Jump to content

Track Selects and Assignment Nights


Guest oliwoody

Recommended Posts

For the Vance bubbas - did they get the Woodring runway extension done?  Is that how they are getting 38 dudes to fly 7 days?

Sounds friggin miserable. I hope leadership is taking care of the IP cadre to make sure they get 2/week off. I was teaching at Luke when we had dudes waiting a year for FTU back in 2009/10, and that was before we closed 2 SQs there. This has dumpster fire written all over it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ViperStud said:

For the Vance bubbas - did they get the Woodring runway extension done?  Is that how they are getting 38 dudes to fly 7 days?

Sounds friggin miserable. I hope leadership is taking care of the IP cadre to make sure they get 2/week off. I was teaching at Luke when we had dudes waiting a year for FTU back in 2009/10, and that was before we closed 2 SQs there. This has dumpster fire written all over it. 

Yea they finished last year around this time.  To my memory the 38 bubbas have only used it occassionally.  Last weekend I heard they opened Vance up fully to support a full day of flying. 

Out of curiosity, how is DLF washing people forward?  Weren't they several weeks behind recently due to MX issues and other stuff?  Not throwing spears, just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea they finished last year around this time.  To my memory the 38 bubbas have only used it occassionally.  Last weekend I heard they opened Vance up fully to support a full day of flying. 
Out of curiosity, how is DLF washing people forward?  Weren't they several weeks behind recently due to MX issues and other stuff?  Not throwing spears, just curious.

Well MX has gotten a lot better + incredible weather = timeline success


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ViperStud said:

For the Vance bubbas - did they get the Woodring runway extension done?  Is that how they are getting 38 dudes to fly 7 days?

Sounds friggin miserable. I hope leadership is taking care of the IP cadre to make sure they get 2/week off. I was teaching at Luke when we had dudes waiting a year for FTU back in 2009/10, and that was before we closed 2 SQs there. This has dumpster fire written all over it. 

38 dudes aren't flying 7 days a week. 

Woodring is generally only used as a divert if the center rwy shuts down for some reason (outside rwy still under construction..) Once in a while it's used to launch/recover XCs that won't fit into the XC dep/rec window. 

Also, Vance only opened up for Saturday flying a few weeks ago. Not a constant thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vance 17-06

T-38s (fighters rained like candy on carnival)

F-35

F-22

F-16 X 4

F-16 Iraq

C-17 Travis

C-17 Charleston

T-1s

C-5M Dover

CV-22 Hurlburt field

EC-130 DM

C-17 Charleston

KC-135 MacDill

KC-135 X 2 Fairchilds

KC-135 Scott

C-21 Scott

KC-10 Mcguire

HC-130J Moody

T-1 FAIP

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBM 17-06

38s:

1 x F22 TY

1 x F15E SJ

1 x A10 DM

1 x T6 Faip 

3 x F16 to Kelly 

 

Showed up late and didn't catch the whole T1 side. I'll update as I hear it

AC130

KC10 Mcguire 

C17 McChord 

T1 FAIP

T6 FAIP

C146 Duke 

KC135 BHM

 

Edited by Rooster
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rooster said:

CBM 17-06

38s:

1 x F22 TY

1 x F15E SJ

1 x A10 DM

1 x T6 Faip 

3 x F16 to Kelly 

 

Showed up late and didn't catch the whole T1 side. I'll update as I hear it

AC130

KC10 Mcguire 

C17 McChord 

T1 FAIP

T6 FAIP

C146 Duke 

KC135 BHM

 

Were the 3 F-16s to Kelly all Texas ANG guys or is Kelly being used to train active guys, too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vance 17-06

T-38s (fighters rained like candy on carnival)

F-35

F-22

F-16 X 4

F-16 Iraq

C-17 Travis

C-17 Charleston

T-1s

C-5M Dover

CV-22 Hurlburt field

EC-130 DM

C-17 Charleston

KC-135 MacDill

KC-135 X 2 Fairchilds

KC-135 Scott

C-21 Scott

KC-10 Mcguire

HC-130J Moody

T-1 FAIP

 

 

17s from the 38 side??? Thought is was CAF only? Yet DLF dropped a BUFF from T-1s?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 


My personal guess is the 17s were non-recs, from what I've seen so far in the past few weeks/months. But even then I thought non-recs from 38s were supposed to go bomber. The BUFF from Tones sounds consistent.

 

Ulysses is correct. They were both non-recs.

Alright, I am gonna bitch. Despite what the bigwigs say, both of those 17s were taken from the T-1 pool of assignments. The outcome: those two T-38 students were "saved" from a bomber and in return two of the T-1 students that wanted C-17s got hosed.

Is this fair? I don't know. I will say that if you are going to play ball with the T-38s and want to compete for fighters, you must be ready to face the outcome if you don't perform well. Getting "rewarded" with C-17s (that T-1 students were competing for) is not justified after going to multiple 89s.  

You know what, lets just take the guy at the bottom of his T-1 class and give him a fifth gen fighter.....

