All Activity

I think what dreambig said is generally applicable to fighters as well. Overall downrange, guys are flying a normal year’s worth in 2-3 months. That has ebbed and flowed with the “cease fire”-not cease fire-“cease fire” cycle, so just a generalization.

I know guys in my old squadron that were looking to apply this year were trying to use RPA hours. I want to say folks at AFPC were taking them but at a ratio of 1:2 or 1:3. The issue my guys ran into is since SARM uses a new system to log everything when the guys routed the memo with the excel hour report produced by SARM the AFPC folks denied it since that didn't look official compared to the old ARMS report.

That shift from a 90+ exemption to an actual unit program is the part I find most interesting. Do those programs look different from the usual test preparation, or is it mostly more scheduled group sessions?

I realized where you guys are wrong. The PSDM says "Hours accrued during IFT can be logged in your civilian flight log; hours earned through CSO/RPA/ABM training cannot be added to your civilian logbook to boost your PCSM score. " Again, RPA hours can and do count toward your PCSM score. You all misinterpreted the verbiage.

I don't think the board cared about 500 hours and no ratings. They could see I was an RPA Pilot when I applied via my AF Form 215 and other application materials.

That might be a new thing but when I applied, it was explicitly allowed via a memo or maybe the PSDM that said RPA hours can count toward PCSM score. Just to add more evidence, if you check out the candidate worksheet on the PCSM website, question 14 asks how you received your hours and one of the ways is RPA. And here is a screenshot my records:

Deployment predictability is better on tac airlift side but the threats they are facing is unprecedented, especially in garrison.

Checks. RPA hours are just RPA hours, doesn’t boost PCSM.

Yeah, I see your point however with MRTT already flying the technical risk is low and fleet complexity manageable, I think.

True, the need for a very large fuel load for either offload and/or loiter while ideally the situation cools down is highly desirable AI Google says loiter for 4 hours at 1000 NM from launch and offload 110k, that’s time to decide whether to execute Wing Attack Plan R or not. #strangelove Tactical tanker is KC-390, Standard tanker is KC-46, Strategic Tanker is KC-45 (A-330 MRTT+). Build it in the Airbus plant in Mobile. Tactical and Strategic are each 20% of the tanker fleet, 60% are Standard tails.

Tankers have a strategic mission. Keep that in mind.

RPA hours definitely don’t count towards your total civilian hours unless you’re referring to DOSS. There’s a note in the PSDM stating ABM/CSO/RPA hours outside of DOSS cannot be added to boost your PCSM.

On par with 2005-2009 dyess 4 on/4 off flying, or worse?

KISS Principle. Axe the -330, keep the KC-46, drop any/all FAA certification.

I was. '19-22 at Creech.

Mine counted for them.

Mine did.

Yup, heard the same. Things change, different operational environment now so time to adjust. The report pushes hard (sts) for the Blended Wing Body (BWB) and Collaborative Tanker Aircraft (CTA), as the long term solution I think they are right, short term a new paradigm is needed though. If king for a day, if the KC-390 and A-330 MRTT+ could be acquired with an appropriate last tranche of KC-46s, I’d spin down the -135 fleet for this new iron while BWB design which would double as NGAL was spinning up. Those two designs somehow being acquired in compliance with the Made in America laws/policies. It’s a two fold problem, two fold approach. Big tankers to launch from relatively safe hardened bases with 1000+ NM set back from operational areas, AR to the next asset who will then AR the strikers assuming more risk going modestly into the A2AD bubble. The BWB will likely simplify this paradigm a bit (reduced signature, better range/offload, better organic defense) but we gotta crawl before we run.

KDLF 27-02AB T-6 FAIP x 2 T-38 x 5 EA-37B DM HC-130J Kirtland C-130J x 2 (1 IL ANG, 1 AD) KC-46 Travis C-5 x 2 (Travis, Dover) KC-135 x 2 (1 UT ANG, 1 AD Fairchild) C-17 x 2 (1 AD McChord, 1 NC ANG)

As I recall in the original KC-X proposal Boeing offered the 777F with a boom. It crushed in every possible category and the AF came back with, "its to big and won't fit in our existing hangers (707)". So then we had the debacle that was the 330 vs 767. Now AF wants the plane that won't fit in thier existing hangers.... sigh.

They would still go thru the full training program at airline X even with the type but it might make them more competitive to the hiring algorithm… The 787 tanker is a long shot but just for the interwebs. The A-330 MRTT NEO would be my recommendation (interim bigger wing tanker) but politics would likely be insurmountable. Still it brings up a good question, should the AF become more strategically oriented? That is focus on long range strike and effects, coming from a distance to mitigate the proliferation of short to mid range fires? I’m not saying the whole of the AF should be bombers and big fighters but part of the force design.

Can’t speak to fighters but on the MAF side, everyone is deployed. Hours are great if you are (minus living in a bunker hiding from TBMs), hours are slim pickings if you are home station. Last six months have been unlike anything anyone in this generation has seen.

Get in line pal...