Leaderboard

Mass Air Guard is killing it.

70 Years Ago This Week: 23 Aug 1954 -- First Flight of the YC-130 In 1954, President Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower sat in the Oval Office; the US Air Force Academy was founded; and the first of over 2,500 Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft took to the skies. By that time, the Cold War was in full swing. The newly independent USAF had begun to recapitalize its fleet around the atomic bomb and the jet engine, with its tactical and mobility fleets making due with the World War II leftovers. Though those aircraft were less than a decade old, the intervening advent of the turbojet engine had ushered in a new era for aviation that made the classic piston-and-propeller propulsion combination nearly obsolete. The Korean War made clear the deficiencies of those legacy transports; what was needed was a medium-sized tactical airlifter for delivering heavier equipment or paratroops quickly and over long distances to combat areas, yet capable of operating from short, rough airfields. The key enabling technology was the turboprop engine. Standard turbojet engines that relied on expelling hot gas for thrust were terribly inefficient at low speeds, making them impractical for transports. The new concept of a turboprop engine instead harnessed the jet engine’s energy to drive a propeller, combing the compact power of the jet with subsonic efficiency of a propeller. Because the Air Force had ceded turboprop development to the Navy, while they focused on turbojets, they had to derive the intended engine from its sister service’s programs. In June 1950, the Air Force released the first General Operational Requirements Document for a new medium turboprop transport, with requests for proposals coming the following January. Of the five contractor submission, Lockheed was announced as the winner on 2 July 1951, receiving a contract to build two YC-130s on 11 July, powered by Allison T56 turboprops. The prototypes were designed and built at Lockheed’s California facilities—it was just then re-activating the former Marietta, Georgia, B-29 plant for future C-130 production. As legend has it, the Hercules’ mockup debut resulted in stunned silence...and not the good kind, because it bucked the sleek-and-streamlined trend of the early Jet Age. Skunk Works founder Kelly Johnson reportedly dismissed it entirely. On 23 August 1954, just about a year behind schedule (due to both engine & airplane delays), Lockheed test pilots Stan Beltz and Roy Wimmer, and two flight engineers, ran up the engines on the second YC-130, tail number 53-3397, in Burbank, California. Just 10 seconds and 855 feet later, their plane leapt into the air for the first flight of the C-130. An hour later, they landed at Edwards AFB where it would undergo the rest of its flight test program.

I bet a guy in my unit at the beginning of the year that the DNC would wait until after the RNC convention to replace Biden. My logic was that Trump in the polls would lose to any other democrat. If Biden would have said he wasn't running last year, there's a chance that republican voters would have chosen another candidate. With Trump being competitive in the polls against Biden, he easily secured the nomination. I did however also think that the replacement was going to be Michelle Obama, however Harris worked to quickly in securing the nomination and prevented any challengers.

1.8. Customs and Courtesies. Our customs and courtesies reflect the unique nature of our profession and guide significant aspects of our behavior. We emphasize our strong bond with other military members, as well as our mutual respect for one another and our civilian leadership. See AFI 34-1201, Protocol; Air Force Pamphlet (AFPAM) 34-1202, Guide to Protocol. 1.8.1. Saluting. Saluting is a courtesy exchanged between members of the uniformed Services as both a greeting and a symbol of mutual respect. The basic rules regarding saluting are: 1.8.1.1. Airmen salute the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Department Secretaries, all superior commissioned and warrant officers, all Medal of Honor recipients, and superior officers of friendly foreign nations. https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_cc/publication/afi1-1/afi1-1.pdf

On 20 Aug 1910, the first shot to be fired from an airplane occurred when Lt Jacob Earl Fickel of the 29th Infantry—an expert rifleman—fired upon a target about 100 feet below from the backseat of a Curtiss biplane. Lieutenant Fickel missed the shot by about six feet; but the pilot, Mr. Glenn Curtiss himself, took the blame for that, stating that he had to tilt the machine just as the shot was fired. For the firearms demonstration, which took place at Sheepshead Bay Track near New York, Lt Fickel used an Army Springfield .30 caliber rifle. In the photo here, Lt Fickel demonstrates how he took his shot, with Curtiss pilot Charles F. Willard at the controls. Although this first attempt at firing from a plane was a miss, the idea of weaponizing the airplane was not—and in just a few short years airplanes would be dogfighting with each other over the skies of Europe in the midst of Word War I. (Photo: NMUSAF)

Zero chance he stays alive

Is it your contention that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could be most aptly described as agrarian pre-capitalist?

