ViperMan
-
Posts
638 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by ViperMan
-
-
11 hours ago, pawnman said:
UPT grads won't solve my WSO problem.
Nothing can solve that!
-
2
-
-
On 11/11/2016 at 0:25 PM, Homestar said:
Yeah, that was pretty good. The saddest thing was watching the Capt get stood up and dressed down for daring to suggest that there be a flying track for officers not interested in command. I felt that was unnecessarily patronizing.
IMO the root problem is that we assume there needs to be a "track" or "path" in the first place and built our model career progression on that assumption. Leadership (IMO) is not a characteristic that is forged in the halls of PME schools, or one that is necessarily identifiable in people that are young Captains. Why, again, are we choosing people to be Generals when they are in their mid 20s? A (likely) better model for achieving the rank of General is a sustained level of performance over the course of a (continuing) career - not what we currently have, which is where those who show some potential during their first assignment are strapped to a rocket ship and ride that early performance for years.
53 minutes ago, whis said:I'd be really interested to hear why leadership in the AF is against a non-leadership type track...
I also think the mentality that a non-leadership track would be capped at O-5 is a stretch. There are people in the AF that try to do everything they can to be on a leadership path... Yet they end their career as an O-5. IMO (and I'm sure more than one person on this forum will hate this idea) a person that volunteers to take themselves off of a leadership path should probably be capped at O-4...
I just wish that this type of thing didn't feel like a far off pipe dream... The force would def benefit from keeping a better knowledge base and experience in the squadron...
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network ForumsIt has to be O-5 because HYT/MSD for Majors is 18 years, and you can't have people gambling on getting to 20 when all it takes is a whim of the AF to say "thanks for your service," on your way out the door at 18 years and 0 days of service.
-
Hill was the best time I've had in the AF, and was probably the one assignment that I would have jumped at to repeat. I lived in SLC when I was stationed there, and it is a great city IMO. If you want < 20 minutes though, well that's definitely out of reach. When I was moving there, I was after the same things you were, and unfortunately, there's just not much in the way of that between Hill and the city. As for Ogden, that's your best bet if you want "things to do," but it's still not as good as SLC, but I never hung out there so can't really comment too much. As far as outdoors activities, it really doesn't matter where you live, you'll have it available to you. If I was you, I'd suck it up and take the 40 minute commute and live in the city - it was worth it. I'd look around the Liberty Park area (and Sugarhouse) so I could get on the highway quick and still be able to access downtown with ease. You'd have a lot of work to do to find a place with a large yard around that area, but it can be done. Also, the houses look a lot smaller than they are, because many have large basements. Easy 40 minutes because it's all interstate, and you're going against the flow of traffic - the most frustrating part of my drive started at the front gate when it became a contest to see how many civilians could try and dive in front of my car.
-
1
-
-
IMHO, if we are executing CAS in a high-threat environment, we are misapplying airpower.
-
6
-
-
48 minutes ago, pawnman said:
So why do the Viper students not live on base? Why does the JTR win when it comes to billeting but PCS vs TDY rules lose even though these guys are clearly there for more than 179 days?
Legal answer? Because the JTR says so. It's literally that simple...and that's my only beef. The studs (IMO) are picking a straw man battle.
Philosophically? I totally agree. There is basically, qualitatively, no difference whatsoever.
Difference? Students should be pissed at what the JTR says, not that the base leadership is following it (appropriately so). Or alternatively, that the AF puts them there in TDY status vs PCS status.
-
13 hours ago, magnetfreezer said:
The use of Govt quarters is a should not a will... if you go off base w/o a non-A your reimbursement is limited to the base lodging rate. It doesn't say you can be ordered to stay on base or you won't be reimbursed at all.
Ok, but the the government's "should" beats your "want to" every time.
13 hours ago, tac airlifter said:Are one bedroom quarters with only a microwave for cooking considered "adequate" for a 9 month TDY? I don't know, but it does suck. Given how much suck is inevitable in our careers, and how much of it is beyond our control..... I find myself philisophically opposed to leadership decisions which increase suck merely to be in compliance with regulations, rather than produce some quantifiable increase in mission effectiveness. Officers exist to make smart choices in precisely these kinds of circumstances. Your logic above is soundly IAW applicable regulations. Unfortunately, zealously following regulations made by faceless bureaucrats has significantly increased the personal discomfort of this segment of our war fighting force without increasing their lethality. That's not the kind of leader I want to be, and probably not you either.
