FlyinGrunt

Sounds like Cannon to me . . . as we speak.

That was actually spit-out-my-whiskey funny. As evidenced by the fact that I had to proofread my post 6-9 times. Props!

They won't look like that, bro. And we shouldn't want them to, in that job.

I think you missed his point, di1630 . . .

Can't argue with that one a bit . . .

I know plenty of FAIPs in gunships. If there is any pushback on that, it's from AFPC, not us.

That is the best RPA idea I have ever heard. Bravo, sir.

Yeah. And the lack of training shows when they get to the 19/551. Whoever thought trying to teach a new CP to fly a plane . . . without flying a plane . . . is a blithering idiot. Yes, I'm looking at you, AMC leadership. And you, AETC morons who implemented it.

Yep. Phase I only, i.e. single ship airland, no formation, assaults, NVG landings, etc etc. And that goes for the W now too.

Umm, provided that he got a U-boat? If you're in the OTHER boat(W), after LR you'll go to CVS for BQ/MQ at the 551st, which takes about the same amount of time once you start. They're REALLY backed up though, so YMMV. Then across the flightline to the 16th. Same as hispeed said otherwise.

Yup. Hispeed, an update for you: while historically, you have been correct (leaving the 4th for other airframes didn't happen), that has completely reversed in the last 3 years. LOTS of people to the H and W (H is now gone, of course), and some to the U-28, and I even know one that went to CV-22s. So for the UPT folks, as said before: I'd prioritize the AC-130 mission vs MC-130 mission, not the U/W/J/H variants for each. If you can't live without low level, don't go gunships. Our flying is real boring until it's time to shoot the guns/fire z missiles/bombs/etc. If you want to kill things, do. And if getting sent to Cannon would put you on a suicide watch, don't come to AFSOC. I don't mean to be flippant; I hate Clovis as much as the next guy. It's just that right now, leadership is huge on sending people there, for both good and bad reasons. If you've got any more questions, you can PM me. Like many on this thread, I have experience at HRT and CVS in multiple gunship platforms.

But you're missing the genius of what Buddha just laid out: it might actually happen, since it preserves the downrange empires. The O-6s and up get to keep their coveted number of people under their control, and the required work gets done, AND if something ever does kick off, those organizations are already stood up. Buddha, having done a few deployed staff gigs . . . kudos. I think, were an O-7 or up to propose it, that your idea would help solve the problem. Hell, people might actually volunteer, just for the career cachet.

Hercster, I have had a similar experience in the gunship world, though perhaps (IDK?) with more hours involved. I would equate the slick J differences up front/performance to the legacy/PSP differences in the gunpig world, though I do not pretend to lecture you about your own community there. The question is: do you understand the mission, and how to manage it? If so, I'm with with MooseAg, press for that J and volunteer for everything. If you're a good AC and encourage your crew's inputs on systems, I can't imagine why you wouldn't be successful.

Seriously? Women not capable of physical violence? First of all, my personal experience in coed combatives lead me to believe that women were capable . . . perhaps not physically, but do you know the "killer instinct" look? The look you see in an opponent, knowing that they genuinely desired to cause you harm and pain? The most intense look in a lifetime of violent sports, barfighting and combatives training that I've ever experienced was . . . a 110 pound woman. I had the physical advantage, but drop a knife in the ring and I had full confidence she would stab me in the eye laughing. Same thing applies to a number of historical examples, mostly in the USSR . . . the Night Witches, female Soviet snipers, etc. Modern war is about more than the ability to inflict damage with your fists. Perhaps women may not be as well suited as men for, say, SEALs, but that doesn't preclude their ability to kill.

H++ gunship. Interesting, even the most avid opponents of the 105 I've heard don't try that one. We need to get away from the zero sum game: "mine is perfect, yours is useless." On both sides. Sadly, as much as I hate it, I have to say that this is the biggest improvement made in all the forced crossflow between the platforms: getting a bunch of gunship guys who can have a semi-unbiased discussion about this stuff, and realizing there's a different tool for every job. In the meantime, most of us just end up looking like assholes arguing this shit in public.

Yeah, not to mention that the article in question drastically overstates the capes of ANY SDB variant. Unless they decided to mount a rocket engine on it, for instance, I dispute its claims regarding "fast-moving vehicles." As previously stated, while the tri-mode seeker is certainly a gnarly piece of gear, there are a ton of ways to get the job done otherwise on a number of platforms. And the author's claim regarding the munitions self-targeting, with the aircraft "firing blind", is absolutely absurd with today's CIVCAS and CDE concerns, not to mention dual-use buildings, vehicles, etc. Unless we're talking no-joke WWIII, that claim is pure sensationalism.

