tac airlifter

Thanks for posting. I’d never read that. Interestingly, according to that guidance the “1/xx shop chief” strat is valid, while the primary strat AFSOC uses appears invalid. We use a YG (year group) strat method and think it’s the bees knees, but other MAJCOMs apparently have no idea what it is. The whole system is so dumb.

Sorry bro, that’s unfortunate news.

So you guys don't plug in the puck, you just pair it? I don’t even know how it would plug into an iPad. We’ve been flying with squadron issued iPads and squadron ForeFlight accounts paired via Bluetooth to a Bad Elf puck since 2013. Works great.

My squadron issues Bad Elf pucks for this exact purpose. It’s a Bluetooth pairing. Just enable Bluetooth on your iPad and sync the device. I much prefer it to stratus.

Totally irrelevant if the SQ/CC is an evaluator. Stan/Eval is a commanders program. in your situation, I’m guessing the Q3 was for “airmanship” or some other catch all which is intentionally vague to allow the SQ/CC the discretion to Q3 as he sees fit (or is ordered to by his leadership). Fighting that is extremely unlikely.

that’s just awesome

I don’t think killing Iranians is an appropriate level of response for them shooting down a robot. One of the advantages of RPAs is we can lose a few. Had they killed aircrew, let’s start collecting scalps. This is a perfect time to respond with non kinetic cyber options. Or non lethal kinetic options if those can be identified.

Good advice, although a bit ironic given your various posts of the past few hours.

Hosting someone to Q&A a thread is an interesting concept. We could do a reddit style AMA except over a few days so the responder has time to actually think about replies. Good idea! Unfortunately the rest of this post is less constructive. I gave you some feedback bro, take it or leave it. Cheers.

If your first statement is true, feel free to leave. If the second is true, does your posting style help? This site is a great tool to mentor and learn from others. I’ve received more help here than I have via any AF sponsored mechanism. My unsolicited feedback: you are needlessly confrontational and a braggart. Present yourself differently and I’m sure you have constructive contributions to make.

I didn’t know that B1s had deployed continuously to execute CAS missions since 2001. I thought there were years when they weren’t a player in the stack. I’ve only seen them on station a few times. Learn something new everyday. Regarding the OP, there are a surprising number of ground folks who think IR strobes can be seen by aircraft irrespective of frequency spectrum limitations. I think pre-deployment training isn’t as joint as it should be.

Has the B-1 been doing CAS continuously for 19 years?

Sounds like your words are important because they represent action. Doubt that would play well if every charge was always declined. The USAF is talk no action regarding QOL improvements. Don’t believe them.

Can you post the article? Link requires subscription. Thanks

Valid. He’ll just come back with another user name after this plays out predictably.

I understand you are passionate about your opinions. Reference the bolded section- If that were happening you’d see rescue prioritized. But it’s not common, so they aren’t. That’s reality of how it works, regardless of what “should” happen. I’m not defending short sightedness, just acknowledging human nature. Do you think the AF rescue community has appropriately adapted to maintain relevancy in low intensity conflicts which have defined our last several decades of war?

I hear versions of this often about a lot of AF mission sets. Money is a finite resource and priorities shift as situations change. That’s just life, and all communities must adapt to changing realities or be left behind.

I completely understand your viewpoint, just offering an alternate COA. Your highlighted section is accurate. Imagine how useful it would be if you crushed out 1206s on others. Again, I’m not throwing spears at you; I get your viewpoint and appreciate your candor. You will definitely get noticed by submitting awards on others. Bosses notice a 100% increase in submissions generated by a single individual, and that attention doesn’t have the same potential to turn sour that self-promotion carries. Just a thought. Either way good luck and I hope you get promoted, cheers.

FWIW, an FGO submitting themselves for OTQ/OTY awards would be a mark against them on any rack & stack I’m involved in. I understand the logic, and I think it’s good to keep a list of things you’ve done in case your boss asks for some bullets. However, what mission relevant task aren’t you doing while you spend time writing a 1206 for yourself? Which of your people aren’t you putting in for awards while you craft one on yourself? I understand that our shitty system makes self-promotion attractive, but it’s a foul and I actively discourage it. You want to get attention? Submit 4 x 1206s on other people every quarter for a year. Do one on someone you don’t supervise but notice doing an awesome job. Invest your time building other folks up. That will get you noticed positively. This isn’t a spear at Pawnman or anyone else. I get it. Just offering you some outside feedback on unintended consequences.

Don’t undersell yourself- you’d be most valuable not flying on a 365 to AUAB.

He’s not.

http://soldiersystems.net/2019/04/01/us-army-selects-bt-for-sub-compact-weapon/ B&T makes great guns, and I highly recommend them. Also hoping the AF follows the Army & gets a piece of this contract! It would be far more practical than an M4 in many circumstances.

What is the origin of a prohibition on aero club management discussion?

You’re 100% spot on. I spoke with Chief Wright recently and was underwhelmed. He genuinely believes that quote. Results don’t matter, only attitude. It’s based on the theory that a proper attitude will eventually produce results, but he can’t articulate that and within a bureaucracy lacking accountability the quote is correct on its surface. Gents, the USAF will not improve the way it treats people. It doesn’t care about you. They hear your comments, and don’t care enough to pay you better or change their policies. People on these forums are generally aircrew with a culture of caring about results. The Air Force does not care about your results and they don’t care that you care about results. They just want you to act happy and smile and have a thin waist, they do not care if you lose wars. The sooner you grasp the nature of our service culture the sooner you can be at peace with your decisions within it, or your decision to leave it.

The effect you’re predicting is the effect CSAF intended to create. Original complaint from SRs was that folks ID’d as school attendees at their board would stop working at the level which brought them there. They were made men; some even PCS’d and displaced strat plans by different SRs. Complaints about the previous system which precipitated this change were from WG/CCs. By reserving a sizable portion of school slots for 3rd look, CSAF ensures folks continue working for it and we’ve had more time to assess their potential for higher performance. Also, those selected are selected by their current WG commander, not someone else’s pick forced upon a new WG. By creating “DA” CSAF has preserved the process by which WG/CCs can posture their #1 pick for BPZ (which traditionally doesn’t go to a 3rd look member). Time will tell if it’s a good change or bad. I personally think no process tweaks can fix a fundamentally broken culture. However I understand the logic, agree in principal, and you can’t fault the man for trying. Cheers.