Sorry for the rant guys. 

Edited by innovator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, innovator said:

 

Ulysses is correct. They were both non-recs.

Alright, I am gonna bitch. Despite what the bigwigs say, both of those 17s were taken from the T-1 pool of assignments. The outcome: those two T-38 students were "saved" from a bomber and in return two of the T-1 students that wanted C-17s got hosed.

Is this fair? I don't know. I will say that if you are going to play ball with the T-38s and want to compete for fighters, you must be ready to face the outcome if you don't perform well. Getting "rewarded" with C-17s (that T-1 students were competing for) is not justified after going to multiple 89s.  

Sorry for the rant guys. 

Is there essentially no way to fly bombers then? I was under the same impression as Ulysses - if you're non-rec'd in 38s you get a bomber.  I know bombers are supposed to drop from tones now, but the DLF buff (I know the guy) is a mil-mil to a buff CSO. 

What do guys do who want bombers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Furthermore, if guys are sucking in 38s and can't get a bomber drop, is there a chance of being recycled back into Tones or something, or does that just cause too much administrative difficulty/backup in the next class? If they're gonna be stealing a heavy from a T-1 student then it only seems fair that they then compete against those T-1 students.  

But that's assuming "fairness."

Life is not fair. In the Air Force, timing is everything. This is true well beyond UPT. Do the best you can and the rest is out of your hands. With the drops that are coming down now, if you do well in whatever track, you'll get what you want.

UPT assignments were much worse even just a few years ago (see 2008-2009 timeframe). I'm sure the guys from the 90's who did tours as a non-rated officer before UPT slots opened up could tell stories of how it was even worse...

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and I call it "SMD," Standard Military Disappointment. Another deployment, SMD. Haven't been paid correctly, SMD. PCS to Cannon, SMD, etc.

You're allowed to be disappointed, but the sooner you acknowledge that this level of disappointment is standard and doesn't exist just to piss you off specifically, the better off you'll be.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, innovator said:

Ulysses is correct. They were both non-recs.

Alright, I am gonna bitch. Despite what the bigwigs say, both of those 17s were taken from the T-1 pool of assignments. The outcome: those two T-38 students were "saved" from a bomber and in return two of the T-1 students that wanted C-17s got hosed.

Is this fair? I don't know. I will say that if you are going to play ball with the T-38s and want to compete for fighters, you must be ready to face the outcome if you don't perform well. Getting "rewarded" with C-17s (that T-1 students were competing for) is not justified after going to multiple 89s.  

You know what, lets just take the guy at the bottom of his T-1 class and give him a fifth gen fighter.....

Sorry for the rant guys. 

Yes. People who know a lot more than you made decisions that you don't like - it doesn't mean they're wrong. 38 studs are universally assignable, and those individuals who "stole" 17s likely out-competed the ones you think they "displaced" earlier in the program when they were "head to head" - i.e. when they were in T-6s.

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

Furthermore, if guys are sucking in 38s and can't get a bomber drop, is there a chance of being recycled back into Tones or something, or does that just cause too much administrative difficulty/backup in the next class? If they're gonna be stealing a heavy from a T-1 student then it only seems fair that they then compete against those T-1 students.  

But that's assuming "fairness."

No. They either graduate and the above happens, or they wash out.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Yes. People who know a lot more than you made decisions that you don't like - it doesn't mean they're wrong. 38 studs are universally assignable, and those individuals who "stole" 17s likely out-competed the ones you think they "displaced" earlier in the program when they were "head to head" - i.e. when they were in T-6s.

No. They either graduate and the above happens, or they wash out.

Maybe not wrong but inconsistent and frankly hypocritical.  

SUPT is meant to be Specialized not Universal UPT.  I understand that needs of the AF drove the policy of 38 studs being universally assignable but that was based on an institutional need not a personal preference that was limited because of a career choice, i.e. the choice of these studs to track 38s and the likely assignments to follow from that personal choice.  

They ranked their track preferences and made their decisions.  Now, when those chickens come home to roost, good or bad, they must live with them.

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Maybe not wrong but inconsistent and frankly hypocritical.  

SUPT is meant to be Specialized not Universal UPT.  I understand that needs of the AF drove the policy of 38 studs being universally assignable but that was based on an institutional need not a personal preference that was limited because of a career choice, i.e. the choice of these studs to track 38s and the likely assignments to follow from that personal choice.  

They ranked their track preferences and made their decisions.  Now, when those chickens come home to roost, good or bad, they must live with them.

Well, lets just say we disagree. 38 studs have always been universally assignable - ever since the days of UPT, when T-38 studs went on to fly C-141s, OV-10s, etc.

SUPT was implemented to save the Air Force money and to prolong the life of the T-38. Not to give T-1 students "dibs" on certain platforms. T-38 studs did rack their preferences, as did I years ago, knowing that I could always go fly something "heavy" later in life if I wanted to do so. Choosing to go fly 38s doesn't close any doors - choosing to fly T-1s does.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...