[Super Tucano for SEALs]

Trust me, there is no AFSOC FAC(A). There are plenty of platforms acting as TAC(A), but no one in AFSOC has the FAC(A) qual.

Maybe I didn't understand where you were coming from. Let me give my perspective. I believe this should be a SOF owned gig for several reasons:

1. The snake eaters want a SOF owned light CAS platform that will fly day or night. That's the point of this thread.

2. We should be building the future combat aviation advisors in-house. We can't teach other countries how to do forward-firing CAS (drop bombs) because AFSOC doesn't currently do that. Right now, we have to beg ACC to let some of its CAS qualified instructors join AFSOC. Communities don't normally let their instructors go.

3. We should be training SOF JTACS with SOF aircraft. Habitual training relationships are inherent to SOF.

[Super Tucano for SEALs]

Agree 100%. I'm not sure the rest of the Big Blue AF sees it this way (i.e. we appear to be from the same MAJCOM that generally is more low-intensity/ground-warfare focused). We don't want to be constantly fighting small fires to the point where we don't prepare for the hypothetical "big one," but at the same time it doesn't make sense to send the firefighters on a training exercise when the house is burning down...

Very true and TQ's quote about getting stuff we don't want all the time is accurate as well. I think the reason the F-22 has gotten so much more attention is because of the pricetag and because the administration has made it a high-vis item and an example of defense acquisitions reform.

I still vote for the fleet of Tucanos/AT-6/OV-XX COIN aircraft instead of 1 or 2 more F-22s since it means A) more impact on the battle right now, and B) more cockpits for dudes to sit in down the line

Hey bro, AFSOC needs to get out of this "we are better than you" mentality. Everyone cries foul when they see the Raptor procurement and O&M costs, but riddle me this. How much does a new U-Model Gunship cost? What does it cost to maintain one? Sure, we're not trying to buy 187 Gunships, but we've got to move past this "AFSOC is so much better than ACC" b@llsh@t! Do you think AFSOC leadership cares about a light strike platform when they want to buy the next generation gunship, the talon replacement, or to continue to get the CV-22 fielded. Every General has priorities and they don't normally match up with what the Captains think should be happening.

The reason AFSOC won't be flying a Super T anytime soon is because of the Talon and Gunship mafias in AFSOC that are afraid some of the fighter jocks from ACC will make the switch and start taking away some of their glory. The boys on the ground were asking for FAC(A)s back in 2002, but AFSOC did not answer the call and won't. The recommendation to the SOCOM commander was that this is not a SOF specific platform or mission so there is no need to use SOCOM money for it. That's why the Navy had to ask the Air Force (ACC) to help them pay for it for the Navy SOF guys. Sarcasm: Isn't AFSOC the SOF air arm?

To make matters worse, ACC is peforming a land grab to prevent them from being accused of not supporting the war effort. The ACC commander says that light strike is not an AFSOC mission. Further, all the BRAC'd A-10 units are frothing at the mouth over the possibility of getting back in the ground attack game. In case you didn't know, all the BRAC'd A-10 units are ACC gained.

Don't be blinded by what you think the AFSOC mission is. Sure, the bros flying the line are dedicated to hacking the mission, but that doesn't mean that the leadership has the same mindset. If leadership was as dedicated to the mission as they say they are, if they really thought of us as part of SOF, they would uphold the SOF truths. The running joke in my unit is, "how many of the SOF truths did you break today?"

Bottom line: no matter how much the Captains say we need this to be AFSOC owned, it won't be because of tribalism and parochialism on both sides of ACC and AFSOC. The Air Force, ACC, and AFSOC will continue to be viewed by the other services as more concerned about buying the latest greatest toy instead of doing what needs to be done to support the dudes getting shot at on the ground.

[RDTM]

I appreciate the info so far. What happens if mine is blank? I've been qualified in two MWS's since graduating from UPT.

[RDTM]

In reference to my SURF, I don't know what this acronym stands for, or what it is for. Any ideas?