While that very well maybe true, let's not forget that some SF Airmen are fully dedicated to the craft. I am reminded of the SF bike cop (apparently we used to have those) who biked over a mile to the reports of an active shooter... then engaged from 50+ yards with an M-9 against a dude with a MAK-90, and won. Not trying to do a total thread derail, but a piece of history with remembering. https://www.police1.com/active-shooter/articles/10-lessons-from-the-fairchild-afb-shooting-11AZrSqTp4IM3diw/

Haha... if you ever went to M9 qual and watched the young SF Airmen shoot with you, you would know this is a pipe dream.

I mean the people telling you that haven’t read a plan and need to retire. Go talk to an any-service human in a Joint 5, and you’ll walk away with plenty of problems for AFSOC to solve.

It seems leadership and money people confuse the concepts of size/line of effort and don’t understand the criticality of effort or the phases of conflict it exists in. It’s like the Gulf War I example, conventional fixed wing aviation was undoubtedly the first main line of effort on night 1 of the war. But without AFSOF, a handful of stealth aircraft and Army attack, that line of effort would have waiting indefinitely for that window to open. That doesn’t even mention what was being done by SOF to shape the battlefield for the air war started so all that ass could get to where it was needed. Those big metal shapes at specific Nav points didn’t emplace themselves, SOF did it. Everybody wants to go see the rock concert, but nobody wants to acknowledge the bus drivers and crew that get the band on stage. They may not be the one making the music, but it’s pretty damn important to the concert happening. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You mean the people that are just trying to keep Gen. Slife happy, or are acolytes of his but not currently in AFSOC? The reality is I can seek confirmation bias from any pocket of the Air Force at any level. Great Power Competition is the reality we need to embrace. We pulled out of the GWOT on terror, and it didn't end it just shifted fronts to Israel. Because the bad actors in that region that want to destroy the west, western values, anyone that isn't a Islamic fundamentalist just shifted to the next closest target. Also, the foreign policy disaster of stopping Saudi from fighting the Iranian (Houthi) proxies in Yemen was idiotic from a Real Politik stand point. There are still a lot of fights in the world were AFSOC is the best game in town, but we aren't playing any more to the extent we were.

Mr. Trump. Please please please just shut the fuck up. Its shut the fuck up Friday tomorrow. Then shut the fuck up Saturday and so on. You gain nothing by opening your mouth. I'm voting this year strictly off past performance and projected performance. One will keep this country around for a few more years and the alternative might not. Please. Shut the fuck up.

I get what he’s trying to do but… For example 55-60% of AMC’s capability residing in the Reserve Component that’s an impossible task. I think there’s 18 ANG tanker wings, probably the same number or more ANG C-130 wings. Add in C-17 wings, the aforementioned examples with the B-2, the F-15EX, etc. and that’s just the Air side. Add in all the Army Guard capes on top of that (HIMARS, Apaches, etc) plus all the manpower. That’s a lot of capability to have sidelined waiting for the declaration of war, which according to the interwebs, hasn’t happened since WWII. Besides, every CODEL out there is trying to get the newest stuff for their state and concurrent fielding of the KC-46, F-35, F-15EX with the Active component. Sheehy’s legislation would not sit well with those states. The ANG would be back to flying the sloppy seconds like they did in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus far, her Hide and Go Seek game is stronger Saddam Hussein's.

He’s just the lovable white grandpa looking guy, right?

Why? I'll be blunt, this just feels like you saying something you don't believe to sound moderate. Walz is one of the most progressive governors in the US. The Trump policy position is one of the most moderate in recent Republican history. So exactly which Republican would you support over Harris, and what are the policy differences between that Republican and Walz that would put you in that position? Or do you just know nothing about Walz? That would be pretty standard for an American voter.

amazing how kamala went from the most unpopular vice president in history, to suddenly a media darling front runner for president. who hasn't won any vote for nomination, just picked by the big bosses in their soft coup. "defending democracy!"

Recent history matters, and UKR has had their territorial sovereignty violated twice in the last decade by the same hostile invading force. That’s a fact. Im not missing all the history of UKR-RUS, and considering my job I’m probably more well-versed on their 30-year history and current ops than most anyone here, but none of that excuses Russia’s current actions. WRT our policy, you’re right. We do not have a good track record nation building. The ME was a fvcking whack-a-mole debacle on a lot of levels, even if some of it was unavoidable. I argue this is different, though. We are supporting a sovereign nation (not trying to build one) against a long-term adversary of the west (not a bunch of radical shitheads). That particulars adversary is the second most prominent member of the SCO and has committed a host of belligerent acts against us and our allies. We are collecting a ton of info for a relatively (good argument to be had here) low cost. There are significant 2/3 order effects - want RUS to have a land bridge to Moldova? This is not AFG 2.0.