All Activity

Having played college ball my limited experience was UF fans were the worst. Sorry @M2 you are like a brother but the things I saw back in the day. Anyway, FSU has now said hold my beer. Simply disgusting.

Look at this slob...those poor buttons.

The Navy has done command wide pt tests twice a year for damn near forever. It honestly was pretty easy, everyone counted for their partner and we all would run together. Took maybe 3 hours on some random morning. It’s actually a lot easier to coordinate than worrying about random dates throughout the year for each individual person.

When is Fat Tony retiring from USAFA?

So did anyone get fired from the big meeting? I was told there would be drama...

Standards for everyone set at the appropriate male-based levels for physically demanding jobs. What a novel concept. I’m OK with a separate PT test for the non-combat side, but if you’re in a combat job or may see combat because you get attached to a combat unit, you must perform at a higher physical level.

Let's see how many flag officers evaporate now that they have to pass the PT test twice a year 🤣😂. It's so refreshing to have someone in charge of the Department of Murdering Foreigners say out loud that fat people are gross and shouldn't be in the military. Pete just won some points in my book.

This. Unless it's the R-9X Ginsu variant, which is kinetic, but we would see the blades out in that video.

15-20k is one hour of C-17 flight time also. Obviously not the intended receiver, but again really not that much.

If it was a Hellfire, shouldn't it have detonated?

"Drones over Denmark" sounds like the name of an Outkast song.

I get it and I don’t know what an E-190 or 175 tanker would actually be able to offload at 690 NM from launch, just a guess it would be better than that Another point, just because a tactical tanker regardless of what platform it is or would be derived from might look like a small version of an existing big wing doesn’t mean it should be planned for just as a small version of it That is it might be better optimized for UCAS AR, adhoc small AR as the ATO is executed and fallout ARs happen, post launch / pre recovery immediate top offs after said fighters get to ingress altitude, etc… Yeah that’s just some conjecture but I think we got to start to imagine different conops Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A 15-20K offload is not “a lot of capability.” It’s a partial offload to one F-15E with external tanks.

ISU-80/90s are not able to be loaded on a MRTT due to their height (taller than the cargo holds). Pallets compatibility is important due to AE’s using PSPs that are the same dimensions of a 463L pallet.

The Romeo and the Lima 7 have both downed aircraft in the 100-300 knot threshold. Some rather recently, and the Lima is still using the gas based control system vs the Romeo with the fully electric articulation of its control surfaces. Against a dynamically maneuvering target it’s probably got no terminal endgame just with how small a control surface it has for the missile mass, but against something with predictable pro nav it can handle cross ranging velocities a lot higher than anybody expected. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By the time a 4th location has an airliner explode and burn on the runway it would institute a ground stop that would last days. We need to seriously think about how ready to escalate to mass casualties any opponent would be with us. 1-4 airliners full of injured people would overwhelm local response at any major metro area… for tens of thousands of dollars you could neutralize air travel across a continent if you were so bold to chose that as your method of delivery. Shutting down Honalulu, Narita, Ninoy Aquino for 72-96 hours would be a hell of a problem to solve while we don’t make positive movements to solve the other big one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's not waste money on some tinker toy tanker that doesn't carry enough gas for a 4-ship and is built by a country that's rapidly cozying up to China. That last part alone is enough reason to not even consider it. How about we spend that money on protecting our tankers from a Pearl Harbor-esque attack from a semi truck full of drones.

I’m just suggesting unless you are willing to seriously reprogram money in the budget, looking for an affordable option for this gap filler platform needs to be considered. KC-390 comes in around $150+ million, serous money, but a lot of capability. A $50 mil jet with a $15 mil military modification (WAG but 30% seems reasonable) is a lot cheaper The E-190 E2 is not a slouch in short field ops, not eye watering but not bad, probably could be tweaked. https://www.flyingmag.com/embraer-e190-e2-jet-shows-short-field-prowess/

This seems like the dumbest idea yet. It still needs a decently long paved runway and for what offload? 15-20K? Seems like a way more complicated and expensive version of the Navy's buddy tanking for little gain.

Probably but the ACE capability of the 390 vs the MOB centric employment of the 46 is worth the investigation methinks I hate corporate buzzwords and phrases but “family of systems” is probably the only way to look at this mission set / capability delivery Big Wing to cross the main body of water Manned Tactical to operate to the FARPs and just inside the A2AD bubble Unmanned to go with the 35, 47, 21 to the drop off point Going back specifically to the Tactical Tanker, if it’s to be acquired IMHO it’s gotta be a jack of all trades good enough at all platform Tanker + light transport, medevac, launch/sensor/network platform Cost to acquire, operate then need to reflect that need for a lot of pretty good execution but not perfect The KC-390 would be the pricey option in that case and the regional airliner / biz jets would be the less expensive options Less expensive probably leads to more tails acquired and that probably plugs the gaps in Indo-Pacom and enduring requirements in other areas Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without major acquisition reform, even with its challenges, the KC-46 is the better platform for boom AAR. The KC-390 could potentially compete with the -130 for drogue AAR capes, but I'm not expert enough to compare and contrast it's cargo and AAR capes with the Herk.

I suspect you are aware the -46 will not be carrying 18 pallets ever, 10 is generous. ISUs are compatible, but commercial parts support is a pipe dream without acquisition reform. Unless we have a robust and diverse tanker fleet, 473L pallet compatibility with tankers is not a relevant capability for us (unpopular opinion). Potentially relevant for our allies.

Six. However, the -135 wasn't designed to carry pallets, which is why the pallet cargo load was designed decades later. The MRTT also can't carry ISU-80/90 due to height restrictions of the forward and aft cargo hold. The KC-46 can carry 18 pallets in a side-by-side configuration, can carry ISU-80/90s, and also has worldwide parts support and three allied users currently have or are in the process of receiving their jets.