Leaderboard

Happiness is worth more than $$. I'll be fine.

If only there was a thread where we could talk about drones...

Twice passed-over 11F here. Offered continuation...I declined. Even at 15 years time in service the airline hiring is too good to pass up. Besides that, I'm more than ready to jump off this sinking ship. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Scoobs is a spy

I heard there has been a crackdown in that leadership wants UPT grads to have their morale crushed earlier in order to have an accurate and realistic view of their next 10 yrs. Too many people graduate UPT still believing what they were taught at the zoo/ROTC.

Getting that last 5 years as a tr can take 20

Squawk IDENT and go with AFSC.

Over 1200 posts and still... no one knows what the hell you are doing here. Squawk IDENT and go with AFSC.

Yes, we know... there was no official "runner up". But the fact that there are people like Noah out there... he's not the only one... and they elected to go with this decision... well, that's a defacto runner up in my book. Actually, it's far beyond just that.

Bremont! Cap-10

My argument (which could be wrong, I am assuming), is not the total logistics tail is smaller; we know, DCGS, LRE/MCE, Comm, MX, etc takes more than manned. Rather, where the logistics footprint is itself. In some cases I believe manned would require too large of a footprint too close to the area of interest to pull the same on station hours than our national security policy/strategy allows or is advantageous to our goals.

Absolutely not, in my experience the MC-12 (and U-28) develop targets better by nature of the crew complement in the aircraft. Trying to translate that level of rapid communication in the RPA has been frustrating to say the least. Finishing isn't for discussion here, but having to bring in another aircraft isn't ideal for shortening the kill chain, but can definitely work just fine if something is on target with you. However, full spectrum target development/POL can be hard in 4 hour vuls and takes a lot of manpower/hardware compared to a 20 hr Pred mission. Not to mention manned might not be an option if there is a long transit required or in a place we don't have manned access period. My point was lower loiter times, burn concerns, logistics footprint and target access are likely negatives for an ISR/Light Attack blend (not all applicable to MC-12/U-28). Therefore, its hard to find a place for it in the inventory outside of AvFID (since we aren't giving a country RPAs) and, for a lack of a better term, IW/COIN CAS (which ACC has chosen not to bring the best solutions to the table, and AFSOC is sticking with gunships, not small planes).

That intake:

Completely agree, and I'm not sure why we don't. Maybe someone can shed some light on whether its a lack of training/trust on the RPA side to push for it or a lack of doctrinal fidelity by the higher ups. So yes, CAS procedures have been used in lieu of SCAR, DT, etc. What doesn't change is the fact quality persistent ISR leads up to most of those procedures. My point is today and tomorrow's environments have to deal with time sensitive targets that randomly present themselves in time, location and type (IW/CAS/DT/SCAR). The A-10 doesn't suit this most of the time and there are limited set of scenarios in which the bronco would as well. Admittedly, in those scenarios of lengthy armed overwatch the Bronco, or for that matter the IOMAX and Super Tacano, would do a much better job for cheaper. Especially if we can get our allied countries to buy and field them, even if we have to go through the painful process of teaching them. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/03/25/the-small-planes-with-big-missiles-the-u-s-wants-to-give-to-yemen/

Its not always about money. Persistence, reach-back, burn concern, and being places we don't want pilots are significant factors in platform selection as well. I'm obviously talking about ISR (what the Combatant Commanders are screaming for), not CAS. I understand the benefits of keep it simple stupid, and that the wide range of mission sets and acronyms that have been developed for them is doctrinally confusing. Gen Welsh harped on this in 2012: Trying to bring back the focus to core mission sets is great, especially from a PR standpoint and running with the narrative "only the Air Force can do what it does." However, keeping platforms in their own bubble of "designated" capabilities is not how we progress and the Predator wouldn't have a hellfire if we did. Mission sets blend as the kill chain shortens. Sure, the Bronco would be great and I'd rather fly it than be in a GCS, but it won't develop targets as well as the MQ-1/9. And if we want to finish those targets quickly, better to ensure the one that Finds/Fixes can also kill it. I think the Bronco would have a great roll in FID and COIN CAS, but ACC has decided it doesn't want a large stake in those mission sets and AFSOC has its own gray tail priorities. Plus, in AvFID, the country needs to buy their own planes to keep procurement fast and not have to deal with the foreign sales mess. That leaves CAS in a low threat, yet high CDE environment; for which ACC won't buy for exclusively or recognize is what "CAS" will be in the near future. In the name of simplicity the doctrine is holding us back, instead we really need some common sense.

XL 09-15 Track Select Active Duty T-38 - 3 T-44 - 3 UH-1 - 1 The rest were T-1s and guard and reserve. Overall a pretty good track. Most people got first or second choices. Congrats guys.

Is that different than the AF?

Sanctuary doesn't exist for ad. Search it out

I meant flying a predetermined route.