New T-6 Paint Scheme

[Guest FCI]

My squadron CC had his class picture at PIT in front of the new grey and black schemed plane. The final shade of grey will be similar to the light grey on the T-38's and it will have black on top of the cowling (like it does now) and on the leading edges of the wings. It looks pretty cool. He said AETC is still deciding the final shade but it should be approved and on the T-6's in the next year.

[Guest Milamber]

Funny, I just saw one landing earlier today.

[Guest Piperpilot2004]

FC1-when were you in PIT? I thought I saw a T-6 the other day but it was hard to tell since it was kinda far away..

[ 10. May 2005, 19:53: Message edited by: Piperpilot2004 ]

[Guest Apollo]

Doesn't the Air Force have better ways to spend

their money than changing paint schemes all the

time? Why didn't they make up their minds in the

first place?

No, this isn't a moan.. just an observation. I

mean, alot of the T-6s' coats are probably still

wet. If it is a retroactive thing, I'll laugh.

[Guest HueyPilot]

I agree that the repainting of the training fleet is likely unnecessary...I see no operational reason to repaint a trainer into a *glossy* low-vis scheme.

As for the reds and oranges the Navy likes to use...other than up close, I don't find that it enhances visibility much. But I would imagine that an all white airplane is probably easier to maintain than some darker grey or black paint scheme.

Bottom line...probably a waste of money, serves no purpose, and makes the jets harder to see overall, especially in a pattern.

[KennyB]

Wrong again my friend... someone got a star for the 'great' idea to repaint AETC. You didn't think it was totally for nothing, did you?

[Guest HueyPilot]

Ha Ha....don't we all know how/why things get done in the AF?

[Murph]

Originally posted by HueyPilot:

As for the reds and oranges the Navy likes to use...other than up close, I don't find that it enhances visibility much. But I would imagine that an all white airplane is probably easier to maintain than some darker grey or black paint scheme.

I think it's because an orange/white aircraft will most likely be seen first in a SAR scenario out of the water.

[Guest FCI]

The Air Force's push to the new tactical grey scheme on its trainers is there to give FAIPs and students alike, that MWS feel.

[KennyB]

Now that's a reason! Vetter, what do you think about that?

[HerkDerka]

The higher ups have the money to:

1) Repaint the BRAND NEW T-6s.

2) "Beautify" bases.

3) Produce yet another Foglesong commercial.

4) Develop a "distictive" yet completely useless uniform.

5) Design a brand spanking new rank insignia for the CMSGT of the AF.

Meanwhile:

1) Herks being used to fight the war are sitting on the ramp with busted wing boxes.

2) F-15s are having problem with their empennages.

3) Soldiers drive unarmored humvees.

4) Every 135 model is falling apart.

5) Soldiers are going to combat without body armor.

Bravo to the brass! You definitely are leaving your mark...a skidmark.

Makes me sick.

HD

[ 11. May 2005, 07:20: Message edited by: HercDriver24 ]

[HercDude]

HD,

Next time you stop in to Alpha Sierra, check out the other usefull stuff the AF is spending money on while your birds at home go restricted:

1) a webcam in the chow hall (oh sorry I mean DFAC) with live feeds to the PCs on the LAN

2) a waterfall/sculpture in front of the FP squadron

3) air conditioned trailers for the TCN escorts (but not for the maintainers on the line!)

[Scooter14]

Someone's gotta get rid of this "different pots of money" bullshit so we can use shoe clerk funds to accomplish the mission. It's amazing what we spend money on "just because." I think I have about 7 pairs of long underwear in my basement that I never wear, because Life Support at my last base kept giving them to us. Web Cams, blackberries, oooh, new toys! They should read the Gadgets thread, then they could really go crazy.

The old BDU's ain't broke, but the planes are, so let's fix the BDU's first. Service before self, my ass. Someone's getting promoted while MX is busting their ass trying to keep these pigs flying. It will get even better now they cut everyone's flight hours to pay for stuff. I don't know about other aircraft, but -135's love to sit on the ramp for days on end with a heavy fuel load. They won't leak or anything, and will be ready to go when you kick the tires and light the fires (sarcasm).

At least the F/A-22 will be easy to maintain when we have 3 bases left, since we needed to close them all to pay for it.

Rant switch - off

[Guest Remy1492]

HD! hahah oh man, yeah howabout a defensive system that isnt over its shelf life! what a riot!

But really, if they would make the new T6 schemes like a D-Day P-51, I'd be all over that! woot woot!

Money......so much drama over it all, who has it, who doesnt, where it goes.

And we get shot at

I need one of my 3 beers now!

[Eeyore]

Yes, our Senior leadership has once again missed the mark. However, what about our elected leaders who seem to stuff endless pork in the Defense bills for studying the mating habits of the common fruit fly. Our AF leaders are emulating what it takes to move forward to a higher level at the cost of readiness. In my 24 years of active AF service this is the norm not the exception.

[Bishop]

Im curious to see some pics of this if anyone knows where I could. I definitely liek the original white and black T-1's though

[Guest HueyPilot]

The white paint jobs were BORING and the it represented the mark of a non-operational flying assignment...BUT, the white paint jobs were cheap, served a purpose and made sense.

