue is a pipe dream from the outset - at least from what I've heard. I'll stand by to be corrected. The impression I'm under is that the set of folks who have been selected to participate in the Austin experiment were selected based on criteria that made it near-certain that they would succeed. Certain individuals are likely to succeed no matter what they do. If we did in fact choose these types to "represent" the viability of a program so it can serve as justification to implement change large-scale upon a group that is a non-representative superset, we're lying to ourselves. I won't for one second state that the Air Force shouldn't investigate better ways of doing business/hacking the mish - but I also won't entertain the idea that this idea was born in a vacuum. It's a response to a separate problem, and a convenient way to save some dough.

Because it's never a good use of time to express the truth. /sarc

Long, long overdue. If you think our acquisition animal sucks at buying aircraft, just watch it try to purchase a satellite. That said, it should be administered by the Air Force - in the same way I imagine the Marines are administered by the Navy (I have no idea)? Zero need to duplicate bureaucracy or build new infrastructure. But it needs its own command, professionals, and to be separate because it is fundamentally different from the "Air" Force.

x 1,000,000,000

A lot of this. NPV is a helpful concept, but it too is only a snapshot of how money works and can work. The gov't assumes a 6.99% discount rate, presently. Personally, I think it should be much, much less (and so does the rest of the corporate world who actually has to pay their bills). The value (cost) of a military pension is enormous, especially when you consider a few long-term factors that will compete against its sustainability. QOL is important, but so is having an income whose purchasing power is invulnerable to inflation.

That's aggressive advice for a first time poster...source documentation?

God-damned poetry.

Not sure that's the best plan 'B' given the reason dudes were bailing when staring down Holloman, but, hey, what do I know? Hopefully we'll learn from our mistakes. How's about a det at Miramar or MacDill? Location, location, location. Good ramp space, airspace (on paper), etc, mean NOTHING when it comes to your after work life. Could have asked me and I would have told them the same thing, probably could have saved them a few hundred million dollars in the process, too. Oh well.

Not sure, but in the long term, they will get them from where they currently come from. Moving from Holloman to Kelly will at least slow the bleeding, which is part of the equation.

Copy. Quarter mil. Show me the money.

Why promote a Lt to Capt to do the same job? I had wings as a 1st Lt, so we're all good right? We all know that enlisted can fly airplanes (no sarcasm), but this is a different flavor of the same argument which suggests that enlisted pilots are a solution to our manning crisis - why pay someone less to do the same job? Does being a General in today's Air Force mean all that much to you now that we all understand the HPO system and the behind-the-scenes of how one makes it to that level in our organization? I would argue that rank has already diminished in importance because it isn't doled out in an egalitarian fashion in our organization, and if you walk around any flying squadron (at least in the fighter world), you'll see that general attitude. People's quals make a bigger difference than the color rank they've stitched on their shoulders. That's one side of the coin. On the other hand, you could argue that rank is a reflection of someone's responsibility (in many cases it is). So someone who has likely achieved every qualification the Air Force has to offer, and has spent a career doing the actual dirty work of the Air Force, not being a "leader" or signing OPRs, or getting selected for some special "development" program, is likely a better candidate to wear higher rank than someone who reads "books" by "authors". I could also make the argument that because the retirement of a Lt Col is worth about a 1/2 million more than that of a Maj, they deserve to be promoted to that level as well. Especially considering that the cumulative risk a career flyer has assumed is much greater than someone who pinned on wings, flew for one or two assignments, and then spent the next 12 years in "school". That person has served our country to a greater extent than a school-weenie, and should be compensated appropriately. Here's an idea: get rid of flight pay and increase my pay scale so I'm compensated at a greater rate than other AFSCs who don't accept the same risk I do. That compensates me now, and in retirement. Raimius' post below is exactly why Lt Col is a necessity.

PSA, no one needs to make a decision until the 31 Dec 2018. So don't rush yourself.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but we definitely view the problem in different terms. I don't think that every hospital in the USAF should be deprecated, and I didn't intend to imply that. But, you can't seriously tell me that we NEED a base hospital at Luke AFB (Phoenix, AZ), hospitals in Dallas, San Antonio, Washington D.C., Salt Lake City, all the redundant and overlapping medical facilities the Navy has in San Diego and elsewhere in garden, costal locations with millions of civilians around. Holloman AFB? Sure. Cannon AFB? Sure. There is valid need for certain locations to have necessary support functions where there is no realistic alternative. My point is that we have EXCESS capacity that could easily be farmed out. Tricare doesn't pay enough? Blah, they can fix that with a flick of a pen. No one (or few) here thinks that pilots alone could accomplish the mission themselves in a vacuum. The point I was making was to say exactly what you said in your post: that it is stupid to compare doctors to pilots in the AF. What's a pilot worth to Microsoft? How bout a Computer Programmer? I'm sure the relative value of each person changes when you swap context, and that is the bottom line: the USAF needs pilots a HELL of a lot more than they need doctors - ANY doctors. Money talks. As far as finance goes, we could do a lot to streamline and simplify their jobs using technology, etc. I don't for one second buy that they aren't capable because they are understaffed. They need to work smarter, not harder. The AF loves to resist change though, and while I'm full of great suggestions for how they can fix themselves, that's not the point of this post.