Perhaps a better leadership angle would be: "I know this training is taking longer than we thought. I know many of you brought your families here and these accommodations are placing a strain on your personal life. Because I care about you being the best RPA operators possible, I recognize that your living environment should be conducive to optimal learning and my on base facilities simply aren't there yet. I'm rescinding my policy and I encourage each of you to find lodging within your budget that best enables an environment where your training is optimized. This is not an efficient use of funds or equipment on my base, but let me worry about those justifications. Our nation needs you to focus on honing the precision engagement skills which have become the bedrock of our strategy against AQ/IS. Do your best, be your best, and thank you for helping me identify a personal strain I can alleviate so you can focus on our mission. Go kick ass."
Probably not, honestly. I would be upset if I was forced to live (for > 1/2 year) in some of the sub-standard billeting I've stayed in. However, my point is that it is not always the CCs in charge of the base that make decisions like these. Everyone has a boss (including wing/CCs), and when I first became aware of this "issue" at Holloman, I was a little surprised because my reaction was "it's not within the Wing/CCs authority to override the JTR, what are these people complaining about?" (then again, that's only my "thought"...who knows, maybe they can override it and do what they want...).
I sport bitch all the time about stuff that is annoying and irritating about the Air Force - and I agree that this is one of those things...buuuuutttt, I don't start Facebook groups and letters petitioning for O-6s to change policies over which they have (I think...) little to no control. To me it just seems like this group is highlighting that they are completely out of touch with how the military operates and who and what it reports to.
I like that leadership angle, but I'd rather have the guy tell me "hey I hear you and it is BS, but that's not in my power to control. When you get out at the end of your commitment, cite the JTR as your reason for separating, and maybe it'll change for the next guy...see ya."
-
4 minutes ago, guineapigfury said:
The 18Xers are TDY, they're being forced into a hotel. 92T0s are PCS'd to their UPT base and the rules for that are different. For reference, the F-16 students are PCS'd here and may live wherever they like.
From defensetravel.dod.mil:
"Uniformed Members
3. Is a uniformed member required to check availability/use Gov’t Qtrs?
A DoD member ordered to a U.S. installation (as opposed a geographic location like a town or city) is required to check Gov’t Qtrs availability (e.g., through the CTO/TMC) at the U.S. installation to which assigned TDY. The AO may direct adequate available Gov’t Qtrs use for a DoD uniformed member on a U.S. installation only if the DoD uniformed member is TDY to that U.S. installation. The DoD member should use adequate Gov’t Qtrs on the U.S. installation at which assigned TDY.
FOR COAST GUARD, NOAA, and PHS PERSONNEL ONLY: Gov’t Qtrs are available only if use is directed in the travel order, per JTR, par. 2550 .
The DoD member is not required to seek/check for Gov’t Qtrs when TDY to a U.S. Installation/ Reservation after non-availability documentation has been initially provided (JTR, par. 2560 )."
Don't feel like diving into a 1000+ page pub right now, but I'm pretty sure the JTR will say the same thing. I don't disagree with people being upset about being forced into a housing situation, but I do struggle to understand why they're making the base leadership out to be in the "wrong" somehow, when it is clearly the government's policy that TDY members should use base billeting...
-
How is forcing 18Xers to live on base different from forcing 92T0s from living on base? I went through pilot training and had to live in quarters (mandatory) until it reached a certain level of occupancy.
-
13 minutes ago, BAMF69 said:
Is it our good buddy Obama that has pretty much dismantled the military? Can't wait till that SOB is gone.
Exactly 0.00% (repeating, of course) to do with anything.
-
-
12 minutes ago, Harvey said:
C-17 functional is now advertising the opportunity for us to cross flow to the BUFF. I'm guessing pawnman was right about the amount of B-1 guys who are interested in crossing over.
Do you have to be airdrop qualified?
-
49 minutes ago, El Guapo said:
Up $576 in San Francisco for 0-4 w/ dep which brings us to $5310 now. For years Manhattan had the highest rates I had seen but we are now 600 bucks up on NYC. Wondering if anyone knows of a higher zip in the US than SF?
