Jump to content
ASUPilot

B-1 (Bone) questions

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Mark1, your post is a lot to disgest.  I am wondering if your experience with current LL fusion technology is limited to the MX on gunships or if you’re also familiar with the myriad other systems?  Because seeing hot projectiles is really just a matter of spectrum sensitivity and imaging resolution (along with operator raining I suppose).  That capability exists on platforms that aren’t 1960s H models.  What am I missing?

On another note, I’ve been out of the ops world for a few years but I’m glad the hubris of gunship superiority in all things is still alive and well!  You guys saving the day while the rest of us are happily oblivious reminds me of fond memories.  If you could shout at me with a shit radio while your feed is intermittent, then spend an hour trying to hit a single squirter, then not attend the debrief because of crew rest (even though I’m flying again in 10 hours and you’re off the next day) our trip down memory lane would be complete.  :aviator::beer::drinking: 

Just having some fun bro!  Don’t send your 28man alchoholic crew to kidnap me & shave my head.

 

You guys are both right in some respects. As of just a few years ago, the hubris is quite well. I knew gunships would be a rough fit when I got orders there (rock bottom on my dream sheet) and frankly struggled throughout much of my 3 years in the assignment. So I'm likely as far away from a knee-jerk gunship apologist as anyone who spent significant time in the community would be. That said, I don't recall any occasion where we did not have SIGNIFICANTLY better SA than everyone else, despite being saddled with equipment as ostensibly aged and inadequate as we had. Mark1 isn't a very popular figure on the board right now, but his points about the USE of the equipment on the gunship vs newer/fancier installations is spot on. Without knowing much detail on AC-J development, I'd hope and expect that it's a marriage of newer tech, similarly rigorous training, and maybe a moderation of the overarching "we're awesome, everyone else sucks" mentality. Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

BL on this thread derail: we’ll have to agree to disagree on the idea that somehow the H-model LLTV is a superior sensor when compared with modern 20” sensors like the MX-20 or MTS-B.

Damn.  This whole time you were responding to a conversation that was occurring nowhere except inside your own head?

Well I hope somebody who bothered to read what I had to say takes some food for thought from it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

BL on this thread derail: we’ll have to agree to disagree on the idea that somehow the H-model LLTV is a superior sensor when compared with modern 20” sensors like the MX-20 or MTS-B. Is there some niche in the spectrum where that old ball excelled when paired with tons of SO training and experience?

 

Based on your years of experience flying the H Model ALLTV? 

The set up on the H Model did have niche capability mainly because it was not restricted to a size-limited sensor ball so it was easy to strap on other capabilities to the same sensor platform.  Next time your at HRT go look at 575 that is on display with a piece of plexiglass over the LLTV mount in what was the crew entrance door.  MX-20 and MTS-B are fantastic sensors and I would likely choose them in a modern fight but the system on the H Model was fantastic and FAR superior to piece of junk on the U Boat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valid critique, I am not a gunship guy. Y’all did have some incredibly big balls.

I guess my point was something you mentioned as well - in a modern fight, I’m choosing to field modern technology.

The smart conversation at the procurement level is how to we ensure we don’t lose key capabilities when “upgrading” platforms and technology and making sure decision makers don’t get too wow’d by shiny new toys, and those folks need ops input into that process.

The “Let’s replace the U-28 with the MC-12” process in AFSOC was a great examples for how input from the ops units helped steer the service away from a decision that would have led to a big loss of specific capabilities that are important on the battlefield. Despite the fact that some of the Brass has it in their head that “Two engines better than one...let’s do this!”

If the U-boats or Ws or Js dropped capability that existed on the H that was key to keeping the eagles safe then that’s a foul. I know multiple ways in which this is true, especially for the W. If some of that can be corrected with training or changes to the fielded systems then let’s do that ASAP. But that being said let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water...more modern tech has a massive list of advantages over systems first fielded 40+ years ago.

Edited by nsplayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Based on your years of experience flying the H Model ALLTV? 

The set up on the H Model did have niche capability mainly because it was not restricted to a size-limited sensor ball so it was easy to strap on other capabilities to the same sensor platform.  Next time your at HRT go look at 575 that is on display with a piece of plexiglass over the LLTV mount in what was the crew entrance door.  MX-20 and MTS-B are fantastic sensors and I would likely choose them in a modern fight but the system on the H Model was fantastic and FAR superior to piece of junk on the U Boat.

The crew door being referenced on display at HRT.

903C19C7-6E52-4F29-AF6B-221222517A29.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Valid critique, I am not a gunship guy. Y’all did have some incredibly big balls.

