brwwg&b

Fly them over manned. QF-16 is optionally manned currently.

Beats me. Certainly lots of smart ways to utilize them as you pointed out. QF-16 already exists so at least a portion of the mechanics are figured out. Airborne control, via whatever means I think is being somewhat explored in the "loyal wingman" realm. I always just worry that these good ideas get so distorted in practice and don't end up matching original intent. Plus alot of fighter pilot egos get crushed if they don't have the sensibility to realize risking $'s is always better than risking American (or other) lives

https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/us-navy-flies-two-ea-18g-growlers-autonomously-third-growler-used-as-controller/136532.article Navy turns Growler into drone, flies 2 unmanned controlled from a third manned

Also it's pretty shortsighted to judge an airplane on appearance solely

There are a bunch of Latin American nations who still employ the A-37B in their Air Forces, unless I'm missing something?

Meanwhile, some CAF flying squadron commanders are now non O-5s ... no doubt qualified, likely with a line number to O-5, but it speaks to the straits we're entering. It used to be rare to see a Maj DO, then common... just saying it's setting a trendline

No idea how they're really planning to implement it, but I would think the true advantage of the Valkyrie would be moot if you planned on just dragging it on your wing to a merge.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30333/air-forces-xq-58a-valkyrie-drone-suffers-damage-after-third-flight-test Might get some delay due to damage on their third test flight "High surface winds and a malfunction of the vehicle’s provisional flight test recovery system resulted in a mishap," 550lb payload would be enough for 3x of Raytheon's newly touted Peregrine missile (~150lb each), or something comparable. I doubt being subsonic really hurts it from a tactical perspective.

I don't place blame solely on human endeavors or natural, knowing there's likely a combined effect vs a glaring root cause. I'm more interested in whether any outcome is controllable / preventable and how massive an effect it will have, whether left unchecked or not. I agree. I don't think her role is significant in presenting the data, but more so in the means of inspiring other (especially young) people to get behind a cause larger than their own personal self-interest, or how many likes they can get on their latest instagram post to satisfy some dopamine thirst. If it inspires people to do some research about the (many) environmental problems which exist, and as you pointed out there are certainly tangible undeniable ones, and to contribute to their solution, then all the better.

While everyone is up in arms over the medium, no one has really attacked the message. Who benefits most from climate change being denied? Who suffers most? Is data being manipulated one way or another to sway "beliefs" about this? For the visual types: https://climate.nasa.gov/

Slackline, I'm with you. Amazing how people are quick to attack a child vs being impressed by the conviction present and taking the suggestion to educate themselves on the matter. How many others (age irrelevant) would sail themselves across an ocean to pursue one's motivations? If I had a commander who sounded half as interested in something bigger than themselves vs just CYA mentality, it would solve alot of problems...

I haven't totally kept up with how classes are being divvied out or if its a static or fluid class these days, but... Looks like (for the US guys) 4-5 T-1 and 8-9 T-38 students (not sure what track the T-6 FAIP guy is from) is that normal? i.e. what % of guys through T-38s in your average class these days? Holloman better buckle up with these kinds of numbers. No wonder they're looking to cut the syllabus shorter there

To be fair, the T38C doesn't really offer much over the T38A in regards to shaping a student to be prepared for anything beyond a Vietnam era fighter. Also, why would an article entitled "...Reshaping How the Air Force Trains Fighter Aviators" be a surprise that it's an advertisement for the T-X?

This. This. A thousand times this. Belongs in "why the AF is f*&#ed" thread. I've considered myself lucky anytime I've had leadership I feel comfortable being open and honest with (i.e. no reprisal for my sharing information about my personal/family career desires and goals), and it's certainly been the exception and not the norm. When you win the lottery with a commander you are able to be honest with, without exception, it is a drastically different feeling (empowerment) and the system can work SO WELL. Sadly it's not common.

2, my understanding is the same as nsplayr mentions This is one way in which the BRS is lacking (/advantage goes to the government). Especially given that the airman may want to adjust monthly contributions in order to maximize yearly investment in response to deployment / tax free areas, based on either attempting to maximize tax exempt input into TSP, or utilizing the ability to invest above and beyond the annual elective deferral limit. In each of those instances, you will miss out on government matching vs. if you had spread the contributions over all pay periods of the year. Caveat : I am not a finance wizard

Maybe at Sheppard. Nowhere else. To do so would mean increasing PIT syllabus to teach everyone who isn't versed in those skills how to do so. Hint: it already got removed from the syllabus years ago because people were washing out of PIT for it. Kinder, gentler...at this rate even the future instructors will just be told to punch out of a plane that has an engine hiccup. YGBSM Next bright idea will probably be a paper airplane book and then direct to F-22

