Hawg15
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Hawg15
-
-
9 hours ago, SurelySerious said:
APKWS is where it’s at.
Depends on the intent of the strike. It’s a good weapon to carry, but has plenty of limitations that make it a poor primary. If there’s important dudes in a soft vehicle that need to die, I wouldn’t take one over a mav or hellfire. I’ve seen dudes get out of the back seat and walk away after putting one through a windshield. It can even land directly next to someone and do nothing but scare the shit out of them based on where it impacts in relation to its direction of flight. If the intent is to break contact for a SOF team in a TIC, then you want big booms and good guns. I’d also want WPs for marking/giving a reference to guys on the ground. It’s great for pax/motos/soft vics you have the time to track though.
-
6 hours ago, Danger41 said:
Just an FYI for the masses, the “Armed Overwatch” program is different from the “Light Attack” program. The Light Attack experiment with the A-29, AT-6, etc is done and is not simply being continued into Armed Overwatch. The analysis of several proposals is taking place now.
Now that’s not ammo for Tank to get out of the scotch bet. Just saying.
Copy, so we need a 21st century dedicated attack aircraft to replace the A-10, which is running out of hours on the airframe from being used so heavily. The JTARs show the guys on the ground want big guns and lots of ammo/weapons, aka AC-130s, A-10s, and attack helicopters. SOF dudes, and infantry in general, want a platform that they can feel safe having employ within 20m of them during a TIC. Which is ops tested plenty of times on our deployments.
My biggest issue with light attack is the requirements were unrealistic. You don’t get long loiter with tons of shit hanging off the jet and no AR unless you put tons of gas in it. You don’t get austere/short field capes with tons of gas or weapons hanging off it (I’ve seen A-10s sink up to the hubs in dirt from the weight of not being fully fueled and carrying some JDAMs, and digging them out was a bitch). Weapons in and of themselves require a lot more Mx and ground support from loading, arming, dearming, to just moving them around.
So what they want is dedicated attack aircraft. Build a modern single mission attack aircraft to fill the roles that A-10s currently perform (CAS, CSAR, FACA, etc), and make it AR from a boom or an MC-130s drogue.
-
14 minutes ago, theoriginalturk said:
For real though. Between this thread, the thread about whether or not your MWS affects your career opportunities, and the amount of fighter aircraft falling out of the sky, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
What will it take for RPAs to be taken seriously? Why were they bound by MTCR regulations so coalition partners couldn't have access to American products? I certainly do not know know.
If someone could lift the glass ceiling off RPAs that would be great.I don’t think RPAs aren’t taken seriously. They do a lot of work down range with superior sensors and good SA, and guys on the ground know that. I feel this is just the standard AFSOC trying to be extra special and turn themselves into their own independent branch of the Air Force. Talk to any guy on the ground and see what they actually want in the stack, it usually involves cannons, big guns, and 38s. JTACs usually want an RPA at the top, and many dudes have been saved by one loitering overhead watching them. I agree there should be much more focus on increasing bandwidth for them over acquiring new aircraft that can’t fight the big fight.
-
Well that’s interesting. If I was high speed and thought I didn’t have directional control in a lawn dart I’d probably punch too, especially when your bro just died 2 weeks ago. Those things roll over at like 6.9 knots/not being on pavement, whichever occurs first.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, fox two said:
Nah, just need another SII and safety video.
More backer to the basics. We’re gonna be so safe.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:
Be delegating responsibility to the squadrons. There is no reason for waivers or approvals to require an O-6 approval. Let Commanders be commanders, give them the power to run things the way they see fit, tell them the only reason to bother the O-6 is if they need something, and get rid of all the pointless meetings (most of which can be accomplished with an email).
Weird how the Navy/USMC can figure out a way to not have 6-9 middle men in every organization, and the squadron COMMANDER commands real authority, yet the Air Force thinks it is impossible.
We are such a bloated organization. It’s ridiculous how many random organizations there are that shouldn’t exist/be independent entities, and only exist to create another useless billet for “command.”
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Stitches said:
I have often heard that it's a fighter pilot's air force so I was curious to see if y'all thought certain MWS get overlooked for opportunities like exchange tours, promotions, etc. Or are some MWS favored for those kinds of things?
