MIL AF. Want CJR? OK

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by Jyokker, Oct 2, 2007.

  1. Jyokker

    Jyokker The trouser snake is very aggressive. It will corn

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    12,760
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Panama City, FL
    Oct. 1, 2007
    Release No. 062


    CJRs available for all reenlisting Airmen

    RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, Texas -- Air Force officials announced fiscal 2008 will start without any restrictions on first-term Career Job Reservations for enlisted specialties.

    Most years Airmen compete for a limited number of jobs within their Air Force Specialty Codes, but this year, the Air Force expects to meet its enlisted authorized end strength through normal attrition.
    "For the first time in four years, Airmen will not have to compete for the privilege of reenlisting in their specialty code," said Chief Master Sgt. Christine Williams, chief of the Air Force Personnel Center enlisted skills management branch here. "However, commanders will still enforce quality standards before making Airmen eligible to reenlist."
    Effective Oct. 1, all first-term Airmen selected by their commanders as eligible to re-enlist under the Selective Reenlistment Program will receive a CJR once they enter the first month of their reenlistment eligibility window. Aside from the fact there will be no waiting lists, Airmen will not notice any difference from previous years. The automated processing will continue to notify Airmen of their career job reservations anytime they become eligible during their reenlistment window, even though there are no restrictions.

    Enlistment extensions will have no impact on an Airman's CJR eligibility window. Eligibility windows are 35-38 months for National Call to Service enlistees, 35-43 months for four-year enlistees and 59-67 months for six-year enlistees.

    The CJR program will run unrestricted unless the Air Force needs to make enlisted force adjustments to meet authorized strength levels.
     
  2. jmx2323

    jmx2323 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Messages:
    53,459
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Centennial, CO
    I dont know what that means
     
  3. FATBOY

    FATBOY OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    0
    It means, as a first-term Airman, you no longer have to submit a CJR for the AF to hold your job and not give it away to someone new coming in.
     
  4. jjski78

    jjski78 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Right Here, aka You're Mom's House
    It means the guys in AFPC said: "Oh shit!! We let too many guys out with force shaping, now if we don't let them all reenlist, we're SCREWED!"

    Also, in related news, the new AF Times has an article about how the secretary of the AF came to the realization that cutting our manning to pay for new planes was a dumb move....gee, you think??
     
  5. BillyJackNCoke

    BillyJackNCoke I've got something to say, I raped your mother tod

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Alabama
    My DOS is 2 November!
     
  6. NisAznMonk

    NisAznMonk New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    Are you going to get out for sure?
     
  7. MrRyan

    MrRyan Gary Johnson 2016 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    159,105
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Colorado Part Year Resident
    On the same front page there's an article titled: "Scrap the C5?"

    Are you fucking kidding me?
     
  8. BillyJackNCoke

    BillyJackNCoke I've got something to say, I raped your mother tod

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    2,465
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Alabama
    Yep, but I am going into the reserves though.
     
  9. whitecouch

    whitecouch spendin' our golden years in OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mattersville
    Out with the old, in with the new. We have aircraft set down on our ramp and more at Minot that can't be flown anymore. It's too expensive and we have to buy new airplanes.:wavey:
     
  10. wack0

    wack0 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    8,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    brohio
    in 2 weeks i will be a contractor. yay!
     
  11. MrRyan

    MrRyan Gary Johnson 2016 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    159,105
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Colorado Part Year Resident
    But yet, you're not doing that.
     
  12. jjski78

    jjski78 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Right Here, aka You're Mom's House
    The C5 should be scrapped. It's a total hunk of garbage. They have the worst MC rating of any airlifter in the inventory. We don't call it FRED for nothing...fucking ridiculous economic disaster. As soon as it lands, it's broken. I've heard that the average is for every hour flown, it requires 8 hours of maintenance.

    While we're at it, lets scrap the C130. All we need, in the world of airlift, is the C-17. It can haul heavy loads, not quite to C5 weight, but close enough. It can land on short, unimproved runways, kinda like the C130, though a bit longer for the landing. (like we do that anyways). Think of the savings by using the C17 for everything! No more having to Fed-Ex parts out to a broken plane, if they land at an AMC base, the supply section will have the parts. No more having to keep training facilities for 3 different airframes. And by God, I would love to see a C17 gunship! So if the Air Force really wants to save some money, from the airlift standpoint, streamline the number of airframe types. C17 for hauling cargo, the new KC757 or whatever they're calling it, for hauling fuel. Problem solved.

