ViperMan

October 3, 2020

Or, you could be right-leaning like me and think that we are changing the climate, but still disavow the leftist attempts to over-regulate everything.

1. We are changing the climate.

2. We don't have to find or buy into the "political" solutions; we can (and probably will) find technical/engineering ones. In 90 minutes, more energy arrives on the planet than humans use in an entire year, from all sources.

The form this debate takes is a complete side-show to me. There is this trope on the right where any admission that humans are affecting the planet means we have to go along with the green new deal, or whatever - we don't. There's also this group on the left that is blind to the source of most of human progress - technology, not politics. I scoff both frames.

September 27, 2020

8 hours ago, brawnie said:

**Trigger warning**

You know, sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall when I'm trying to have legitimate philosophical discussions with republican leaning dudes on this forum and in the real world. I will point something out, and you will just say "no." What do you believe in? What policies do you support? Why is there no consensus? Is there a moral compass that guides republican policies or opinions? Why can't you give me a solid answer to any of these questions? Why must you consult with your news sources to determine what your opinion should be?

You see it with everything from Coronavirus to Police Reform to Global Warming to Iran/Syria/China to healthcare to religion to fiscal policy.

It's simple: you don't think for yourselves.

...

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.

September 25, 2020

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.

September 24, 2020

9 hours ago, Hacker said:

Again, I agree that diversity of thought is vital...but that's not what any of this is about, and that's not what my comment was about that you responded to originally.

You're sidestepping the larger issue, that the AF's focus on diversity of immutable human characteristics (which is the opposite of the teamwork concept of us all adopting the identity of "Airman") has literally zero to do with the cognitive diversity, or diversity of thought, that you're talking about.

Even worse is the belief that must exist to support the idea, that immutable human characteristics are an avatar for an individual's thoughts, beliefs, character, or abilities.

The above, x1000...

The below, not so much.

6 hours ago, FLEA said:

For one, no-one cares about the enlightenment. It was like 300 years ago and people still thought leaches and humor letting were acceptable forms of health care. Sure they made some awesome philosophical advances but its not like they got there and said "hah! We did it, we are at the epitome of human knowledge and understanding and we can stop now." Our recognition for how humans receive and process information has gone very far. In fact, hailing the outcomes of the enlightenment as the epitome of understanding, is in of itself bandwagon bias which is the cognitive bias associated with adhering to principles because those principles are the ones you always knew. So lets recognize that bias now and recognize that people in the enlightenment could have been very wrong and we don't know that yet.

I also think you confuse sympathy and empathy. Empathy is being able to feel the physical and emotional experiences as another person does. If a friend at work has a brother that died and I don't have a brother, I can't say "I know how you feel." Nothing in my life would ever help me relate to how losing a sibling would feel. A best friend is close but not as close. A parent is different. I can possess sympathy for that person, and understand they are under a great deal of grief, I can never experience true empathy for them. I think there is a great deal of assumption in the idea that you can empathize with anyone.

You are correct, that you can have two white males who are more different than a white male and a black female. However, from a strategic leadership point of view, I think people are playing the margins game. Is this possible, sure? Is it likely, probably not as much. And since in reality, noone has the time to vet every applicants complete background or make a comprehensive list of experiences, they are simply going to disregard your individuality and lump you into a group to play a game of betting odds over one that values individual achievement. The going mindset here is a diverse organization of 40 different thinkers will outperform a uniform institution of 40 identical top performers. If you think about each human being as a ven diagram plot, they are trying to maximize their chances of increasing the total footprint as large as possible and minimizing areas of circular overlap. Do I necessarily agree with this? Not really. But I see the angle, and I understand from a strategic context people in charge of large organizations believe the ends are far more important than your individual feelings about feeling underappreciated because of who you are.

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.

July 29, 2020

On 7/18/2020 at 9:16 AM, brawnie said:

Since this is an anonymous forum where people share anonymous thoughts, I'd like to hear why you all are planning on voting red this year? Specifically, what policies are actually making you interested in the republican platform? Because I can't find many convincing ones? I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and McCain in 2008, but since ~2009, I feel republican views have shifted out of line with my own.

