11 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Shack.

...words...every TF doesn’t need their own; prevalence for misuse is high....

Don't you dare tell the TF that, or the USAF for that matter...because the TF ALWAYS gets what they want. 

For the record, I couldn't agree more:

Logistics = put it on a truck or a boat   

Deliver an Effect = move it by air  

Just sayin'

FF

I don't think he means the SOCOM TFs. Nearly every Army unit is a TF now.

 Whoa whoa whoa that hits too close to home [emoji3064] 

I love that pic so much that I quoted you just to see it again

1 hour ago, Scuba said:

AVFID question: How do our host nation friends fare with multi-mission aircraft?  Anyone trained Iraqi or Afghani AF crews?

AVFID seems like an enjoyable and rewarding mission.

 

The crews do pretty well despite our best efforts...particularly since the planes are designed to be fairly easy to operate and the dudes are motivated.  Long pole in the tent is and always will be the MX and supply side of things.  Advising is fun and rewarding, but I would highly recommend finding a different place to slam your head into a wall repeatedly.  The USAF isn't sending their best leaders to run that effort, and it can be fairly frustrating at the operator level as those organizations have grown to simply season dudes for their next job vs train the host nation.  Things may be different in AFSOC, but generally AVFID was always seen as the red headed stepchild and there were multiple attempts on killing it, so I can't imagine life being that much better over there.  Still fun though.

drewpey, appreciate the input. I'm glad to see that our HN partners are doing their best despite MX and supply challenges. Thinking about a switch to AVFID down the road.  Probably questions for a different thread.  Thanks.

 

I don't think he means the SOCOM TFs. Nearly every Army unit is a TF now.

That’s because Divisions don’t deploy as a complete set anymore.

Easy way to tell the difference is names ca numbers. If they call themselves something like “Task Force Lightning” than it’s a 25th ID brigade with some supporting elements trying to sound like its badass. If it’s just some numbers... then it’s actual bad asses from somewhere in the SOCOM hierarchy and their supporting players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

14 hours ago, Breckey said:

I don't think he means the SOCOM TFs. Nearly every Army unit is a TF now.

SOCOM is not immune to waste/asinine misuse of air assets. Not to say there isn’t a lot of good use going on also. 

22 hours ago, Tank said:

I know it’s called sarcasm but:

There’s already a “precision strike / light airlift” aircraft being flown for liaison purposes...  it’s called the AC-208 Armed Caravan.  
There’s definitely no reason to combine light attack and light airlift!

You're probably right about not combining light attack and light / liaison airlift but both based from a common platform is a COA (which will never happen) IMHO which could could give enough business for a vendor(s) to make it worth their while to produce a new platform...

From the depths of Google:

CV-10T Bronco vaporware.  Based off a concept Bronco that never made it off the drawing board but if a CV-10T and an OV-10X could be had, goal of 65% parts commonality (WAG):

            

 

Love the Air America logo on this one.

Windows and a ramp for @Lawman 

Figure 75-100 Light Attack versions, 75-100 Utility versions with architecture for pods/sensors for ISR/ELINT/COMM/Weps and cargo being the main configuration.  300 tails is the number I have heard is when it makes sense (economically) to build a new type, could probably get more with FMS and sales to Public Safety orgs with aviation fleets.