|
I guess I should start reading this thread now. Monday I start work at Fallon as a dirty contractor. Anybody there now?
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
I'll have something to do with BC3, but I'm not sure how much. I *think* I'll have to train guys on it for AWF. After an AF buddy trains me on it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
For the first week, a hotel. I've got a handful of rentals I want to look at though. Probably Fernley.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Chuckle posted:I'm here for the next month or so babysitting pilots. I figured out where I work, and that my hours are basically whatever I want them to be most days. This base is tiny as gently caress, too. My last AD station was something like 80,000 people. This morning I waited on two cars at the gate. What do people do for lunch around here? I can't really do poo poo until I get network access so I'm basically watching people read email all day for a while and will need to escape.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
If you're an LNO or something like that we may cross paths. I'll be the guy who's loving worthless because I haven't learned my job yet or even gotten approved for computer access.Chuckle posted:That place is great, there's a Vietnamese restaurant (vinh pho I believe) that is pretty good, the wok is a good Chinese place with a great egg drop soup. There's also the Waterhole, has $1 tacos on Monday, and decent burritos. I've driven past VN Pho a few times...it's on my list to try. Good suggestions. Mongolian at the o-club is actually pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Chuckle posted:As an enlisted I will never be allowed to grace the O-Club and am stuck with the flightline grill/bar or subway Proles seem to be allowed into the lunch section. The O-section was closed off. There were plenty of Es there for Mongolian today (price is based on weight, FYI). I don't know how their other food is, or if its every day or what though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Please don't tell me Mean Gene's is no longer. I don't see it on google maps. Where is/was it? I'll take a look.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
That was my reaction too. Even moreso when I checked out Fernley.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
I just rented a house there. It's definitely nicer, but feels smaller.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Sir Lucius posted:I discovered this stuff while on leave: The 1.75L bottle of evan williams is about a dollar cheaper here than I was paying for he 750. God bless Nevada. Gotta watch some Hornets do dry runs on ground targets from a couple of miles away today. Neat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Something fleet ordnance support?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
They'd better not scrub poo poo next week, I'm gonna be out on the ranges as a spectator.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
That's awesome. I'm bringing a camera. I'll probably be in the valley, but I dunno.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:Its the Navy. There is a dumb ceremony for everything that everyone is required to be at and no one wants to be at. Some dickhead USAF Lt came up with the brilliant idea that air battle managers (AWACS specifically) needed a second pin-on ceremony for our wings, which we get about 2-3 months after our controller badge. The controller badge comes after almost a year of training, the wings after 8 loving flights to orient you to doing the controller job on an airplane. It became a whole big thing with a 1-star pinning on the wings, etc, and nobody going through it gave a drat except to be pissed off that they had to organize it and break out the dress blues again. The first one was an accomplishment. The second was a stepping stone in a long training pipeline that wasn't even done until a month+ after wings.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
germskr posted:I'm sure somebody in here has worked in a space that requires numerous badges and has a set up that holds at least 3-4 badges securely (but not requiring you to click open a case and close said case) and maybe even blocks hackers or whatever the industry term is from stealing your information from afar? Suggestions? I've got one somewhere that's similar to this. I had four various badges in there, but only one had to show, the others were all NFC badges and worked fine. There are also copper-lined card sleeves if you're paranoid. It depends if you're displaying, and if you have to tap/swipe.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
germskr posted:I like how you focused on the least of my concerns http://www.amazon.com/Metal-Badge-C...ords=badge+clip One of those will hold five normal badges. It's pretty cramped at that point though, and it's not flashy, but it works. If you've got the the holes through the badges. Edit: Got to hang out on the ranges during today's AWF events. Capped off the convoy ride with a 2-ship show of force right over the top. loving OWNED. Seeing a B-1 pull that poo poo must be terrifying. And I need a better camera. Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Aug 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Wall-E is more likely to come true than that post.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
I'd like to thank NMCI for sitting on my paperwork for the past month while all possible work I could've been doing was handled by everyone else as I sat on a couch for 2-3 hours a day and watched, then went home. Now everything's done for the foreseeable future, everybody is taking some much needed time off, and I can sit at a desk for a couple of hours staring at my empty email inbox before going home. Contractor life owns.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
That's perfect. Edit: And I'm pretty sure that's how most contract bids are submitted.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
