Jump to content
Baseops Forums


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/29/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I think you are confused on how all of this works. If they “wanted” to have fighters, I think 90% of units would be flying them. It’s a way bigger picture than I’ll lay out here or you need to understand, but it’s up to Congress (and sometimes, very rarely, the states) to place fighter units around the country. If congress decided to take away or switch airframes, there isn’t a lot the individual unit can do but bitch. Stick with units that appear to provide some sort of costal defense and you’ll be good. And I don’t wanna call bullshit, but none of my F-15 friends would ever say that, most would stick with the F-15. Do you wanna fly fighters or live by your family? You may have to decide.
  2. 1 point
    Looked at similar questions during my search. Oregon has the most to lose if the F15 goes away due to K-falls being the training base. So the state as a whole will maneuver to keep the F15, but if they get something else that sends federal pork to Oregon, the state powers won't care if it is a blimp or fighter. That said, the F15C/D will have to go away at some point. Whether it is replaced by the F15X, F35, a new F22 line, a brand new clean sheet fighter, or some unmanned aircraft is totally subject to political maneuvering that is outside the desires of any unit as matmacwc said. The remaining F15 locations that hire for UPT would probably have to be replaced by some sort of fighter if the F15 goes away - but the safest are those that have no other fighters nearby like Fresno and Portland. I would also argue that the K-Falls location would be silly for the AF to give up due to the costs of the area being fairly low, high flyable days a year, balmy winters, and no hurricanes/tornados. However logic like that is not used in deciding base realignment/closure. Part of your search might also include where you can get your day job when the guard flying dries up, who you want to spend considerable amounts of time with (each unit has a different culture), and who is willing to say yes to you too. If air to air is the mission you want, visit the F15 units that are hiring and decide. If you want to mix it up with some air to ground then check out the -16 and -35 units as well. If you want to be in a fighter at all costs and don't have things in your file that distinguish you head and shoulders over your peers, then find whoever will say yes to you and run with it. There is definitely tough competition out there for the boards. Years down the road, after you pay your dues, you can apply to a rated board elsewhere and even in a different airframe if that's what you want at that point.
  3. 1 point
    Other than IL or some of the liberal coastal states, most don't have any kind of ownership permit or registration process. Please don't think of IL gun laws as "normal," sensible, or effective. They are none of the above.
  4. 1 point
    As matmacwc said, stick to the coastal defense / alert units for longevity sake. Regarding unit conversions (very unfortunate at times) its a very political arena and you get water boarded til you comply - Eagles to Herks (Montana). Or from Vipers to Reapers (Boys from Syracuse) - These are just examples and I am not picking on anyone so forgive me for bad memories. Despite being a heavy lifter almost from the get go, I have worked/seen a few unit transitions from the pointy nose world to us trash haulers and they are far from smooth like Duck mentioned. And the most current mess from fighter to lift and now possibly something else to meet “the needs” of the Air Force (PRANG) - and the list will go on forever. Like real estate dictates “location, location, location” - buyer be ware - it’s longevity, longevity, longevity if your stove piped with your mindset to a particular weapon system or an actual flying gig. Good luck with all your endeavors and understand the workload, dedication and commitment like Guardian mentioned.
  5. 1 point
    We = Atlas Air. So much for remaining anonymous, but good question good sir! 🤪
  6. 1 point
    Ok so after more homework at the unit, looks like my ROPMA board will be Apr '20 for an Oct '20 promotion. When would be the earliest I should transfer to the reserves to Cat E? Wait until the results come out summer of 2020? Earliest to submit 1288 is PRF Accounting Date, which is 150 days prior to your board. At that point, you've been "accounting for" under your current Senior Rater, and he/she would have to take additional action to remove you from the MEL for that upcoming promotion board. That normally would include someone with negative personnel action, or someone who hadn't been on station very long. All subjective based on your Senior Rater and your time on station. (All those possibilities are listed in the Promo Board Announcement MFR if you can to read the details) The other calculus is how long it will take to change from Cat A to Cat E...I've been told by more than a few (including the interviewer who hired me) to expect 6-10 months. With the long processing time (and I'm told no one gets a fast track), you're safe to drop papers (get your 1288 signed) after the accounting date. For me, the 6-10 month wait will not only include the promotion board itself, but also the board results announcement, and the beginning of the next FY, where I'll pin that rank on. Not tooting my horn about the chances for the promotion, but let's be honest, for a Cat A Reservist, it's a simple PME check from AFRC. The SAFEST time to drop is after you've pinned on that rank you'd need to get through 20 YoS. Then it's in the bank, no one can change it. However, I think the plan outlined above would work due to the extended processing time to become a full time ALO. I guess I'll let you know if I crash and burn. The alternative for me is almost 6 months of mandatory orders next year...no fr!cking thanks.
