Clark Griswold

That is not easy question(s) to answer. My answer/solution to the problem of unsustainable benefits for retirees and dependents is stop digging that hole. At some point say everyone who joins after this date will have these choices of retirement plans and dependents would be covered under these choice of plans. Choices to retirement/benefits being ones that likely will be similar to ones in the private sector but with sweetners to encourage recruitment/retention. But they would and will have to be less expensive than what we have now. The private sector gave up on lifetime defined benefit systems about 25 years ago, the government (fed and state) follows the lead of the private sector, it just takes longer for them to change. If we wanna get serious about fixing this liability in the DoD financial obligations, we should look at buy out packages for members for whom it makes sense, if they are young, responsible and financially savvy it could work for both parties. Buy outs would be generous and paid to achieve the long term goal of changing the financial direction of the DoD's pension & healthcare liabilities, pay a good bit up front to the members to save money in the long term. I'm not ecstatic about any changes to the retirement & benefits systems but I know that it has to be done. Our lifetimes are much longer than when the systems were designed, the array of services is much greater and more expensive, we are mainly a married military now versus mostly single young men and politicians who usually think short term and implement programs / increases regardless whether they have a plan to actually pay for it leaving it to others to figure out to pay for it set this problem in motion. The future will be more taxes, less benefits and more risk transferred to the individual to pay for the accumulated irresponsibility of past generations. The inevitable change to the DoD pay & benefit system is just a manifestation of that. Not trying to be Debbie Downer but I'm realistic. Getting to work earlier on this will make it less onerous in the long run. Yup, but we have to extend that idea further. I like going to Germany TDY as much as the next dude but they are an example of where we don't need to be forward deployed or based. Wealthy nations of the developed world used to the USA providing a lot or most of the military deterrence keeping them safe, prosperous and free will have to step up or get used to being intimidated by regional bullies. As to bullshit deployments specifically, the best appetite suppressant for that is additional pay for the deploying members paid by the requesting Combatant Command. More for the member and keeps the Command from growing herds of Power Point rangers.

Then we make a Deal with the Devil / Congress... we swap MWS's out but keep at least most of the people and adapt the facilities at those locations losing/gaining MWS's as required to make it politically feasible. We want to retire the A-10 so let us buy a less expensive new Attack platform and retrain a majority percentage of the total force that flies and supports it, show them you save X dollars in the long run. We want to retire the E-8, ok we want to buy a new C2/ISR/ELINT/EA/etc... but we want this new platform that saves Y dollars over the long run. There's a chance that we will gain or retain some capabilities that the AF institutionally thinks it can do without but in acquiring new iron with lower operational costs and potentially lower manpower costs, it enables wiggle room in future budgets to get more of the higher priority toys. @FLEA brought up the other elephant in the room, the cost of MILPERS. It's grown about 65% proportionately since the early 2000's IIRC from the last article I read on it. If we don't figure out the best way to compensate adequately, contain the rate of compensation and benefits to include benefits for dependents the DoD is going to end up as pension and healthcare organization with some weapons programs too.

Lemoine did a video on the Vance accident using the AIB summarizing the accident, worth a view:

Yup - it (the DoD) is treated by both sides as a jobs program setting up the inevitable real needs vs. political/parochial interests. It's easy for me as a nobody and not having been in his position but if you get to that pinnacle and are asked to put 10 lbs of shit in a 5 lbs sack, fall on your sword and say no. Don't rationalize that you'll mitigate it by working it out as best you can on the inside, just tell them no and on the way out make your thoughts known. Now, all that is when you are at the pinnacle and not every other time at your career when you are given piss and told to make it lemonade am I saying to throw in the towel and quit, like pornography versus art, you know it when you see it.

They all go back to the mothership at some point Going to a point in the article referenced above on the backstory and the mid 2010's effort to divest the A-10, I watched the exchange between McCain and and Welsh: https://www.airforcetimes.com/video/2016/03/03/mccain-slams-usaf-chief-welsh-on-a-10-effectiveness/ I understand Welsh's point that he really didn't get a chance to make as McCain was cutting him off, we have X dollars total in the Dept of the AF appropriation, that X is always less than missions/things we need to do or buy, so some don't get done or bought. He should have turned that into give me more and I will save it, BCA be damned. If you're not going to give me more money, give me more authority over the AF appropriation to re-program resources and fix the glitch. You're a 4 star chief of a branch, you're not going anywhere but to retirement after this, fight the good fight and even if you don't win, you'll make great TV making a politician squirm when you retort to his sophistry with a solution.

He was not a fan of the A-10: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2015/04/10/two-star-fired-for-treason-rant-against-a-10-supporters/

That was a good article on the backstory of that video. Thank God for dudes not compromised by the system doing the right thing. I hope this guy got sent an autographed copy on his birthday.

