OverTQ Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Problem is, does that Army 0-6 know how to utilize those assets? I'm thinking not. Does any Squadron want to give two of its airplanes to the Army. Seems like a pretty hard sell to me. This is going to be out of the Squadrons hands. The details are being worked out at Scott right now. It is all part of the agreement worked out on giving the AF the C27J. Who is to say what the end product will look like, but the Scott seems to be trying to meet the Army intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwyn2d Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Well, the Army O-6 should somehow (not saying it IS this way, just an idea) make use of an AMLO to know what can/can't be done with USAF fixed-wing assets. Worst case, the USAF mission commander should be able to tell the O-6 what can/can't be done. Being a junior Officer (Hueypilot812) you may not see the slowly changing of the AF mindset in supporting the Ground Commander (GC). But then again, you do see all by virtue of being an C-130 EP. Comes with that position :o). If you want to put a time frame on the changes, I would say around 2005. That's when the ILO/JET assignments started to be common place. We have AF Enlisted casualties in Army units for years now. I wouldn't be surprised that we lost more Airman in Army units then AF flight crewmembers in Iraq/Afgan. Recently, AF Basic Training was increased to 8.5 weeks where at least a week is spent in a field environment with weapons (M-16). Then, the Sec AF and CoS were fired. And, the new CoS career in Special Ops is grounded in supporting the GC. That appointment wasn't made by mistake by Gates in kicking the fighter mafia to the curb. It sent out a powerful message to better support the (GC). More UAS and a new career field for non rated Officers hopefully dedicated in better supporting the GC mission. Next taking charge on the C-27J program and the new MC-12W mission in learning to better support the GC needs. The AF is even looking at acquiring 100 light attack aircraft for supporting the GC. Lastly, your new PT program. Oh, you guys are getting to look like Army more and more each day by being in better shape. Change always comes slowly for junior Officers and never fast enough but over the last 5 years the AF has made more strides in serving the Army and its mission than ever before. You being prior Army, you understand it took from 1947 to 1983 before the Army created an Aviation Branch. Then the Warrant Officer aviators had to wait until 2004 before being branched aviation. I bet some lowly Army CW2 aviator in the 1950s ask why there wasn't an Aviation Branch in his time and why the wait. Young AF Officers going through these recent policy changes now will make the necessary changes for the better in the future regarding Army support. I realize I'm not telling you anything new, just keep up with your PME and civilian education to be in a position to make those changes with future promotions. But, that will obviously take you out of the cockpit. I guess that's what an Officer is all about, making CHANGES. Change is in the air and even an old salt like me can see it. Just hang in there and take the point. You care in getting the job done RIGHT. Edited December 1, 2009 by alwyn2d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hueypilot812 Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Being a junior Officer (Hueypilot812) you may not see the slowly changing of the AF mindset in supporting the Ground Commander (GC) but it's in progress. Man, you really like to make a lot of assumptions, don't you? I'm a FGO, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwyn2d Posted December 1, 2009 Author Share Posted December 1, 2009 Man, you really like to make a lot of assumptions, don't you? I'm a FGO, by the way. It's about time the AF recognized the talents of a former Army aviator. The Thunderbirds had a former Army aviator in the 70s flying the #2 position. You guys are taking over. By the way, what is the rotation length for active C-130 crews down range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoHum Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 It's about time the AF recognized the talents of a former Army aviator. The Thunderbirds had a former Army aviator in the 70s flying the #2 position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverTQ Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 alwyn2d, let me guess. You are a warrant officer, probably retired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoo Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Sooooo...where's the C-27 schoolhouse gonna' be? Sorry, that's not this thread...wait...WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire4effect Posted December 1, 2009 Share Posted December 1, 2009 Two points. 1. If a Soldier or Marine needs the ammo and gear, lets get it to them. 2. When (not if) we tacon the C-27J to an Army unit, if that Army O-6 is being unrealistic, it is our job to show them what is possible/practical. In the end, those C-27Js will fly their asses off and those Army dudes will be thankful for it. I just wish we could expand the realm of this concept to Marine units as well. //sarcasm on// Oh wait, if a Marine wants supplies, he would have joined the Army //sarcasm off//. Out Simple and to the point. I agree totally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theat6bisasham Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Don't forget that the USAF's mission isn't centered around flying helo's and ferrying beans for the army. Lets get back to talking about putting bombs on target :) Eh? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrooster99 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 alwyn2d, let me guess. You are a warrant officer, probably retired? I'm betting you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwyn2d Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 (edited) Zrooster99 OverTQ You Guys are half right. Want to guess which one? Retired or a Chief Warrant Officer. Edited December 2, 2009 by alwyn2d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 CWO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brock Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Don't forget that the USAF's mission isn't centered around flying helo's and ferrying beans for the army. Lets get back to talking about putting bombs on target :) Eh? lol Really? That is about all they are doing. I won't get into the numbers , but I'd say most of the AF assets being flown in theater are for that exact purpose. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zrooster99 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 You Guys are half right. Want to guess which one? Retired or a Chief Warrant Officer. I guess: Somone who doesn't understand the strategic application of airpower.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverTQ Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Okay, someone tell me that the AF is not really going to CX the C27? I hate Casey. He gave away the most successful acquisition program ever ran (hang with me, I am embellishing) all so he could keep that stupid FCS program. So he gave it to the AF (I thought you guys liked airplanes) to have to the AF give up on the program less than two years after they take it? AND, the whole FCS program got CX anyway. Enlighten me, why would the AF give anything away with a human in the cockpit? I am in the middle of a load out to the Stian right now so am all too painfully aware of how AMC works. But come on, it is a aircraft that the Army will back and keeps a dude (or dudette) in the cockpit (or flight deck for the dudettes). Explain it to me please, right now I have a table for one under Bitterman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Okay, someone tell me that the AF is not really going to CX the C27? I hate Casey. He gave away the most successful acquisition program ever ran (hang with me, I am embellishing) all so he could keep that stupid FCS program. So he gave it to the AF (I thought you guys liked airplanes) to have to the AF give up on the program less than two years after they take it? AND, the whole FCS program got CX anyway. Enlighten me, why would the AF give anything away with a human in the cockpit? I am in the middle of a load out to the Stian right now so am all too painfully aware of how AMC works. But come on, it is a aircraft that the Army will back and keeps a dude (or dudette) in the cockpit (or flight deck for the dudettes). Explain it to me please, right now I have a table for one under Bitterman. Heard it wasn't going to be funded next year....budget cuts dude! This isn't the only thing going away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiFlyer Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 Last I saw they weren't cancelling the whole program, only buying the last dozen or so airframes. Either the AD force or the ANG would continue to fly those already in the pipeline (25 or so out the AF's currently planned 38?). I think that's what the summary said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now