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

July 29, 2020

On 7/16/2020 at 6:40 PM, brabus said:

Concur. Now can we get back to when that Japanese kid down the street is going to pay me my owed reparations for Pearl Harbor? I’ve suffered long enough...

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

July 29, 2020

On 7/24/2020 at 9:01 AM, hindsight2020 said:

...and yet the USAF still contends retention isn't affected by basing choices or lack thereof. *Laughs in AF 1288*

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

December 20, 2019

Nope. Next question.

July 14, 2018

"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.

July 14, 2018

"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...

July 8, 2018

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Concur. However, VR beats chairflying with a poster. Also better than a SIM for some lessons.

The key question is can this technology provide enough base knowledge to make flights more efficient? If you cut 25% of syllabus flights but replaced them with 400% increase in VR training, can you produce an equivalent (or better) product for less money?

i don’t know the answer, but I’m glad we’re investigating the question. And I think we’ve got a team in Austin who will assess objectively.

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.

June 26, 2018

3 hours ago, daynightindicator said:

I assume you’re talking about the group of pilots that met with Senators Cotton and King last year. If you’re not, I apologize and take the rest for what it’s worth.

They were never told they had to say X or couldn’t say Y. They WERE told that going in with guns on the money issue would not play well, specifically with senator Cotton, who had made it clear he thought that the 20K bonus was plenty large enough, and that people should want to serve out of pure patriotism. Spending the meeting trying to convince him otherwise was not going to be a good use of time.

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

June 19, 2018

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.

June 13, 2018

52 minutes ago, ThreeHoler said:

Nah I think he finally realized his site jumped the shark...and he makes enough money off it not to give a shit. Not that his stuff was that great anyway.

x 1,000,000,000

June 13, 2018

4 hours ago, Warrior said:

When I ran the numbers, the NPV of staying AD until 20 vs jumping to the Airlines at the first opportunity was close. The assumptions you make matter a lot (upgrade times, furloughs, health care costs, equipment, in base or not, etc). The numbers were well within the error margin of those assumptions.

That check of the month club is worth a little over $1M in today’s dollars-again, dependent on what discount rate you assume.

My own opinion is QOL matters far more than the money. Everyone makes the decision for their own reasons. And everyone has a price. We’re really all just flying whores when you get down to it.

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.

April 25, 2018

8 hours ago, Merle Dixon said:

Hello,

To all of my AF Reserve TR brothers and sisters...

My squadron has a policy, once you are in your 20th year and you have 50 points, you do not have to work your last 6 to 8 months before retirement. You do have to show up for the mandatory UTAs once a quarter or once per half (we now have MUTAs only twice per year). Well, we had a douche nozzle CC a few years ago that tried to rescind that policy. He wanted guys to fully participate until their retirement date. So, two of my bros called AFRPC and spoke with a SMSgt. The SMSgt informed them that legally, once a member is in her/his 20th year and has accumulated 50 points, he/she no longer has to participate. Your squadron/unit is unable to force you to participate any further. The SMSgt said the only recourse the squadron has, if you refuse to participate, is that they can submit paperwork to place you into the IRR. Well, by the time the squadron gins up the IRR paperwork and submits it to the group, which submits it to the numbered AF, which submits it to AFRPC, which runs it through the wickets, 8 months or more just went by. So, the SMSgt said basically there is absolutely nothing your squadron can do to compel you to work your last 6 to 8 months (6 to 9 if you like :) ).

My bros had a meeting with the douche Sq/CC and told him this. They told douche that they retire in 7 months, they already picked up a copy of their FEFs, a copy of their flight records and a copy of their med records, been nice knowing ya, adios! He huffed and puffed and got his g-string panties in a wad. The douche made a bunch of phone calls and guess what, the SMSgt was correct. There was absolutely nothing douche could do about it. Here is a surprise, the no work your last 6 to 8 months policy returned.

