Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/29/2015 in all areas

  1. Great discussion going on here. Let me add an alternative perspective. They said it wasn't possible to arm RQ-1 with Hellfires. Fortunately others in USG disagreed. They said you shouldn't arm UAVs and employ lethal fires without a fighter pilot in the seat that understood CAS and fires, so only fighter pilots should fly UAVs. They said only pilots had the airmanship required to fly UAVs. They said unless you went to pilot training and learned about airspace, radio calls and instruments, you couldn't and shouldn't fly UAVs. They said a fighter pilot was too valuable to fly UAVs, that it was easy, and only the worst pilots should fly them. They picked the pilots they didn't want in their squadrons to go to UAVs. They decided that we should fly RPAs from remote locations, despite the fact you could fly remote split operations from anywhere in the world, including in major metropolitan areas where families would be happy to live. They realized there was nothing unmanned about these UAVs and changed the name to Remotely Piloted Aircraft. They killed UCAV development because they think a pilot must be in the seat, even when the pilot is the limiting factor in the aircraft. They think the next generation bomber should be manned. They decided the only way to keep pilots flying RPAs relevant was to create a companion aircraft program so RPA pilots could fly real aircraft and stay in touch with real flying, but this was not feasible because flying RPAs is not an easy part time job and there is no time. They thought it would be ok assure pilots they would go fly RPAs, then return to the cockpit, with no intention of changing the manning or accessions to actually honor that promise. They told us that 18Xs could not fly RPAs. They told us it would take years to figure out how to train non-pilots how to fly RPAs. They told us nobody would volunteer to fly RPAs. They told us the bonus for RPA pilots should be less than the bonus for real pilots. They decided that RPAs were easy and marginalized the employment of lethal weapons in combat. They actually think the RPA pilot guides the AGM-114 or GBU-49/12 to the target. They denigrated the RPA mission and those who conducted the mission, regardless of how much the joint force and civilian leadership value RPAs. They think enlisted airmen cannot fly RPAs, despite direct evidence of outstanding Army enlisted and warrant officer performance. They did not think auto takeoff and landing was a valuable capability worthy of investment, and preferred to crash aircraft during takeoffs and landings due to pilot error and insufficient training at a staggering rate, while the Army successfully employs auto takeoff and landing with a near perfect mishap prevention rate. They decided that the phrase "permissive ISR" would be used to discredit RPAs by pushing the narrative that they were not able to operate in denied airspace, while avoiding the same conversation with mobility, tankers, C2, and satellites. They forgot that we may have missions when manned aircraft will not be allowed to fly and that RPAs may be the only access we have to non-permissive environments. They developed the phrase "Pred Porn" to delegitimize the FMV value to Ground Force Commanders, Joint Force Commanders and Senior Civilian Leaders. They do not understand how RPAs integrate multi-source intelligence to accomplish national level objectives. They decided "Combat Time" for RPAs employing lethal fires in close proximity to friendly forces was not combat, but orbiting a combat support aircraft near a combat zone, with no threat of enemy fire or additional danger, was worthy of "Combat Time". They decided combat support aircrew were eligible for Air Medals, while in no immediate danger from enemy threats, while RPA crews conducting actual combat missions were only eligible for Aerial Achievement Medals. They failed to recognize that there may be situations where manned aircraft may be denied access to airspace, not only because of the threat, but because of political considerations and the risk of being shot down in denied area. They think a pilot who practices killing people but never performs this skill in combat is more of a warrior than those who actually kill people. They decided to not fund RPAs, after reducing the number of CAPs in the first few years, they planned to go to zero CAPs so they could commit the money to other priorities. They decided to keep the RPA crew ratio below a sustainable level, crushing OPSTEMPO, morale and sustainability. They let RPA crewmembers separate early to meet short term manpower reduction goals, before their commitment was up, even from squadrons where the pilot and sensors were undermanned in that unit. They decided to not invest in RPA technology, stating and I no shit quote "every dollar we spend on MQ-9s is a dollar we can't spend on F-35". They are telling us they can't fix the current RPA crew shortage. They are telling us they don't know how to improve morale. They are telling us RPAs are not important to our nation's defense. They think pilots with no RPA experience are qualified to command RPA squadrons, groups and wings. They use the phrase CT/COIN to marginalize the current fight and emphasize the importance of near peer competitor threats. And they will continue to recommend we stop flying RPAs so we can invest in more important weapon systems and more important missions. When will we stop letting them make these bad decisions and give this bad advice? When have they lost enough trust and confidence of our joint partners and civilian leaders? When will we realize that "they" are actually the problem and that we should not value their recommended solutions? It is time to get ISR out of ACC, to let ACC focus on what they value and what they are the best in the world at, and most importantly, stop ing up RPAs.
