User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 12:05:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes Your govt at work Never should have bought them Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yes Your govt at work Never should have bought them No. It does not. I suggest educating yourself on the meaning of BAI status aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 12:55:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really have a burr under your saddle. I think you are trying too hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, the USAF got more C-17s a few years back than they wanted. Arguing the whole time that we had more airlift than we really needed and those big Russian cargo planes would always be available for rent. So they finally got their way. remember, the AF is sooooooooooooooo good, that even after we pay for the planes, pilots, maintainers and facilities its still cheaper to outsource. only ones professunal enough or some such thing. You really have a burr under your saddle. I think you are trying too hard. How many dead soldiers before you give a shit? I mean, should I not try hard? Or just go, "fuck it, they were too dumb to join the AF anyway so maybe their deaths aren't a big deal?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:09:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many dead soldiers before you give a shit? I mean, should I not try hard? Or just go, "fuck it, they were too dumb to join the AF anyway so maybe their deaths aren't a big deal?" You, sir, have stepped over the line, suggesting I do not care about dead soldiers. I can't see where I have ever given a hint toward such a position. This was, was, a discussion about deactivating a couple of C-17 squadrons. In the process of hijacking it for your agenda, righteous as it may be, you failed to signal your turn toward a different topic. You have a thing for epic rants against the Air Force. At times your passion, albeit eloquent, seems to leave reason behind. So the AF has a lot of bureaucrats in the upper ranks. I recognized that as a lowly, ignorant Enlisted man. I'm trying, honestly, to see the connection between USAF manning cuts (the thread topic) and what you just posted. I've seen that whenever there is a thread that mentions the USAF you will be there to criticize. That's fine, as we all support your right to do so. However, with your approach I don't think you are winning many converts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:11:16 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many dead soldiers before you give a shit? I mean, should I not try hard? Or just go, "fuck it, they were too dumb to join the AF anyway so maybe their deaths aren't a big deal?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, the USAF got more C-17s a few years back than they wanted. Arguing the whole time that we had more airlift than we really needed and those big Russian cargo planes would always be available for rent. So they finally got their way. remember, the AF is sooooooooooooooo good, that even after we pay for the planes, pilots, maintainers and facilities its still cheaper to outsource. only ones professunal enough or some such thing. You really have a burr under your saddle. I think you are trying too hard. How many dead soldiers before you give a shit? I mean, should I not try hard? Or just go, "fuck it, they were too dumb to join the AF anyway so maybe their deaths aren't a big deal?" What the actual FUCK? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:14:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You, sir, have stepped over the line, suggested I do not care about dead soldiers. I can't see where I have ever given a hint toward such a position. This was, was, a discussion about deactivating a couple of C-17 squadrons. In the process of hijacking it for your agenda, righteous as it may be, you failed to signal your turn toward a different topic. You have a thing for epic rants against the Air Force. At times your passion, albeit eloquent, seems to leave reason behind. So the AF has a lot of bureaucrats in the upper ranks. I recognized that as a lowly, ignorant Enlisted man. I'm trying, honestly, to see the connection between USAF manning cuts (the thread topic) and what you just posted. I've seen that whenever there is a thread that mentions the USAF you will be there to criticize. That's fine, as we all support your right to do so. However, with your approach I don't think you are winning many converts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How many dead soldiers before you give a shit? I mean, should I not try hard? Or just go, "fuck it, they were too dumb to join the AF anyway so maybe their deaths aren't a big deal?" You, sir, have stepped over the line, suggested I do not care about dead soldiers. I can't see where I have ever given a hint toward such a position. This was, was, a discussion about deactivating a couple of C-17 squadrons. In the process of hijacking it for your agenda, righteous as it may be, you failed to signal your turn toward a different topic. You have a thing for epic rants against the Air Force. At times your passion, albeit eloquent, seems to leave reason behind. So the AF has a lot of bureaucrats in the upper ranks. I recognized that as a lowly, ignorant Enlisted man. I'm trying, honestly, to see the connection between USAF manning cuts (the thread topic) and what you just posted. I've seen that whenever there is a thread that mentions the USAF you will be there to criticize. That's fine, as we all support your right to do so. However, with your approach I don't think you are winning many converts. I have won lots, actually. But thats irrelevent. the AF is systematically flawed. to the C17 example, we spend training dollars to contract civilian air to go to training areas because using C17s is too expensive. That money directly taken out of training budget. On the other hand, unlimited