All Activity

Sorry I don't see a need or requirement for such a platform...seems a one off. USAF and SOCOM have moved further and further away from the model you describe because manpower is expensive and they want fewer eyes on screens. While the U-28 had four people it only has two sensors. The PED was federated just like the A1K, but Skyraider has a third (actually could have four), and the flexibility to allow the off-board PED to control the sensor. Guessing you don't know how much processing power and how many radios/video feeds are on A1K. On the topic of Bronder...not fully for this forum but the battles over SCM and his general apathy delayed so much capability. Dude is a snarky arse without vision...enjoying the "rank" of his position. With a little less acid AFSOC would have had a LOT more strike power a LOT sooner.

Don’t know Bronder so I’ll just say your point is made. Other missions I see as those missions where more organic, on board cranium power is desirable. Agnostic stations on said platform, in an open system with operators doing the PED, C2, etc… there and directly supporting the customer while also feeding / interacting with the network of other users. Probably CASA 235, ATR 42 or bigger (maybe) but not C-130 size.

1. Again, Bronder is a non-rated idiot. 2. What "other missions"? It does ISR, acts as a comm node, acts as a CC node, controls the stack, does CAS, does stand-off strike....truly confused. What is it not doing that the U-28 did? What mission sets do you need a new dedicated airframe to fulfill?

Go guard!💪

That will not buff out

It’s not my supposition, it’s Bronder’s words. I’m not opposed to the A-1K nor it being expanded to missions other than Armed Overwatch, I’m just saying that for some of those other missions another platform would be better & worth the effort. If the resources aren’t there make do with what you have then.

#1 Bronder is a complete buffoon...having dealt with him numerous times we will all be better off when he moves on. #2 The entire purpose of the A1K was to collapse the stack and reduce the need for so many manned assets. #3 I do not agree on your supposition of another requirement. The A1K can do everything the U-28 does and more...that drove the fleet size of 75.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1abknHwiTj/?mibextid=wwXIfr

He should file a claim to Trump's $1.8B slush fund. 🤣

Put them all in jail. Let's get that out of the way. One thing that jumped out when I was reading about it was that I guess he had a journal that they used as evidence. If so, that would be materially different than what Biden, Hillary, Trump, and Pence did. They were sloppy with the classified information that was part of their job. And they took it home with them. But writing a journal about the information, especially when you are as smart as John Bolton is, is a pretty clear instance of creating new classified. From the article you posted it looks like he's only pleading to that charge, and not retention of classified materials, which is basically what the others all did. Don't get me wrong, I think all of them are absolutely full of shit and lying through their teeth when they say they didn't realize what they were doing violated the rules surrounding classified, but it's pretty retarded to sit down and put a bunch of classified information into your diary. And then to use that diary to write a book... Dumb dumb dumb Trump probably comes closest to this offense, only in so far as he went out of his way to retain the glassified information after he was notified of the infraction. So it's particularly rich for him to be going after Bolton. But if Bolton settled, I have to believe the evidence was pretty catastrophic

Bolton has to pay up $2M and a potential 0-60 mo prison term. Hillary, Biden, and Trump were let off and anyone investigating Trump got punished. Justice? https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/04/politics/john-bolton-guilty-plea-agreement-trump-critic

Oh boy, just wait until the anti-Isreal mass media gets ahold of this patch lol.

True but from the article “Just a reminder that OA-1K is not a replacement for U-28,” Col. Bronder also said again at this year’s SOF Week conference. “Certainly, it can do some ISR functions, but again, [it] meets a close air support strike requirement.” It’s the dedicated, allocated to that mission/role I’m commenting on. There still is IMO a requirement for a manned, medium persistence, multi effects, platform. Maybe not the appetite for it or prioritization for it, but it’s there.

A-1K has much of the same OFP as the U-28 (modernized), with double the range/endurance, a large weapons payload, and provisions for THREE (versus two), sensors. I can't think of a place the U-28 can go that the A-1K can't.

Yeah I suppose it could be incompetent leadership, but much of the time it feels more purposeful - the classic “milking” the contract. The engineers are not stupid people, and most of my experience has been positive with them (e.g. they care and really try to make things work). So the fault lies with management/leadership…or rather, they seem to view all of this as a feature and not a bug.

Accurate-ish. Not 9G’s but it is the EX profile.

I'm familiar with the process. Not sure how that applies. I'm not talking about failing a carriage test. I'm talking about kit not working as advertised, within budget, and before it becomes outdated.

Since you never got a response it might be too late already but I'll chime in- AFROTC is still way easier to get a pilot slot out of than OTS. Pretty much everyone at my old Det that wanted one got one, some with PCSMs in the no kidding 30s and saw guys who got other Rated bumped up to pilot (granted this was pre-pandemic so things might've changed)

Libs and the young will sign anything. This lady was passing a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide, aka, H2O. Never gonna happen re: Qs on topic. There are lawsuits challenging the titles of propositions that seem intent on confusing the voter. I've seen in many times. "They" don't want an informed voter, just one dumb enough to get tricked to vote yes on the no item that the voter would like to have. Then they go.... Wait, I want that, I voted yes for it. WTF.

Sure, but while my suggestion is unlikely, yours is fantasy. I wish that wasn't the case, but here we are.

I see what you're saying, but I'd rather go the other way. I cringe when they talk about how big the voter turnout was because a big voter turnout almost certainly means a lot of ignorant people showed up to vote and likely didn't really know what they were voting for/against. Instead, I'd love to see all electronic ballots that have pop up questions that you have to answer correctly for the vote to count. Three simple multiple choice questions that ask what the law is actually going to do. Nothing complicated, just a simple check to make sure you have some idea of what you're actually voting for before that vote counts. Or even better, you should have to bring in last year's W-2 when you vote. If the net taxes paid after any tax credits, welfare payments, etc is zero, then you don't get to vote. If you aren't paying into the system, you shouldn't get a say in how the system runs.

It sounds like you don’t know how the SEEK EAGLE process works in the USAF.

I don't doubt the maximizing profit part. When some of these tests fail after 10 years of development is it on purpose or incompetence? I guess it could sometimes be honest failures..

51st state - Runs from Mexico to Canada and from the Pacific to 69 miles east of the coast. Problem solved.