DirkDiggler

3 pages back you you said you'd be a contentious objector after almost 20 years of service if your religious exemption got denied. So after almost 20 years of service, are you a contentious objector or aren't you? Or more direct question, if you're active duty; did your commander give you a direct order to take the Pfizer shot? And if so, did you refuse the direct order? How deep does your dedication to your beliefs on the Constitution (and what your view as an illegal order) go? More importantly, after 49 pages of thrash over the COVID shot, how many active duty members on this forum have actually chosen to separate over the military COVID vaccine mandate? Not asking Reserve or Guard, not asking waiting on a valid religious or medical exemption. I get that BaseOps is place that some come to bitch about military matters in general; if people stop bitching, there's probably something wrong. But I have yet to encounter an actual mass resistance on active duty to the mandate. I literally know of one person out of probably 500+ that has actually chosen to separate over the vaccine mandate. That person will be civilian in a couple weeks. I wish him the best of luck. I don't give a baker's fuck about the civilian side of this argument; I'm not a civilian and won't be for a couple years at least. FWIW, I don't think on the civilian side that the government should be able to go door-to-door sticking a needle in anyone's arms. That's not my farm and not my monkey's. This isn't even close to the dumbest vaccine the military has made me get (JEV and Anthrax would take that trophy). Seriously, how many on active duty on this forum have actually directly refused the order to get vaccine? And how many people, besides Negatory (noted exception, good for you), have actually changed their beliefs based on the dialogue on this thread?

You're immediately gonna know whether you guessed well once the gumjob starts, blindfold or not......but since that's a pretty tough qual to get probably still worth it!!

That’s enough Internet for today.

I partially agree with your assessment of our inability to play the long game; Russia and China tend to do it better than we do, especially lately. I think the truth is more nuanced. We still maintain a military presence and are committed to Korea's defense almost 70 years since the armistice, we've also been heavily involved in Colombia's internal defense for going on 50 years. Those are just two examples outside of Japan and NATO that we've actually stuck to post-WWII. There's probably others but I'd have to research that more. I think the greater strategic blunder we've made since the early '90s has been falsely assuming that Russia and China want what we want, and given enough exposure to the liberal international system would want to play by the rules. This is and has always been patently incorrect I've often wondered how things in Ukraine would've turned out had not persuaded them to give up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the fall of the USSR. In our rush to ensure non-proliferation we ignored some pretty obvious geographic/military realities regarding conventional warfare in that area of the world. I don't know that Ukraine having nukes would have ultimately made the current crisis better, but I firmly believe it wouldn't have made it worse. I'm also a believer that the possession of nuclear weapons actually decreases the possibility for large scale conflict in some ways, but that's a discussion for another thread. I don't believe that any US administration has handled US foreign policy and crises in that area of the world very well. Clinton did nothing when the Russians literally flattened Chechnya in '99. Bush did nothing when the Russian's invaded Georgia in '08. Obama did nothing in '14 about Crimea as mentioned above. Trump providing lethal aid in the form of Javelin's was somewhat different, but mostly symbolic. One of the provisions of the Javelin transfer was that they had to be stored in warehouses hundreds of miles away from the frontline with Russian back separatists and Russia itself (similar to what we did recently with the Kurds). As to the COA of putting US forces in the Ukraine, I think that would have to be handled extremely carefully. Putting something that could actually impact a Russian invasion there, like an ABCT or armored division, would probably send the Russians right over the edge/trip their red lines and maybe force a conflict. In their defense, looking at through their eyes, I maybe wouldn't blame them. If all of the sudden Mexico became an ally of Russia and Russia deployed a BTG on our border, we'd lose our shit. Maybe conducting a large scale, no notice SOF exercise focusing on asymmetric/guerilla warfare? Puts boots on the ground and also is something the Russians historically associate with bad memories and lots of casualties. Or maybe a DFE of 5th gen in country with bombers to another NATO country? We still hold an advantage there and would remind Mr. Putin that there's no certainty in conflict. As you said, not a lot of great COAs to choose from though.