hours for airshows are utilized (getting a crew killed which I watched first hand, btw.) AF was created to wield the nation's nuclear deterrence. A mission they don't care about. and they take a doctrine for nuclear warfare and apply it to everything. They buy transportation aircraft in the name of "joint" when its the Army who is supposed to be the beneficiary. TRANSCOM is always commanded by an AF officer. Why? 90% of our shit moves by ship anyway. The AF is incessantly turning down transportation requests and then cries they, "have too much airlift!" how much did we spend on contracted russian antonovs in AFghainstan alone? To the point of this thread, I noted how one wing, with 8 tails, has 6 colonels assigned. thats money wasted as a taxpayer. You ask if I have a burr under my saddle? You're damned right I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:25:54 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought you retired from that? Did you go back in? Dude, beating up your kid in a BFM fight, when he has never seen one before is counter productive. Set up some BFM setups so he can see the picture of some basic maneuvers, you know, tape a beer can to the top of the canopy. and show him what it should look like. That picture is the hardest thing to recognize when you are all by yourself looking at something you have never seen before. while trying to stay awake for it. You have the ability to show it to him so he understands rate and radius and canopy bow pictures. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The sad part is my son is coming up on assignment night. He was one of 2 selected in his class of 18 to be assigned the T-38C track vs T1 track. Basically he is guaranteed a fighter.....3rd gen fighter pilot  . I normally would be ecstatic but the future of the .mil looks kinda grim with the asspipes running the show. I pray to God everyday our country recovers.......He is home for the break and I have a couple of WSTs ($10 million dollar full 360 deg simulators) set up to link together to fly some advanced formation. He will finally get some decent instruction on how to properly fly formation like a fighter pilot. He is at Vance and i am an IP at ENJJPT  At the end i have a BFM profile set up for him.....he will start on offense but will be defensive after 135 degrees of turn Baby seal........club......I thought you retired from that? Did you go back in? Dude, beating up your kid in a BFM fight, when he has never seen one before is counter productive. Set up some BFM setups so he can see the picture of some basic maneuvers, you know, tape a beer can to the top of the canopy. and show him what it should look like. That picture is the hardest thing to recognize when you are all by yourself looking at something you have never seen before. while trying to stay awake for it. You have the ability to show it to him so he understands rate and radius and canopy bow pictures. I was joking about the clubbing him..... Plan on doing a bunch of guns tracking exercises then into Heat to Guns exercises. The heat to guns is a good intro to offensive BFM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:28:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have won lots, actually. But thats irrelevent. the AF is systematically flawed. to the C17 example, we spend training dollars to contract civilian air to go to training areas because using C17s is too expensive. That money directly taken out of training budget. On the other hand, unlimited hours for airshows are utilized (getting a crew killed which I watched first hand, btw.) AF was created to wield the nation's nuclear deterrence. A mission they don't care about. and they take a doctrine for nuclear warfare and apply it to everything. They buy transportation aircraft in the name of "joint" when its the Army who is supposed to be the beneficiary. TRANSCOM is always commanded by an AF officer. Why? 90% of our shit moves by ship anyway. The AF is incessantly turning down transportation requests and then cries they, "have too much airlift!" how much did we spend on contracted russian antonovs in AFghainstan alone? To the point of this thread, I noted how one wing, with 8 tails, has 6 colonels assigned. thats money wasted as a taxpayer. You ask if I have a burr under my saddle? You're damned right I do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many dead soldiers before you give a shit? I mean, should I not try hard? Or just go, "fuck it, they were too dumb to join the AF anyway so maybe their deaths aren't a big deal?" You, sir, have stepped over the line, suggested I do not care about dead soldiers. I can't see where I have ever given a hint toward such a position. This was, was, a discussion about deactivating a couple of C-17 squadrons. In the process of hijacking it for your agenda, righteous as it may be, you failed to signal your turn toward a different topic. You have a thing for epic rants against the Air Force. At times your passion, albeit eloquent, seems to leave reason behind. So the AF has a lot of bureaucrats in the upper ranks. I recognized that as a lowly, ignorant Enlisted man. I'm trying, honestly, to see the connection between USAF manning cuts (the thread topic) and what you just posted. I've seen that whenever there is a thread that mentions the USAF you will be there to criticize. That's fine, as we all support your right to do so. However, with your approach I don't think you are winning many converts. I have won lots, actually. But thats irrelevent. the AF is systematically flawed. to the C17 example, we spend training dollars to contract civilian air to go to training areas because using C17s is too expensive. That money directly taken out of training budget. On the other hand, unlimited hours for airshows are utilized (getting a crew killed which I watched first hand, btw.) AF was created to wield the nation's nuclear deterrence. A mission they don't care about. and they take a doctrine for nuclear