maffew buildings posted:I hadn't thought of the very obvious I don't pay a broker part. And yes, some civ jobs get a match. Because gently caress service members why would they do that for us. The services are authorized to match for military members, but it would come out of their budgets. GS matches are actually funded.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:Does anyone actually know what the gently caress all the announcements they make over the 1MC on ship mean? It seems like a combination of using non native english speakers and a bunch of silly rear end navy jargon that only applies to a very small percentage of the ship makes most announcements confusing as hell. Have you READ this thread?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Or the Navy could stop emulating its siblings' worst behaviors. "They did it too!" isn't a good excuse.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
buttplug posted:I'm not sure "historic" is the world you're looking for. Talk to anybody who was around prior to the end of the Cold War. The military as a whole has gone through these cyclical draw-downs for as long as it has been around. The Army and the AF had to plus up the most numbers to meet OIF/OEF requirements, so they're the ones taking it in the shorts. And the AF always fucks this sorta thing up (and the Army just fucks everything up). Historic applies. The USAF is the smallest it has ever been by tens of thousands; the smallest since Nov 1941, just a few months after the Air Corps was reorganized into the USAAF. It's currently almost 200,000 people smaller than any time in the 90s. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
buttplug posted:Right, we're approaching pre-WW2 levels. And, we're also more technologically-enabled than at any time in our history as well. Only what, 17% of the USAF is directly-involved in some sort of aviation-related field, right? So the rest of it has essentially served as the logistics hub for long-haul transport for the last two major theaters of war. Beyond that, what does the AF require such large numbers of people for? They're not operating ~290 ships. I don't think your 17% figure is accurate, but I don't have access to the AFPC site that gives the breakdown. Typically admin personnel make up about 1/3 of the force, so the rest will be aviation-related (I expect aircraft maintenance alone accounts for at least 17%), medical, security, combat arms, and services I guess. The point I was responding to isn't that the Air Force needs more people, it's that cuts like these are literally unheard of, are absolutely NOT cyclical, and are far beyond the Peace Dividend. This is more like the post-WWI drawdown than anything else, and that should scare the hell out of anyone who knows how that went. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
That has been well known for millenia. And one thing that we've learned every time we've gone through those cyclical cuts is that you lose a lot of muscle with the fat. And once in a while (1919, for example) you lose almost all the muscle. The AF has been cutting Weapons School grads (think 6-month version of Top Gun but more expensive) because of 5-year old PT scores for gently caress's sake. The Navy has a long way to fall before it's making that kind of personnel fuckups. You guys have your own issues for sure, but you definitely take better care of your people, even with the issues being discussed in the last page or so. Edit: I really didn't intend to derail this, I just took issue with the idea that "historical" wasn't accurate. It absolutely is, for the Army and AF. Maybe not for the Navy yet, but we'll see how many of those Chinese ships up around Alaska make it home and see what happens. Godholio fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Ok, THAT I can agree with. I'd have cut the F-35B in a heartbeat, and scrap the babby carriers that have no realistic mission. The F-22 lives up to the hype, and the F-35A/C will be fine replacements for the current low-tier multirole fighters and probably would've come in at a more reasonable price without all these loving STOVL shenanigans.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Nick Soapdish posted:Don't have the time for a real response but, Gator Navy has a value-added purpose in the grand scheme of operations. Sure, but they don't need a floating runway and fifth-generation fighters. The argument for these systems is what's stupidly called "a self-licking ice cream cone."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
Octopode posted:And even if the CVN can commit, I'd be hard pressed to believe a case could be made that in an opposed landing, less air power is somehow better. Sure, if we're in a world of unlimited budgets. But what's more likely to be the case, an unsupported opposed amphibious landing or...maybe having a mission for a legitimate LCS? Or an air campaign (requiring a survivable heavy bomber or a wide front of EW) against a reasonable IADS? Like it or not, the Marines' pie in the sky stroke ammo has hurt the rest of the services more than it'll help in 99% of the scenarios we're going to face in the next fifty years. But realistically, the F-35B is not the aircraft the Marines need to provide CAS, and their ships can't carry enough of them to simultaneously provide CAS and air superiority against anyone but maybe North Korea. So I guess it's a good thing they got a goddamned fifth-gen medium-to-high altitude fighter! And yet now they have the F-35B so we're basically obligated to keep the LHD on hand and probably get a similar replacement during the F-35's service life, rinse, repeat. I'm not arguing that the mission is useless or will never be a viable option. What I'm arguing is that his mission is impacting a disproportionate amount of other more valuable missions and capabilities relative to the likelihood that it will ever be needed. But yes, a case can be made for less CAS airpower, because the airspace above is going to fill up very fast. It takes some effort to manage a CAS stack, and you simply don't want too many aircraft in there. This isn't WWII where everyone can turn on a dime. An F-35 (or Hornet, or whatever) needs a lot of room to run his orbit over the top, and you can't just stack everybody up and let them put ordnance through the lower altitude blocks when there are aircraft there, too. Godholio fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Sep 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:
That's not my reasoning. My reasoning is because we've done it in exactly two wars and feinted it once, yet it's literally driving the defense posture (through long-term acquisitions) for the next half century. We are losing actual critical capabilities in favor of a mission that is almost certain to not be used. But I'm not even saying give up the amphib mission entirely, they just don't need a floating runway with high-performance fighters. The Marines will not be establishing air superiority. The USAF/USN will. AND providing most of the CAS anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Commoners posted:Travel day of 3m assessment: flight delayed due to flight attendant getting sucked out the door while the cabin pressurised on the tarmac. She was okay because it was only a 6ft drop, but that door just popped open when she touched it. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Ass posted:LOL you poor saps have to take tests to advance? The Marine Corps lets you advance through the lower enlisted ranks by measuring poo poo that counts, Physical Fitness Tests and Rifle Scores. Those were both instrumental in teaching me to load ships and planes better. The AF uses PT scores and Christmas Party planning experience, on the officer side at least. Proles still have to take a test.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
So there's exactly one dude who can make access badges for my building. Guess who flaked on me this morning. Looks like I'm not going to the office until Friday. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
orange juche posted:I'm the only dude who knows how to make access badges and work the badge system for my building, guess who got sent TAD to a squadron for 7 months There aren't many situations where I like absolute rules, but one of them should be "avoid single points of failure, particularly in routine operations."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Yeah, but you're allowed in the building, right? Took about three weeks to get a CAC, another three weeks to get NIPR access, and I'm still waiting on SIPR. I'm ok with staying home for two days in the middle of every week though, this is working out well. I'm glad I tried to contact the guy before I made the 40 minute drive to the base.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
That's loving amazing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
That's the absolute best "You loving idiot" message I've ever read.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
So this is kind of interesting. With USS Simpson (FFG-56) being decommissioned today, USS Constitution is the only commissioned ship in the Navy to have ever sunk an enemy vessel. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Nwabudike Morgan posted:Did the constitution ever sink a ship in its like 300 year commission Actually did REALLY well during the War of 1812, especially since the USN only had a handful of seagoing ships; the RN was basically putting a small fleet anywhere they thought they'd find of these goddamned frigates. Guerriere was the first of several British ships sunk or captured. And Constitution fought in several other wars before languishing and almost being forgotten. Edit: Yeah, capturing was much better. Against England, you had a decent chance of finding captured Americans serving aboard ("impressed") so you got to free them, ransom the crew back to England, and put a new ship into service for just the cost of repairs. Guerriere had actually been captured from France in the first place. It's worth mentioning that these frigates generally served in that war with 44 guns aboard. The Royal Navy had more battleships with 80+ guns than the USN had SHIPS out to sea. IIRC the US tried to build two 80+ gun ships, but both had to be destroyed before they were finished. Godholio fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Oct 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:They were "rated at" 44 guns. An enemy captain sees the ship, says ok it's a frigate, looks like she has X guns. I can take her. Constitution and her sisters ships carried more guns than was typical, which is one of the reasons she beat those british ships. Absolutely right. I meant to type "around 44" but oh well. Constitution was carrying over 50 during the fight with Guerriere. Still not a match for a British 74 or 80, which would also operate with a couple of frigates alongside. One of my favorite aspects of this war is the Admiralty getting so fed up with American frigates capturing whatever they ran across that they issued an order that nothing smaller than a line of battle ship (70+ guns at the time) would engage them.  LingcodKilla posted:I'm not a navy historian but I recall reading that the 3rd rates on the stocks were converted down by cutting off the top deck but the oversized main mast was retained. I think the French term recycled was "razee". A razee was a battleship with the upper deck removed. I just dug into one of my books to avoid talking out of my rear end; the US laid down three 74-gun battleships in 1813. Independence was completed the following year, but was used to defend Boston Harbor rather than deployed during the war (wise move). The other two, Washington and Franklin, weren't launched until late 1815, after the war was over. The US didn't build any razees during the war, but Independence was cut down in the 1830s from a 90 to a 54...she was actually commissioned until 1912. The British did modify a few ships during construction into razees because their battleships couldn't keep up with the USN frigates. There were several frigates under construction throughout the war. Columbia specifically was burned by the yardmaster along with the entire Washington Navy Yard when the British landed near DC. That's what I was thinking of.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 07:09 |
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:I got a buddy serving on it right now. I love her pictures of it being worked on. That ship is seriously the main reason I want to visit Boston.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 04:18
|
|