It is. US warfare is all about the troops on the ground, and the point of the Air Force is providing kinetic firepower to maintain air superiority and support them. It’s no different than the Marine Corps and Army prioritizing infantry and the Navy being run by surface warfare officers.
That being said, a pilot in general is on a better track than other officers, as they should be. It wont really affect anything promotion wise unless you want to have some stars. If you stay in long enough you’re almost guaranteed some random O-5 billet, it just may not be command.
But no one likes school or staff anyways. Doing your mission and sitting in the bar with your bros having a jack and coke is what makes being a pilot in any airframe great.
-
2 hours ago, YoungnDumb said:
Cue the "but they didn't fly T-38's in UPT" discussion/gripe fest...
I don’t think people would really care as long as they aren't going to fighters. T-38s don’t teach you how to be tactical, they teach you how to fly a fighter aircraft. I’d be more worried about letting the plethora of AMC Q3 everyone for dumb shit dbags into other communities than what they trained in.
Although I am against letting them in fighters, but its because its a negative return on investment for the fighter squadron. They will be a better pilots from a basic airmanship standpoint than new guys, but not typically in the tactical flying that makes up being a fighter pilot. I’ve seen FAIPs and crosstrain guys (from non fighters) flow through and they are rarely anymore proficient than the LTs at flying outside of the basics. One of the last few classes even had a 1,000hr + FAIP get washed out for tac admin stuff. Then, once they are out in ops, the squadron has a senior capt, in some cases a maj, who is a basic, inexperienced wingman, when I need one that is an IP for all the LTs and junior Capts that will actually remain in ops for the foreseeable future who are waiting for their 2flug, 4flug, FAC, Sandy 4-1, etc. A fighter crosstrain expedites the whole upgrade process significantly and has a much smaller impact.
-
6 hours ago, viper154 said:
What is the Scorpions dirt/short field ability? The powers that be want a aircraft that can land on on a short dirt strip, grab some gas/munitions and go. TOLD would have to be in the PC-12/C-208 range for it to be a player. From some info I got it seems this is a primary factor/requirement to the powers that be. Who knows if this project is ever going to actually happen, but I’m guessing if it does it’s going to be a prop.
IMO that is what kills the light attack altogether if short, unprepared runways is a necessity. The impact of just hardpoints alone on performance is significant, it’s a huge impact when adding bombs and different sorts of pods. The drag hurts even more than the weight. Even jets that have tons of power compared to the hawg feel the struggle when they are heavy and it’s hot on takeoffs. You either will require something that’s in the realm of an actual fighter to get off the ground with some 38s, or sacrifice having a payload that makes you relevant. And if we are talking two engine aircraft that will have SERC requirements here then you can just forget about it.
It sounds like they need a helicopter, not fixed wing. If all they want is apkws duct tape that shit onto some U-28s.
-
2 hours ago, SPAWNmaster said:
Did you guys actually read the article? They just put in stipulations for the withdrawal, which for the most part appear to be reasonable. Always set performance gates, if you hit them you get a cookie. If you don’t, then you hook the ride. Aside from the partisan headline not sure what the issue is here.
There is no measurable or attainable stipulations for withdrawal in their proposal. It’s just a vague “it can’t threaten us” that will be used to oppose anyone who tries to stop sending our kids to die in a pointless conflict that started before they were even born and accomplishes nothing. Anyone who actually supports troops in Afghanistan is part of the problem in our government and military. There isn’t a good reason to be there, or a good outcome, Russia and now the US has proven that.
-
8
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Ch33s3 said:
CBM 20-17/18
Are they just not having a lot of 38 studs right now, or are they back to fing them over with the heavies that T-1s don’t want?
-
Go all in with pilot. It’s a bunch of nonners telling you this BS. If you’re not a DO or CC, you are a pilot first, not an officer. I don’t give a shit how well you write an MFR, I care how well you can kill the enemy that’s threatening the dudes on the ground, how efficiently you can AR the assets that need to get back to the fight, etc. If you’re not spending at least 50% of your work day on becoming a better pilot you are wrong. The nonners are officers first, your job is to actively participate in the fight, not manage those who do.