Again, this opens the door for rants about why our squadron can't afford a flat-screen plasma to display our flying schedule, yet Finance has three that do nothing but say "Welcome to Finance!" all over their office.

We've got money to field-test Old Navy-colored BDU uniforms, yet we can't come up with money to fix broken jets. SF guys (Security Forces, not special forces) all get issued the latest and greatest toys like fancy $200 knives, etc, yet my squadron can't afford to get new guys a basic $120 David Clark headset.

[HerkDerka]

Speaking of plasma screens, here's a funny one.

Setup:

Back on my Tweet cross country, I had a total electrical faliure and had to RON at Amarillo (Friday). The IP called back to squadron and they said they would not pay for a rental car to get us back to Vance. Then we had to bunk up in the same room also to save money.

The MRT came out on Monday and fixed the jet. We took it up to test it out and it worked fine, so we landed to prepare for the leg back. On takeoff, the voltage regulator failed again and we RONed yet again. On Tuesday the squadron finally relented and let us rent a car and take it to OKC. However, we had to get picked up by base trans for the ride back to Enid.

The Story:

The next day that I show up in the squadron. They have three new $10,000 plasma flat screen mounted on the wall. One to display the airlfield status, the weather channel, and the current IR picutre.

Gotta love it.

HD

[Guest HueyPilot]

All airplanes are required to be repainted every so often...just keeps corrosion down. But paint costs vary, and if you notice, most operations that run on a budget paint their aircraft white, for a number of reasons. First, white paint is cheap, second it's easy to maintain, and third, it is easier on the airplanes (reflects heat instead of absorbing it).

Finally...these are friggin' trainers...having a paint job that provided some kind of visibility rather than something designed to make them disappear would be NICE!

[Guest aerd]

Originally posted by HercDriver24:

Meanwhile:

3) Soldiers drive unarmored humvees.

5) Soldiers are going to combat without body armor.

Bravo to the brass! You definitely are leaving your mark...a skidmark.

Makes me sick.

HD

actually, those aren't exactly true. Although some humvees ARE unarmoured- it's for a good reason. The armour on the humvees really only protects the soldiers from small arms. And those are not killing the soldiers. The problem is the roadside bombs, RPGs, etc... and when those impact a humvee WITH armour, it actually creates worse damage; all that armour breaks up and becomes shrapnel, injuring everyone worse than if there had NOT been armour on the vehicle.

And, in fact, they are putting armour on all the humvees, to many of the soldiers' dismay.

About the body armour- That's not true either. That complaint from that mother on the news... Her son failed to tell her that the reservists get the body armour when they get to where they're going; they switch with the guys leaving.

The news is REALLY unaccurate sometimes.

[Guest Milamber]

The news is always fair and accurate-

Their facts ALWAYS support their conclusions.

Plus the stations here have cool sounds and graphics that make up for the complete lack of any substance.

[Carpetbagger]

Amen Huey! There is a reason why they call it "tactical grey." It is much harder for the human eye to distinguish shades of gray against a sky back ground. These higher ups trying to get promoted by painting pretty aircraft have obviously never been beak to beak with a VFR bugsmasher flying on an IFR altitude. "Let's make our student pilots with 50 hours of cessna time disappear into the sky with our multi-million dollar airplane, while we dress our force is some ridiculous blue outfit with absolutely no tactical capability. Can I have my star now?"

[Guest KoolKat]

Originally posted by aerd:

The problem is the roadside bombs, RPGs, etc... and when those impact a humvee WITH armour, it actually creates worse damage; all that armour breaks up and becomes shrapnel, injuring everyone worse than if there had NOT been armour on the vehicle.

Although this isn't the purpose of this thread...

From a lethality/vulnerability point of view, I don't think this is true. An air blast that can turn the armour into shrapnel, would easily cause fatalities and dramatic incapacitation to personnel in an unarmoured vehicle.

The armour is not helpful for a relatively close IED, however many detonations are from a number of feet away...I would rather have the armour.

Like was said, some are, some still aren't...as far as I'm concerned, you're more than welcome to the unarmoured ones.

[ 14. May 2005, 23:22: Message edited by: KoolKat ]

[Guest Raccoon]

Originally posted by aerd:

they are putting armour on all the humvees, to many of the soldiers' dismay.

On October 13, 19 soldiers from a US supply unit in Iraq refused to drive seven unarmoured fuel tankers along roads to areas near Baghdad where resistance attacks on convoys are almost a daily occurrence. According to the wife of one of the soldiers, the troops viewed the orders as a “suicide mission”.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct2004/muty-o18.shtml

Yep, I'm sure they all hate it...

[HerkDerka]

Aerd-

Your point is noted. If you think I'm so wrong, please feel free to go take a ride in an unarmored humvee between Fallujah and Ramadi. Being that an armored humvess have absolutely no chance against an IED, what's the point. See what I'm getting at? You seem to have missed the essensce of my post, so I'll spell it out:

THE MILITARY WASTES MONEY THAT COULD BE USED FOR BETTER PURPOSES.

Any questions?

HD

[ 16. May 2005, 03:20: Message edited by: HercDriver24 ]