Honest question; what COAs do you think we should consider going forward. I have a conflicted view on this. Russia (really Putin's, since he calls all the shots) actions are towards Ukraine are pretty much unceasingly hostile/coercive, and a full blown invasion would violate pretty much any international standard/law. The realist in me says any US military intervention on Ukraine's behalf in the event of a Russian invasion would be illogical. They're not a member of NATO so therefore not entitled to Article 5 status, they're not a powerful conventional or nuclear ally, and they're not integral to US national security. The liberal in me says they're a struggling democracy under threat from an autocratic enemy of the US, they're making honest efforts to be a part of the international order, and most of their people want freedom/don't want to be a part of Russia thus we shouldn't allow Russia to invade its neighbor. I went to ACSC with a couple of Ukrainian servicemembers, they all came across as solid dudes who were proud of their country and willing to fight for it. One of them completed ACSC and was immediately deployed to the frontlines on his return to Ukraine. I think about those guys and my Estonian buddy a lot when I think about this problem. The blunt reality of this is that Russia plainly sees Ukraine becoming closer to the West/member of NATO a direct threat to their national security. The US and probably most of Europe doesn't see things that way, nor does most the US population care about Ukrainian sovereignty. We are not currently in a conventional military position to deter or defeat a Russian invasion of Ukraine, unless we start a force buildup now. If we would intervene in the event of Russian invasion (talking right of bang) we'd have to face the very likely possibility of high casualties and an adversary that may employ tactical nuclear weapons if they feel they're threatened with a loss. All that said if the order's given I'll go without hesitation, would be nice to have a clear goal to fight for for a change.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2021/12/03/russias_military_buildup_reveals_stone-cold_reality_ukrainian_entry_into_nato_would_make_war_more_not_less_likely_806307.html Well written article from RCD on the current tensions in Ukraine.

My community has had several guys (both O & E) do this program and haven't heard a bad review yet (at least before the change to the rules). We even had an O-5 pilot type do an internship with a classic car restoration company; he got hired at the end of it and now has a full time "job" doing his life's passion. Pretty cool program for anyone that can make it work.

What story?

Sorry that the AF isn't being straight with you guys but good on you for volunteering and swinging with the punches.

I know I'm way more cynical than most, but I honestly can't remember a time in my 18+ years in the AF when I even knew who the Air Force Under Secretary was. Political appointees like that, as mentioned above, don't require any prior military experience. Does anyone really care about this?

There's a retired O-6 instructor at my current location who was in an O-6 leadership position when I was a captain. I kept called him sir or Col XX the first couple events we had scheduled (just felt normal). He finally laughed the next time I did it and said "hey, its just --insert first name-- now). Super down to earth and a really good instructor pilot.

Meh, I've seen this go both ways. Some O-6s get out, get a GS-15 or contractor job, and are just happy to continue to serve/contribute (several great retired O-6s working as J model instructors here at ABQ). Others engage in the douchebaggery you described above. FWIW, I've personally witnessed similar behavior from retired E-8/9s. Some get out, get a GS-12-14 or contractor job, and are happy to serve/contribute (since you've been at CVS for a long time I'm assuming you know/knew Rich Lewis when he was out there, phenomenal dude). Others act like they still wear their stripes and treat junior enlisted/young officers like shit. There's always O-6s and E-9s that think they're god's gift to the AF, they're never wrong, and that those below them are somehow lesser beings that need to show subservience. Then there's O-6s and Chiefs that work hard to get the mission done, truly care about their people, and want to make things better in their respective corner. BLUF is that if someone was an ineffective twat on AD, the same behavior generally follows them into their post AF career.

The full IQ/MQ course is 151 training days, ends up being 8-9 calendar months at KABQ.

Wait, you're telling me AFSOC A3T's staff processes aren't up to snuff?, or that the different floors of AFSOC HQ aren't talking to one another, shocked I tell you, just shocked! /s

In my experience, AFSOC doesn't get that many AIS slots to begin with. When a slot becomes available there's usually multiple volunteers (lotta guys want to get it on their record for airline apps, don't know if it legit helps or not). Yet it seems a lot of the time there's people due IRC and we're scrounging for someone to teach it.

Congrats on Hercs, great cross spectrum of mission sets and she's a lot of fun to fly. You will not go through Little Rock, they ended that a couple years ago for HC/MC-J guys. After pilot training you'll head direct to Kirtland AFB in Albuquerque, NM for HC-130J Pilot Initial Qual Course. I'm an MC-130 guy so my knowledge of HC-130 stuff is all second hand info; if you have any other HC-130 specific questions that you can't get answered by actual HC-130 guys on this board let me know and I'll ask around here (I'm currently in ABQ doing an MC-J transition course). Good luck at UPT and study hard.

I know for a fact that it's a problem in AFSOC, can't speak to other commands so maybe it's better other places. I've heard second and third hand that it's becoming a problem in other commands but I have no evidence of that. To your point on leadership "understanding" opt outs, that's probably a pretty tough thing to make happen with any regularity unless attitudes about leadership and what it means to serve change in the AF. O-6 assignments are handled in a separate system from the rest of the rank and file. Believe it or not, a lot of O-6s that are thinking about getting out don't show their cards until they have to, just like the guys on line. I would imagine that telling a guy like Slife or his most probable successor (CAT 5) that you're opting out of command but want to continue serving isn't going to go very well. Guys like that have serious difficulty processing that someone wouldn't want a command opportunity; the risk of vindictiveness through a shitty deal or assignment is simply too high for a lot of O-6s to be long term honest brokers about their goals/intentions.