  7. 1 point
    Sounds like someone is hiding booze and strip club visits from the wifey. I'm impressed. How do you carry such a negative balance aside from severely overpaying it out of your own checking account?
  8. 1 point
    You’re welcome C-17 USAFA grad who has T-Mobile, dad went Stanford, and enjoys Euro cars.
  9. 1 point
    If IL is your normal, you've got a lot of freedom to discover. Just don't export your version of gun law normalcy. A good first stop on State laws: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/
  10. 1 point
    And chair fly the s*** out of every lesson before and after so you don't have to revisit topics and waste time in the air plane.
  11. 1 point
    Trump should use Hilary’s emails to build the wall, since no one can get over them.
  12. 1 point
    Say you’re going to sign, get a free trip to STL, then right before signing tell The Bobs that you’ve changed your mind for needs of the family and don’t sign. They can understand need changes. Make a note of any CC who gets upset with you so once you’re flying with the majors, you can help blacklist them.
  13. 1 point
    Just to grasp at straws but is there anyway that AFSOC could define it's own requirement (separate and different than ACC's) to have a process not so biased? Any appetite for that?
  14. 1 point
    There always was a requirement. The problem was we just burned up Chinooks by inefficiently moving pallet X which were needed to do other stuff. Same with the C-12. We don’t have enough... ok just use 5 hours on 2x Black Hawks to move the 2 contractors from Taji to Erbil It’s the same kind of issue really as the light attack argument. We’ve spent no investment on far lower cost “daily use” kind of stuff. That’s not just an aviation problem, that’s across the military. Like why are we transporting soldiers in an LMTV in garrison when the White/Blue bus fleet can do it far more efficiently and with a lot less cost per dollar in wear and tear.
  15. 1 point
    I agree Clark. The authors overall point was that USAF self-imposed limitations, some might say outdated and arbitrary limitations, on how to utilize their pilot force is an obstacle to mission success. On that point I agree; I fully expect AFSOC to acquire OA-X if the CAF does and it would be dumb not to use U-28/AC-130 folks for initial cadre. That cadre would be valuable, assuming they were good in their SOF platform, because of their experience not the trainer they flew in UPT. We put way to much emphasis on track select. Prepare to be triggered T-38 students & FAIPs: you still don't know shit about fighting! That said, the author failed to convince me on his more specific recommendations. Good conversation starter, and good on him for publishing his thoughts.
  16. 1 point
    Yup - everybody needs to be 5th gen / LO in the truly contested environment if you want to have sustained ISR, precision strike, etc... to implement complex ROEs. Inherently impractical for a host of reasons and not necessary. If it is that kind of fight, there's not time for the 2 hour mud hut watch while it is debated on whether to strike or not. The Saudis maybe the first one to take it to a non-permissive environment and test it's ability to operate their: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15757/saudi-arabia-puts-textrons-scorpion-light-attack-jet-through-the-paces Article says they could possibly be looking at the Yak-130, an apples to oranges comparison IMO. The endurance and design (integrated sensor stations, open architecture, mission bay, etc..) of Scorpion just make it unique among ISR / Light Strike, as cheesy as it is, game changing is true to say. Another article from The Drive, USMC wants some light strike aircraft partnered with its F-5 aggressor program: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8837/marines-want-more-second-hand-f-5-aggressors-and-a-light-attack-aircraft
  17. 1 point
    It’s like if we fully adopt that scenario... ok fine. The tankers and support aircraft (River Joint/Jstars/Etc) have to be LO capable like... yesterday. After all we need them for the scenario of no air superiority and a swath of Red Air that somehow doesn’t have to deal with Blue Air and just gets a free pass at the soft underbelly of the stack.
  18. 1 point
    Amen brother I am struggling to understand the institutional resistance to a variety of solutions to the missions we face. Not every problem is a nail. Some of the problems he laid out (range, speed for survivability, adaptability / updateability, etc.) are all addressed by the Scorpion (shameless plug) and way exceed its competitors. It amazes me the obliviousness of the AF for how many of its problems with modernization, support, etc... are caused by the gold plated white elephants we keep buying and asking for but this is a service that will rationalize anything...
  19. 1 point
    high/low end fights are way overrated IMO any "high" end fight won't be high end after a few days. what we need is for the AF to shit or get off the pot...get something and get it out there...it's not that complex. but if there's an organization that can screw something as simple as light attack up...it's the USAF
  20. 1 point
    A few take aways from a young dummy. Jets are great. Quick to the fight, can carry a lot of payload, and have all sorts of cool gizmos and do hickies. Their loiter time not so much. Really, the war on terror is almost over? Maybe for everyone over here that's cozy on their couch drinking a beer. My time in RPA purgatory and the things I've seen would leave me to think that's a lie. Sure, we are 16 years late, but it's a great capability we should have. Do we need thousands of these? Probably not. But a couple squadrons in AFSOC would be a great compliment to our SOF capibility and to our ground pounders.

  • Create New...