Leaderboard

No they're not, students now are obviously just superior performers and their assignments reflect that.

For those who have recently retired, how long did it take to get your DD-214? I am still on terminal leave, but applied for my DD-214 several months ago and have heard or seen anything.

Should be $60K. I've heard that number a lot recently and that is what was in the House version of the NDAA. $60K says they mean business and are trying. $48K just doesn't sound or look as good after hearing $60K for a while. It's not about the money but this is a strategic error if it ends up being anything but $60K.

I found scoobs and he actually makes a valid point between 3:00-3:20..

So what do you do when the weather gets less than optimal and you start getting shot at? Hope and dream that the big civilian aircraft can absorb the hits? There is a time and place for everything, just have to decide what risk level you want to be at

The gun on the A-10 is phenomenal, as are the guns on the AC-130s. That being said...what percentage of today's kinetic strikes are direct-fire weapons vs PGMs? I don't have hard numbers (sts), but I know what I've seen on numerous deployments. In a true CAS situation, there is a ton of value in direct fire...when it's HVT whack-a-mole in a permissive environment, it's not really needed or even desired in a lot of situations. Advances in PGMs plus the nature of the fight over the majority of the last 15 years has led to the overwhelming use of PGMs. 6K of hard points is plenty of bang per sortie, especially if using lighter weapons like Hellfire, Griffin, SDB, or even newer systems like SGM or APKWS To me, the potential advantages of the Scorpion, if it's executed properly, are fairly significant. Better FMV sensors than current fighters for ISR and PGM delivery. Long legs for a fighter without needing AR, especially if you use external tanks. Plenty of internal payload for other intel packages that are key in the process of finding HVTs. Enough speed to sprint toward a fight, but stability to fly at very low airspeeds for the endless "Wheel in the Sky" ops. Looking at it for the ONE mission is something I've heard tossed around since it can perform basic intercepts and patrols over CONUS at a much lower cost the the Viper. Obviously the low-intensity fight is what it was designed for, for all the reasons above. Competing in a future T-X, especially with a modified swept wing, is also something I've heard as a possibility. And those are just options for the US. Foreign sales are a primary consideration and some of our allies need the type of capability this jet offers at this price point even worse than we do.

I have never been able to understand the point of view from the 5th gen haters. Why hasn't China swallowed up Taiwan and the rest of the geography in its proximity? Because America. A super tucano or whatever "today's war" buzzword doesn't deliver the threat of overwhelming military power. Further, buzzword "today's war" cas platforms are not mutually exclusive with a parity nuclear arsenal and air superiority, but every time someone brings up the a-10 or our lack of whatever mosquito-like propeller driven light attack aircraft, the response (at least here) is overwhelmingly some sarcastic blurb about the f35 and it's lackluster gun. As a fighter pilot, I want a platform that the Russians will be apprehensive about sharing airspace with. As an American, I want better nukes than everybody else, and I want those prioritized over a light attack aircraft. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited to be less of an a$$hole

Historical video from Grumman of the Iranian F-14 acquisition, training and sustainment program.

You aren't the only means for fires out there. TTPs and mission criteria on the ground can and do evolve. Nobody is saying you can completely take the fighters or rotary wing CAS out of the Coin fight, but doing something like this takes the pain and suffering out of those communities of participating in that 99% of the time where they legitimately don't need to be there. If you can get away with 3-4 Hawgs or Viper where we used to need whole squadrons because the stacks are much more self sufficient it'll still be bigger savings than trying to add what is essentially a less effective (TOS/speed/armament/etc) lower cost airplane where you still have 3-4+ aircraft where you could get away with 1-2 almost all of the time. And I get it the Hawg guys keep leveraging that card of "what about if" with weather eyc, but to get down that low you are well into the RW envelope anyway. And if we can get out of wasting time in stacks that don't need is we can be more places when called. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That mechanism is already in place. Those decisions are already made every day, real-time based on the situation.

It's funny that singular argument of a scenario is used as a justification for a line of funding COA and usually ignores the exact same logic with the 5th gen argument of "what do you do for CAS in an SA-2X environment." If we are planning for every contingency and money is no object, hey great let's have all the airplanes. We unfortunately don't/can't live in that world though so 80-90% solutions have to be adopted with leaders who have the understanding and forethought that they leverage their operations to stay inside that 80-90% as best they are able.