Majestik Møøse

Hey I’m with you there. “Smart Chaff” is a good idea which you guys demo’d years ago. What I take exception to is “autonomous wingmen” that will need more sensor awareness than their manned F-35 flight leads. Sounds expensive and redundant. More manned jets, bigger/smarter AAMs.

Why? We have dogfighting, disposable, supersonic UASs right now called AMRAAMs. You want separate, subsonic UASs to launch them? Why not just more F-35s? We’ve already designed those, and they can “autonomously” execute an entire mission

Yes. This study cited by the Wikipedia links above says 375. Maybe it’s wrong, maybe our definitions of “several” vary. It also says only 2100 helos were shot down in Vietnam, so who the fuck knows. Either way, my original point stands. Pilot losses aren’t as damaging to the Army as they are to the Air Force. https://vtol.org/files/dmfile/rotorcraftSafetyPaper1.pdf

What has your research on the subject turned up so far?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan

No, I personally don’t think you’re disposable. I respect the hell out of helo guys. My guess above is that the Army historically views helo drivers as more disposable than the Air Force does. Several hundred helicopters lost in Afghanistan; 5600 in Vietnam. The AF saw similar Vietnam losses (2200) and started a lot of work (to include the Weapons School) to Fix the problem. My perception is that the Army didn’t do as much because aviation isn’t what their leadership cares the most about. They can accept obscene helicopter losses more than the AF can accept obscene fighter losses. Thus they care even less about retaining their pilots and don’t want to pay them more.

This is really the root cause. Helicopters are a “nice to have” for the Army; their leadership comes from infantry and would never admit they need aviation to win a force-on-force conflict. Raptor pilots, on the other hand, are no shit required for America to win a war vs a peer enemy. Obscene helicopter losses are sustainable; fighter jet losses aren’t. Air Force leadership knows that, but for whatever reason doesn’t have the political clout or will to articulate this in a Joint environment or publicly in front of Congress.

The Army thinks that pilots are more expendable than the Air Force does, right or wrong.

No.

He’s got a DFC. Story behind it?

Why don’t we start with not requiring military members to pay federal and state income tax? That’s an easy pay increase across the board with no perceptible reduction in tax revenue.

Hey Sewer Rat...aw, fuck it.

Ah shit, didn’t read that it was RT before clicking. Sorry to give them a page view.

Best description: after spending 2 years flying T-38s in Northern California he gets to decide whether he’d like to pursue a U-2 assignment or some other path in life. CTP-only guys have a lot of street cred amongst the U-2 bros and are fully supported in whatever they want to do afterwards, especially if they want to try out for the U-2. They still have to complete the traditional interview process, but they’re all great pilots and already have the community’s respect. Maybe Huggy knows of a CTP a guy that didn’t get hired from a U-2 interview; if it’s ever happened it would’ve been many moons ago.

https://youtu.be/0cn58iVuzBY

Protip: view in YouTube app/website so you can use the subtitle function. That dude’s Bay Area standard-issue voice is hard to listen to. The subtitles are spot on though, so it’s easy to see where YouTube’s algorithm learns its words.

No one thinks that. No lock is unpickable, but you sure as hell want one on your door.

Do congressional delegations get tax free when they visit a combat zone?

Google definition of weapon: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest. Definition 2 is why an aircraft without Definition 1 Weapons are considered Weapons Systems and have Weapons Instructors.

Air Force pilots aren’t Marine pilots. Marines have the rifleman-centric view bred into them. We’ve got a huge cultural divide between shooters and airlift/tankers in our service. There are a few gung-ho types in the MAF, but 10x more that are way more into good deals and airline prep. Which is absolutely fine, because there’s plenty of work to do for them right now without adding munitions into the mix. Hercs would be the only plausible option because other people have already paid to dev the hardware.

Does this work using full version Acrobat (the kind on AF computers)? https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/how-to/convert-word-excel-paper-pdf-forms.html?set=acrobat--fundamentals--pdf-forms

No no, let’s talk around it! If the classification guide says particular capes are unclass, then we can aggregate all those capes here and discuss their employment and weaknesses!

I always thought the Navy used little tankers because big ones don’t fit on the boat, and if the boat used jets that didn’t fit on the boat, they’d have a hard time justifying a boat altogether.

It’s the most relevant buzzword, though. A bureaucracy full of old GSs is a real problem for national security.

Where do you suspect these individuals are posting their propaganda?