I once took his granddaughter to a formal. She mentioned him once in passing, and then I went and looked him up - what a legend! Couldn't believe I'd never heard of him before that.

Think you may want to remove Napoleon and the Romans from that list, Tank . . . in the case of the former,about 3000 miles of Russia separated the French from Afghanistan, and in the case of the latter, there were these folks called the Parthians . . . more than a few Roman consuls and generals met their end trying to budge those guys.

I am a gunship guy, with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I just read his paper. Here's my take: 1. SOCOM leadership has decided, and continues to decide, that capturing/killing high value enemies has a huge impact on the enemy's ability to kill Americans. 2. America's best SOF units execute that mission. As callous as it may sound, it is exponentially more difficult to replace an experienced SOF operator than your average 18-year-old soldier/marine. There are NEVER enough gunships to support everyone, as much as I wish there were. 3. As much as I LOVE killing bad guys, Seifert misses the entire point of what he was doing. An AC-130's presence usually DOES make sure the enemy doesn't attack, just like he suggests. That is likely precisely the desired effect the GFC wants! He's going in to c/k a HVI, not kill 50 teenage insurgents. This article, for those familiar with SOF operations in the past wars, is a keen example of not understanding anything at the operational and strategic levels of war. There was a time when we measured "winning" simply by the number of enemy killed. That was Vietnam. How did that one turn out?

Godspeed.

Heck, I bought a keg for a Wednesday. Why wait for the weekend?

sqwatch has a point. I'm absurdly cynical, and as much as I want to say that there is a problem across the board with senior leadership and hypocrisy/ethics/self-promotion and general stupidity, put yourself in the CSAF's shoes. Is he not facing the same problem CGOs and FGOs face every day when questioned about 1 or incidents at the squadron level? 1's a fluke, 2's a trend, so we must all be treated like children since we ALL have a problem? That having been said, it's time to fix the problem at the CSAF level the same way it should be handled at the squadron level. Full investigations, protections for IG and legal processes (and complainants/defendants/plaintiffs), and then when all is discovered, heads should roll if allegations are corroborated. After the heads roll, release all that is releasable, talk about what happened, and then outline what action was taken and why. CSAF has a rep as a stand up guy who's willing to answer a direct question with a direct answer. Here in yet another scandal he has a chance to prove "we've got some bad apples. We investigated fully and took care of the problem. Moving on . . " I think that would answer the mail to Congress, and it would improve morale by orders of magnitude. Airmen don't want to be coddled, and those that do should have their attitudes fixed. But all airmen, from E-1 to O-10, have a right to fair treatment. The perception that fairness and justice, however harsh, is not the ethical standard in the Air Force is one that must be corrected, even if it's going to look bloody. Exhibit 1: Malmstrom AFB, past 6-9 months.

<sigh> because a normal, 2-sided civil war was just too simple. Now we've got ISIS vs the Shia vs moderate Sunni vs Kurds vs Maliki. Is it too early to initiate the 1258 plan and call it quits? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Baghdad_(1258) "Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow . . ." In all seriousness, this is hugely bad juju. Here's hoping cooler heads prevail, find a golden parachute to put Maliki out to pasture, and we get on with coopting the desperate ISIS-by-necessity folks while obliterating the rest through superior firepower. The broader chess match in the Middle East is just getting started, and if we can play to our strengths via local allied forces it will be a huge rebuttal to recent policy fumbles. 1. Even if we work with Iran and the IRGC to stabilize Iraq, I think we win in the end. America looks less like an imperialist power and one more willing to work, even with its rivals, in the name of stability and human rights - even as a lot of F/A-XX rain hate. 2. A stable Iraq helps stabilize Syria (or at least denies its use to the Iranian/Saudi/Turkish fighting the proxy war that makes us look less and relevant in the region.) 3. As much as we'd like to cut ties and call it a day, the Middle East is still the battleground for the Salafis/AQ/whatever. Allowing this scum to achieve their #1 strategic objective (read: re-establishing the Caliphate) will have far-reaching impacts on America's ability to defend its allies and interests worldwide (i.e., you couldn't even stop the scumbags that Assad pushed out of Syria? How do you expect to defeat Tsar Vladimir the First? Or China's new maritime imperialist agenda?)

I do hope that you're talking about the people ON base. I would describe the majority of the population of Clovis as mobile roadblocks . . .

I would reshingle all of downtown Minneapolis, naked, in January, and then run an ultramarathon through the Sinai in July for the privilege of murdering these lunatics. "It's their country" be damned . . . some things need to get purged from the gene pool from the barrel of a gun. To whom much is given, much is expected. I can't volunteer to put anyone's neck on the line but my own, but this stuff . . . yeah. Give me any CAS platform still flyable, and I'll do it for free.