warfare and apply it to everything. They buy transportation aircraft in the name of "joint" when its the Army who is supposed to be the beneficiary. TRANSCOM is always commanded by an AF officer. Why? 90% of our shit moves by ship anyway. The AF is incessantly turning down transportation requests and then cries they, "have too much airlift!" how much did we spend on contracted russian antonovs in AFghainstan alone? To the point of this thread, I noted how one wing, with 8 tails, has 6 colonels assigned. thats money wasted as a taxpayer. You ask if I have a burr under my saddle? You're damned right I do. Your rants may be better suited for a letter to your Congressman? Seriously, you're preaching to the choir here... Who do you think better knows the wasteful and downright moronic appropriation of funds in the military? Actual military members. I do applaud your crusade as the AF fraud, waste and abuse White Knight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:30:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your rants may be better suited for a letter to your Congressman? Seriously, you're preaching to the choir here... Who do you think better knows the wasteful and downright moronic appropriation of funds in the military? Actual military members. I do applaud your crusade as the AF fraud, waste and abuse White Knight. Its getting people killed. I really am shocked how little that matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:35:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have won lots, actually. But thats irrelevent. the AF is systematically flawed. to the C17 example, we spend training dollars to contract civilian air to go to training areas because using C17s is too expensive. That money directly taken out of training budget. On the other hand, unlimited hours for airshows are utilized (getting a crew killed which I watched first hand, btw.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have won lots, actually. But thats irrelevent. the AF is systematically flawed. to the C17 example, we spend training dollars to contract civilian air to go to training areas because using C17s is too expensive. That money directly taken out of training budget. On the other hand, unlimited hours for airshows are utilized (getting a crew killed which I watched first hand, btw.) Using the more cost effective means of transportation to travel to training areas makes sense. If the airplane is basically being used in airline mode, why not use the one that costs less, than the more expensive one with capabilities that aren't needed? And there are not unlimited hours for air shows. AF was created to wield the nation's nuclear deterrence. A mission they don't care about. and they take a doctrine for nuclear warfare and apply it to everything. In the days of Strategic Air Command, they did the nuke thing pretty well. After the Fighter Mafia took over in McAirforce (under McPeak), nuclear surety went into the crapper. No argument there. They buy transportation aircraft in the name of "joint" when its the Army who is supposed to be the beneficiary. TRANSCOM is always commanded by an AF officer. Why? 90% of our shit moves by ship anyway. The AF is incessantly turning down transportation requests and then cries they, "have too much airlift!" how much did we spend on contracted russian antonovs in AFghainstan alone? Most of my time was in Military Airlift Command/Air Mobility Command. I came to see us as the world's biggest non-profit airline. Yep, we have big planes that can carry lots of stuff. Whose stuff? In my experience, mostly the Army's. I never got to formulate doctrine, but I did my part to make sure the airplane and its contents got to where they were supposed to be. As for the airlift capacity question, I really have tried to understand it. I've heard "We don't need more airlift" while seeing An-124s being loaded up. Personally, it didn't make sense to me. To the point of this thread, I noted how one wing, with 8 tails, has 6 colonels assigned. thats money wasted as a taxpayer. Yes, a lot that the AF does in management would have Demming spinning in his grave. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:38:26 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its getting people killed. I really am shocked how little that matters. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your rants may be better suited for a letter to your Congressman? Seriously, you're preaching to the choir here... Who do you think better knows the wasteful and downright moronic appropriation of funds in the military? Actual military members. I do applaud your crusade as the AF fraud, waste and abuse White Knight. Its getting people killed. I really am shocked how little that matters. It absolutely does matter... At least to the people in the field. The guys in the Pentagon maybe? Not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:38:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have won lots, actually. But thats irrelevent. the AF is systematically flawed. to the C17 example, we spend training dollars to contract civilian air to go to training areas because using C17s is too expensive. That money directly taken out of training budget. On the other hand, unlimited hours for airshows are utilized (getting a crew killed which I watched first hand, btw.) AF was created to wield the nation's nuclear deterrence. A mission they don't care about. and they take a doctrine for nuclear warfare and apply it to everything. They buy transportation aircraft in the name of "joint" when its the Army who is supposed to be the beneficiary. TRANSCOM is always commanded by an AF officer. Why? 90% of our shit moves by ship anyway. The AF is incessantly turning down transportation requests and then cries they, "have too much airlift!" how much did we spend on contracted russian antonovs in AFghainstan alone? To the point of this thread, I noted how one wing, with 8 tails, has 6 colonels assigned. thats