SurelySerious

The fact that stone age AFGSC is ahead of another MAJCOM in something is unbelievable.

From the History Friday thread because I can't figure out how to link to a post in mobile. From the man himself. https://www.flyingsquadron.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11649-History-Friday/page__view__findpost__p__422070

DaughterSon? Some new gender thing, probably.

I file that under bullshit, instability, and bad leadership mostly.

Calling whatever we're doing a "strategy" is generous.

In that case, we can annex Vancouver or build some fake Islands near Curaçao and no one will do anything about it. Fight's on! Kidding.

Combination. At the time, the USMC was looking for a Harrier replacement, and pretty much based on the political/budget environment when the JSF was in its infancy, they figured the only way to get one was to latch on.

Apparently part of their reprimand was to remove all copies of it. Seems reasonable given the scope and nature of Al Gore's interwebs. /s Although, maybe the man won in this case.

Checkmate.

Your data on SCAR is misinterpreted. It is exactly for localized control of a full F2T2EA process emphasizing decentralized execution in low to medium threat environments. Final attack control isn't part of the SCAR responsibilities because it isn't needed in an environment where close proximity to FF and detailed integration don't exist. All you need is someone doing task/employment/airspace deconfliction. So for air interdiction of emerging target sets where you don't need the detailed integration for friendly forces, the SCAR will have authority to issue Investigate/Target/Smack tasks. If the JFC/JFACC actually delegate the authority as intended. The ALSA MTTP has a lot more specifics.

Or how about we innovate and find a better way to do things instead of using a system that doesn't fit the current ops environment?

Standard "leadership" TTP of not answering the question that was asked whatsoever, nice.

I got an email in response to a ticket from an A1C asking me to justify why our NIPR computers should work by providing how many people use them, how often they deploy, how many pilots/officers we have, and what our squadron's mission is Pretty sure it was probably a Russian hacker. So we've got that going for us.

This Navy? https://www.defensenews.com/articles/grounded-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-navys-strike-fighters-cant-fly

The experts can correct if required, but the roadshow was in town recently, and they said yes. Their main concern is being able to get ~4 good years out of you.

He's got some great lines throughout the episode. You just have to look past the 18 minutes about the skynet projector hmcs...although it's probably not much worse in an ejection situation than what we've actually got in JHMCS.

Re Scorpion and AMRAAM: Kinematically, you kind of lose out going slow and launching BVR.

You wanted "better" locations, no?

Sounds close enough to what the AF was looking for at EFB spin-up phase that I'd buy it.

False. You can apply and not get selected multiple times. If, however, you get selected for something to which you have applied and turn it down, then you can no longer apply.

Only a win if anyone reads them.