Not exclusive to the Gunships...I think the entire AFSOC community has some brass ones.

21 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The “Let’s replace the U-28 with the MC-12” process in AFSOC was a great examples for how input from the ops units helped steer the service away from a decision that would have led to a big loss of specific capabilities that are important on the battlefield. Despite the fact that some of the Brass has it in their head that “Two engines better than one...let’s do this!”

Epic fail set in motion by false thinking of one MAJCOM commander who wasn't a pilot and refused to listen to those around him about this and many other issues.

21 hours ago, nsplayr said:

If the U-boats or Ws or Js dropped capability that existed on the H that was key to keeping the eagles safe then that’s a foul. I know multiple ways in which this is true, especially for the W. If some of that can be corrected with training or changes to the fielded systems then let’s do that ASAP. But that being said let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water...more modern tech has a massive list of advantages over systems first fielded 40+ years ago.

Not just capes to protect the Eagles but capes that let you go tough places when absolutely needed.

The H was old but it did have some capes that are missed including ECM...retiring the H left the U Boat as the only gunpig with ECM and guess what we are about to retire...the U Boat.

The W sans RF protection will retire in a few years and it will be several year before the J has any substantial RF protection...WTF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Is the Bone locked into only using the Sniper pod or are they looking at Agile Pod / others?

 

Honestly CAF/AFGSC assets should generally stick to sniper-like pods. Of course we should continue to improve capes, but keep in mind the mission of said assets. We are not here to read license plates or PID douche69 in a bazaar, there are many assets who are meant for that/good at it. We need a TGP to PID larger targets, self target weapons, get BHA, etc. The Army trying to use every AF asset as if it has a MTS-B has been nothing short of idiocy/FWA.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Buff is currently fielding Litening Gen 4.  Not sure what the Bone's future pod plan is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly CAF/AFGSC assets should generally stick to sniper-like pods. Of course we should continue to improve capes, but keep in mind the mission of said assets. We are not here to read license plates or PID douche69 in a bazaar, there are many assets who are meant for that/good at it. We need a TGP to PID larger targets, self target weapons, get BHA, etc. The Army trying to use every AF asset as if it has a MTS-B has been nothing short of idiocy/FWA.
Yep.. sniper/litening is better coordinate accuracy than most of the ISR type pods. Which is why the assertions above (previous pages, not your post) about a sniper equipped aircraft not being suitable for BOT are a little strange.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 08Dawg said:

The Buff is currently fielding Litening Gen 4.  Not sure what the Bone's future pod plan is. 

Gen4 is the shizznizz and extremely complicated, but that tech is over 2 years old.

Edited by matmacwc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2018 at 8:06 PM, 08Dawg said:

Not so.  I think the one YoungnDumb is talking about was the first, but definitely not the only as of late.  Our FTU SQ/CC made a trip to Columbus specifically to scope out the product coming out of the Tone side.  Shortly thereafter, our FTU inbound roster (at least before I deployed) had T-1 FAIPs and studs listed as coming to us for upcoming classes.  I can't say with certainty whether this is happening for the Bone or not, but  I had heard rumblings at one point not too long ago. 

Meh. When I was at PIT the bomber functional came and spoke to us in the 560th (T-38s) and said they would start dropping to T-1s. That was over a year ago. Haven’t seen any bombers drop to CBM T-1 studs in the year I’ve been here and currently no rumors of it happening soon that I’m aware of.

This rumor of the Buff potentially being a thing is news to me...like anything, I’ll believe it when I see it. 

Edited by WheelsOff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 9:35 AM, brabus said:

Honestly CAF/AFGSC assets should generally stick to sniper-like pods. Of course we should continue to improve capes, but keep in mind the mission of said assets. We are not here to read license plates or PID douche69 in a bazaar, there are many assets who are meant for that/good at it. We need a TGP to PID larger targets, self target weapons, get BHA, etc. The Army trying to use every AF asset as if it has a MTS-B has been nothing short of idiocy/FWA.

Copy

No argument that not every platform should be treated as a persistent FMV stare platform, mostly I was thinking that as they have one station to carry a pod, if the OSO and DSO could each have an FMV sensor it would improve the Bone as an on demand ISR / CAS asset. 

Ton of money likely required to get to that capability probably so not holding breath.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

No argument that not every platform should be treated as a persistent FMV stare platform, mostly I was thinking that as they have one station to carry a pod, if the OSO and DSO could each have an FMV sensor it would improve the Bone as an on demand ISR / CAS asset. 