    13 points
  2. Mods, I performed a search, but did not see any topics covering the above process, and I wanted to give my $.02 on how my claim process worked. 1. I separated from AD in late 2014, and had attended TAP classes in September of that year. When asked by the briefer if any of us planned on filing a disability compensation claim, almost none of the 40 of us raised our hands. He offered to look at each of our medical records if we made an appointment with him and encouraged us to do so. 2. I ordered copies of my medical records from my base's clinic immediately after the TAP class was over for the day. In the AF, your medical records will typically take 6-8 weeks to be copied or put on a CD in PDF format. I recommend doing this as early as possible in the process, and I will explain why in paragraph 5. 3. There are many Veteran's Service Organizations (VSOs) out there, and they all have a common goal to fight for Veterans. I chose the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) because after careful research, they give back the most to Veterans, and are a powerful lobbying organization. 4. When I made my appointment with the representative who briefed at my TAP class, he went through my records and helped me fill out all of the proper forms. I remember needing my marriage certificate, birth certificates for my family, SSN cards, and finally, a bank account number as well as the routing number of your bank. 5. I filed my claim in early December before I separated at the end of the calendar month in 2014. This was incredibly important because you will either file under the Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD) or the QuickStart Program. If I had gotten my medical records earlier, I would have been able to have my VA rating (if anything in my records warranted it) on my discharge date. Unfortunately, I was not eligible for this program as there was not enough time to get my VA exams completed. Fortunately, my claim decision was made in April 2015, which was only four months after filing under the QuickStart Program. If you wait months or years later, then your claim could take anywhere between 1-2 years just for an initial decision to be made. 6. I had a handful of people who I really admired and respected while in the AF. One common theme every single one of them said to me was to make sure everything was documented in my medical records. I'm thankful to this day that I took their advice. 7. Some helpful websites: http://militarydisabilitymadeeasy.com/index.html http://www.benefits.va.gov/warms/bookc.asp#a http://www.dav.org
    2 points
  3. Not yet on the KC-135. It has ADS-C, not B. Different beast all together. ADS-B will require aircraft to have a new(er) transponder able to talk to the ground stations. If the RVSM compliance is a guide, then we will ask for waviers until they no longer grant them, and then act like we never saw it coming. A forward looking organization would have POM'd for this. I have no idea what the Air Force did.
    2 points
  4. It was great to see the BUFF on the West Ramp. They had a never ending stream of folks visiting. Since the jet they brought was over 50 years old, I hope they were included in the Vintage AND the Warbird judging.
    1 point
  5. Adding another parallel anecdote to help illustrate the culture hurdle: In a former life I flew on Marine KC-130s. Our flight engineers, aside from ensuring that the landing gear was lowered, were also taxi qual'd. No shit: depending on the field that we were broken at, they would do all of the usual coord with ground and tower, and do high power engine runs (on the active, if that's all that was available). Ok, so with that story, let's hear from our AF Herk brethren: would the AF taxi qual a FE? ETA: Lawman, I agree with you. Enlisted could operate these things just fine, alongside O's, yet still within their managerial lanes. Boundaries would likely be required regarding mission sets, weapons employment, etc., but I still think it would be worthwhile. Change is often resisted because as soon as you allow change, someone is tacitly admitting that the old paradigm was wrong. Case in point: for years I didn't think that I could fly Mil because of the 20/20 eyesight requirement. ...until it changed to 20/70, then it was game-on. But that begs the questions: what was the reasoning behind the legacy requirement, and how much talent flowed under the bridge through the years because of it?
    1 point
  6. Never miss an opportunity to STFU...
    1 point
  7. Here's a typical year, filled with typical months. I couldn't resist.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...