Jump to content

AF Light Air Support Aircraft

Fud

By Fud
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

mcbush
mcbush

Honestly I don’t even know why you guys take the time to discuss this. We’re not any closer to fielding a new airframe than we were 10 years and 1400 posts ago. The Air Force will never make the

Danger41
Danger41

So I’ll doxx myself here to people that know me, but I was the demo pilot for this program. I got trained on all of the offerings and flew them with the exception of the Bronco due to their gear colla

BEEPBEEPIMINAJEEP
BEEPBEEPIMINAJEEP

Not a CSO, but this worked for me  

Posted Images

Lawman Gray Beard

Lawman

Posted
Posted
You guys realize there's nothing inherently SOF about a plane right?


No but if you're talking about doing integrated training with supported customers SF/Rangers are the guys to lean on, because your average BCT may do 1 Calfex a year and in that the JAAT is about the only time they care if fixed wing shows up.

Those are largely a waste of time depending on rangisms present at whatever particular base causing them to be extremely scripted and often times not reflect realistic scenarios.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
busdriver Gray Beard

busdriver

Posted
Posted

I'm way out of the loop, but my impression is there isn't a shortage of requests for the AF to come play.  More like fending off the wastes of time is the problem.

In any event, you're right about ranges.  Proximity to a good backyard range and airspace is far more important than proximity to any Army unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sprkt69 Flight Lead

Sprkt69

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, busdriver said:

I'm way out of the loop, but my impression is there isn't a shortage of requests for the AF to come play.  More like fending off the wastes of time is the problem.

In any event, you're right about ranges.  Proximity to a good backyard range and airspace is far more important than proximity to any Army unit.

If you are trying to work with Army training(NTC/JRTC), they tend to write fixed wing out of their script anyways

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lawman Gray Beard

Lawman

Posted
Posted
If you are trying to work with Army training(NTC/JRTC), they tend to write fixed wing out of their script anyways


For the most part every unit will request you, because it's easy to hit copy/paste/send.

Nobody is actually expecting you to show up. If you do it's a huge bonus for that ALO to look good for the Bde Commander, but I've seen tons of Calfex's that were deemed successful without the Air ever actually being there. It just becomes a JTAC on a radio pretending to be Hawg.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tank Gray Beard

Tank

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Agree that Duke Field is a good location but faces problems with range saturation.  Even with that factor, being at the hub of all things AFSOC is a must for LAAR.

As to Moody, if there is no space there then I would propose Maxwell or an Active Associate unit across town with the AL ANG at KMGM.  Could go either way (sts) for Moody ranges to the east or south for Eglin ranges and as the AL ANG is likely to get the F-35, a unique opportunity to train with a 5th gen asset on a regular basis.

If LAAR can get out of the chute, a good geographical distribution for valid and political/parochial reasons could help the program fend off efforts to kill it when other programs inevitably go over budget and turn cannibal.

I think we mostly consider LAAR in support of SOF ground forces but there has to be role/mission for training with conventional Army/USMC units, what would be an ideal base(s) for training with "Big Army" or USMC?

"What would be an ideal base(s) for training with "Big Army" or USMC?"

 

Moody, Pope, Seymour, Shaw, Peterson, DM, McCord, Beale, Hill, Lackland

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lawman Gray Beard

Lawman

Posted
Posted
"What would be an ideal base(s) for training with "Big Army" or USMC?"

Moody, Pope, Seymour, Shaw, Peterson, DM, McCord, Beale, Hill, Lackland


I'd go Fairchild before McChord.

Put you on the right side of the mountains to get to Yakima during 8 months of the year, by plane or car.

Love my house at JBLM but god did we find a way to make the field so close yet so far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClearedHot Gray Beard

ClearedHot

Posted
Posted
On 4/24/2017 at 11:01 PM, busdriver said:

You guys realize there's nothing inherently SOF about a plane right?