It was a part of the GH program in the up till 2006, then taken away as it was cheap, simple, low risk and effective. Thanks MG DeCuir.

Shoe Clerks running interference inside the AF Copy and sorry to hear that. I can't say that I was always gung-ho while flying heavies on learning about the high end threats and tactics to evade or mitigate them and saw why the community or many in it eschewed it as they had a hundred other things on their plate, another rotation to get ready for where the operational environment was unchanged from the last 6.9 rotations ago and the leadership they dealt with did not put much value in it other than what was necessary to look good on an ORI. You're probably right about the MAF being not that bad, likely getting better as AMC is exercising / planning for near peer fights: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/09/25/air-mobility-command-exercise-tests-ability-to-operate-in-degraded-combat-environments/

Yup, get on that AMU master's son... that AAD is how Eisenhower & MacArthur won WWII. What a tool. If we wanna fix this (non-operational mindset in the MAF), we need to train the pilots and leadership of the MAF at the beginning and middle of their careers in programs that incorporate training, scenarios and exercises to contemplate and seriously consider moderate to high end threats, operations in austere environments, limited support, etc... My two un-requested cents: Phase III at SUPT extended with a "MAF IFF" to teach tactics, employment and planning for mobility / C2 / ISR asset employment in low support and contested environments. Get'em while their young and impressionable to think tactically, operationally and strategically on Air Mobility. First tour would have operator designed graduate education. We had the "Blue Book" and GRACC, some meaningful lessons there but a lot of fluff. Refine that program and extend that idea of a guided study and professional knowledge development. Also, get a proficiency training aircraft, aerobatic and cheap to fly. Doesn't have to be fancy but there to practice the skills much less expensively than the big iron, simple aircraft with no training wheels to keep SA high. Second tour would be ideally be a bounce in another MAJCOM either at the pointy end or near it. Light Attack, Combat something in AFSOC, bomber tour, etc... something other than moving the stuff or showing up with gas to build experiences in an officer who will likely go back to those communities to keep that culture focused on mission relevant support vs bullshit. Three phases, in the first 8 or so years of a MAF aviator's career to build the mindest and experience needed in the MAF's operational and organizational leaders. Phoenix programs and the like happen after these phases, that is when the career track sorting should begin.

That in addition to the growth and lowering economic bar to jamming technology should give pause to the AF in groking out what the next generation of manned and unmanned systems and the right mix should be for fights in permissive, low and grey zone AORs. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/russia-has-figured-out-how-jam-u-s-drones-syria-n863931 Nothing is perfect, the enemy gets a vote and you will always need more than one type of platform. Buy some Scorpions, AT-6 or A-29s and look for a successor to the Reaper for the next fights.

Check chin strap 😉 I'm jealous...

Don't hate

Nice little plane though, will take their website with a little bit of salt like any company's propaganda on their product but on the whole they seem to hit the big points (modularity, open systems architecture, low total ownership cost, etc...) My only critique is that it seems tailored to the fight in Africa, that's not bad necessarily but if other conflicts pop up where the US chooses to engage militarily that require a more robust capability, we might be wanting with only Bronco II (or similar platform) .

They were the greatest

Replicate, that's a bold statement. They polish up procedures, techniques and establish a base of knowledge to make flight training more effective by getting the student to a level of proficiency and confidence that important stuff is emphasized over switchology but they are not going to give a young pilot at that point in their training what they really need, real world experience. Quality pilot training costs money, deal with it AF.

They proposed a turbofan version also: Both could have been contenders but I would still push for a two seater for the Observation / Tactical ISR role for the aircraft. Two craniums for this mission are better IMO.

Related to the topic: A Viper with Sidewinders: A Unique Look at the AH-1Z’s Retired Air-to-Air Capability. and AH-1Z's employing Stingers against air targets (flares) at the 0:40 mark NG's site on the Longbow radar says it has a 360 sweep and an Air Targeting Mode, can it detect and cue its own missile?

Good return if you give me the number and code I will Leeroy Jenkins that telecon with reckless abandon... Glad to hear you don't think they will go full retard I'm an airplane junky and will always want us to have more of them. There are too many good jets and turbos out there made in 'Merica we can buy right now with or without mods to get the job done. Buy, fly, repeat.