-
1
-
-
How am I supposed to get at least 69% of my pee in a bag while flying and sitting down with a 2 piece, wearing a g suit, and a harness? Do they zip up more than normal pants?
-
3 hours ago, Breckey said:
From what I read/remember there were issues with the G-suit and the belt.
Yeah, the last thing I want is to fly an 8 hour sortie with the G-suit jamming the belt and all the weird buttons And extra fabric into me all awkwardly. So to speak.
-
34 minutes ago, Danger41 said:
If you read his definition of what he considers BFM (maneuvering to a WEZ to employ) and the context of this thread (safety vice relevance of training), then why is control zone BFM given so much time and effort? Because of the mechanics and broad spectrum of skills it teaches. Same argument for continuing form approaches and landings.
BFM teaches broad spectrum of skills and has been directly used in recent combat. Saying the last instance of BFM was a guns kill in Vietnam is complete bullshit. That’s more my issue. We have AETC warriors who have spent their whole career there and are decades disconnected with ops. Then they spread this BS to students and kill their interest in flying fighters because they have no understanding of any fighter community.
I never said scores of people have died doing them, I said that mishaps, some which involve fatalities, have and will continue to happen for no value to the end user from them (the CAF). It’s not 1970 where we are fine with crashing aircraft on a monthly basis, and AETC T-38s as a whole haven’t been doing too hot.
-
9 hours ago, di1630 said:
Now if dudes want to argue “turning” in relation to another aircraft is BFM, that’s an entirely different thread and I’m happy to engage.
I tend to believe that BFM is maneuvering to a WEZ to employ.
When I was in the MERV I had to turn in relation to a Syrian jet, I didn’t consider it anything other than Deconfliction.
Does a F-18 v SU-24 engagement cut it as justification for the combat importance of BFM? I’d argue no.
Last real turning I know of was in GW1 with Eagles v a Fulcrum and that was semi legit but 30 yrs ago.
Oh and I’m 100% for practicing BFM. I’ll never emphasize it like some advocate but the skills learned in BFM go FAR beyond training to employ weapons.It’s evident you haven’t seen the HUD tape, and don’t know of what went on in Syria. I doubt you’re going to find any fighter pilot actually doing the job from this century who will agree with you that merging with aircraft and maneuvering isn’t BFM. I also wasn’t aware you could take min range missile shots and not have maneuvered yourself into a WEZ.
Maneuver in relation to the bandit is like one of the key aspects of BFM gospel, written everywhere, that is recited like a cult by air to air guys.
-
17 minutes ago, di1630 said:
Interesting statement.
If I said F-16’s shouldn’t practice BFM because the risk of a collision far outweighs the likelihood that it will see BFM based on history and future trends, what would you argue?
Keep in mind last USAF gun kill was 1975.
Isn’t it essentially the same? Form landings haven’t been needed in many years and probably won’t be in the future.
I’d argue that you need to watch the Navy F-18-Syrian Su engagement, and really learn anything about what ops were like in Syria. BFM isn’t just going for guns, and ROE often requires a visual identification and signaling on guard/headbutt before engaging. Getting close to, merging, and even shooting down not so friendly aircraft has been an occurrence in the very recent past.
Now, while fun to do, I have never seen a legit necessity of a form landing.
-
2
-
-
We have plenty of VFR departures and recoveries. Some MOAs require IFR due to how center manages them and they can get temperamental if you show up VFR. The range complex is VFR. Standard recovery isn’t typically initial, it’s a TRP. Other fighters do VR and IR routes, but that’s no something we do often. We typically just fly around the range at 100-300ft along a route we plan beforehand or on ingress.
-
I’d bet money it’s not the first mishap on a form landing or takeoff in the 38. I know a guy who punched out on a form takeoff. I don’t see how landing adds any benefit to the approach. It doesn’t help develop any skill I need in my wingman, and many fighter pilots much more experienced than a student, and most UPT instructors (who have 0 fighter experience) have died doing them. Including the IP at Vance who was experienced in super hornets, vipers, and the T-38. Did you know in many fighters we aren’t even allowed to do a touch and go? Your wheels don’t touch the ground until it’s your full stop. Now I don’t think we should stop them in the 38. On the topic of VFR, it’s how we do most of our flying, yet it was never done in UPT in more than 1 flight from what I remember.