So, any of you stuck in the BS AFRC stop-loss/no retirement/AFRC has zero integrity/mess, and you have 20 or more years of service and you have at least 50 points for your current year, tell your unit to pound sand. You are free. Braveheart William Wallace style, yell it dawg, FREEDOM!!

Merle

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

March 11, 2018

57 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

Tweaking standards is nothing new. Actually segregating classes though, that reaches a whole new level of FUBAR, in 2018 no less. What strange times we live in. What blows my skull is that all of it fundamentally stems from not wanting to give 13-year O-4s some measure of QOL control. That level of visceral recalcitrance against ceding even an RCH on the one-sided nature of military indentured servitude is why this won't ever be solved by so-called leadership. They almost rather lose a war than ever catch themselves negotiating with their 'human property'. In a way I understand the civilian trope about military membership being cannon fodder and "it was this or Walmart" economic draftee dynamics, as a collective. With the level of treatment we get out of management when it comes to non-economic retention measures, can we really say civilians have it wrong? Don't get me started on the UCMJ in garrison in a military with 1069% more women than when they wrote the god damn thing. Fact is, only a peer war will rip these derelicts off the helm.

God-damned poetry.

February 19, 2018

14 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

There is also a rumor of two squadrons of Vipers showing up to Whiteman for FTU

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?

15 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

I guess I'm missing something here. Does "Holloman" means something else other than an AD base in southern NM? What about it was a bad idea from the start?

Location, location, location. Good ramp space, airspace (on paper), etc, mean NOTHING when it comes to your after work life.

17 hours ago, HossHarris said:

Holloman was a terrible idea from the start

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.

February 19, 2018

3 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:

I feel like I have to ask the obvious. Where does AFPC think they're going to generate IP's from fore these new squadrons. Or am I misreading this and they're just going to move the squadrons from Holloman?

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.

February 9, 2018

On 2/7/2018 at 6:26 AM, HeloDude said:

Wait--what?? Where are you getting these numbers? Show me the retirement math for a 20-yr Major vs a 20-yr Lt Col living until 85...

On 2/7/2018 at 10:45 AM, di1630 said:

Today the diff between a maj and ltc retiring at 20 years is ~$6k before taxes. Over 40 years that’s $240kish....hardly half mil

Copy. Quarter mil. Show me the money.

February 7, 2018

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm already out, so I don't have any skin in the game, but I'm wondering if people really believe that you should promote to Lieutenant Colonel doing nothing but flying. I mean, you get a raise based on years in service, it's how the pay tables are built. But if all you're really doing is flying, it doesn't seem to make sense to make someone a lieutenant-colonel for something that a captain, or in special situations maybe a major, is needed to do.

Now if the strategy is "the Air Force is stuck between a rock and a hard place and we want to take full advantage of the situation," then bravo. But do people honestly believe that it's fair, or even logical, to make someone who does nothing but fly and maybe manage one of the simple flying programs a lieutenant colonel?

Change it to Major and I'm 100% in agreement. Increase the incentive bonus for crusty old majors to financially compensate them, cool. But giving the rank seems to me to only make rank less meaningful. Am I wrong?

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.

4 hours ago, BADFNZ said:

There's really no benefit to Big Blue promoting you to Lt Col in this instance. You're already locked in for 20 and you're not going to be a CC, so why would they voluntarily give you more money? This just sounds like classic AF carrot dangling.

Raimius' post below is exactly why Lt Col is a necessity.

3 hours ago, raimius said:

Who can't see the AF getting an ADSC for "flight only track" then dropping them as an O-4 right before they become protected for retirement? Sounds EXACTLY like what the bean counters would do.

December 31, 2017

3 hours ago, mcbush said:

Any further details on that? Some of us younger bucks have to make a decision on opting into the BRS next week, and this kind of thing definitely carries a lot of weight...

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

December 8, 2017

17 hours ago, jazzdude said:

All that to say, there no real comparison between doctor and pilot bonuses. Each gets paid what the military thinks is fair, and yet both groups are still undermanned. Saying we (pilots) should get a 100k/yr bonus because the doctors do is dumb. We should be paid enough to make the jump to the civilian world not as enticing as it is now. Then again, would $100k/yr bonus keep more pilots in if the AF doesn't address toxic leadership, doing more with less, and culture problems?