Lol agree to disagree, at least for the present. Last two AFSOC/CCs have been Pave guys. As that generation retires and with the pending "long term storage" of a big chunk of the CV-22 fleet, that dynamic will probably shift but its definitely here for the present. Going forward, I'll be interested to see how the RPA and U-28 communities influence the higher up AFSOC hierarchy, but I'll probably be a Mr. long before then (interesting side note, Slife has been pushing STO guys into some Grp and the AFSOC A3 position, not sure if that trend will continue once he's on to bigger things). Break Break Clark Griswold, you wanna post your top names for this new seaplane? Here's mine, in no particular order 1. Typhoon (harkens back to British aircraft in WWII) 2. Sea Witch (goes back to Russian WWII Night Witches) 3. Sea Drag-in (those big draggy floats....GET IT!!....I'll be here all day) 4. BUWF--Big Ugly Walrus Fucker (unlikely I admit, but I'm a Broken Lizard fan)

Good question and not the easiest problem to solve. Disclaimer: I declined command with prejudice two years ago so this a is topic that I have fairly strong feelings about. Second hand info, so take it FWIW, but I've been told that our MAJCOM/CC has stated that AF leadership is fairly concerned about this. Long term projections/trends aren't good; supposedly there's a real possibility that there won't be enough qualified O-5/6s in the coming years to fill all the required command billets. At any given point AFSOC has about 110 or so O-6s; about 3 years ago there was an O-6 blood bath where 42 of them punched in the same year, was a rude wakeup call. From what I can tell there's another big wave of O-6 retirements currently under way. I honestly don't know why AFSOC was surprised this happened, we're coming into the era where you have people who've been at war for their entire career. Once you make O-6 you're a company man and your control over your future is often times much diminished, and in the last couple years your chances of an undesirable 365 increased dramatically (admittedly this risk is probably diminished now). I'd agree with your pitch that there is and probably needs to be a middle ground. I personally know several guys in the last two years who made O-6 and still retired prior to getting 3 years TIG. If the AF tries to push guys/gals into commands they don't want, I'm of the personal opinion it'll be a lose/lose for everyone involved. The people in question will most likely just retire so we'll lose the talent, or they'll stay and do a job they don't want, which means they people they're leading could suffer. In my small corner of the AF: 1. I think we could do a better job about being open with guys/gals about what their future looks like if they're on the command track. AFSOC does a horrible job IMO giving guys on the command track feedback on the DT results/discussions. Almost everyone is in the dark until if/when they get a hiring phone call. That makes it very difficult to prog out family life or have any idea about what your future holds. 2. I think we could also open up DO and CC slots to more non-school selects/line guys (not just top 10-15% people). I know plenty of bros in the ops units that would've made great commanders and would've been interested in serving in that role but never got the looks or opportunity cause they weren't put on that path as a Captain. This would serve to widen the command gene pool and not limit senior leaders' choices for command billets to careerist twats. One of the better CCs I've had was one of these guys, always a line dude, no school or jt staff and was a great commander during a challenging year for the squadron. 3. I believe keeping productive O-6s that decline command would be win for the AF and for those individuals. I worked with/around a decent amount of worthless/not smart/downright cockbaggish O-6s during my time on staff. Every guy on here has probably seen things come out of at least the MAJCOM that were uninformed/bad policy/caused issued at the ops units. Letting good O-6s go to staff lets those guys/gals continue to serve and leverages their experience where it could have positive effects at the squadron level. Standing by spears/thoughts.

🥃 Rest easy brothers, not that there's ever a good time but doubly terrible with the holidays rapidly approaching.

Read an article yesterday that seemed to confirm this, made it sound like that effort started almost immediately after the guy pulled the handles!

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_force/2021-11-10/air-force-seaplanes-special-operations-command-japan-3563136.html Interesting AFSOC visit to the Land of the Rising Sun

I haven't been in the 492nd for over a year now so some of my info may be dated. The C-145 fleet hasn't been deployable/deployed for at least 6+ years now at this point. They are solely used as a training platform for 6th SOS pilots in CONUS. Last I heard the remaining airframes will be divested by FY23. The future of the C-146 is almost always up in the air every FY, mostly due to how they're funded. The -146 bubbas do great work, but they lack advocacy in AFSOC (and in SOCOM) IMO. AFSOC is a very tribal command; the Pave Low/CV-22 mafia, AC-130, and MC-130 groups exert a huge influence in what happens within the command. The bulk of the work that the C-146s do is supporting TSOCs; the TSOCs ability to influence what capes AFSOC brings to the table is limited. I've heard a lot of different COAs with what's supposed to happen going in future FYs so I'm honestly not sure what the current plan is.

