ClearedHot

Yeah but was he a SpecOps Fighter Pilot?

For any reasonably intelligent aviator sitting on the fence this should tell you ALL you need to know. Get. Out. NOW!

Completely believable given the absolute dysfunction we see today...I wonder what the Shoe promotion rate was...

Meanwhile....for the second year in a row Ops folks with P's and Super P's got hammered. All the talk from from the last two CSAF's about mission focus and "we need you"...again empty words. How many mixed messages can they send? Sadly, the AF deserves what it is about to get.

I keep hearing Stop Loss and it may be inevitable, but what a chocolate mess it would create. For starters how long do you think they can Stop Loss someone...out to 20 years of service? This is a problem that is NOT going to go away overnight...or after a year....or two years, this is system that is imploding. I also wonder what the justification will be when the legal challenges start. Yes you can declare national emergency because the nation is at war, but we have been at war for 16 years, this is a problem of MISMANAGEMENT by senior USAF folks who were kicking people out just two years ago. I hear the 15 year ADSC chat and the ramp up of pilot training, but the problem is not with young pilots, it is the 8-9 year IP that you can't build overnight. Mark my words, watch the accident rate over the next 5 years folks.

It was a hundred years ago but in my UPT class we had a former warrant officer who flew Cobras, had 3,000+ hours and he still had to do the full UPT syllabus. He did well #7/26.

It will be ugly but not in the ways we assume, some people are staying and they will most certainly be overworked. This will be yet another opportunity for non-pilots to rise to positions of influence (Space/Cyber/Intel), and we will see a further erosion of morale and our core competencies of employing airpower as they seek to further agendas and secure tribal position and power. I fear this will ultimately result in a non-warrior leading the USAF or a GCC. Plans are in motion to dramatically increase the UPT pipeline so we will likely see an Air Force with a glut of younger far less experienced aviators and in IMHO that will manifest itself in a much higher accident rate. Also, look for increased incidents of battlefield "mistakes" and fratricide. If there is a major conflict in the middle of this...scholars will write books for a 100 years on the death of a once great power.

I think there will always be a need for manned ISR period dot. Also, there is a lot of juice in a 400 knot, dual sensor airframe that is can haul 9,000LBS to the fight.

I see someone was on the ramp at HRT yesterday with a broken camera? As for the UARSI discussion...nope, going the probe and drogue route with a performance envelope that will allow to refuel form HC/MC/KC-130 or a KC-10/135/46 with a basket.

Try again... The A-29 is "assembled" in Jacksonville with parts manufactured in Brazil and shipped to the Untied States. All follow on logistics will come from Brazil with parts licensed to and built in Brazil.

Only for seven more weeks.

God I hope not... You could not be MORE wrong on your costs. AT-6 and A-29 will come in around $20M per bird, Scorpion will be likely be slightly higher, but not by much. AT-6 is NOT $1K per hour...in 2012 OSD was rating it at $1.6k per hour and that has most certainly increased by now. Scorpion was actually rated at $2.2K per hour. This should be a far different competition than LAAR, the name says "OA-X" and that name alone implies a lot more requirement and capability than LAAR. While not an A-10 replacement, it is certainly being sold that way in the halls of Congress. In my opinion AT-6 in on an island because it has the least capability and the least room to grow. Yes it has a mature logistics backbone and an established depot, but this is a 300 aircraft program that is going to be in combat for 25-30 years and the AT-6 is out of room to grow. A-29 has some room to grow and I apparently a group of ACC IPs who are trying to shape the competition in its favor, but the A-29 is NOT made in America and that is a BIG deal these days. Aside from the fact that Trump signed a "Buy American" Executive Order last month, the Kansas delegation is STRONG and they are going to play on the "American jobs" theme because their huge plant in Wichita is now idle and they are about to lay off thousands of people if they don't get the OA-X contract. Please tell me how it will play out if A-29 wins and we shut an American Plant to buy A-29 which is made in South America. Yes I know final assembly is here, but go look at the manufacturing breakdown (all the heavy lifting and parts manufacturing is down south), add that to a logistics backbone that requires us to buy parts from Brazil for the next 30 years (you do realize the real money comes from sustainment...this would mean billions going to Brazil). My $ is on Scorpion but it depends on how the assessment is conducted, the jet has a LOT of room to grow and has some game changing capabilities. USAF did a study a few years back looking at LAAR and manned ISR and the number of aircraft required to provide the coverage offered by these aircraft. SPEED and RANGE played a huge role in that study, not because USAF thinks jets are cool, but because of the time/space continuum. The ability of an aircraft like Scorpion to go high and fast (400 knots in the 30's), to the AO actually reduced the number of aircraft required to provided constant coverage, it also reduced the number of bases required because you could stage from a greater distance. Scorpion is going to have almost TWICE the range and the ability to get there in a little more than HALF the time. In essence a two ship of Scorpions could easily replace a four ship of A-29 in both capability and coverage. Combine those capabilities with American jobs and a Buy American directive and the jet has a strong chance to win.

The SAS "assessed" the Pucara a number of years back.

"Duties at"...I get it brother, do the work but don't get the full credit. However, you are kind of arguing against yourself here. Rated Staff entitlements are almost always WELL below 100% so "duties at" is used to get help on the staff by going around the rated allocations and matches AND to get some credit (OPR push and strat), for development. Having worked at a few staffs I understand the rated officer disdain but when the majority of this board constantly bitches about the shoes being in charge and the "idiotic" decisions that are made, keep in mind that is the byproduct of non-rated folks shaping things. You mentioned AFSOC/A5, in the ideal world you would have one person from each crew position on the staff to represent the needs of that community, never seen it happen. In fact I've traditionally seen one AC-130 crew member cover every crew position on three different models of the gunship. I hear what you are saying, I really honestly get it, but there is a balance somewhere in the middle where sharp rated folks get to influence the long-term decisions (while getting appropriate staff credit for development). By the way, how can you swerve your car into oncoming traffic on highway 98 when it is at a complete standstill?...just sayin'!

Huh? You mean like FAIPS?

What bloated staff? Are you on a deployed staff? Last I heard the rated staff manning was sub 75% and the AFSOC rated staff was anything but bloated.

It is not about the plane it is about the mission and I believe the rationale in the AFSOC case is FID. Dusting off the Marine Corps Small War Manual, something about training partner nations to provide for their own defense. I see the logic, but AFSOC is feeling the pilot manning pinch like everyone else and I can't see how they are going to find pilots for this "new" project. Now if they want old washed up guys to come back on contract and fly it

Too bad, as you mentioned STOP LOSS is a viable retention tool and we obvious need tools like you.

Amen.

Understood and I confess I don't know all the ins and outs of Guard service and the Airline rules. I brought it up from past experience seeing folks come back on active duty for a few years to get a full time retirement.

Can't you take MIL LEAVE for a few years to do this gig? I thought this was how some Guard folks came back to get an active retirement?

Having served staffs from MAJCOM, HAF, to OSD I have not seen the bloating of rated officers that is continually mentioned, actually quite the opposite. We absolutely MUST have a rated influence in the training, equipping and strategy development apparatus, again we MUST have that influence. The bloating I have seen is with civilian and contractors who continuously shuffle and delay paperwork between multiple redundant offices.

Until there is a titanic shift we are stuck with this system.