Clark Griswold

We had a terrible RAP requirement for inexperienced pilots in the GH back in the day but that had the side benefit though of forcing the hand of some of the daywalkers you mentioned. They had to show up to make RAP but they were able to get so fast out of the inexperienced column from previous MDS experience that It didn't have long enough to balance the work load. I'm dating myself but Lt Rasczak had it right Not a Guard RPA guy myself but know several, they seem happy enough with it and it is a growth business, manned aircraft units shouldn't be too high a mountain to climb too if you want to look at them also, know several people who left AD RPA to go Guard/Reserve manned aircraft. Just amazes me how the AF is so damn penny wise and pound foolish. The QOL initiatives they could do, legally-financially-logistically, are not that hard and they would stop the growth of this huge manning and I would say cultural problem in the service itself and in its already dented reputation to handle its business: Flight opportunities for 11Xs while serving in an RPA assignment, a good GA aircraft program could meet this. Balanced workload so an RPA assignment is not a roach motel where Airmen go in but civilians come out, several ways to address this. Objective reporting on OPRs of flight hours compared to peers would shame skeezers into pulling their weight. Some preference for follow on assignments for RPA volunteers, within reason but again just a matter of leadership prioritizing this. A commissioning program for enlisted SO, MX, etc... in the RPA program to provide an incentive for strong swimmers to jump in the pool. Limited return to AD for Guard / Reserve to fill shortfalls/surges, not that expensive and scalable as required. Rant complete.

Glad you have an escape route - it's not flying but it doesn't have to suck AF Sidenote: I proposed not allowing PCA until a pilot / so had 400 hours & 800 for a PCS - went over like a fart in church but they asked for suggestions...

Yup - we (Global Chicken) had several close calls from sleep deprivation (falling asleep driving home) years past when the schedule was fluid (diarrhea) due to last minute changes from golden boys finding something else to do rather than crew the shelter and dropping out at the last minute. It was mentioned earlier in the thread about RPA basing overseas and just my two cents but Poland has more than a few airbases near good cities, thinking Krakow-Balice Polish Air Base, couple that with PACAF basing for the other side of the clock and while it is driving droids, that is a helluva consolation prize.

It needed a nudge... I'll raise you one... Another hypothetical advanced Eagle, again in Japan's colors... Actually I'll change my vote... early concept eagle...

I don't think an entirely based peer review system would be appropriate but a portion of an overall score would be good, an issue that I thought of with this type of system would be the drive for a static close out date for all officer ranks ala the new EPR system. Everybody would be voting all the time as someone was coming up for an OPR at sometime and probably be detrimental to the process. Maybe it could work but it would drive further synchronization in PCS, static close out dates, etc... still putting the objective standards, relative standing based on the professional opinion of your peers and allowing commanders to have a say I think would be an improvement over the current model. Not perfect but nothing ever is. If only applied to RPA Line assignments, getting all the parts lined up and synched up could be done.

Not bad. Basically, the shoe clerk gets ahead by having data on their records that looks like some sort of objective evidence of important, effective efforts towards the mission of the Air Force but in reality is just massive queep generation / processing. Going to harder definitions of that data or some other objective measure, coupled with a peer ranking can prevent shoe clerks from helping shoe clerks and could start to turn the tide. If the stats that really matter are tied to systems or measures that are not as prone to manipulation, shoe clerks will have to pull their weight. Trying this in the RPA enterprise first given its fast growth, high operational tempo, low satisfaction ranking by members might be a way to "fix" the community. Can't change the fact that it is still driving droids but at least the buds in the squadron could get a better QOL by keeping that X percent that don't want to play unless there is only 5 seconds left on the clock in the whole game.