Outsource medicine? What if the local doctors don't want to take new patients, or don't think Tricare pays them enough? What if the only hospital in town goes bankrupt? How many AMEs are out there to do flight surgeon stuff? How about getting doctors to go down range? If people aren't fit for duty, the unit mission suffers. If you want to outsource dependent care, sure, I can see a case for that.

I'm tired of pilots thinking we're the only ones that matter in the AF. Yes, our service needs pilots to accomplish it's core mission, but we can't do it alone. Yes, we deserve to be paid better to help with retention. But we also deserve support functions that can actually support us, so we can focus on flying. The underlying problem is we are not manned or funded to do the things our nation asks of us, but we are too afraid to say we are at (or really past) our breaking point. On top of that, we self impose the ridiculous OPR/PRF system that wastes innumerable man hours- that's self inflicted. We created a culture where failure is not an option, so people will go out great lengths to cover up problems rather than identifying them and solving them, instead of using failures as learning points to make ourselves better.

We can't contract everything out and keep cutting our support functions; we've been doing that for years and we are paying for it now. Finance sucks because they've consolidated to save on manning. Having our own medical capabilities means they should better understand the environment we work in, but we can't attract enough medical personnel. Contract mx sucks. It took Vance a year to get its runway repaired through a government contract, while Stillwater airport 45 min away did theirs at about the same time in 3 months. Why not get rid of the MAF and contract it all out? Contractors already fly some Army airdrops in theater, why not expand it to all airdrops? There's contract ISR already too, so let's get rid of that as well. I'm sure we could find a contractor willing to do light attack. Where do we draw the line at for what must be done by active duty? But hey, just give the pilots a big bonus, and all the AF's problems will be fixed. Scratch that, just give the fighter guys a big bonus, everyone else can be contracted out. I got mine, screw everyone else, sucks to be you.

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.

December 7, 2017

22 minutes ago, LiquidSky said:

To make sure I'm tracking, you're saying that the bar to starting upt needs to be set higher than a college degree and 90 days at ots? Or that it's right where it belongs and in testing out the E program we're lowering the current bar too far?

Control is an interesting thought, but I would be shocked if they're thinking that many moves ahead. My money is on this being yet another poorly attempted cost saving bandaid that is ignoring the root cause of both pilot production and retention rates.

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?

December 7, 2017

29 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

The bonus listed for oral surgeon looks about right.

The bonuses look like what a doctor could make in just over a year as a civilian out of residency, so even with the large bonuses listed, they still come out way behind. Even worse off than pilots. Throw in the fact that medicine also has pipeline issues (only so many residency programs and spots in those programs), and the military has to compete hard to attract doctors who can make a lot more on the outside, and likely accumulated $200-300k in debt for school. However, the military has probably made little investment in their doctors; probably didn't pay for their med school, and residency is like being a copilot/wingman for a few years.

On the other hand, us pilots get our training (UPT and FTU) paid for by the military, so they've already made a big investment in us (the ~$1M to make a mission ready pilot). And unlike a doctor, where you can bring a civilian in pretty much at any level of responsibility or rank, you can't really do that with a pilot. Unless you do something silly like a direct to T-1 program, then make them an aircraft commander bypassing copilot since they were previously a regional captain...

The Air Force needs to figure out how much it values pilot experience. It obviously values medical experience, and is ready to pay for that experience. If pilot experience is also important, the bonus needs to go up to compete with the airlines. They need to protect/retain their investment, and convince people to stay (That's what I think needs to happen) If they are fine with the experience levels that are being retained now, I wouldn't expect to see the bonus really change. Heck, just change the definition of an experienced pilot and the Air Force will look great, at least on paper. But that would make for some interesting times if a real shooting war kicks off.

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.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Blogs

Downloads

Wiki

Posts posted by ViperMan