What's wrong with the Air Force?

[DosXX]

On 6/3/2023 at 12:54 PM, bfargin said:

Sure a lot of people smoking each others poles throwing out “faggot” at me like it’s an insult. I thought you were telling me it’s normal and good. So am i supposed to be insulted or proud to be labeled a bone smuggler. Make up your mind

You should be proud brother it’s not an insult, totally normal hiding terabytes of gay porn on your computer while going out of your way to hurl bullshit against gay people online.

I’ll double it and throw 200 down

[TreeA10]

Children aren't allowed to drive until 14, get a driver's license at 16, vote or buy a gun until 18, and drink until they are 21 years old.  Why? Because society does not believe that children have the mental capacity to make correct choices regarding those subjects.  But somehow, when it comes to permanent devastating life altering surgical or hormonal choices, children including pre-teens are deemed by the left to be more than competent to make those decisions. The leftist fascination with co-opting children is downright evil.

Whatever another adult wants to do to float their boat is fine by me just don't ask me to to play along with any sort of delusion or celebrate whatever choice that adult may make but leave children alone.

Edited June 4, 2023 by TreeA10

[Standby]

3 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

Children aren't allowed to drive until 14, get a driver's license at 16, vote or buy a gun until 18, and drink until they are 21 years old.  Why? Because society does not believe that children have the mental capacity to make correct choices regarding those subjects. 

Let us not forget that you can also enlist and die (assuming you were to complete basic and whatever MOS/AFSC training was required in time) at the age of 17…

Old enough to chop your fucking dick off and die for your country, but not old enough to bum a cigarette (or fag depending on your culture).

[FourFans]

For those who've read their Robert Heinlein, I can thoroughly envision a near future where the veterans in society have to save it from itself.

[brabus]

6 hours ago, TreeA10 said:

children including pre-teens

To clarify, that includes as young as 5. Apparently 5 yr olds are mature enough to decide hormone altering drugs are OK to take without their parents knowing…because teacher knows better and said you should…yeah, nothing totally fucked up here going on. 

[McJay Pilot]

26 minutes ago, FourFans said:

For those who've read their Robert Heinlein, I can thoroughly envision a near future where the veterans in society have to save it from itself.

I encourage as many people as I can to READ Starship Troopers. The universal reaction is usually “holy shit”.

[Bigred]

12 hours ago, Standby said:

Let us not forget that you can also enlist and die (assuming you were to complete basic and whatever MOS/AFSC training was required in time) at the age of 17…

 

You can only join at 17 if your parents approve and sign paperwork. 

[Biff_T]

13 hours ago, brabus said:

To clarify, that includes as young as 5. Apparently 5 yr olds are mature enough to decide hormone altering drugs are OK to take without their parents knowing…because teacher knows better and said you should…yeah, nothing totally fucked up here going on. 

If you’re mature enough to pour yourself a bowl of Golden Grahams, then you’re more than capable of making life altering choices.  Come on man.  

[tac airlifter]

13 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

I encourage as many people as I can to READ Starship Troopers. The universal reaction is usually “holy shit”.

Citizenship for service. Absolutely great fucking idea.  The USA is founded on the best ideas and socio-political philosophies humans produced, but the crippling flaw is free citizenship.  A selfish spoiled trust fund baby, a criminal on welfare, and a wounded vet who works full time all have equal voice in selecting future leaders & laws of our land.  Not optimal.

On 6/4/2023 at 11:43 AM, Biff_T said:

My best friend became a trans.   I grew up with him. We surfed together, served together, I was a groomsman (his brother was the best man) at his wedding.  I was there when he met the mother of his children.   He got out of the military well before hitting 20 years and was a very successful investor.   Over a decade ago, he got addicted to speed.   He has since left his family, he hasn’t see his children since July of last year.   He’s been battling this crippling addiction for a while.   His latest adventure (which I’ve mentioned here before) is becoming a woman.  He has lost his fucking mind.  The trans movement has made it harder to get him help.   As I’m a bad person for suggesting maybe it’s the drugs making him this way.   I called his mom on Mother’s Day for him.  She’s devastated, along with his dad, ex wife and children.   I check up on him weekly.    My guess is my friend will detransition when he’s finished being a selfish asshole, addicted to drugs.  He’s still my brother, it’s just really hard watching someone do this to himself.  

you sound like a white supremacist transphobe.  Take 4 COVID shots and one online queer-theory class before signing up for monthly BLM donations to absolve yourself of sin.