I think the BAH rates are broken down into something called MHA, which are further sub-divided into zip codes. The most expensive currently (for those with dependents, because they're not exactly the same as for those without) is "CA019," which includes more than 50 zip codes...which is San Fran. Here's your top 10:
CA019, 5310
NY219, 4704
NY349, 4602
CA044, 4170
NY218, 3981
MA377, 3909
HI408, 3786
MA120, 3744
CA037, 3630
CA018, 3627 -
10 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:
F bombs...
-
6 hours ago, TnkrToad said:
Dude,
[...]
Bottom line, the enlisted pilot idea worked great, primarily because the American economy sucked so badly in the 30s that serving as an enlisted pilot--with the possibility of earning a regular commission--was far better than the prospects in the civilian sector. That ain't the case today. My perception is that pilots are leaving in significant numbers now in large part due to the greater economic opportunities available to them in the civil sector. If such is the case, it would be galactically stupid to spend the time and money training enlisted pilots, with the hope of retaining them with even worse pay and benefits in the current economy.
Enlisted RPA operators might work, if there is no market for RPA pilots in the civil sector. Given that, from this forum (I'm certainly no expert on the RPA field), there are plenty of good opportunities for RPA pilots in the civilian world, the enlisted Global Hawk idea is unlikely to be successful. While I'm happy that the Air Force is trying to think outside the container, and perhaps it's at least worth setting up a test program to see if it's viable, I have difficulty seeing this work in the long term.
TT
^^^This x 1000.
IMO, enlisted drone operators will only serve to worsen the USAF's manpower problems especially considering the limited throughput of the training pipeline. What in the world is going to keep an E-5 in who's doing the same job as an O-4, but who is paid 1/3 of the salary? Said person, who could command the same salary as the O-4 on the outside from "name-your-contract-drone-operator"? What, are we going to make QOL so much better for the Enlisted drone corps that they wouldn't dream of getting out? Fat chance, $hit still rolls downhill.
The basic problem that is causing our manpower issues hasn't been solved. Just simply throwing different meat into the grinder isn't going to be this magical panacea the AF is hoping for. I'm sure, though, that volunteers will be clamor to the entry gates, and this volume will serve to reinforce the narrative that "wow, that was a great idea!", until the 1st ADSCs start to expire...
-
4 hours ago, AlifBaa said:
It could work well, but the AF still needs to tackle its retention issues and guard against the temptation to reduce standards.
<...>
As an ISR (RC-135 and MC-12, pilot type) guy, I've flown with a lot of truly magnificent enlisted aviators. Many of them would be quite successful as pilots. The AF can recruit them a lot more easily than officers (lower entry requirements), so this will provide a more easily achieved, lower AF-impact route to manning relief.
The pay differential and inability to truly advance into a leadership role is also a factor. Most of all, enlisted aviators realize their talents far surpass the average enlistee, yet the AF treats them like ignorant peons.
Bottom line: You can definitely find E's who can play in the pilot world <...>The ones who make it through should be welcomed with open arms, then held to exactly the same standards as the O's. If we do that, this is part of the solution.
As a pile-on / slightly different perspective to this, I'll say that the debate isn't really over whether someone who is enlisted could perform the task - of course they could, and maybe they should. I do disagree that having enlisted drone operators is the panacea that internet message board comments abound would have us believe, though. The notion that they "couldn't hack" the mission is a red-herring.
The real issue is that enlisted drone operators would have an even greater incentive for getting out than the currently fielded solution does (i.e. the officer core). The reason for this is because the work is the same, but the pay differential for the same skill set on the outside is even larger for TSgt Joe Schmo than it is for Maj Umpdenuts. Hence, in what universe does a TSgt S (who's being paid $42K/yr) look at that contract drone salary and decide he's going to stick it out for the long haul, but Maj U (who's paid > $100K/yr) decides the stress is just too great, and jumps out to increase his pay and QOL to a lesser extent than the TSgt? If anything, having enlisted drone pilots (may) would only exacerbate the current retention issues facing the drone fleet.
If it was simply a matter of throwing flesh at the solution then the AF could send these motivated Es through OTS (for what, like $12K?), and probably have to deal with less "institutional" upheaval than "plan B"...