Precisely

Caveat that I'm not 100% sure what's up with the external CFS issues. However, I could certainly see someone flying in this proposed config and ending up with either smoke and fumes leading to use of OBOGS or just (since the actual cause is still undetermined) getting hypoxia symptoms off of engine bleed air which is being fed into the cockpit as part of the pressurization system. Maybe they are afraid to punch out without a mask to help protect their face from burning shards of glass, or maybe they are just making poor decisions based on just being hypoxic (Ace of Spades...Ace of Spades...) So, they decide to try to the land the thing and end up porking it away due to lack of available instruments (smoke & fumes) combined with weather, or just lack of athleticism/experience (hmm...this IS the first USAF aircraft most people will fly solo) say they land short/long/sideways or just roll off the runway and stick with it. Even if the pilot is conscious at this point to try to egress themselves, they're again driven to use the CFS which will result in severe face-mangling without any mask to protect. Worse, they could be unconscious and (from the sounds of the current MX status?) the fire crews will have to resort to the axe to get them out. Standby, yeah people do dumb stuff on their own time and put themselves in risky situations. For your example, the difference is most people will choose to actually ride a bike that is fully functional. The similarity is that the most dangerous thing in both scenarios is the other people on the road, or the leadership in the T-6 scenario, who are making stupid decisions which impact your life. And at least on the motorcycle you get a vote of how to react. Hopefully anyone uncomfortable enough with the situation in T-6 land has the balls to realize they have a vote. But will the student with 6-9 hours who doesn't have any better clue really have the airmanship to do so? Or will they just accept whatever the USAF hands them and trust it's in their best interest, not realizing it's just a Band-Aid fix of the USAF in order to preserve the USAF's timeline interests? Especially for a young eager aviator who just wants a chance to fly. They don't have the SA to realize the risk. They have to trust what their IP's tell them, and if the IP's hands are tied, and they are forced to fly...well, bottom line is it falls in line with AF's desire to produce but not retain

What do you propose? Burkas?

MacDill would be great...it's almost like we've done that before... BRAC almost took the base out completely. Noise complaints and civil traffic killed it for F-16s years ago

I heard it was IFS straight to F-35 WIC?

This. Honestly the AETC info is a pretty good look into how they are looking at fixing their portion of the problem. Sounds like they're willing to "break the mold" and looking at implications greater than 6-9 months down the road, so kudos to them for that. As flyusaf83 said though, the real transparency we are all looking for is into the AF's post-AETC portion of the overall master plan. 1. Ok, you've produced a bunch of pilots. Do we have an ability to train them (MAF/CAF/AFSOC) and absorb them? i.e. do we have a plan for how to distribute them? ala not flooding the FTU's or ops squadrons. The thought process of circa 2012 AFPC isn't going to cut the mustard here. This needs to be a deliberate plan to maximize efficiency. 2. Retention. We've said it here 1,000 times. Some efforts are being made in the stride of Talent Marketplace (we will see how that turns out), but beyond that it seems that all of the major QoL concerns we have are not being addressed. Again, some transparency of the plan (IF THERE IS ONE) would help calm everyone's nerves. In the absence of it, we just have to buck up and wait. As an aside - some interesting proposals in the AETC brief. Some of the base/UPT/IFF/OA-X reallocation they are hinting at sounds like to me a consideration for moving T-6s back to Moody (straight to OA-X pipeline, A-29s already there, international/ALP program students) and possibly T-38 IFF as well, to make room for T-X IFF. Also there was a consideration in there to put some students through an Italian UPT/IFF. Wondering if there's any thoughts to opening more exchanges for LIMEX pilots to help absorption. We've seen it already with the F-18 and MCAS F-35 exchanges, possible for more international ones as well?

(No Manchester) I'd take an assignment at Columbus to go soul crush this idiot

So Whitman and Kenny have both proven that they need to be put in time out...

http://thehilltalk.com/2015/07/08/f-16-air-force-jet-collides-private-plane-charleston-sc/ This references the WG/CC stating the F-16 was at 2,000-3,000'...completely normal considering the FAF altitude is 1600' and MSA is 3100'...gotta go with Kenny on this one. Even if they don't *normally* vector them out to Monck's Corner, it could've been a busy day for the controller, or potentially the viper was exiting Gamecock MOA essentially on a base leg and was descended to 2-3K'...not sure why Whitman finds this mind-numbingly impossible.