[Guest nsplayr]

15 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Citizenship for service. Absolutely great fucking idea.  The USA is founded on the best ideas and socio-political philosophies humans produced, but the crippling flaw is free citizenship.  A selfish spoiled trust fund baby, a criminal on welfare, and a wounded vet who works full time all have equal voice in selecting future leaders & laws of our land.  Not optimal.

1000% disagree. Having obtainable naturalization and birthright citizenship is a huge leg up for the US and always has been. Furthermore, the cultural norm that an “American” isn’t a race or a people that one either has or doesn’t but rather a set of ideals and something you can choose is at the foundation of our enduring strength.

I would actually support universal national service for all young people that conferred benefits like college or job training money & opportunities.

But a just-naturalized Bulgarian-American or a second-generation, US-born Colombian-American is just as much a citizen as you or I, and I sincerely believe that is a feature that makes the US superior to other countries.

You can move to China and speak Chinese and live there for 50 years but you’ll never “be Chinese” and that’s simply not the case here.

Edited June 5, 2023 by nsplayr

[Biff_T]

22 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

But a just-naturalized Bulgarian-American or a second-generation, US-born Colombian-American is just as much a citizen as you or I, and I sincerely believe that is a feature that makes the US superior to other countries

This.  

[tac airlifter]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

1000% disagree. Having obtainable naturalization and birthright citizenship is a huge leg up for the US and always has been. But a just-naturalized Bulgarian-American or a second-generation, US-born Colombian-American is just as much a citizen as you or I, and I sincerely believe that is a feature that makes the US superior to other countries.

No surprise that we disagree, standard.  I still like you though! 

For clarity, the idea of citizenship for service is highly inclusive to the 2 examples you listed above, and I’d guess preferable to those individuals since Bulgaria and Colombia both have tons of hard working folks interested in US citizenship yet intimidated navigating the Byzantine bureaucracy of current US immigration law.  And I don't think my kids should be entitled to citizenship based on what I’ve done.  I believe in radical fairness, not free handouts.

It’s noteworthy that your two examples are foreign immigrants, whereas my three examples never mentioned immigration or race, it was about who gives back to the community.  It’s an example of how the left and right talk past each other on these discussions: I view race and ethnicity as irrelevant to discussions on citizenship, and you’re chomping at the bit to insert race into the discussion with a tongue in cheek implication I view bi-racial citizens as not fully American. I am interested in more citizens who are hard-working and add value to the country; I do not think those unwilling to put skin in the game should have equal say creating new laws (and I don’t care what color their skin is).  Said another way, people unwilling/unable to send their kids to war & pay taxes should not be allowed to force mine to go or increase my taxes.  But that’s the system we currently have that you believe is a strength.  I’m sure you’ve opened your home to all the illegals and don’t mind having your kids wait for health care so crackheads can go first…. 

This is all just talk though, our system is not changing. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by tac airlifter

[McJay Pilot]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

1000% disagree. Having obtainable naturalization and birthright citizenship is a huge leg up for the US and always has been. Furthermore, the cultural norm that an “American” isn’t a race or a people that one either has or doesn’t but rather a set of ideals and something you can choose is at the foundation of our enduring strength.

I would actually support universal national service for all young people that conferred benefits like college or job training money & opportunities.

But a just-naturalized Bulgarian-American or a second-generation, US-born Colombian-American is just as much a citizen as you or I, and I sincerely believe that is a feature that makes the US superior to other countries.

You can move to China and speak Chinese and live there for 50 years but you’ll never “be Chinese” and that’s simply not the case here.

Honest question, have you read the book?

[Guest nsplayr]

37 minutes ago, McJay Pilot said:

Honest question, have you read the book?

Starship Troopers? Yes. It was ok, not my fav of the genre but still a classic obviously. I actually prefer the movie!

The Forever War by Joe Haldeman is excellent and IMHO superior to Starship Troopers; well worth your time if you haven’t read it.

Edited June 6, 2023 by nsplayr

[McJay Pilot]

5 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Starship Troopers? Yes. It was ok, not my fav of the genre but still a classic obviously. I actually prefer the movie!

The Forever War by Joe Haldeman is excellent and IMHO superior to Starship Troopers; well worth your time if you haven’t read it.