-
Average retirement worth between 2 and 3 mil...call it 2.5 mil.I don't understand this. Where are the 400k to 500k numbers coming from?
2.5 mil / 5 years of work = 500K/year.
-
Lots of talk about money here, and while I recognize its importance, I feel like the drive to bail on the AF is all about how to wind up with $11M in your bank account when you die (which, BTW, when you die, your Uncle Same is going to recollect around 55% of that cash you didn't spend)...OR is all about how much you hate the AF - one feeling likely justifies the other. Not liking the way the AF is run is a separate subject and a valid one to critique, but without any knowledge of the airline industry, I guarantee, you a trading one shitty bureaucracy for another.
I'm not sure how much more I would enjoy the $11M vs. $3M the AF will pay me in the long run - maybe 69% vs 68%? I'm sure some people are more creative than me out there and will immediately educate me on what I could use the extra $8M for, but I enjoy dropping bombs and shooting shit - yeah, if you're flying from A to B, then it makes sense to trade one A to B for another for cash, but in my world, flying from A to A with bombs in between is much more valuable from a QOL standpoint than sleeping in a Motel 6 (or Hyatt) 8 days a month - but to each their own.
What I really don't get is the "shocked disbelief" that other people display when others choose to get paid the equivalent of 400K to 500K the last 5 years of active duty service...somehow that's "not worth it." That equivalent salary puts any "line" airline pilot's to shame no matter how senior they are.
Yeah, being a pilot in this day and age is valuable, and that's what we're seeing in both the AF and in the airline world. Why complain about what decisions other people make?
-
1. Entourage.
2. The Office.
3. Point Break.
-
Last time I checked, the constitution didn't mention not being kept in a tent for 21 days if you're a possible vector for a level four biohazard...
Call me when this happens...
-
Nope. I know two guys - one pilot and one FE that retired and joined the ARC. FE retired at 20+ and went Guard. Pilot retired via TERA and went reserves. When they work at the Guard/Reserve, they get their drill pay for that day. When they don't, they get their retired pay for that day. Just need a unit that will accept you.
Valid.
-
Ehh, don't worry about it...we'll make up for it with the new flat-rate per diem that was just established for TDYs that exceed 180 days!!!
/sarcasm
I wonder how long it will take for this new policy to make up for the "nearly $500 million in U.S. funds spent on the program"...without doing the math, what's the over-under on that timeline reaching into the 100s of years? Putting them out on the Nellis range and letting me drop live (or inert) -12's on them would have been $$$ better spent...
-
I call BS on this logic. I've heard numerous times from AFPC that the non-vol list generated each assignment cycle doesn't factor in ADSC. And while I'm skeptical, I believe it because If it did, then there would be no such thing as a 7-day opt since the list would only target those who couldn't opt out. Also, if it became public knowledge (through policy or anecdotal data) that everyone who took the bonus got a bad deal, then the take rate would severely plummet and your "out-year programming" would be even more worthless.
-9-
Another possibility is that statistics are kept regarding how many individuals 7-day or 3-day an assignment, which is then incorporated into the overall equation that is used to shape the force; which would be a fairly quick and easy way to trim different AFSCs: i.e. if it takes a 3:1 7-day opt ratio to get one to stick, and they're 3 guys heavy, they let it bounce around until the 11X equation is "balanced" and then this:
I don't think he meant it that way. 365s aren't targeted based on ADSC, but even so, the assignment eventually hits someone who can't 7-day opt, whereas without the bonus it wouldn't, and more people could 7-day opt before finding a taker.
It's this reason specifically that when my time comes, I won't take the bonus, even though I plan to stay in.
Just a thought.
-
All you need to know about Lagavulin:
...and, if you've got 3 minutes:
-
What's the CoSAF?
It's like the Assistant to the regional manager...
New BAH rates are out.
in General Discussion
Posted
So is the idea basically +up everyone's basic pay by like 80% of the 'average' BAH out on the street and then give you a 'kicker' to make those individuals in high cost of living areas able to make ends meet?
If that's the case, I'll take the extra "BAH" as part of my salary cause it'll be nice having the extra amount increase my retirement check. Always thought the idea of BAH/BAS was a way for the DOD to get around having to pay larger retirements, under the guise of "look, you get to pay less taxes!". I'm sure I'm misreading something though.