We did that too until a Lt Col Shoe Clerk at one of the aforementioned bullshit queep offices whined, the DO folded like an accordion and the shit list came down, disheartening but that was years ago. I imagine it is cyclical like most things, leadership changes and the shoe clerk level of infection ebbs and wanes, seems like from this and other threads that as some operations have grown, the RPA enterprise, being the discussed here, and as large part of it is done "deployed in garrison" the temptation for shoe clerks is to go there, have their records look operational but in reality they are Power Point and TMT warriors, the problem being that the billet they are in is supposed to be for an actual AF Line officer doing mission duties not queep. Gonking on this made me wonder if this could be a solution or at least mitigation technique: What about canned OPRs for certain assignments that are operational and need everyone on the field / max participation in the actual mission to keep the QOL as high as possible by everyone actually doing first the military mission they were trained to do then additional duties could be mention (if at all) in a one line, maybe two on the OPR? Bullets would be mainly pulled from data collected about the performance of the unit, generic in nature then following those the one or two bullets about how Capt X's expert yada yada process improvement saved the AF yada yada... The push line in the RPA OPR could be Hours-Sorties-TDY for LRE/LNO-Crew Position (AC/IP/EP) and that could be say 50% of a score with the other being 25% being peer ranking, 25% commander ranking = Capt X is 1 of 20. This would be a disincentive for rated guys to only fly once in a while thereby causing other aviators in their Wing to have suffer poor QOL because they want wings and flight pay but not have to actually do a lot of it. Would work in the MAF too as there were several offices I saw young but well connected Capt new ACs abscond off too only to deploy to Istres when it was convient for them while there dudes getting 250+ days in the desert on any given rolling 12 month look back... Just a thought, I'm all about going big and trying to get big changes to the AF but we may have to look for other smaller less stunning ways to defeat the evil of shoe clerkerism

That's it - also analogous to referenced bird in that they stand around squawking while simultaneously dropping turds everywhere

Ha - said non-flying aviators also called seagulls in other communities.

Delta Hotel You just stated what A1 knows but pretends they don't know or actually doesn't know, that as they don't deep dive into the manning situation: box checking careerist who go to RPA assignments soon after MQT find somewhere to be at the Wing other than in the ops squadron. I can't tell you how many "fast burners" I saw come, get their RPA stink on them, do some job with a fancy bullshit title, work bankers hours, breeze over and man the shelter only a Friday morning then disappear for another two weeks. On the Excel spreadsheet everything looks fine but in reality only a portion of the pilots actually fly the line, a real analysis would not just be 11Us or 18Xs in positions in the UMD at Base X it would also involve comparing flying hours/sorties each of those individuals in those positions actually do, put that on a graph and you will see a cluster of hideouts with low hours, probably rank in the O-4 range and a good chance of PCS'ing soon to a school slot or other special duty without doing much in their time at said RPA assignment to serve the community / do the mission... But I/m not cynical... not one bit... Saw this in my MAF time also but it was especially egregious in the RPA world..

More seaplane ideas for the venerable Herc, retractable floats with testing done on 1:6 RC models from Tigerfish Aviation in Australia. Thought this was another Stavatti but the company seems legit. Where do we send the check? http://www.tigerfishaviation.net/index.html

True - just didn't realize it was that bad McCain is trying to close the JPO for the F-35 and split responsibility to the USN & USAF SPOs - my bet is that will give the Navy freedom to curtail their buy Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just when things seemed to be going better you find out something shitty: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-35-stealth-fighters-dirty-little-secret-now-out-the-16211 Only about 20-25% parts commonality among the different models.

A1 only intercepts course at 90 degrees so about every 4-5 years we go from full scale right or left deflection, either force shaping or stop loss of some sort, even if they made you sign a 10+5 type of commitment I put the odds of the AF staying on that manpower course that long as quite low, more likely during your commitment they would offer a Palace Chaise or other option to cull the herd based on some tea leaves or other equally based reasoning...

True - but thinking about this, is he (next CSAF) willing to do what is really necessary to recover the jet. In order to affect the change needed, pretty much he's going to have change out if not the entire GO cadre in USAF, a helluva lot of them and get a SECAF willing to clean out the dead wood on his/her side also. Lower echelons also to some degree. We can come up with great proposals but until you get rid of the obstacles that just water it down till there's no punch nothing will happen... He will have to let a lot of his friends get a chance to get on board or get a pink slip...

I would start looking under the cushions in this jet.