[All these Class A's]

****NOT INTENDED TO PERTAIN TO ANY PARTICULAR INCIDENT****

I believe the military aviation community is too focused on hours/experience. We need to focus more on currency and proficiency. Just because I've got 690 combat hours in the last twelve months doesn't mean I can go out and fight-tank-fight. That 690 hours where I was flying circles on the auto-pilot hasn't prepared me for the rigors of stateside training. How many times do you guys rush to complete your semi-annual currencies just so you can deploy? How many are rushed to complete said currencies so they can attend a Red Flag, start an upgrade, take baby leave, etc, etc, etc. The absolute best is a crew airplane where the IPs rarely get to put their hands on the controls, but are logging off currencies because they observed their students perform the act. They don't have time for any CT because their so busy pushing studs.

Thoughts?

[TAMI 21 and AFSOC]

Have you guys heard the same rumors I have about ACC taking some of the TAMI guys back in the next couple of years?

[Retiring Eagles, Vipers and Hogs]

From Inside Defense:

Air Force Plans Massive, Early F-15, F-16 Retirements to Save $3.4 Billion

Oct. 14, 2008 -- The Air Force is planning dramatic cuts to its fighter force in fiscal year 2010 in an attempt to find $3.4 billion to bolster other combat aircraft, munitions inventories, ISR and manpower efforts, InsideDefense.com has learned.

In all, the service plans to retire 137 F-15s, 177 F-16s and nine A-10s in FY-10, according to internal Pentagon documents detailing the stand-down of Air Force jets in the 2010 program objective memorandum (POM). Pentagon acquisition chief John Young initialed the Aug. 27 document, which covers all of the services’ future program and budget plans, on Oct. 3, indicating he had reviewed it.

In all, more than 300 fighters will head to the boneyard. The number of jets being retired is significant, considering a typical fighter squadron is made up of between 18 and 26 aircraft, depending on the platform. It is unknown how this decision will impact the current size of fighter squadrons or whether those units will be decommissioned.

The document, obtained by InsideDefense.com, was compiled to answer Young’s questions about the services' POMs, which were turned in to the Office of the Secretary of Defense in August.

“There is some near-term (FY-10-14) risk taken by this move,” the document states, summing up the earlier-than-expected retirements of the F-15s, F-16s and A-10s. “However, our analysis shows the FY-10 POM smaller but modernized fighter force, when coupled with a robust bomber fleet, can effectively bridge the gap until the F-35 can be produced in required numbers (ramping to 110) and the F-22 can be modified to a common configuration.

“Without accelerating these retirements, we are left with a larger, less-capable force unable to penetrate anti-access environments,” it adds. “We must take advantage of this window of opportunity now to be better postured in the future.”

Senior Air Force officials have said they plan to increase F-35 Lightning II production over the next five years to address a potential fighter gap.

The retirements represent accelerations of seven years in the case of the F-15, six years for the F-16 and 11 years for the A-10, according to the document. The early retirement of the Eagles is expected to save the air service $2.2 billion, the Vipers $1.1 billion and the Warthogs $.1 billion.

“With these dollars, we funded required legacy modifications, manpower, munitions, and [Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] enablers that allow the smaller force structure to fight an MCO [major combat operation] threat with reasonable risk as we bridge to a 5th-generation enabled force,” the document states.

Specifically, that money will fuel a major push to modernize the Air Force's bombers and remaining fourth-generation fighters. Funding will also go toward increasing manpower to cover a new nuclear-specific B-52 bomber rotational squadron, RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial system expansion, air operation center staffing and air sovereignty alert missions, according to the document.

In addition, the money saved through the retirements will go toward the funding of a number of munitions-related research-and-development efforts, including AIM-120, Small Diameter Bomb Increment II, the maritime version of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, the Massive Ordinance Penetrator and a hard-target and void-sensing fuse, the document states. Also funded are procurement of Joint Direct Attack Munition kits, AIM-9X missiles, AIM-120 missiles and Small Diameter Bombs.

The Air Force also plans to fund intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance “enablers” including terminal attack controller vehicle communications systems, GPS anti-jam systems and a joint electronic warfare database. -- Marcus Weisgerber

Discuss.

Edited to title correctly.

[Esophageal issues]

I've been flying on active duty for 4 years and this has been an issue for at least the last two. It took me having the Hemilich performed on me for my wife to insist I see the doc. My doctor and I suspect that I have a chronic esophogeal stricture due to chronic acid reflux. Even after treatment, will this disqualify me for continued flying duties?