I just tell your mom to get it for me

Copy that with resignation.... CRM, Mobility Mission Fundamentals, Experience in managing a crew, executing a mission, flying a more complicated jet, Multi Engine non-centerline experience and just more flight time, etc.. there is a certain amount required to be safe, effective and ready to fly the big iron. This topic in other threads has come up (deleting most or all of Heavy track Advanced Trainer Phase III in SUPT) and there is a reason why (written in blood unfortunately) that the FAA and other Aviation Authorities around the world require a certain amount of time to hold certain certificates to exercise privileges, you can't just get a few hours or even 100's in a good high performance ASEL and then with minimal training go to a Transport Category AMEL and be truly safe and ready to learn to fly those aircraft. The experience acquired in the T-6 is good but not the same as acquired in the T-1. You need experience in a jet modified to simulate somewhat the maneuver performance of a large jet, has most of the systems (albeit at a smaller scale and lower complexity) of a big jet and time with a simulated Co-piglet IP running checklists, keeping track of all the parameters of your mission as an AC (timing, fuel, WX, objectives, ORM, etc..) and synthesizing all that simultaneously, continuously to get the mission done well. There's no IFF for heavy dudes but just my two cents the Mission Fam phase of my T-1 time was valuable to introduce us to AR, Heavy Formation, Basics of Low Level with simulated Aerial Delivery, etc...call it our IFF and if yours truly were empowered I would expand it for NVGs, Short and Unprepared Field, Dry contact AR, simulated Mobility Multi-Ship Missions and the planning required for it, etc... This would mean you believe the purpose of SUPT is to produce quality, strong aviators and AF officers prepared to begin careers executing and learning to lead the Line of the Air Force and your acceptance that this will take time, money and patience. Not holding my breath for this based on what this thread is teaching me about the forthcoming plans for SUPT... I'll accept that but it still doesn't change my belief that the MAF deserves a quality product. If AETC wants to deliver that product thru the T-7 and and going back to UPT I'm fine with that or if they want to keep SUPT and refurbish the Tones to squeeze more life out of them or get another jet, I'm fine with that. What I am not ok with and what I believe every Heavy Aviator who gives a shit should be mad as hell about is the apparent attitude rearing it's fugly head that our jobs are so un-challenging compared to fighters that we don't need a robust and established Advanced Trainer Program following Phase II. To hell with that and any GD bean counter and his evil minions trying to screw Heavy track students.

How the hell does this get past GOs with a Mobility / Big Wing ISR or C2 background who went thru the T-1? Is there not any fight in these dudes to say hell no, we have a huge appropriation 120.69 billion or so, we can afford a heavy trainer and will get a replacement for the Toner, full stop. Now that heavy advanced trainer program could be different than the traditional model I grant you, consolidated to 1 or 2 bases, flown by AF IPs in COGO aircraft for instance or vice versa for shits and giggles but still something, don't just roll over take it.

So heavy dudes will have none or almost no advanced trainer time?

I hear what you are saying but we need to step back and look at what UPT (whatever variation of it we are on Next, 2.5, SUPT, etc.) is really supposed to be doing: namely producing strong pilots with a base of experience to begin their aviation careers, sorting & assigning said officer-pilots into communities where their demonstrated skills and abilities will allow them to serve the needs of the Air Force and winnowing the classes as appropriately between those who can and should serve as pilots and those who should not. I don't like that last point particularly but I know it is a necessary evil, I went to the dreaded 89 ride and passed thankfully but it was nerve racking to say the least. I hate seeing those who want to fly and serve being told this is not for you but it has to happen at some appropriate rate to ensure the team is strong. Not every lesson at UPT may have a direct practical translation to an MDS but the fact that the student demonstrates the ability to master that task, skill, body of knowledge and apply it consistently probably means they will be good at the truly required events they will have to perform in their assignments flying the line. Antiquated skills that require physical flying ability, on the fly mental agility and the ability to recall knowledge relevant to said tasks are not perfect filters or tests to ensure that UPT always will produce strong pilots and capable aviation leaders but they work to some degree. Treating UPT as only a pilot training program and how to get that program to produce more widgets faster at some absolute minimum level of skill required misses the point that it is a filter and forge, we may be setting ourselves up for a worse problem than a pilot shortage in the short/medium term for a long term problem of a potentially weak cohort in our operational and leadership roles of the Air Force. Just the two RMOs of a grumpy old man.

I think @matmacwc would have liked this bit of history, this is something that was right about the AF: The Army’s only air to air kill since WWII was done with a .50 cal in Vietnam From the article and showing the best traditions of the Air Force: However, two legends of USAF combat aviation in Vietnam were more than happy to initiate him- then-Colonels Robin Olds and Daniel “Chappie” James, known affectionately as “Blackman and Robin.” “I actually knew both of them,” Lee recalled warmly. “Colonel Olds would meet me on the flight line and pick me, and only me, up and take me up to the debrief room. He would have a case of Bud iced down and I would give him targets that I had been working on in Laos the week before. So he was not a stranger. He was a very warm and personable man. I respected him and he knew it. I was not afraid to just sit and talk to him.” Upon hearing of Lee’s hushed victory, the two Colonels demanded a celebration.