di1630

Any Shaw guys on here got any fallout news? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/us/women-in-air-force-say-sexual-misconduct-still-rampant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I witnessed it in 2006. Haven't heard much on it since then.

The USAF can't even outfit the A/G fighter with pods continuously.......how are they gonna get 177 for Eagles. Any 15C model guys know if/when this will happen? http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2012/10/air-force-f-15-upgrades-aim-double-service-life-102912w/

After seeing the airport pics and sectional @ http://www.airnav.com/airport/KTPF/ I am astounded that the pilots could have made that mistake unless there were some serious extenuating circumstances. Wow

Iron Eagle for Koreans http://www.hancinema.net/video-trailer-released-for-the-upcoming-korean-movie-r2b-return-to-base-45197.html

I think its more the fact that its not right to seek savings at the expense of the military when so many other programs "Welfare, food stamps, etc." programs are funded to many undeserving people. I have no problem taking cuts but they have to be prioritized and I damn well deserve my benefits more than some lazy SOB who would rather sit on a couch than take a job he/she consider beneath them,

"The Air Force really should put a blank space for institution next to the yes/no AAD box on the promotion forms." Why? Because a BS degree from TUI is any more useful in judging who should be promoted as the guy who gets a legit one. fist yourself

Why would this be swept under?

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/06/af-probes-f22-mishap-at-tyndall.html

Just playing devils advocate for discussion purposes. relax

This thread was tough to read. Whining>counterwhining, etc........ Listen RPAs don't get any glory because its not flashy. The only people who really know how important it is to be good ae the guys flying, sharing airspace and on the ground. But thats it. There is a reason that military commercials feautre badass (manned) jets, badass grunts/pjs/seals etc, big guns and top of the line technology. Because thats what impresses the idiot masses who have no clue about what is going on in combat. Same applies to our congressmen and senators. Either do your job for the $$ and self satisfaction or find another because nobody is going to start stroking RPA drivers egos anytime soon unless you can strap yourself to one, haul it to an airshow and make noise and do cobra maneuvers. Sorry RPA guys, you are bottom of the combat aircraft pyramid whether justitified or not. Cheer up, you get more respect than the space and missile guys.

Dudes took a stand, good on em, took some balz. If they don't want to fly it due to any reason, we got plenty of RPA places that could use some smart "superstar" pilots just like their OPRs said. But there are plenty of people who would sign on the line to fly one in their place. Sounds like the USAF is truely trying to figure it out. What if the jet is ok (flawed minorly), we just have fostered a generation of risk adverse fighter pilots?

The F-35 is a turd. looks good on PPT compared to legacy when the scenario is opposed AI with double digit SAMs. Will be a step back in CAS capes and any non BVR A/A engagement (They still do not have a way to carry Aim-9 without giving up stealth from what I hear since it must be mounted externally). Wait til a bird down the engine takes out the first $145M JSF. Another example of leadership failure on many levels from the politicians to the generals.

Here are the definitions of eligible. Hope it helps. Eligibility: Initial-eligible and uncommitted-eligible pilots are able to request and execute ACP agreements in FY12 just as they did in the FY11 program. Fighter WSOs completing their initial Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) ADSC are eligible. Also, CSOs who hold a 12U AFSC (RPA pilot) and meet the outlined criteria are eligible under the FY12 program. The FY12 program does not include eligibility provisions for Air Battle Managers (ABM) or non-RPA/ non-fighter CSOs. The eligibility requirements listed below will be detailed in the HQ/AFPC FY12 ACP Program Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM). Initial-Eligible Pilot Definition. Eligible for this option are those pilots who meet the following criteria: Initial-eligible pilots are those whose Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) expires in or before FY12 and/or who reach years of aviation service (YAS) equal to their UPT ADSC plus one year and one day in or before FY12, whichever occurs later. For example, if a pilot completes their ADSC for UPT in FY2012, but will not reach 11 YAS as a pilot until after FY2012 (i.e., due to temporary disqualification), then the pilot is ineligible for ACP in FY2012 under this option. Initial-Eligible Fighter WSO Definition. Eligible for this option are those Fighter WSOs who meet the following criteria: Initial-eligible WSOs are those whose Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for Undergraduate Combat Systems Officer Training (UCSOT) expires in or before FY12 and/or who reach years of aviation service (YAS) equal to their UCSOT ADSC plus one year and one day in or before FY12, whichever occurs later. For example, if a WSO completes their ADSC for UCSOT in FY2012, but will not reach 7 YAS as a CSO until after FY2012 (i.e., due to temporary disqualification), then the WSO is ineligible for ACP in FY2012 under this option. Fighter WSOs must hold a 12F AFSC. Uncommitted-Pilot and RPA CSO Eligibility Definition. Eligible for this option are those pilots and RPA CSOs who meet the following criteria: Lt Col or below, rated, not grounded (Note: Colonel (O-6) Selects are not eligible) Less than or equal to 12 years, 364 days TAFMS as of 30 Sep 12 and can enter into a 3-, 4- or 5-year contract (not to exceed 15 years, 364 days TAFMS) Never been under ACP contract or received ACP payment (based on records back to 1993) Inter-service Transfers (IST) and Permanent Recalls under the Voluntary Recall to Active Duty (VRAD) program are eligible only if their accession ADSC incurred as a result of the IST or VRAD has expired or will expire during FY12. Limited Recalls are not eligible. These officers will never be considered as “initial-eligible” officers. Completed UFT commitment (8 or 10 year ADSC for pilots and 6 years for CSOs) CSOs must hold a 12U AFSC (RPA Pilot) Agreement Types: Initial-Eligible Pilots: Initial eligible pilots (other than 11F/11U) will be offered one type of agreement with a 5-year ADSC at $25K per year, payable in equal annual installments. Initial-Eligible RPA and Fighter Pilots: Initial eligible RPA and Fighter pilots will be offered two types of agreements; one with a 5-year ADSC at $25K per year, payable in equal annual installments, or the option to take 50% of the value upfront and the remainder paid in annual installments. The first payment will be $62,500 and remaining payments will be $15,625 annually. Initial-Eligible fighter WSOs: 12F WSOs will be offered one type of agreement with a 5-year ADSC at $15K per year, payable in equal annual installments. CSO-Eligible: 12U CSOs will be offered an agreement with a 3-year, 4-year, or 5-year ADSC at $15K per year, payable in equal annual installments. Uncommitted-Eligible Pilots: Uncommitted eligible pilots will be offered an agreement with a 3-year, 4-year, or 5-year ADSC at $15K per year, payable in equal annual installments.