    From a fighter standpoint....well shit, you got me there. We have to keep one old dog around. The A-10. Nothing out that even comes close as a replacement. The 15's and 16's, as great as they've been, are getting pretty well worn, and are in need of replacement. Is the F22 the answer?? I don't know. The F35, to me, seems like it would be a great idea, one fighter for all branches, but everyone knows the military will fuck that up some how. We just need a great, all-around, multi-role fighter, and the A-10.

    Bombers?? That's a different problem altogether. B52's forever!
     
  13. jjski78

    jjski78 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Right Here, aka You're Mom's House
    That's a problem on a lot of AMC bases right now. When I left Pope we had, iirc, 12 C130's on the ramp, and only 4 that were flyable.
     
  14. jjski78

    jjski78 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Right Here, aka You're Mom's House
    If the Army would hurry up and finish the job in Iraq, maybe we could divert some of the billions wasted there every month to buy new aircraft.
     
  15. MrRyan

    MrRyan Gary Johnson 2016 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    159,105
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Colorado Part Year Resident
    Scrap the C-130? That's a wonderfull idea :hsugh:

    [​IMG]

    Countries that operate the C-130 shown in blue. When was the last time a C-130 was landed and/or took off from a dirt airstrip? Oh in the last minute or so....

    C-5 maybe the FRED, but last time I checked the C-17 is no longer being produced and/or is currently scheduled for production cessation.

    F-15/16 - No doubt in my military mind that they're worn out. No doubt they needed to be replaced but I blame the Air Force for putting the U.S. in it's current predicament.
     
  16. NisAznMonk

    NisAznMonk New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    Are each of these planes built by different companies?
     
  17. whitecouch

    whitecouch spendin' our golden years in OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,499
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mattersville
    Really? I agree to a certain extent but the damn tilt rotor project of the last two decades certainly didn't help either. Sure we built a lot of aircraft that are currently out of commission when we could have been investing in more long term equipment but the honest to god real killer is an ops tempo that has kept our spending on foreign soil.
     
  18. e.pie

    e.pie Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Messages:
    91,427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    KFLY
    :cool: this is good news :)
     
  19. dubrocker

    dubrocker sho nuff

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    992
    Likes Received:
    0
    i hate when some idiot fucks up and makes a shitty decision that negatively impacts tens of thousands of people only to later realize that they fucked it all up. 8 hours of maintenance for every hour is good compared to what i've heard in regards to some fighters. it's all he said she said though.

    on another note, it sure would be nice if srb's came back before i re-up.
     
  20. jmx2323

    jmx2323 OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2002
    Messages:
    53,459
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Centennial, CO
    c-130 will never stop flying.
     
  21. jjski78

    jjski78 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Right Here, aka You're Mom's House
    The C-130 can land in dirt..yippee!! So can the C-17. I know, you're probably one of the C130 fanboy cocksuckers who don't think it can. Funny, then I must have coordinated imaginary C-17 landings on Ft Bragg's dirt LZ's. And if I coordinated them to land there, one would have to figure they can take off there too. As a matter of fact, the 17 is much more well suited to unimproved airstrips than the new C-130J. Rocks + new composite prop = BAD.

    And you should check your "sources" again. As a matter of fact, the C-17 is still in production. And the C-model is being designed. Rumor has it that they will re-install the flight engineer position in the new C. And another counter to your argument, the C-5 isn't exactly being built anymore either, fucking genius.

    You blame the Air Force for our predicament?? You truly are a brainwashed worthless army grunt. You are yet another shining example of how your college degree and your shiny oak leaf in no way, shape, or form, act as an indicator of intelligence. One more retarded officer in the world. Not surprising really. So go ahead, throw your Army tantrum, stomp your feet on the floor and cry because a lowly Air Force SSgt is smarter than you, and omgz!!! How can that be when you're an officer??!!!!
     
  22. jjski78

    jjski78 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    2,284
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Right Here, aka You're Mom's House

    C-130: Lockheed Martin

    C-5: Lockheed Martin

    C-17: Boeing

    F-16: Lockheed Martin

    F-15: McDonnell Douglas/Boeing

    F-22: Lockheed Martin

    F-35: Lockheed Martin

    Pretty much, Lockheed has a serious monopoly on the military aircraft contracts. Worse part about it is, the Boeings are much more user-friendly. ie: Easier to maintain.
     
  23. dave5678

    dave5678 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2007
    Messages:
    586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Germany
    :bowdown:

    Oh, well... at least I got a very far from crappy deal.
     

Share This Page