Jump to content
Baseops Forums

busdriver

Supreme User
  • Content Count

    1,005
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

busdriver last won the day on December 24 2016

busdriver had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

266 Excellent

About busdriver

  • Rank
    Gray Beard

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The AFSOC fleet isn't nearly big enough to do what these guys are talking about, and helos don't have nearly the range. Logistically supporting an AOR wide aircraft dispersal plan would not be any easy task.
  2. I'm not pretending anything. In that theater, AF CSAR is 100% responsible to the CFACC, and weren't their to cover western Iraq. Moving assets to support a CFLCC mission lengthens response time elsewhere, the decision to do so, or not rests with the owning component. You're barking up the wrong tree. I realize that things look stupid and byzantine when the closest guys aren't the primary responders. We all don't work for the same Bobs, and "the joint fight" isn't as joint as the shiny brochure would have everyone believe.
  3. Your concern is the land component didn't plan/resource for it's needs and then complain that the air component didn't plan/resource to cover the entire joint force? My point was that there are a ton of RFFs for PR forces, and everyone (including the joint staff) is happy to have the AF fill them, but we aren't resourced to be the joint community's CSAR assets. When we're filling everyone's requirements, we're not maintaining proficiency at contested CSAR, and we're stuck doing other things when the balloon goes up. Which is what happened in Iraq. Joint doctrine makes it every service/component's responsibility to provide for their own PR needs.
  4. People are confusing fancy new aircraft with airmanship.
  5. When you only pay for partial coverage, but commit to covering everything, then there isn't enough peanut butter to spread around.
  6. The robot recovery vehicle is misguided, putting up throw away air vehicles in the hope that one makes it to the survivor ignores half of the exposure time (egress). This is engi-nerds building toys. There are folks working to build the support for what is really needed for near-peer CSAR, but as tac airlifter said money is always a finite resource.
  7. This is starting to sound like A-10 2.0
  8. I vote for public shaming and rehabilitation. People who are obviously fat should be mocked and made to attend daily organized PT. After un-fucking themselves they then owe two years of PT mocking patrol and helping other fatties get skinny.
  9. Decent used SVs are basically always in the 3000ish range. Do it.
  10. 2018 SV650 and a 2002 DRZ400E. You can make anything street legal in Arizona, so I'm building the DRZ into a sort of adventure dirtbike. The roads here are shit, so you do what you have to.
  11. Thread revival! I got back into bikes this winter after a 15 year hiatus. Street bike? Check. Dirt bike? Check. Should have done it years ago, didn't realize how much I've missed it.
  12. He's not particularly conservative. Like much of the internet, too many dumb people just listen to what other dumb people say about topics/people and draw the same conclusion they had from the beginning.
  13. Designated/dedicated is a false dilemma. The DOD has a limited number of certain assets to do certain things, those assets should be placed where they are most needed at any given point in time. Sometimes that would be dedicated to a specific mission, sometimes not. But that would require the GCC to actually sack up and make the call, and the components would have to actually fall in line. And PR doctrine would have to change.... All of those things should happen. Rescue being in AFSOC vs ACC is a red herring.
  14. It's doctrine. Each component is responsible for their own PR requirements.
×
×
  • Create New...