Sortofish. What I am saying (which deserves its own post), is that the Air Force (as is true with any very large enterprise) needs a bureaucratic means (which it currently has) of selecting from a group of highly qualified and highly motivated individuals to select for their most difficult training pipeline. This ensures a higher probability of success which is vital with extraordinarily expensive training. Requiring someone to have a college degree (any college degree) is in NO WAY too high a bar to preclude someone from competing for pilot training - READ: those people who can't (or don't) make it through 'X' State University, very likely, have ZERO business flying a fighter aircraft, let alone any aircraft in the USAF. This, by definition, precludes much of the enlisted force. The above is in no way saying their are enlisted individuals who "couldn't" 'fly' a fighter or heavy aircraft - lord knows. I know there are many individuals around the world flying fighters who are less than capable. I feel ardently about this because I feel that our national advantage isn't grounded in our Army. It's grounded in our Air Force. And when we give up that advantage, we're asking for F$@%ing trouble. What I see this as is grasping at straws and a mediocre "attempt" to solve a problem. Ultimately the AF needs to stand up and tell the Army to do it's job (another post). This, of course, requires national-level leadership buy-in to a strategy (hasn't seemed like we've had one of those for a while), but why else are these people wearing stars?

Way behind in total salary (maybe), but are you accounting for the amount of insurance required of private doctors? It can be enormous from what I understand, whereas the cost to someone accepting any of those bonuses equals precisely $0.00. You account for $200-300K of med school debt, are you doing the math on $0.00 of med school debt to a mil doc? Difference between these positive and negative numbers begins to add up pretty quickly. We always talk about bringing doctors "in". Do doctors need to be in the military? Does a base located in city X "need" a whole ing hospital? Why don't we just outsource our healthcare to the civilian sector and pay market price? I grant that there are certain specialities that the military needs for reason X, but we do not need the medical infrastructure that we currently have set up to be able to accomplish our mission. There is an awesome (sarcasm) thread on the CAF Fighter Facebook page that is basically just a swinging dick contest between doctors and 11Fs. The point missing from the whole thing is that there is a separate 'sub-economy' in the USAF wherein pilots > doctors: because mission. So it doesn't matter what the USAF pays doctors relative to pilots. If this was a janitor's union, and our mission was sweeping the hallways of junior high schools, no one would care if some of the "help" who checked janitor's balls (who had tons of expensive education) wanted more pay or "deserved" more pay. The mission is hall-sweeping, not ball-checking. Yes.

Sarcastic post aside, I'll answer the questions literally (for sarcastic fun): They won't. Enlisted pilot retention will likely be lower than officer pilot retention. Nail on Cranium, though I will say that it's not so much the 'process' that the academy/rotc/ots puts "you" through (capable people are capable people); rather, the pool of candidates that make it through the other end of those said training pipelines have shown they have the metal to handle the USAF UPT pipeline. This 'cheaper' process enables the USAF to select (from an already select group) individuals who are likely to succeed in a challenging program (which is extraordinarily expensive), which is, arguably, the point of those accession processes. My point is, the whole purpose of accession programs is to save tax payer money by sending the people most likely to graduate through the most expensive training known to man...having a "college degree" and 90 days of marching is not too high a bar to granting that privilege, IMHO. Interesting point, made me think. What does OTS cost relative to the Academy? A penny on the dollar? It costs next to effing nothing to send a bro through OTS, commission a bitch after 90-days, staple a gold bar on his shoulder and proudly salute. What I (cynically) think is that now the leadership is looking for more control. Can't control Capts/Majs/Lt Cols who don't give a F$#% what a two-star says because they realize that that guy is effectively their peer with a few years more experience. Better to have a SSgt F-35 pilot or C-17 pilot who just CAN"T say no, and who can't (legitimately) scoff your ideas. Control. Read Catch-22.