money wasted as a taxpayer. You ask if I have a burr under my saddle? You're damned right I do. Do you have any statistics to back up your belief that the Air Force has too many colonels because one guard unit near you appears to you to be too heavy? The 10 USC 12005 shows the Army is authorized a higher percentage of O6 and O5 billets. And also you really shouldn't compare in any meaningful way the command of 22,500 pound cargo aircraft to 300,000+ pound aircraft with support elements and mission requirements that the little one doesn't just because they are all grey and there's the same number of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:45:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any statistics to back up your belief that the Air Force has too many colonels because one guard unit near you appears to you to be too heavy? The 10 USC 12005 shows the Army is authorized a higher percentage of O6 and O5 billets. And also you really shouldn't compare in any meaningful way the command of 22,500 pound cargo aircraft to 300,000+ pound aircraft with support elements and mission requirements that the little one doesn't just because they are all grey and there's the same number of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have won lots, actually. But thats irrelevent. the AF is systematically flawed. to the C17 example, we spend training dollars to contract civilian air to go to training areas because using C17s is too expensive. That money directly taken out of training budget. On the other hand, unlimited hours for airshows are utilized (getting a crew killed which I watched first hand, btw.) AF was created to wield the nation's nuclear deterrence. A mission they don't care about. and they take a doctrine for nuclear warfare and apply it to everything. They buy transportation aircraft in the name of "joint" when its the Army who is supposed to be the beneficiary. TRANSCOM is always commanded by an AF officer. Why? 90% of our shit moves by ship anyway. The AF is incessantly turning down transportation requests and then cries they, "have too much airlift!" how much did we spend on contracted russian antonovs in AFghainstan alone? To the point of this thread, I noted how one wing, with 8 tails, has 6 colonels assigned. thats money wasted as a taxpayer. You ask if I have a burr under my saddle? You're damned right I do. Do you have any statistics to back up your belief that the Air Force has too many colonels because one guard unit near you appears to you to be too heavy? The 10 USC 12005 shows the Army is authorized a higher percentage of O6 and O5 billets. And also you really shouldn't compare in any meaningful way the command of 22,500 pound cargo aircraft to 300,000+ pound aircraft with support elements and mission requirements that the little one doesn't just because they are all grey and there's the same number of them. separate O5 from O6. It has always seemed to me that in Joint commands, AF has a thousand O6s running around but few O5s. In my J-shop we have an AF 2 star, AF 1 Star, 1 army O6, 12 (I think) army 05s and 2 AF O5s. The other shops have generally 1/2 O6s but 80% army O5s. So 8 frames need 6 O6s in order to operate? It has to be an O6 Opso, 06 vice, O6 commander, O6 doctor? really. airpower shuts down in the absence of that level of experience? Or is it simply that the first taste of leadership for a pilot generally comes 16 years after commissioning? The comparison is that from 22 years old, an army officer is in a leadership position, even a pilot. Now, far be it from me to say army aviation does everything right. But take a battalion of blackhawks. 30 airframes and about 300 dudes. One O5, two O4s, and about 10 Captains. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:52:14 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its almost as if some people study their profession beyond their narrow band of requirements. And some people don't. we could limit the discussion to people who have been published in Air and Space Power Journal on joint aviation doctrine. But it would be a lonely thread, wouldn't it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lulz. butthurt quasi-military showing up. taxpayers are the ones getting trolled. By all means carry on though- it is amusing at times.. But thats about it. Its almost as if some people study their profession beyond their narrow band of requirements. And some people don't. we could limit the discussion to people who have been published in Air and Space Power Journal on joint aviation doctrine. But it would be a lonely thread, wouldn't it? You sound a lot like this guy 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:56:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
separate O5 from O6. It has always seemed to me that in Joint commands, AF has a thousand O6s running around but few O5s. In my J-shop we have an AF 2 star, AF 1 Star, 1 army O6, 12 (I think) army 05s and 2 AF O5s. The other shops have generally 1/2 O6s but 80% army O5s. So 8 frames need 6 O6s in order to operate? It has to be an O6 Opso, 06 vice, O6 commander, O6 doctor? really. airpower shuts down in the absence of that level of experience? Or is it simply that the first taste of leadership for a pilot generally comes 16 years after commissioning? The comparison is that from 22 years old, an army officer is in a leadership position, even a pilot. Now, far be it from me to say army aviation does everything right. But take a battalion of blackhawks. 30 airframes and about 300 dudes. One O5, two O4s, and about 10 Captains. I too believe that the Air Force has made a fundamental error by choosing to eliminate warrant officers. But that doesn't change the table below: Grade Army percentage Air Force percentage Colonel 2 1.8 Lt colonel 6 4.6 As for the "would it fail if" the same question could be asked about the Army. Would the 1AD fail if it were only commanded by a brigadier general rather than a major general? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 1:56:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lulz. butthurt quasi-military showing up. taxpayers are the ones getting trolled. By all means carry on though- it is amusing at times.. But thats about it. Its almost as if some people study their profession beyond their narrow band of requirements. And some people don't. we could limit the discussion to people who have been published in Air and Space Power Journal on joint aviation doctrine. But it would be a lonely thread, wouldn't it? You sound a lot like this guy  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6CIcoot1sM
