All Activity

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/YwPrabufO2 Assuming the video is real...the Kuwaiti Hornet was WVR when it shot this F-15. So...intentional fratricide?

Disagree on Patel. I haven't found a better measure of a politician's value than their ability to handle a long-form podcast. Patel is not perfect, and he engages too much in the Twitter chest thumping nonsense that has become the status quo, but he's able to speak intelligently on anything he's asked, and he has guiding principals. That doesn't mean you have to agree with those principles, but it's refreshing that a politician at this point can even spell out what guides them in their decision making. And I don't find any of the frat bro stuff off-putting. I'm tired of politicians pretending like they're formal and keeping all of their immature/illegal/immoral nonsense behind closed doors. Just be honest about it at this point. I trust an FBI director who can smash a beer with an Olympic team a hell of a lot more than the colonels and generals we dealt with while we were in the military who pretended like they had never had a drop of alcohol once they were in power.

What was gained from adding the remote boom pod? Truly curious.

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse!" -- Henry Ford

Is it dead as potential acquisition?

He's the hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now.

The UPT assignments person told me, but also said it could change depending on AETC needs

Biff is my hero, sir

Bondi and Patel.

Hopefully Bondi. Unfortunately Trump seems to hire women based solely on the "Biff test."

Yeah but it's ChatGPT 2.5

Congrats on finally getting something!! Did you find out your projected IPT location from the UFT assignments person, Laughlin, or another source?

Noem fired. Clowned a bit too hard at the hearings yesterday, I guess. Who's next?

just got my date! Check vMPF boys/girls

Joe Don Baker, no shit? I knew it was based on the Sheriff Buford Pusser story. gonna have to track that movie down. Kirsti out btw.

Good analysis of recent Naval engagements from the “Sub Brief”

Reminds me of the “why can’t the boom just get a window?” argument when the KC-46 first came online and started demonstrating growing pains with the RVS. If we constrain ourselves to the way it’s always been done then we’ll never solve the problems facing us in the pacific fight.

Tell me more ChatGPT

Heard back from AFPC this morning that my dates are flowing through the system. Going to Laughlin mid-May with IPT projected for the end of June at Prescott.

As you are reading the .40 ones, the caliber debate is worth a mention as well. There has been a resurgence of 9mm over the years due to reduced recoil, lower prices and increased capacity. Nevertheless, even.40 S&W has a stronger impact than 9mm and a significant number of shooters like that middle ground between 9mm and .45 ACP. The disadvantage is that it has a snappier recoil and tends to wear the gun out more with time. Personally I believe caliber is not so important as compared to where the shot is and the way one will shoot the gun. When you are comfortable with.40, SIG Sauer P229, Heckler and Koch USP and Smith and Wesson M and P40 are all proven platforms. The most appropriate is the one that fits well in your hand and you can shoot it accurately and consistently.

Copy. Good to hear

We had a plan for optionally manned... Obviously this program was and is personal to me. In the simplest terms, the Tactical Tanker debate comes down to one core issue: vision. For years, we’ve all acknowledged the “tyranny of distance” in the United States Air Force fight—especially across the vast operating areas of United States Indo-Pacific Command. Distance is the pacing threat’s greatest ally. It stretches logistics, constrains sortie generation, limits persistence, and ultimately caps combat power at the worst possible time. The Tactical Tanker concept directly attacked that problem. If I could distill the entire discussion down to the basics: it was about putting more gas forward. Not incrementally more. Not marginally more. Transformationally more. The modeling—while I can’t share specifics here—showed roughly three times the fuel offload at the IPs compared to the current construct. Three times. That’s not a tweak. That’s a different fight. More fuel forward means: Fighters push deeper without sacrificing weapons. Bombers retain flexibility instead of flying razor-thin margins. Tankers operate with more options instead of predictable orbits. The entire air campaign gains elasticity instead of brittleness. In a Pacific scenario, fuel is range, range is presence, and presence is deterrence. The Tactical Tanker fundamentally changed the calculus of how airpower could be projected and sustained. And yet, the conversation kept getting stuck. Specifically—on the boom. The boom became the intellectual gravity well. Instead of stepping back and asking, “What does tripling fuel forward do to the operational problem?” the debate narrowed into technical objections and legacy expectations. The inability to zoom out and process second- and third-order effects stalled momentum. That’s not a knock on anyone’s professionalism. It’s a reflection of institutional inertia. Large organizations optimize around what they know. They protect existing paradigms. They scrutinize deviation more harshly than stagnation. But transformational capability rarely fits neatly inside legacy mental models. The Tactical Tanker wasn’t about replacing the fleet. It wasn’t about novelty for novelty’s sake. It was about solving the INDOPACOM logistics geometry in a way that current constructs simply don’t. At some point, we have to ask: Are we optimizing for yesterday’s constraints—or tomorrow’s fight? Because in the Pacific, fuel isn’t a support function. It’s the strategy.

@RegularJoe Aircrew didn’t fuck up in this event, not even slightly. The gross problems and blame lie elsewhere.

So...where does that fall in the "Chinese spy balloon" to "friendly F-15E" scale of kill quality?

I'll hop in on the fun 26-07 Drop 2 x MC130 3 x RC135 EWO 3 x F15E 1 x C130H (Guard) 1 x RPA 1 x B52