SFG
-
Posts
252 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by SFG
-
-
1 hour ago, FUSEPLUG said:
Now that Duck has been kicked to the curb, I look forward to following your progression. As a fellow 05'er, I sincerely hope you get that promotion. On the Guard side, I'm going to press-to-test on not doing ACSC in correspondence and see what happens. I'll let you guys know how that worked out for me in 6 years.
I've seen Reserve guys get O-5 without ACSC. Not sure how Guard would work, but I've always gotten the impression they give less Forks.
-
New Ned Stark article. Argues against strats and forced distribution.
However, word is AF wants to move to an Army system of top/middle/bottom third check boxes.
-
1
-
-
I talked to a few reserve guys (all in the same unit) and they made it very clear to me that they believed getting an active duty retirement in the guard or the reserves was a myth. They said the unit and the AF would never allow it. Something about not letting you enter sanctuary; not giving you active orders if it puts you in your last two years prior to 20.
Thoughts? That advice is what has kept me in, but maybe it’s dated now, because this conversation keeps coming up.
-
3 hours ago, sling-it-17 said:
Haven’t checked myPers in a while, but does anyone have intel on when the 19’ bonus is dropping? As i understand it no changes from last year but one would like to think it would drop sooner due to the NDSA is already signed. Crazy talk i know!
They'll get 9 more months out of you if they wait until July.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, cragspider said:
While that would be perfect for most of us in a perfect world. However how can we write your/our retirement dec without all the fodder from the opr’s?
The same way we get the fodder for the OPRs.
-
9 hours ago, Cooter said:
The last thing you want to happen with this program is it gets turned into some kind of goddamn flying club and screws the pooch for being a sustainable program well into the future.
Yes, I hear the U-2 program is pretty terrible 😂.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:
Fair enough! I should have asked what is unique to flying T38s that would make a T38 trained student more desireable for SOF LA?
From my POV, an experienced gunship or RPA driver would be a better fit than someone without a strike background who happened to fly 38s. But not having flown the 38, I don’t know what I don’t know. Ergo, I’m asking.
Can’t say I disagree, but that’s not how things usually work.
-
12 minutes ago, Tank said:
Between the AFRC and AD =
10-15
The next source would probably be AFSOC UPT T-38 guys no? Probably a lot more of those floating around.
-
4 hours ago, Harambe said:
Any development on the heavy to fighter topic?
I heard the last crop was so successful they will be retraining heavy dudes without T-38 time now, but they are only selecting from a pool of current instructors with a history of zero downgrades, who were top 10% of their class in UPT, DG’d ROTC, have at least 1000 hours of combat time in the KC-135, high and tights, no kids, and at least one OPR with the word “tactical.”
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, katdude said:
@Klepto It is well known that more energy is needed to decelerate a spacecraft. Space shuttle needed to do a de-orbit burn in order to reenter earth's atmosphere. There is a net energy loss because the fuel has been used up and the final kinetic energy is still zero in our scenario.
...
I honestly think this question is what is preventing us from creating spacecraft that can dart from planet to planet at incredible speeds.
It is actually well-known that it takes exactly the same amount of energy to decelerate a spacecraft in a closed system as it does to accelerate it... even less if you consider the friction of space and the reduced weight of the spacecraft after fuel burn.
It IS well known that a de-orbit burn occurs in... orbit. Not a closed system by any stretch of the imagination.
Even if your question had a valid premise, and it wasn’t your first post ever here, I doubt we would solve interstellar travel on this forum.
Sorry.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, katdude said:
But after Burn 2, more fuel and thereby chemical energy is expended but is used up to decelerate it back to zero velocity. After Burn 2, the spacecraft has zero kinetic energy and also a net loss of chemical energy. Where did this chemical energy go?
Why do you think more energy would be used to decelerate the spacecraft? In other words, where are you getting the premise that there would be a net loss?
-
1 hour ago, Tank said:
The authorities granted to the pilots in regards to flying in combat with the PN personnel and the amount of training they both receive.
CAAs receive more specialized training and can be granted the authority to fly combat sorties in the PN aircraft with their PN counterpart.
Tracking CAAs. I’ve just never heard of Advanced Advisors in AFSOC. I’m familiar with Air Advisors on the conventional side. Can you say what units employ Advanced Advisors?
-
5 hours ago, Tank said:
AFSOC Light Attack mission set 1 is for Combat Aviation Advisor training, 2 is for AFSOC CAS, 3 is for AFSOC Advanced Advisors.
What’s the difference between CAA and Advanced Advisors?
-
LAA is all about partnering with underdeveloped nations in the “real” long war... The majority of the world can’t afford our F-16s, even when we give them away. LAA fills that gap and makes us more friends faster. All the other talk is second-order stuff.
-
59 minutes ago, FLEA said:
On another note, I do know one person who recieved paperwork for not using his GTC to pay for hotel. So it does happen.
PAPERWORK!? I've never even heard of anyone being asked if they used their GTC.
-
4 hours ago, cragspider said:
Champ I agree, we have other things to worry about than what the service dress will be since we rarely wear it. But if we are going to change it bring back the old school style jackets, in either the older bluish grey that the AF started out with or the Pink and greens old school AAC style. While the older blue one wouldn’t require as much change for most of us anyway if we keep the same blue shirt as well
Now we do have something to complain about the pt shirts. They do suck and should have been made out of a wicking fabric a LONG time ago.
USAF PT shirts should also sit in the back of one's closet 364 days out of the year...
-
5
-
-
5 hours ago, ViperStud said:
This is a bad deal for folks who do long TDYs, especially overseas. I’ve done several OCONUS TDYs where I could procure furnished apartments for half of my 75% allotment - and pocket the rest.
