tac airlifter

Yup. Getting 0-6 OG/CC approval to add an extra copilot to a line or another 150 lbs of gas if one person drops off, then being lectured about what a poor planner you are when these things happen, those are reasons people leave the job.

First all female -130 crew in combat was 2005 out of OKAS, so I don't think it was very recent. AC was smokin hot, Co wasn't bad either.

Holy shit dude, my only point originally is that airpower is fighting in some places where US ground forces are not. I'm not trying to dip into the 'supported vs. supporting' battle; obviously we are there only to support the dude on the ground in OEF/OIF and I'm proud of it. But there is no US dude on the ground in Libya and a few other spots (both historically and currently) so from a US perspective those wars are an air show and we should be proud of that too; it's cool we can help our bro's in OEF and also cool we can have an effect on our own elsewhere. The whole conversation turned towards the chaff after that, which is probably my fault and unfortunately my ignoring it didn't make it stop. Let's just leave this alone, not the point here at all and who gives a fuck anyway? Supported vs. supporting is an ego black hole, I care about killing the enemy and winning. Back to the topic, our problem is twofold. First, leadership that cares about stuff other than the mission at the expense of the mission. I don't have an issue with uniform regs, except when they become elevated to the level of 3-1 knowledge. When the CC is coded UP on the orders but seems to know exactly how high my zipper should be zipped, he's a tool and unfit to command. Several people have expressed that essential truth in different ways. Secondly and perhaps more important, a broken promotion/evaluation system that frequently puts those types in charge; who then metastasize by promoting those who embrace their philosophy.

Great first post! I see nothing wrong with your comments, perhaps if you expressed this to your class they'd be more amicable. Good luck at UPT.

Is that the kind of stuff he said? I've been hearing rumblings but I'm not around HRT right now.

I agree with most of your post, but I think this particular statement significantly downplays the role and usefulness of airpower. There are places in the world where the GWOT (or OCO for you new school types) consists of multiple air assets working together and killing terrorists with little or no US presence on the ground. In the past I know air advocates have made a similar mistake- assuming ground forces are outdated and any war can be prosecuted and won by air dominance alone. OIF/OEF proved just how wrong and ignorant this mindset was. Unfortunately I've now seen a trend in the opposite direction where Army guys are absolutely certain air is a support function only; but they are usually not read in on places we're at war where they aren't. In the end we are all just tools for violence, and depending on the particulars of the game you might want air/ground or air alone. Really can't imagine a scenario where you'd ever want ground alone without air support. Ergo, I don't think your generalization above is correct. Edit to add "ergo" which is a fun word I enjoy using.

I'm Ron Burgundy?

That's valid. Notice I specifically said "at some point it's in the collective interest of our force to use those qualified bodies in a manner which contributes and eases the load everyone else has been carrying." I'm not smart on this issue and I'll defer to guys who are. And beerman, maybe these dudes are already carrying their share of the short taskers and then some, I don't know and I'm not pretending to. My point is only that AT SOME POINT it doesn't make sense to have and entire community sitting when they could be flying or deploying. What that point is I don't know because as previously stated, I don't know the issue itself; whats' your opinion on how long they wait? Or do you think these guys should be waiting on broke aircraft indefinitely?

I was told at a meeting here at Hurlburt recently that the change was made so we (flight suit wearing types) match people wearing the ABU, who are wearing tan shirts and green boots because it "looks sharper with those colors and that pattern." Also was told eventual plan is to phase out tan boots downrange completely, and have green boots be the only color we wear. Follow up question- are we really taking care of our people by making every airmen shell out $ to trade out their entire stash of black shirts for tan ones just so we can look better aestetically? Answer: bullshit dodge about officers having plenty of money. Another fun comment about the switch from black boots to green "you guys weren't shining them and it looked awful, so you should be thanking us for the switch to green suede you don't have to shine." We're issued black boots that don't shine, by the way.

I agree. Senior military leadership was ridiculously stingy with these awards for several years. Glad to see the reins loosened, and guys who deserve them can actually get them.

Project Liberty? Maybe picking up some of the short tours to Iraq being forced onto squadrons already heavily deployed? Maybe there are good reasons to have entire squadrons full of rated pilots sitting around waiting, but at some point it's in the collective interest of our force to use those qualified bodies in a manner which contributes and eases the load everyone else has been carrying.

I'm inclined to agree with the above. Otherwise they'll be able to keep everyone beyond our commitment simply by giving us orders to a new airframe. I don't necessarily want to get out, but I certainly don't want to be forced to stay in past my initial 10; and this seems to be a backdoor method of forcing members to stay.

Looks like they posted it. Well played.

Is this a -38 thing? I got a form 8 from T-44's. Maybe the Navy does it differently, but I just looked in my 942.

Concur! Enough digging wells and building girls schools; good on the dudes doing PRT duty, but COIN has not and will not win the fight alone (maybe ever). Past time to loosen the leash and focus on 'kill' instead of 'capture.' to the fallen!

Except you aren't in combat sir, you are simply a REMF at OKAS. Those of us in combat will respectfully decline your offer to augment our warrior spirit with shameful frolicking.

Anyone have any good fiction recommendations in the military aviation genre besides Clancy? I'm enjoying our list, but starting to get burned out on history.

The sexual tension with us and china has been a slow boil for decades; time to fuck and get it over with.

I'm in!

Dude, I quit wearing my blues on commercial flights 9 years ago. But it's nice I'm finally "legal" to blow off another gay rule.

I thought it was a chick with a gnarly calloused clit.

Not ture, I personally know x2 11S who made the list of 157.

I think you may be right. If that happens there will be a ledgendary bender at my squadron which has more hard booze than any bar I've ever seen. Edit to add: probably an epic AF wide bender.

Those pictures would be a good response if I were a herbivore, but I'm not. I've yet to work with a fighter who has the level of SA that a gunship or Apache brings, although strike eagles often come close and they are the users #1 choice if we're forced to use fast movers. I'll pass on the rest of this debate because there is simply no way to have it on the internet as this is not an appropriate forum to share my experiences. Suffice to say I am firmly convinced that two average guys with great CRM will out-perform one above average guy 9 times out of 10; couple that with an aircraft who has more than 1+30 playtime (or 0+30 for -16s) and you've got a serious asset.

Bringing ground CC's up is a huge benefit and has really helped how we integrate with their operations. Having their boss sit next to you and see his guys from our perspective has gone a long ways towards developing TTPs and trust in the relationship. I'll also add that I've yet to see a single seat aircraft as capable as a multiseat aircraft. There is simply too much going on for one person to keep track; I've witnessed so many epic fails of dudes with one seat and one sensor and 1-3 radios thinking he can manage more than he can, or, whats worse, thinking what he has access to is the only piece that matters and needs managing. 2 seats is a minimum, and personally I'd prefer the other guy not be a pilot since pilots all like doing pilot stuff and that last thing we need is two people focusing on the same instruments. Back seater needs to be a CSO/WSO.