It is not about the plane it is about the mission and I believe the rationale in the AFSOC case is FID.  Dusting off the Marine Corps Small War Manual, something about training partner nations to provide for their own defense.  I see the logic, but AFSOC is feeling the pilot manning pinch like everyone else and I can't see how they are going to find pilots for this "new" project.

Now if they want old washed up guys to come back on contract and fly it :airforce::M16:

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tac airlifter Gray Beard

tac airlifter

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

 AFSOC is feeling the pilot manning pinch like everyone else and I can't see how they are going to find pilots for this "new" project.

I get it, but as an AFSOC pilot wasting my time on a useless staff I hate hearing this.  We have plenty of pilots, we just aren't employing them correctly which ironically is driving more of them to leave, thus worsening the "pilot manning pinch" which is entirely self-inflicted.  If the USAF said "we need pilots who can and want to fly light attack airplanes; volunteers who meet xxxx criteria will be released from less important jobs" they'd have plenty of volunteers, and my guess is the machine would keep humming along just fine.  That bloated staff manning is prioritized above a genuine combat need is further proof current leadership is incapable of fixing the retention problem. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clark Griswold Gray Beard

Clark Griswold

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It is not about the plane it is about the mission and I believe the rationale in the AFSOC case is FID.  Dusting off the Marine Corps Small War Manual, something about training partner nations to provide for their own defense.  I see the logic, but AFSOC is feeling the pilot manning pinch like everyone else and I can't see how they are going to find pilots for this "new" project.

Now if they want old washed up guys to come back on contract and fly it :airforce::M16:

They want contract A-29 IPs in SA, TX...

http://www.jobs.net/jobs/dyncorp/en-us/job/United-States/Instructor-Pilot-A-29-Super-Tuscano-Fighter/J3F2DH652PRCT05GG12/

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tac airlifter Gray Beard

tac airlifter

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

What bloated staff?  Are you on a deployed staff?

Last I heard the rated staff manning was sub 75% and the AFSOC rated staff was anything but bloated.

I'm neither deployed nor at AFSOC staff.  It's bloated.  As you know, staff experiences vary.  Mine may be anomalous.  But I've been at a major HQ for a year and have yet to see any rated person used for their rated expertise.  I know the plural of anecdote is not data, but it's hard to hear statements like yours about how AFSOC is hurting for pilots.   We need an audit, especially of joint billets.

sorry for the thread drift.  

Edited by tac airlifter
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
busdriver Gray Beard

busdriver

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

It is not about the plane it is about the mission

Which was my, apparently very poorly made, point.  I get the desire/logic of a light attack aircraft for AvFID, but the talk about putting them all over the place to be close to US SOF units seems completely at odds to the way the AvFID mission is currently organized.  Not to mention the outright discussion of AFSOC being the right MAJCOM for the aircraft, irrespective of the mission.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clark Griswold Gray Beard

Clark Griswold

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, busdriver said:

Which was my, apparently very poorly made, point.  I get the desire/logic of a light attack aircraft for AvFID, but the talk about putting them all over the place to be close to US SOF units seems completely at odds to the way the AvFID mission is currently organized.  Not to mention the outright discussion of AFSOC being the right MAJCOM for the aircraft, irrespective of the mission.

There's a logic to geographic distribution beyond the AvFID focused bases.

AFSOC might not be the only place to put them, ACC could get a contingent of the buy.   They have a common baseline configuration but each MAJCOM could add their pods & mods as they see fit.

ACC could focus on light strike, tactical ISR, FAC-A in conventional operations once the threat is suppressed and AFSOC has the advise and train mission along with SOF support.

Edited by Clark Griswold
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HU&W Gray Beard

HU&W

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Day Man said:

The hell is a Super Tuscano?

Super Tuscans are an unofficial category of Tuscan wines, not recognized within the Italian wine classification system. Although an extraordinary amount of wines claim to be “the first Super Tuscan,” most would agree that this credit belongs to Sassicaia, the brainchild of marchese Mario Incisa della Rocchetta, who planted Cabernet Sauvignon at his Tenuta San Guido estate in Bolgheri back in 1944.

400px-Tignanello_BMK.jpg

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...