Fair enough!

Forever War was great, Forever Peace was meh… interesting concept though.

[ClearedHot]

Can this internal review help shrink the Air Force’s pilot shortage?

“Do all the pilot positions we have on staff actually require a pilot, or does it require someone with operational expertise?” Brown said.

Slife the non-combat knife now doing extreme damage to the Air Force Writ large instead of just AFSOC.

I know most pilots don't want to go to a staff job, sitting at a desk especially in the five sided wind tunnel can be pure drudgery.  HOWEVER, if we don't put pilots, especially seasoned experts who know what it is like in those key staff positions, then the REMFs will make decisions about the equipment you get and how you operate.  It is always good to look at resource allocation--especially the expensive ones--but airmanship and the ability to speak like an operational airmen does not come easily.  It takes years to develop.  The Air Force has evaluated where they needed pilots/operators in the past, and it has been to its severe detriment. 

Here are some examples:

1.  ALOs--We first removed fighter pilots/WSOs from the ASOS communities, then pretended we could advise Army leadership on the best use of Airpower.  The result has been an Air Liaison community with no tactical airborne experience, no real weaponeering ability, and an Army that dismisses their advice even more than before. 

2.  Staffs-- Air Force first used retired pilot/WSO contractors to fill positions, but is now even using engineers, program managers, and others who, while probably competent on many levels, have no business speaking about Airpower capabilities, selling Airpower capabilities, and funding the same.  Many decisions are now made by Airmen who have only learned about Airpower through schooling and relative proximity. 

3.  Inexpensive yet relevant platforms--when we killed all of the Tactical Air Support Squadrons with their OV-10s/O-2, we killed a great pilot absorption capability, a great way to season aviators for pennies.  The aircraft's tactical relevance diminished by the day, but their operational/strategic value was immense.  Yes, we cut the pilot requirement down, but hurt even more the pilot creation capability. and the overall Airmanship of the Air Force.   

There is a reason why pilots run the Air Force, why WSOs/CSOs exercise a great operational influence over the direction of the Air Force.  Not because of the universal management badge of wings, but because IT IS WHAT THE AIR FORCE DOES.  Many have been the companies that have lost their ways as they turned the reigns over to CFOs and Program Managers...Just ask Boeing. 

Again, I know most of you clowns don't want to do a staff job, it is a necessary evil.  If we don't put people who know what it is like to fling themselves into the air in a metal frame full of fuel and munitions and take said crate into combat, then the contracting officer who was CGO of the year for leading the savings bond drive is going to determine your future.
 

[brabus]

The amount of asshattery on staff is astounding, it’s 69,000 worse without pilots holding people accountable, getting shit done, “mentoring” the REMFs on what actually needs to be done and why their ideas are fucking retarded, etc. A better fix is remote staff work, which the ANG is slowly coming around to. Not everyone can be remote, but a lot of pilots wouldn’t mind staff much if they could stay living where they want, still fly regularly, etc. I know a couple guys have done this on AD as well. Loosen the grip on the “it’s always been this way” thought and things would be better.

[Blue]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Can this internal review help shrink the Air Force’s pilot shortage?

3.  Inexpensive yet relevant platforms--when we killed all of the Tactical Air Support Squadrons with their OV-10s/O-2, we killed a great pilot absorption capability, a great way to season aviators for pennies.  The aircraft's tactical relevance diminished by the day, but their operational/strategic value was immense.  Yes, we cut the pilot requirement down, but hurt even more the pilot creation capability. and the overall Airmanship of the Air Force.   

This is something that always got me - particularly when looking at the back at the evolution of the Air Force aircraft inventory from the 1950s to today.

Ostensibly, the Air Force is supposed to be the nation's military experts in flying and fixing aircraft.  By definition, we should have a lot of airplanes, and a lot of pilots.

Yet, at every turn, we shun bringing on any fleet that is "different," or hasn't had the blessing of the larger defense establishment.  We park C-27Js, we drag our feet with things like the AT-6 and the A-29 until the programs die a merciful death, and we strive to retire planes like the A-10.  At the same time, we have the absurdly large "winner take all" competitions like the F-35 that lock us into one airframe for decades.

