tac airlifter

There are a finite number of people available and they are burned out, this further tasks them. Personal opinion only. Still not apparent to me. And the "100" number is a bit misleading since a minimum of x5 that number are going for support and logistics. All of which comes from somewhere else. And since we're all maxed on hours and doing 1:1 dwell, to plus up here we subtract somewhere else.

You're smarter than this response indicates. I know AQAP wasn't the point of sending troops to Uganda. My point exactly. We should be utilizing scant resources to win fights with enemies intent on doing us harm before we start some shit with a random group indifferent to our national interests. Apparently that isn't apparent to me, hence the disagreeing nature of my response. Copy, although the PI ops are in fact happening ISO fighting an AQ offshoot so not the best example. If the LRA in Uganda is threatening our interests, please explain how. You got me there. I saw an opportunity to point out the absurdity of the GWOT--> OCO name change and took it. Nothing has changed except the acronym on my OPR. You can support POTUS policies while still joining in my amusement at the irony of our Nobel Peace prize winning CINC who ran on a "change" platform who has, in fact, changed nothing but the name of our wars.

Fuck the DoS. Those pussies should stay in their lane. Good thing we have people willing to sacrafice and go out there to kick ass.

Copy, Nigeria is sort of western Africa. Hence "Nigeria I see a possible connection." As for the LRA, the group specifically named in and around Uganda-- there's no connection to AQAP, and I'm qualified to make that statement. And since we're no longer in a "global war on terrorism" per POTUS direction, it seems odd to me we'd start some shit with a terrorist group which has never been a threat to us. If we're going to get into a brawl with every terrorist group out there just for being terrorist assholes (which I'm fine with BTW) then let's continue the Bush policy and I'll call it the GWOT again. If you think they are a threat or may be in the future ergo they should be struck now, then by all means let's have POTUS explain why we should implement preemptive war and I'll bask in the irony. If we want to focus our limited resources on the threat, lets go kill al shabab in Somalia and finish off AQAP/AQEA... you know I'm game. I'm all for killing people bad guys simply because they're bad, once we can afford to divert our resources and attention away from dudes actually trying to kill my wife and kids.

Terrorism is real in several places, but western africa is not at the top of our list. Nigeria I see the possible connection, but Uganda? It's a waste of resources. Additionally, the group specifically named is the LRA; they practice a mystic brand of animism & christianity. Not at all in danger of linking w/ AQAP and certainly no threat to the US.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Is that an internal payload or with external mounts? I recall seeing a picture of one with hard points. Thought it was a joke at the time. Any idea of how much they can carry or is that privledged info?

Forgive my ignorance; is there an A/G mod of F-22 out there? I thought it was an air to air player only. And BQ, having been all over the third world, including present location, there are plenty of >7K runways. I've never seen STOL used, or been somewhere it was required. Anything is possile in the future, but cost exceeds benefit for that capability in my opinion.

Yup. Someone needs to go fuck them up. I'm game.

Maybe you did horrible on your checkride and they are helping you out with another chance.

Great post man, thanks. I'm totally ignorant of the entire funding process so that helped. Seems like everywhere I look good people are gaming the rules to get the mission accomplished inside a bureaucracy.

His point is still valid.

Valid, but in a squadron full of CSO's some bright dude will find a way & share it with the rest of us non-brainiacs. Thats why we have R&D.

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.