Jump to content

tac airlifter

Supreme User
  • Posts

    1,786
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    88

Everything posted by tac airlifter

  1. All kidding aside-- If you can't imagine calling crew rest deployed, than your imagination is small. Pushing it up to support a TIC or strike? Good on you, until you pass your own limits and make mistakes; then you're doing more harm than good. There's a balance between dogmatically following rules and habitually blowing them off. I've been fortunate enough to have leadership who recognized that and taught me judgement. Hope you guys are the same.
  2. Fozzy, here's how I remember the difference: FDP is the one we sometimes violate. CDD is the one we always violate. Have fun out there!
  3. Yup, concur. Conversely, we're also engaging and killing the enemy in places where we aren't authorized CZTE. The whole system is a mess.
  4. My new favorite scotch. Highly recommend.
  5. I was just trying to update your post, hope it didn't come off wrong.
  6. Maybe you should read my post again since I did not say anything you are attributing to me. I don't know whether or not we have had a net positive affect based on the wars. I certainly didn't say anything about our "homeland" and responding to somebody with quotation marks about something they didn't say is a foul. We have had the wrong strategy, based on a faulty understanding of the nature of our enemy which has lead us astray. That said, I do genuinely believe the named objectives we're fighting are terrible people and I would rather spend my time hunting them than flying for the airlines.
  7. I don't know man. I'm so accustomed to black it feels weird buying a different color. That said, their execution of FDE combined with black rails looks pretty cool. I'll let you know & post some picks if I grab it up. Cheers.
  8. Speak for yourself. While I've also been frustrated with the execution of the wars, I still view killing jihadis before they behead civilians as a valid use of my time and worthy of my best effort.
  9. I might execute your suggestion now that I'm seeing prices in the 1650$ range! The fit/finish seem nice and the mag change isn't as awkward as I thought it would be; but my impressions come from handling not actually shooting.
  10. Do you think the activities in those locations would continue unabated without SOFAs in nearby countries?
  11. Any thoughts on the IWI Tavor? Purpose would be range fun and maybe a class.
  12. What do the quotes around drones mean? And what makes you think we'd send assets into a location without a SOFA?
  13. All that said, thoughts on making bomber dudes into fighter guys and MAF guys to bombers for their backfill? This whole shortage/overage issue seems like a surmountable obstacle.
  14. Thank you for the explanation. I've been on a 1:1 dwell for just shy of 10 years, so my numbers are definitely incorrect. Will attempt to get records fixed when I return from current deployment.
  15. Can you explain what I'm looking at on the IDT counter? Mine says 172 days but TDY history doesn't show anything more recent than 2012. Thanks.
  16. It's the new nomenclature for M-28. Good on Maj Little.
  17. I appreciate the offer. But I'm deployed and unlikely to seek out a stranger on SIPR; might I suggest a representative with details of the conversion attend a CC call at one of the SQ's to dispel myths and address legitimate concerns in person? There's a perception that decisions are made in a vacuum, void of any ISR experienced crews, and outcomes will decrease mission effectiveness. This isn't standard aircrew whining, we're genuinely afraid HQ will hamper the mission.
  18. Thanks for making an appearance; I've been telling everyone who will listen what a terrible plan the MC-12 conversion is, you've now given me an opportunity to plant one more seed. First let's start with your assurance that MC-12's will be modified to match U-28 CAPES. The current plan has us using single sensor MC12. That's a downgrade, not an upgrade. There are numerous talking papers on the subject including an excellent one from CC of the 34th SOS. If you follow his paper this will be a true upgrade. If you don't this will be a huge step back and the mission will suffer. Second, you make the standard point about how two engines increases safety. How times have U-28s lost an engine? You're attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Law of unintended consequences: your solution makes me significantly louder. Without upgrading from a 15" to 20" sensor I'm stuck at a further Echo from target, giving a shittier picture to the GFC. Again, the mission will suffer with this change. Third you talk about the increased range. I'm sure you're aware that current B-350 types and U28s have the same block time on ISR sync without staging from further bases. I won't delve into the regulatory foolishness forcing this, but if you really were to add all the extra stuff to bring MC12 to the level of current U28, plus the weight of an extra engine, plus compliance with multiengine departure rules you'd have about an extra 15 minutes on target..... But be louder and need to stay further away. The unanimous opinion from your experts in the ops SQ's is this change as currently constructed will be worse for the mission. Finally, you claim AFSOC is getting them at no cost. You sure there is zero cost at all from AFSOC to take these aircraft? No hidden fees? I'm tracking otherwise. I've heard your talking points before; I'm disappointed at the lack of depth. Unless we add 2 x 20" balls (and some other stuff) this will be degradation in capability and worse for the mission.
  19. If you're putting a gun on it, it won't be an MC anything for long. Recall the metamorphasis of MC-130W to AC-130W. I'd postulate the need for strike exceeds the niche need for infil; and the idea of crews exceling at both mission sets simultaneously is a fallicy. As for why would a 'gunship' not need all that extra gear.... maybe it shouldn't be a gunship. There's a current and future role for robust F3 platforms with a small footprint. That's a different animal than a gunship entirely.
  20. Valid. If it has a gun it should have hard points for -114R2's, GBU-39B or internal SOPGMs. AC-130 is a great platform for its purpose. But we're fighting a lot of places (and projected to continue post-OEF) where you just can't have a ground footprint that large, an audible signature that loud or a plane flying that close or that low to target; nor do you have any need for RWR, LAIRCM, etc. There are numerous similarly envisioned twin engine CONOPs out there; unfortunatly AFSOC has chosen the worst of the lot.
×
×
  • Create New...