The big problem (conceptually) with the US-2 concept IRT to SOCOM employment is the lack of a cargo ramp/door. Its pretty difficult and expensive to engineer that capability into an aircraft that wasn't designed with it from the ground up. Unfortunately the MC-130J float concept, as Blue mentioned above, is going to suffer from a massive increase in drag index since it wasn't engineered as a floatplane from the ground, thus limiting it's performance/capabilities. The biggest problem with an American US-2 is that it's extremely unlikely (though not impossible) that SOCOM would unilaterally source and pay for brand new iron; they'd only pay the SOF peculiar mods to it after somebody else (theoretically the USAF in this case) buys it. I'd doubt that Air Force leadership would have any interest in this with all the other things they're buying/recapping right now (NGAD, B-21, new ICBMs, hypersonics, AWACS/JSTARs/Compass Call replacements just to name a few). Navy isn't gonna jump on it either, they've got SSN/SSBN procurement and new surface ships on the mind, which means the Corps won't get it either. Coast Guard isn't getting any aircraft right now that isn't a hand-me-down from somebody else. Hurc Hunters and Guard Rescue guys have relatively new J models so recap for them isn't a viable argument. Ideally I'd like to see an MC-130 specifically designed as floatplane (similar to the C-130 floatplane concepts that Lockmart pitched back in the '60), if SOCOM is serious about this. Unfortunately I don't think there's a snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

I thought this was a very well written and researched article and while I have a huge amount of respect for General Elton as both a leader and a person, I don't agree with several points in the article. 1. In their first point, I agree we should continue all efforts to get any remaining US and SIV individuals out of Afghanistan (no brainer). I disagree with the importance/focus on the human rights/humanitarian situation in Afghanistan (they dedicate 3 full pages to it). A good segment of the population either overtly supported the Taliban or passively allowed them to take control (several news reports from Afghanistan post-withdrawal have documented the rural area populace support for the Taliban). People get the government they deserve and quite frankly I don't care if the people of Afghanistan want to live in the stone age. 2. The issue of Afghanistan becoming a competitive space in Great Power competition between us and China (return to the Great Game as it were) is interesting and I'm honestly not sure how it will play out. It's somewhat ironic that the issue of REEs has almost caused a return to industrial age thinking about conflict and critical mineral supply (quest for autarky in some ways by China and now the US). If history informs us about anything involving Afghanistan it's that no foreign power looking to exploit the country fairs well in the end (except maybe the Mongols). I just read an article about a direct legal shipment of pine nuts from Afghanistan to China, I'll be curious to see where the Chinese-Afghan relationship goes. I personally didn't/don't feel that continuing our presence in Afghanistan was worth it to counter China's influence in that part of world. Additionally, none of the infrastructure is currently in place to exploit the REEs in Afghanistan and the security situation in-country continues to be extremely volatile. 3. I would probably agree there will be the possibility that there could be an increased terrorist threat from Afghanistan due to several groups now having increased/uncontested freedom of maneuver. That being said, I think the possibility of Ex-Ops emanating from Afghanistan can be countered by the vast increase in intelligence gathering we've put in place post 9-11. I don't agree with their premise that ISIS-K is/is becoming a terrorist proxy of the Taliban. See article below for the most recent example of why I don't think the two groups will be buddies anytime soon: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-kabul-hospital-bombing-attack-taliban-isis-deaths-2021-11-02/ I think going forward there will increased fighting between the Taliban and ISIS-K, not less. Several of the policy recommendations going forward are good, especially regarding the CTF piece (always follow the money). I also agree with not recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan (for a variety of reasons). I think officially recognizing the NRF is probably futile at this point (they've been defeated militarily and I don't know what the long term value in supporting them is). The focus on revamping/increasing our IO efforts towards China and Pakistan is spot on, but unless the US drastically changes it's approach to IO, its unlikely to happen anytime soon or be effective. Finally, I believe that a cross-GCC effort towards countering China would absolutely have benefit. Taking this from concept to execution in the real world is very difficult. I've been out of the staff world for going on 3 years now, but in my albeit limited experience, getting the GCCs to cooperate/coordinate/share resources is a royal pain in the ass. They tend to get stovepiped into dealing with the problems specific to their respective AOs, and mostly view the competition for resources as a zero sum game. Coordinating authorities are only of limited use, because they can't actually order anyone to do anything. Overall though very good, reasoned article, thanks for posting.