Hmmm - maybe... More unrequited dreams as this is as close to a CL-130 as we'll get But here's the real deal - Japanese US-2 sales video:

Nice - that one has the jet ski STC. Very cool. China's new seaplane is coming together and will have a military mission in the SCS probably, we can not allow a seaplane gap... http://sputniknews.com/military/20150723/1024961315.ht http://www.inform.kz/eng/article/2799758 l

Not sure we're f'd but certainly some communities have been ridden hard and put up wet, no sarcasm or smartass comments as this is about real people's lives, families, careers and their well being. My sympathy is for those who bear the weight of piss poor head in the sand stubborn as a mule thinking a-holes who refuse to change with the times. Years ago at my first assignment right after 9-11, everyone was deployed all the time and between trips to the desert at home station the squadron was a ghost town but the training got done, the local flights happened and you got ready for your next trip. That was evidence enough that most non-mission day to day bs was just that bs that shoe clerks imposed for the imagined purpose of leadership development. Along with that, I remember an OG all call where he explained how the days of the garrison AF were gone and we were now an expeditionary AF. He may have believed that but the big shoe clerks sure as hell didn't and still don't and that is why the AF is in free fall. We are a force needed to be expeditionary in nature - lean, mission focused, not beholden only to the previous way of accomplishing the mission, open to new ideas and responsibilities and above all honest about what we do, how we do it and if that is working. It amazes me the level of self-delusion, rationalization and denial that senior leadership exhibits when most of these guys started their careers as officers in the flying world that would or should never let that happen. If a sortie went like shit, that was not swept under the rug; if someone was not cutting it in their crew position they were pulled from it for the sake of the mission - when did these formative lessons of honesty above all, even when it was uncomfortable and the ability to recognize the need for change and character to act on it get forgotten? Rant - Complete (P,CP).

Thread relight. Found some gems on the Herc on Water concept the USN researched in the 60's & 70's... http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=26090.0 and on the C-130 float plane pitched in the 90s: https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1996/1996%20-%202626.html We NEED a Float Plane Herc or Sea Plane Herc, this is a national security issue, trust me Congress, just fund it.

Probably but never say never or just say never. The B-1 went from cancellation in 77 to production and flying again in 83 in the form of the B model, a way different design than the A model.

Probably so - they just don't have enough margin to accommodate two 5th gens but Japan and Australia (outside NATO players) maybe due to their GDP and security situations, I would suggest trying to entice Germany or GB but that's probably a bridge too far for several reasons (political, economic, perceived requirements, existing systems, etc...) The key to off ramping to a lesser buy of 35s and restarting the 22 line is to keep it steady, un-dramatic, with no overall increase in cost to the AF (considering both programs per tail increase in cost of the 35 aside) and with plausible new / changes to the requirements driving the change in course (i.e. the Raptor B has X % increase in range, speed and X new capability therefore looking at the challenges we face from S-400s, J-20s, T-50s, etc... the B model acquisition with a smaller buy of 35As is now the Acquisition & Modernization Strategy of the AF...).

Since a we've been discussing FMS Raptors, Google coughed up a 2 seat F-22 concept in Aussie colors... this hypothetical would have looked better keeping the single piece canopy but still nice... We've already discussed the snowball's chance of a Raptor line restart, the small matter of the probable 10's of billions of dollars in production restart and update being a small hurdle to overcome but thinking out of the container, what if the DoD, USAF, LM & Congress could arrive at some set of capes from the A model Raptor, adjust as required to produce an acceptable B model Raptor cleared for export and then present that to foreign customers for them to fund Design, Test & Production Line Restart? The stated interested parties come up with the money for the B model design/development/testing, we come to an acceptable division of the production between LM/US suppliers and their defense companies; maybe just ceed the engines, wings, etc... and/or let them build 50% of the B model. The catch to this is if they are already an F-35 customer, they have to follow thru with that order, they could adjust delivery but not eventual purchase but allowing them to get B model Raptors first, probably retire other 4th gen in their fleets earlier to free up funds then get their 35's.

Can't deny the logic of that Out of all the ideas for restarting the Raptor line, I thought that his (Tyson Wetzel) were reasonable, not likely to happen but reasonable.

Concur Japan and Israel would have all their own issues but we've had Aussie exchange pilots already in the Raptor, if we want to make a Pacific Pivot this would put a ring on it. The trouble then is how to explain it to Japan / Israel when / if we sell it to the Aussies without screwing up those relationships. There are a lot of ways to make an export version fighter without completely spilling the beans, the Russians don't sell their absolute best stuff but still supply their allies with good capability. An export Raptor could have a support package controlled by Americans if we want to limit their access to deep technical details - I give that 0.069% chance of being accepted by foreign buyers but just an idea.