SurelySerious

It’s probably easier to tweet about how tough you are on companies by touting a $1.7B fine than tweeting about restricting them from building critical infrastructure for the country that could include ways for an adversary to cripple the US. Or something.

Agree with Lawman on this one: China is already in a trade war with us, just not with tarrifs. They’re using other less conspicuous means. IP violations, abusing their “3d world” status with the worldwide shipping agency to leverage rock bottom mail rates through competitor post offices, hacking, etc. So when they say they’re “not going to start a trade war,” they can say it honestly because they aren’t going to, they already have. Just remember, they’re not militarizing the reefs in the SCS either.

GSC is about on the order of getting your tired, your poor, your huddled masses and the wretched refuse of your teeming shore for priority.

8th AF probably made sense...in WWII.

It’s not much of a bet when the odds are nearly guaranteed.

I recently had a staff person ask for info on a “5x8,” and my reaction was WTF is that. So I asked nicely for an example of this format. And it was just a stupid quad chart. Ugh.

He missed the boat a while back: Fat Amy. I also assume it’s not “panther”...it’s “sex panther,” but maybe that’s not fit for print in a questionable internet blog.

The email from CSAF says to hold focused forums to ID current seams or developing conditions for future unsafe conditions. He also listed several recommended topics, and then after the safety review instructs to pass feedback through chain-of-command to MAJCOM safety office. He wants to know where we have high risk areas, and that’s the way in which the UPT/FTU sortie cutting was framed.

At the glorious safety down day in at least one wing, the continual cutting of undergraduate flying training and MDS initial training was submitted as a safety issue. Chances that makes it out of the wing? I’m not holding my breath.

I thought we clarified that it would be wepons free on @BQZip01‘s mom.

$6k/month?

See also: https://www.zianet.com/tedmorris/dg/bombers4.html

Tick off scheduling, end up in the family model every flight. Sounds terrible.

It really is infuriating every time our POM guy from MAJCOM tells us why we’re waiting 6-9 years just to start new programs on our jet. So the Army and Navy can say why we don’t need X, Y, or Z in step 3/64.

Let’s be real.

He said any officer can approve any other officer. You’re partially proving his case.

When people call you a douche, is it “douche,” or is it “dooooouuuuuuche”?

Brutal.

Well said.

It's been a while since I did the IFS thing, but didn't even those dudes teach us what we ought to do if the engine quit? Similar question about civilian dudes getting their PPL in a 172?

Realizing you’re the messenger, so: If they can’t recover the jet, why are we sending them solo?

Inlet sizing is a big deal; that’s where Ben Rich initially made his money with Kelly Johnson on the U-2. But #notsurprised NG made a design/cost claim in bidding they hadn’t thought through and can’t back up.

It’s far too logical a low-cost COTS solution for that. It’s the perfect paradoxical opposition, really. It performs so seemlessly and economically that GSC is trying to kill it for savings. Over what amounts to a rounding error in their budget.

I thought the sentiment was it’s probably not a good thing for the overall airmanship, proficiency, and lethality of our force that we’re down to such low flying hours. Did no one else a while back sit there thinking, “wow, they must be really bad,” when we used to read about how other countries were flying the similar amount of hours to what was mentioned? If your airframe has viable sims for training, I’ll buy some trade off there; I would also venture to say that the reality is just reduced flying related activity, though.