New features / developments of the forums and Baseops.Net website will be posted here. Please post any problems you have, glitches, etc. Please click on HELP (upper right) for more info... Please do not PM your trouble calls.
This is a sub-forum where you can post product/service reviews. Please do your best to add any military specific information. For instance, if I'm reviewing Disney World, I might post a link to the Shades of Green website.
A new forum designed for all of your questions! Have a stupid question? Get answers here. Also, NO PENALTY for asking something that's been asked in other threads. If you're a grey-beard, please try to help out by posting a synopsis version of the answer and a link to the thread you remember from 7 years ago.
RPA career field information (also known as Remotely Piloted Vehicle, Unmanned Aerial System, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle). Post information, questions, gouge; value-added posts ONLY, others will be deleted.
There's a slide deck out there that shows this year's 1BPZ meeting 1 year later and 2BPZ meeting 2 years later. So it looks like a move to align eligibility periods to start when IPZ starts.
But we're still chugging along like '07/'08 are meeting boards this spring so who knows what the aimpoint is.
The sim is fine for learning procedural tasks, but it's not the same as being in the jet. More MWS sim time is not the answer, at least for the C-17. Need more quality training time in the jet, but that means reducing mission taskings so guys are home to train, and more locals so you don't have 5 dudes all trying to get recurrent on 4.0 local instead of focusing on tactical proficiency. Even if you moved money to find more sim time, there are a limited number of sims, and there's not a lot of excess capacity for more training. So that means mil construction for more sim buildings and buying more simulators, which again, really just teach procedural tasks. Not saying the T-1 track needs to stay as is, but I'd bet there would be better payoff for the airlift community trading for more time in T-6s learning visual navigation and building air sense in general. Pretty sure that 1x C-17 sim session (3 hours) would buy you 6x 1.5 sorties in the T-6. Also don't need to have both the T-1 and T-38 tracks graduate at the same time. No matter how rigorous MAF wants the T-1 track to be, the fact of the matter is that big AF will always see the T-1 track as being limited/lesser than their T-38 track counterparts, who will be universally assignable (subject to AFPC's whims). But if all you think C-17s do are strat missions, then yeah, just do transition phase in T-1s and graduate, cancel all locals and do it all in the sim, just like the airlines. Hell, just direct hire guys of the street with a FAA commercial Pilot certificate; it'd be a lot cheaper and fix the rated manning numbers really quick. And while we're at it, do the same for the fighters, cancel locals and do more sims; they'll just be cruising at 30k dropping GPS JDAMs in a permissive environment.
No, it can’t. We do not have military IPs running our simulators. There is only a finite amount of time available in a given day available for sim use and all 4 are nearly always in use. It would take giving up the sim maintenance time from midnight to 0800 and a new contract for sim IPs and maintenance. It will only get worse next year when one of the 4 sims used by 8 squadrons for IQT, MQT, and CT is torn down. So, no, you cannot just absorb missing training in MAF assets without giving up something else like everyone’s CT or other things.
That could be fixed by dissolving the T-1 UPT IP manning and generating more MWS sim time.
I honestly can't recall how much attention I've given to di1630s posts before, but I hope you are still serving and in a position to affect the current model. As alluded to earlier...too many get off my lawn types running around.
Also good to see hindsight still writing 200 IQ responses to internet chat blabber.