-
We don’t even have a VOR in the A-10. If your SID/STAR only uses tacans then I can fly it, but I’m still going to say unable. A fighters GPS is made for weapons employment, not navigation. They can only hold a small number of navigation waypoints, and I can only edit the grids and names of the 50 mission waypoints.
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, Hacker said:
I'm still perplexed as to why people suddenly believe that formation landings are this massive risk.
Formation landings and takeoffs have always been considered a risk with pilots being against them as long as I’ve been in fighters. The Vance incident was just the perfect example of why. TRs are written in blood. It shouldn’t have to be a daily occurrence before it’s addressed.
Risk in our world has to be accepted for a purpose. There is no benefit in a form landing or takeoff to justify acceptIng the risks. I don’t want to be near someone if I lose an engine, have to punch off my stores, or punch out.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Close formation and form approaches are a skill worth practicing, especially in UPT when developing the basics of aircraft handling. It’s a skill you need to have, however, we don’t use it often in the A-10. Initial, occasionally having to get close during the BD check, and tanking are the only regular uses of it. The hawg is a large aircraft and route usually works fine for most things if wedge or combat trail is too far.
We can, but don’t, do formation takeoffs. They aren’t authorized with live weapons or different SCLs on the aircraft. If the weather is bad we do an instrument trail departure. We’ll stay in a travel formation until we break out of the weather. If we are in a visual tactical formation and there’s a weather deck to get through we’ll typically use some sort of deconfliction method such as sectors or blocks to descend or climb through it. If we don’t break out or require an instrument approach we’ll split.
-
23 minutes ago, Danger41 said:
You really don’t think that’s a skill you should have? Especially as an A-10 guy? The odds of anyone getting BDA and losing radios and/or Nav equipment and needing a formation letdown through the weather would be higher in your community than any other I would think.
And by your logic, why are you practicing BFM? I’m sure you’ve never done any no kidding BFM in combat. I bet you’ve strafed, maybe marked a few targets, and dropped PGM. However, I’m sure you’ve applied “BFM concepts” to a bunch of things. That is why I think form approaches are a good thing. Thoughts?
There’s a big difference between a form approach and a form landing. If I was dragging someone through the weather, or being dragged, it will be with them as far away from me as possible (preferably route), and only until the we break out of the weather. Then I’m going around, chase, or pushing them out to combat trail depending where we broke out. I wont be going anywhere near the flare, especially if any of the flight controls are disconnected or there is damage affecting controllability. If there’s nowhere to get through the weather and they are flying in man reversion then they aren’t getting anywhere near me on the wing. They are flying somewhere safe and punching out.
We don’t train for form takeoffs or landings. At the most you’ll do a form approach, but I can’t remember the last time I’ve talked to anyone that has done one. I don’t think there a reason to fly them below the DA/VDP.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:
SNAP
I wasn’t aware that wanting motivated young dudes in the squadron makes you a SNAP. Luckily very few of you old guys who think there’s a benefit to making someone’s life harder for no reason and positive reinforcement makes you a are left in the active duty. These are 21 year olds straight out of college, not WUGs. And somehow all these old ass O-6+ wonder why these kids don’t want to be pilots, especially fighter pilots.
-
1
-
AD UPT Unmanned pilot possibility?
in General Discussion
Posted
Guard/reserve is the way to go in my opinion. There is a lot of room for disappointment on the active side if you’re set in fighters and a specific mission set.
Also, if you want to do CAS, then you don’t want 35s or 22s. The 35 doesn’t really do CAS. You should be shooting for A-10s, Strikes, and Vipers if that mission is important to you. What comes to mind when you hear CAS is really only done by a small number of aircraft. The A-10 being the only fighter that is regularly strafing and spending time low altitude. Pointy noses like JDAMs, and watching a 35 try to strafe downrange was just hilarious. Side note: it didn’t work out well for them.