There is always a lot of hand-waving that goes on about "efficiencies of scale," and "we need to retire this fleet in order to fund development of this new fleet," etc.  I think the reality is that defense decisions are driven by what's best for defense companies.  And with budget's being finite, the Lockheeds and Boeings of the world don't want to see the Air Force budget going towards feeding hundreds of C-27s, AT-6's, AT-29s, OV-10s, or anything else.  When times are flush, those fleets would take away from the money available for their leviathan defense programs.  When times are lean, someone in government might dare make an argument that maybe we could get by with a couple fewer F-35s, and instead plug the gap with AT-29s at a fraction of the cost.

A lot of words to say I think "Inexpensive yet relevant platforms" are something the Air Force sorely needs, and used to have.  But they're gone, and I don't think they're ever coming back.

Edited June 18, 2023 by Blue

[Dogs-N-Guns]

GS staff has become the commander by committee. Too many times I've heard the commander won't support anything unless JA, XP, FM etc, signs off on it.

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, Blue said:

I think the reality is that defense decisions are driven by what's best for defense companies.

This 

Edit:  Imagine how much money we could save if instead of using regular sized aircraft,  we made everything to 1/4 scale and staffed the squadrons full of midgets.   Thinking outside the “box”.    We save money, have less of a footprint and we get to add another group of marginalized people to the fight.  

Edited June 18, 2023 by Biff_T
More nonsense from Biff

[Guest nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Blue said:

A lot of words to say I think "Inexpensive yet relevant platforms" are something the Air Force sorely needs, and used to have.  But they're gone, and I don't think they're ever coming back.

Not entirely gone 👑

[Majestik Møøse]

I have a theory that a lot of our problems are due to a wrong perception of how things degrade. A lot of people think problems get worse on a continuous slope, kind of like flying an ILS. In reality, it’s an exponential degradation that’s not particularly detrimental for a long time, but by the time you realize it has failed the cost to fix it becomes astronomical.

Think of a shingle roof, car paint, the back deck boards, even your personal health. They don’t degrade by an even 5% every year, it’s more like above 90% for 20 years, then 85%, 65%, then falling apart.

That’s the same with pilots on staffs and experienced pilot manning overall. We’re at the 65% part of the slope. The USAF telling itself that it was “good enough” for the last decade is like ignoring the worn patches on the roof just because it hasn’t leaked yet. Shortly, there will be a dozen leaks and the whole thing will need replacing along with fixing the rotten trusses and moldy drywall. That costs more than just paying to replace the roof before the leaks started.

Modern aircraft programs take 20 years to develop, and if your best guys that would’ve been the program managers, strategists and tactical leaders all left from 2015-present, then you have medium-talent guys in a lot of big spots. Getting back in front of that curve will cost way more than if we’d never let it approach the cliff in the first place. But it didn’t look so bad at the time, so those CSAFs don’t look like they caused it.

The $50k bonus is hanging onto the tail and patching leaks. To correct the problem, double it at least, and your best guys will start staying. Most pilots I’ve met with mission-focused drive love doing big things for their platform and America, but have doubts when the USAF forces a financial decision to do those world-changing things.

I believe that a war vs China will also degrade for one side or the other on that same curve above - and that the degradation is extremely dependent on air power, so I’m not sure how our country can accept anything less than keeping their best pilots both operational and on staff.

[GKinnear]

@clearedhot
@brabus

Necessary evil indeed. Aside from the expertise angle, the Data Engineers, O-5 retired-now-GS, or worse contractors don't have any skin in the game.

It's easier to make a "bad" decision when you don't have to answer the mail later on, or look the bros in the eyes.

At least the 12x communities have that going for them.

@dogs-n-guns

While I've routinely gotten a JA or IG opinion before moving out, I've also relied on my own decision making after getting their risk assessment. "Legally sufficient" doesn't always equal the right thing for the Airman, Squadron, or the Force...that's why Commanders get paid to do the job.

But to your point, some individuals may choose to stop at that point. YMMV

Sent from my SM-N976V using Baseops Network mobile app

[Biff_T]

On 6/5/2023 at 6:04 PM, McJay Pilot said:

Honest question, have you read the book?

"Just the Cliff Notes" - High School Biff replying  to English teacher.  Lol

 

[di1630]

It’s sad that the only officers that can perform operationally are a majority pilots. Pilots succeed in roles they aren’t trained or even familiar with simply because they are federally people who can succeed in a variety of situations,

This goes all the way back to recruiting and the low standard we have for non rated officers.



Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app