Ton of money likely required to get to that capability probably so not holding breath.

As a BUFF guy, dual sensors would be tits... Would have been extremely helpful in OIR both for simultaneous near/far scans in the villages/'burbs, and for scanning ahead of/behind movers. Even moreso in OFS where you have less assets around to help. We have a powered pylon between our left engine pods identical to the one on the right we strap SNIPER/LITENING to that right now we're only using for ACMI pods at FLAGs. Even better would be if they put it below the jet where it would never be fuselage masked. 

I understand the B-1 SNIPER is mounted on one of the external hardpoints they would have put an ALCM pylon on in the pre-START Treaty days, so theoretically there is another such hardpoint on the left side of the jet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

I understand the B-1 SNIPER is mounted on one of the external hardpoints they would have put an ALCM pylon on in the pre-START Treaty days, so theoretically there is another such hardpoint on the left side of the jet?

b-1b_acm_03-png.205681

Learned something new.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

As a BUFF guy, dual sensors would be tits... Would have been extremely helpful in OIR both for simultaneous near/far scans in the villages/'burbs, and for scanning ahead of/behind movers. Even moreso in OFS where you have less assets around to help. We have a powered pylon between our left engine pods identical to the one on the right we strap SNIPER/LITENING to that right now we're only using for ACMI pods at FLAGs. Even better would be if they put it below the jet where it would never be fuselage masked. 

I understand the B-1 SNIPER is mounted on one of the external hardpoints they would have put an ALCM pylon on in the pre-START Treaty days, so theoretically there is another such hardpoint on the left side of the jet?

Nope. We initially tried to mount it on the left, but turns out that's where the water separator dumps all the water... So...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the Bone's radar is far and away better than ours and fulfills much the same function as this would, but I wish they'd hang a Dragon Eye pod on the left pylon, keep Sniper/Litening on the right and give us another MFCD so we could dual wield sensors. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have been extremely helpful in OIR both for simultaneous near/far scans in the villages/'burbs, and for scanning ahead of/behind movers.

And there's the problem, people think sniper/litening pods are good for CDE scans. Real big picture sure, but FAR from the fidelity/accuracy of scans accomplished by the guys who actually are meant/built for such a thing. A buff should never be doing those scans, and its overselling capability to say to the Army a sniper/litening can effectively accomplish scans (especially to the level the army wants/expects). 

Again, we need to tell the Army to fuck off and play each asset to what it's for, not try to make everything persistent ISR...those assets already exist. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would have been extremely helpful in OIR both for simultaneous near/far scans in the villages/'burbs, and for scanning ahead of/behind movers.

And there's the problem, people think sniper/litening pods are good for CDE scans. Real big picture sure, but FAR from the fidelity/accuracy of scans accomplished by the guys who actually are meant/built for such a thing. A buff should never be doing those scans, and its overselling capability to say to the Army a sniper/litening can effectively accomplish scans (especially to the level the army wants/expects). 
Again, we need to tell the Army to off and play each asset to what it's for, not try to make everything persistent ISR...those assets already exist. 
And recognize the realities of war.. plenty of unavoidable CDE to win Mosul and Raqqah. Funny how rolling back ISIS accelerated when we focused more on tactics to kill people vs how to not kill people.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brabus said:

 

 

And there's the problem, people think sniper/litening pods are good for CDE scans. Real big picture sure, but FAR from the fidelity/accuracy of scans accomplished by the guys who actually are meant/built for such a thing. A buff should never be doing those scans, and its overselling capability to say to the Army a sniper/litening can effectively accomplish scans (especially to the level the army wants/expects). 

Again, we need to tell the Army to fuck off and play each asset to what it's for, not try to make everything persistent ISR...those assets already exist. 

I don't disagree, but the requirement exists to do your own scan regardless of who else is out there... in addition to the times we were just flat on our own covering deliberate targets and DTs (e.g. the war against oil) away from the urban CAS stacks. If I have to do it, I want the best tools for the job. The CFACC SPINS were somewhat good about delineating what a TGP player could reasonably be expected to see or not see, and in my experience the GFC didn't really want us scanning anyway. The biggest buffoonery I saw was TET guidance that contradicted the SPINS re: scan for things we acknowledge you can't reliably PID, and oh by the way we didn't MAAP you to overlap with any players that can help out. Gee thanks.

Big picture... Agree with extreme prejudice, it felt like Air Component leadership was handing our lunch money to Army by the fist-full... especially on counter-doctrinal, peanut-butter spread apportionment of ISR.

Share this post


Link to post
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



×