I have a set of DC that is 20 years old and still working great. I sent them to the passenger status and got 13.4's and they were a nice set but I finaly broke down and bought a set of LS Zulu's for the ability to bluetooth and I the overall comfort. I have not regretted the $$ spent at all. I wish I has just bought them in the first place veresus the 13.4's.

If the General leading the AIB had found Lockheed at fault, it probably would have jeopardized his high paying defense industry job when he retires.

Easy answer. 1. More t-38's guys will get fighters in a kneeejerk reaction to the numbers. 2. Fighter FTU's will not be ready to handle the extra people.....Students will enter an extended BIT status awaiting IFF/FTU. 3. More IFF slots will be needed, proposal to open up sq's at Laughlin/Vance for IFF leads to 1-star OPR bullets. 5. After 3 years of flailing, the numbers will start to match what this document wanted, but the AF will have changed due to budgets/requiements. 6. 4-star sends memo stating overproduction of fighter pilots, FTU sq's closed, IFF shut down. 7. T-38 guys sent to heavies. 8. clusterf-ck continues each 3-5 years due to lack of foresight and leadership.

CAS in Iraq or Afghanistan can and is done by any airframe that can sling a JDAM. What we need a solution for is "real" CAS on a linear battlefield where things might shoot back a bit more. The F-35 doesn't cut it. There is a reason A-1's and Hog's are the CAS platform of choice and it has nothing to do with speed or stealth. Its because they can carry a lot of ammo, loiter, take a beating and keep flying. An F-35 will never be capable of that type of CAS. It should be called what it is, not tried to be made into something else to sell more. Glad to read in AF times they'll have the helmet figured out in 2 years though and the night vision of the JSF will be as good as the goggs we currently have. Great investment.

Sure rockets are simple to integrate, go ahead, hang the pod, connect a wire or two and then hire the local computer store guru to write the software code for a hmcs reticle to aim the things. I'm sure it would be just as easy to put rx on the JSF as it was an O-1 or a hi-lux.

Where is your info on mav/rx and dumb bombs from? I went to the factory and was told by the engineers that it would not support mavs and rockets specifically. ......and the fvuvker is expensive. You'll loiter on 18K gas for longer but at $50K per hour vs 8K for a F-16. I'd rather have 4 Vipers than 1 JSF overhead.

Sure.....at 5x the cost per hour. The JSF is a turd. Looks awesome on PPT just like the designers want it to so they can sell them. I had a guy try to tell me it was needed for future high threat CAS. If that scenario happens, there will probably be actual armored tgts to shoot and we need a jet that carries more than 4 laser jdams and 250 rnds of 25MM and has 20 minutes loiter time. Mavericks....not supported. Dumb bombs....not supported. Rockets...not supported. Aim 9X.......has to be carried externally which means the A/A gameplan is 100% stealth and a gun backup for close in option. The program is a mess. Sweet technology but not ready yet and too expensive. Buy Block 60 Vipers, Streak Eagles and put an A-10 replacement on the board for 25 million a copy.

The F-15E is a great strike platform, the F-16 is strength in numbers at a low cost. We could argue all day on whether it is a marginal A/A and "real" CAS platform. It does do the T-bird demo well which we can all agree on. If you really think the USAF is getting 1,763 JSF's you should FF yourself for being so stupid. That was back when they were 40 million a copy 10 years ago. That program will get cut huge. Just like we once had 850+ F-22's on order.

Sure the Raptor is doing fine but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of good unfunded upgrades to their A/A mission that could be funded if they didn;t have to worry about A/G. Of course IADs are "TRAINED" against for worst case scenario. That doesn't negate the fact that if a low observable RPA can go in and do the job without risking a manned fighter, they'll send it first. The only reason they won't is if they need to prove the worth of the manned fighter in question (which I could see). I am not advocating RPA use over manned fighters, I just know that's the reality of it and the defense industry does too from the insiders I've talked to....which is why they are spending a ton of $$ developing these things before the military has even put out a requirement for them. They know the damn things will sell in the future.

I heard the complaints direct from guys flying and working on both projects about how tough it is to upgrade vs legacy fighter. You upgrade one system, due to the fusion, you gotta change a lot of things. The A/G mission does detract from A/A. Instead of getting A/A upgrades, they spend money on A/G upgrades. You really think they are going to send a manned fighter into complex IADs if a RPA can do it instead? I think my hypothesis holds weight.

F-22 uses Aim-9x since when? My point was that legacy fighters are easier to upgrade. Targeting pod outdated.....slap a new one on. JSF optics outdated....too damn bad, can't afford to replace all 6 cameras. I am not a drone proponenet. I am just saying that we will use them until proven we can't. Ff 5 years from now we need to bomb Iran and it is X-45 vs F-22.....the drone will go first. You are right, if someone can take down our link, we need manned airframes.