you strike me a lot like the guy in your avatar (the one on the right) the primary difference being you chose it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:00:52 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I too believe that the Air Force has made a fundamental error by choosing to eliminate warrant officers. But that doesn't change the table below: Grade Army percentage Air Force percentage Colonel 2 1.8 Lt colonel 6 4.6 As for the "would it fail if" the same question could be asked about the Army. Would the 1AD fail if it were only commanded by a brigadier general rather than a major general? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
separate O5 from O6. It has always seemed to me that in Joint commands, AF has a thousand O6s running around but few O5s. In my J-shop we have an AF 2 star, AF 1 Star, 1 army O6, 12 (I think) army 05s and 2 AF O5s. The other shops have generally 1/2 O6s but 80% army O5s. So 8 frames need 6 O6s in order to operate? It has to be an O6 Opso, 06 vice, O6 commander, O6 doctor? really. airpower shuts down in the absence of that level of experience? Or is it simply that the first taste of leadership for a pilot generally comes 16 years after commissioning? The comparison is that from 22 years old, an army officer is in a leadership position, even a pilot. Now, far be it from me to say army aviation does everything right. But take a battalion of blackhawks. 30 airframes and about 300 dudes. One O5, two O4s, and about 10 Captains. I too believe that the Air Force has made a fundamental error by choosing to eliminate warrant officers. But that doesn't change the table below: Grade Army percentage Air Force percentage Colonel 2 1.8 Lt colonel 6 4.6 As for the "would it fail if" the same question could be asked about the Army. Would the 1AD fail if it were only commanded by a brigadier general rather than a major general? No. But 2 stars commanding a division is hardly exceptional. That dates to the creation of the division and itself to the corps under napoleon. What would be exception is if the division had 6 Major Generals. Which is the example I am highlighting here. what is exceptional about the army rank structure is that the US Army alone commands a brigade with a colonel instead of its namesake rank. If anything, the army is working hard to push grade inflation down. Aviation companies used to be commanded by majors. now its captains. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:46:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you strike me a lot like the guy in your avatar (the one on the right) the primary difference being you chose it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lulz. butthurt quasi-military showing up. taxpayers are the ones getting trolled. By all means carry on though- it is amusing at times.. But thats about it. Its almost as if some people study their profession beyond their narrow band of requirements. And some people don't. we could limit the discussion to people who have been published in Air and Space Power Journal on joint aviation doctrine. But it would be a lonely thread, wouldn't it? You sound a lot like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6CIcoot1sM
you strike me a lot like the guy in your avatar (the one on the right) the primary difference being you chose it. So your published on joint aviation doctrine, does that mean that you have a background and experience in aviation? Or does your qualification comes from academia, historical analysis and theory? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:57:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So your published on joint aviation doctrine, does that mean that you have a background and experience in aviation? Or does your qualification comes from academia, historical analysis and theory? ...and combat experience. But spent three years doing strategic airpower for a full time job. Never got to fire the missiles, however. The funny thing about strategic airpower is there is only theory. The history of airpower and deterrence was born in academia and theoretical discussions. It would suck to have some actual exchanges. By your own reasoning, Douhet would be irrelevent to airpower theory discussions, right? Experience in aviation is a pre-requisite to discuss "airpower?" Interesting theory. Hap Arnold, however, disagrees. Or does his words not qualify to enter the discussion. “for the last 20 years we have built and run the air force on pilots. But we can’t do that anymore" Maybe a CJ degree from bumfuck state should be the prerequisite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 2:59:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lulz. butthurt quasi-military showing up. taxpayers are the ones getting trolled. By all means carry on though- it is amusing at times.. But thats about it. Its almost as if some people study their profession beyond their narrow band of requirements. And some people don't. we could limit the discussion to people who have been published in Air and Space Power Journal on joint aviation doctrine. But it would be a lonely thread, wouldn't it? You sound a lot like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6CIcoot1sM
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 3:56:59 PM EDT
[#20]
OP Request
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
