Leaderboard

I would pay to see some B-1s try to daisy chain us to and from the objective.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Yes, of all the things I've ever done, the time of my life was definitely sitting at a TIB show at the zoo. Also: Get your shit straight, TIB.

I still think it speaks volumes that the only people defending an ENTERTAINMENT organization are people that were in it for a tour. Not the audience(s). Not the leadership. Only the folks that got to skip out on their AFSC for a while to sing & dance & skip & prance.

Yes, it is normal. If your sister asked you to wear it, you should wear it. When you wear the uniform, you are expected to honor the obligations that accompany it's wear. When in uniform, you represent all those who serve and those who have served. In today's world, assume everything you say and do in uniform will be recorded and widely distributed. Realize that when you wear the uniform, you must clearly understand the expectation of professionalism and adjust your behavior accordingly. If you want to be a drunken idiot and enjoy the wedding in traditions that involve alcohol, sex and debauchery, wear a tux and have a good time. If you want to represent the Air Force and proudly display your uniform to add a distinguished and universally respected military representation to the special event, wear your mess dress. Just understand that in uniform, you represent the Air Force. In a tux, you represent yourself. Whether it is appropriate to wear depends on how you plan to act while you wear it.

Alright, I know I'm about to offend some very respectable people here, and I'm sure there's much more to it than someone in my position could possibly know, but this has been bugging me for a while. As seen in articles like this one: https://www.airforcem...-the-Table.aspx, the AF considered divesting either the B-1 or the A-10. My question to all the Strategic-Level gurus is: If they could save just as much money by cutting the fleet of B-1s, then why would they ever consider cutting the A-10? Here's the reasoning from my perspective, (an Apache pilot who has worked with F-15Es, Vipers, A-10s, and B-1s on real missions in Afghanistan): The B-1 is an awesome aircraft, it really is, capable of long flights, long station time, and a huge payload. However, it is very expensive and extremely mission-limited. Fitting the bill for a "Single-Role Aircraft" as the AF bean-counters like to say (although I know that term is basically meaningless). It is a long-range strategic bomber designed to put bombs deep in the heart of Soviet Russia, and although it technically can perform some semblance of "CAS", helping to fill gaps in coverage, it is certainly no true CAS aircraft by any measure. In fact, even in it's primary role as long-range bomber, nearly any other bomber, fighter, or attack jet in the fleet can perform that role, granted not quite as fast and maybe with a couple more tanker-hits. On the other hand, the A-10 is literally the only attack jet in the entire AF, although Strike Eagles and F-16s can cover down on CAS as needed, they are not true dedicated CAS platforms (for the sake of expediency I will not be mentioning anything about the F-35). This mission is the bread and butter of the AF once Air Supremacy has been established, which is typically in the early portion of a war. The A-10 has proven invaluable in this regard time and time again. Together with true multi-role fighters like the highly cost-effective and general-purpose F-16, the AF becomes a very valuable branch to everyone. One final argument, the A-10 has a huge community consisting of many highly cost-effective guard units, and around 1000 pilots (I assume based on a fleet of around 400 A-10s). The B-1 is a very expensive aircraft to operate, and has a community of only around 400 pilots (I'm assuming based on a 2 man crew and 66 aircraft). Wouldn't it be far easier to ask 400 bomber pilots if they want to fly fighters than it would to displace 1000 happy A-10 pilots and a host of very proud and patriotic guard units? Again, I am just asking, I don't think I know everything. It just seems odd. My advice to the community of A-10 supporters would be to suggest divesting the B-1 fleet entirely and stick to that strategy as it may be the only good one that the AF would execute. Maybe put a handful in "type 1000" storage or some other form of preservation in case Russia becomes the primary focus and we actually have the budget and need for them. Also, keep in mind that one of the other ideas that the AF had was cutting 350 F-16s! Literally, (and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise) the absolute worst idea I have ever heard of throughout the entire sequestration, from a financial and strategic perspective: https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140318/NEWS/303180067/B-1B-F-16s-could-next-Congress-blocks-Air-Force-plan-retire-10, a decision that would literally be the exact opposite of the reasoning the AF has used to cut the A-10. I think cutting the B-1 would be the lowest collateral-damage decision the AF could make at this time. Anyway, please don't send me hate-mail, I'm not actively trying to get rid of the B-1 in my spare time. Just wondering, that's all.

I still want to hear about the rest (most) of the war when stealth has done its job, most IADs are down and troops need CAS, who will operate in that niche where AAA/MP are the threat? Tell me the aircraft designed to operate in a high AAA/MP threat environment. I wonder how the F-35 does against barrage fire?

Multi-role my ass. Fuck the A-10, fuck the B-1.

While I enjoy these debates purely as an intellectual exercise, when witnessing them, I can't help but think the other side has won. Instead of the public being made aware of the progressive gutting/wearing out of our armed forces that's been taking place since the early nineties, all they witness is a pissing contest about exactly what sort of outdated and hollow force we'll have left (or they'll have left in their district). I know any of us would gladly take extraordinary risks and be willing to sacrifice our own safety without hesitation, it's what I signed up for anyway. That being said... I find it tremendously offensive when my life is unnecessarily put at greater risk due to inadequate resources like worn-out/outdated/inferior aircraft, all while much of the population is living large off entitlements and our defense spending rapidly races to below 3% of GDP. Soldiers in larger past conflicts, while often asked to do unbelievable things with completely inadequate resources we could hardly comprehend, at least knew the general public was sacrificing to support them as much as they possibly could. I need to start telling people, if you really want to "thank me" for my service, call your Rep/Senator and get us the resources we need to protect this country and your family against all eventualities.

Just make sure you're current on your SAPR training, and don't be a douche. And the uniform isn't a magical panty dropper. If that's what your game is leaning on, you have none. Be a good dude and don't be the "bad story" from the wedding, and you'll be just fine.

Glad we clarified that for all the E-1s and E-2s on these boards.

In my experience, about 3 days after the 7th time you've called to complain.

Neither is the A-10.

If you think that all that's going on down on the border states is "playing catch and release with Mexican immigrants", then you need to come down here actually see what's going on that isn't getting reported in your daily news. There are some persons and threats coming through that are caught, and many that aren't, that would make your head spin. There are situations, engagements, and other scenarios both with military and military-style forces, as well as cartels and other organized factions, where our outmanned and outgunned CBP can't (and in some cases, aren't allowed to) stop them. Come down and see sometime, it would open your eyes a bit. So yes, playing masters of the universe around the world with every problem and situation large and small, shouldn't cause there to be a complete ignoring of the realities of what it slipping through central America and across our own "secured" borders. Without going into SIPR, it's a heck of alot more than just a couple of Mexican immigrants looking for work, that you and many others are under the incorrect and assuming impression of. While I agree with you on not blurring the lines between military and law enforcement to the max extent possible, the military isn't being used for domestic law enforcement; and acting against or being used to counter external threats to this country, shouldn't blur those lines either. Take care of things overseas as-needed. Don't leave the gate to the yard open while doing it.

The Sandy conversation is the elephant in the room: I don't see how a CSAR package is survivable in a modern threat environment. CSAR-X will never happen, and I see nonconventional assisted recovery becoming the primary means of personnel recovery in a high-threat environment. What good is your RESCORT if the Jolly can't make it? On the other side, low intensity CAS is becoming a crowded market. These days, if it flies, it can probably have a multi-mode munition attached to it or built in to it. Most of these options are cheaper and can be employed faster than getting Hawg Flight on scene. This is the A-10's problem: it's increasingly unsurvivable on the high end of the air combat spectrum and there are a plethora of options at the low end. The Hawg is getting niche.