I never did understand why there was such uproar over this rule. If you actually understood it, and put in a little effort to find something beyond the Hilton/Marriott, you could really make some coin.
I always took my family on long TDYs to try to offset the years I spent away from them deployed... when the new (now old) rule took effect it made it almost impossible to find decent places to stay where I was for 75% lodging, much less getting schwacked for 75% M&IE. Every situation is different. Good on you for making some coin.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Chuck17 said:
Sounds like the approximate percentage of dudes that get picked up for major's school (which includes an ADSC of 3 years post-school). So... the only dudes that are staying are dudes that are staying anyway.
At least that's what I see in those numbers.
Chuck
I'd say most of those guys did the "should I go to school or not" math with the expectation of the bonus... meaning if there weren't a bonus, they wouldn't be staying anyway.
-
7 hours ago, KPPV1 said:
I thought the A2CU was Army Aircrew Combat Uniform. There’s not going to be any Airmen if this continues...Only in the Army.
-
1 hour ago, ihtfp06 said:
They can waive the ADSC and make you PCS anyway. That said, I doubt they will if you have to go through FTU, since they’ll get even less useful time out of you. Where I’ve seen it happen is guys with less than 2 years left being sent to either instruct at Altus or go to staff. 7-day opting can also put you at the top of the list for 179s.Of note, I'm pretty sure you cannot get a 179 or even a 365 while your Palace Chase application is in limbo.
-
1 hour ago, BroncoEN said:
If this is true, the AF actually turned a corner on retention.
Pretty sure a lot of people would put up with a lot of BS for an extra 72K/yr with a pension at the end.
No way it's 72K. At best that # is a mistake. At worst it is a rumor designed to keep people in until it's too late.
You can watch the video of the CSAF telling Congress that he didn't need more than $35k when Congress directly asked him if he wanted more $ for bonuses in the FY'19 budget.
Until that narrative changes, they will not be giving anyone a $72K bonus or professional pay anywhere near that.
From the rumors I've heard floating around I expect to see something more like:
2000/month for Co-Pilot/Wing = $24,000
2500/month for an AC/Lead = $30,000
3000/month for an IP = $36,000
3500/month for an EP = $42,000
AFTER UPT commitment is up.Therein lies the problem. What happens when you switch aircraft? What happens if you get a non-flying assignment? What happens if you need to requal? What happens when everyone is gunning for AC/IP/EP only for the money?
IF it is 72K pilot pay across the board that would be great. But it won't be. We already told Congress that the bonus is plenty big enough this year AND we don't need to raise it for next year. What's more is that Congress still requires that the AF present a tiered "business case" model for aviation bonus funding, which means they require us to pay some pilots less and some more based on statistics, forecasts, and the good 'ol 8-ball.
Bottom line is that some will get paid less and some will get paid more, just like now, and if it's not purely based on Core ID (and even if it is) people will make upgrade decisions, airframe decisions, cross-training decisions, requal and staff decisions, and more based on whatever Professional Pay ends up being... and it won't be $72k. I hope it is. But it won't be.
Anyone have anything more than hopes, dreams, or rumors?
-
On April 20, 2018 at 3:42 PM, LookieRookie said:
RUMINT/more than: The bonus/flight pay is going away and to be replaced with professional pay FY20 ala doctors.
VCSAF briefed it to UPT IPs at RND last Friday and the proposal was "approved" by SECAF the week prior, now it needs congressional approval.
The pay never deceases with TAFSC unlike flight pay. You keep it as long as youre a core 11x no matter what the billet. It's tied to industry compensation and the algorithm is ran yearly. So if the economy tanks, the pay tanks. The example (separate from VCSAF) given was a major at the end of his UPT ADSC would be making around $6K PER Month additional right now.
Any updates on this RUMINT/more than?
The latest ACTF NOTAM confirms that they are "pursuing options for replacing the AvB and AvIP programs with a “Professional Pay” construct designed to compensate Airmen for their skillsets and experience."
This worries me in that if they tie this professional pay to current qualifications, guys that had to requal or went unqual'ed will be scraping the bottom of the barrel. More than that, everyone will want to become an IP or EP even when not ready or even if unnecessary, because those qual's will be tied to more money.
Can we please just double the bonus and stop changing the game? Besides economic viability, wasn't stability and the ability to plan for the future one of the major factors in people getting out?
-
17 minutes ago, HossHarris said:
The deployment isn’t really the crux of the issue.
The issue is who’s in charge of your future and who gets to make the yes / no decision. And that has been trending towards big blue for a little while now.
They Don’t have to make people want to stay if they don’t have a choice.
For me the deployment is the crux of the issue... I’ve missed so much of my kids lives...
When I was gone 6 months without kids doing a meaningful mission it was OK.
When I was gone 3 months doing a meaningful mission and missed my kids first steps it was sad, but that is service.
When I was gone 2 months on a mission that was not required in a place where I could have brought my family and missed my kid talk... it was not worth it.
The length is a factor, but not THE (only) factor.
If the world explodes I’ll take my 4 year unaccompanied tour and go fight for America again. But if I even smell another wasted, mismanaged deployment, much less 6 monther or 365 cooking in the kitchen... I gone. Not worth it.
-
2
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, Swizzle said:
Me either...but the promotion rates say it all, especially the APZ rate this O4 board
What were they?
AF Light Air Support Aircraft
in General Discussion
Posted
I don't think the CAA deployments right now are guchi, nor vacations. Combat? Maybe, maybe not, but guchi? Nah. Nuff said.