Leaderboard

Get fed up and quit?

Myself and 2 others from Beale took a day off and flew to Half Moon Bay to attend Eddie's funeral. Saw another BODN pilot from Beale too who drove the 6 hour round trip to be there. We arrived at the Catholic Church about 35 minutes early. We stood in line about 30 min and were turned away. They physically could not get anymore people in the church. I would estimate the crowd at 700-800. It was an unbelievable outpouring of love for Eddie. There was a 4-ship of Mustangs that made 2 passes over the church after Mass. Low and fast. He was a guy that went out of his way to make everyone smile. He was a friend and mentor to so many. He was a great entertainer, airshow pilot, and warbird owner. He is missed.

I'd call this a Mickey Mouse operation, but that would be an insult to Mickey Mouse. -bobby knight

So, Thursday thru the weekend, minus the Fri-Sat "down for maintenance time"

We already did this with the Financial Center at Ellsworth. That worked so well the Center is dissolving and each base is going to have full up FSO's again.

this is more stressful than flying in combat with a brand new crew

You can take this for what it worth. My Sq/CC said today that he emailed the head of separations at AFPC last week inquiring about VSP notifications. What he was told, via email, was that they were taking the rest of last week to clear the queue whatever that means. He also said they stated that VSP notifications would start rolling out at the beginning of this week. Seeing as how it was Wednesday he fired off another email today to get an update because in his words “Wednesday is not the beginning of the week”. He said he had received a reply stating that they had gotten through the queue and that VSP approvals would start being sent out tomorrow and they would continue through this weekend. Disapprovals would start being sent out at the beginning of next week. Take it with a grain of salt, but my CC is a pretty straight shooter and I doubt he would potentially put this out there if he thought he was being fed a line of BS.

I'm not sure that partial drug legalization is actually part of the solution. They aren't simply about drugs only anymore. Don't get me wrong, drugs are a large part of it. Mary Jane is just a drop in the bucket compared to the profits on cocaine, meth, etc... which will probably never be legalized. Like any good business, they have diversified. Many have evolved into essentially what Amazon is, a one stop logistical shop for everything.... kidnapping, human trafficking, pirating intellectual property, etc. Drugs may have launched their mechanism but their real bread and butter is how they sell and traffic their product. Either way it's a complete mess... especially when U.S. banks such as Wachovia in 2008 alone processed $378 billion in Mexico without any anti-laundering actions.

I would pay to see some B-1s try to daisy chain us to and from the objective.

I don't think its a B-1 vs A-10. Something needed to be cut to pay for the shitshow we know as the F-35 due to congress and USAF leadership simultaneously screwing the pooch. But here are the facts: 1. The B-1 v A-10 CAS argument is flat out dumb. The B-1 can drop bombs in Afghanistan....it can't do CAS in many other scenarios effectively. Likewise the A-10 Can't launch JASSM, carry 30 JDAM or fly supersonic. You can't call the B-1 an attack platform or the A-10 a bomber. 2. Leadership is horrible at predicting future conflict. China/Russia....Probably not where we see action next. 3. Needed weapons. Again leadership has a poor history. Anyone read about the A-16? We need a balance of deterrent airframes (B-2, F-22, F-35) and ones that will do the work everywhere else (F-16, F-15E, A-10) 4. Contested environment? We talk as if radar threats are the only ones out there. AAA/manpads....Good luck F-35. The A-10 was designed to operate in an environment where speed and stealth aren't the important factors. Any legacy fighter is toast versus the newest SAMs, not just a hog. 5. Afghanistan has ruined the definition of CAS.

Yeah not so much. If you think all Sandy 1 provides is Rescort you're wrong. As much as I'd like to see a new CSAR helo, I sure as shit don't want to execute in a contested environment without Sandys.

Other than stand-off weapons, I can't agree the B-1 is better than the A-10 at those other missions pawnman mentioned... Missions which the B-52 and B-2 are at least as equally capable at as the B-1. We can hang out all day on BO.net and argue about who can do what better. BL: the A-10 is not single-role, and eliminating the airframe effectively compromises the Air Force's CAS and CSAR expertise and legitimacy. Other airframes can accomplish those missions/roles, but the expertise lies in the A-10 community. The Air Force's approach to mothballing the A-10 looks a lot more like a personal beef than logical reasoning. Using the same logic, we should also be shrink wrapping light grays and Raptors. "I have gun camera video of dark grays and Vipers doing a great job at OCA and DCA" (Air Force leadership, 2014, mimicking similar quote made about CAS in OEF). Can't operate in a contested environment? Gulf War 1, Bosnia/Kosovo, OIF... All contested. We train for and are effective in contested environments. Saying we can't operate in a contested environment is like saying Vipers and Bones can only do CAS against static targets in Afghanistan. I'd love to see anyone else do CAS in a dynamic armor war and how those results would change this whole CAS/A-10 debate. OEF is the only reason other airframes have become legitimate CAS platforms, not the other way around, like mentioned in your post.

Neither is the A-10.

If you think that all that's going on down on the border states is "playing catch and release with Mexican immigrants", then you need to come down here actually see what's going on that isn't getting reported in your daily news. There are some persons and threats coming through that are caught, and many that aren't, that would make your head spin. There are situations, engagements, and other scenarios both with military and military-style forces, as well as cartels and other organized factions, where our outmanned and outgunned CBP can't (and in some cases, aren't allowed to) stop them. Come down and see sometime, it would open your eyes a bit. So yes, playing masters of the universe around the world with every problem and situation large and small, shouldn't cause there to be a complete ignoring of the realities of what it slipping through central America and across our own "secured" borders. Without going into SIPR, it's a heck of alot more than just a couple of Mexican immigrants looking for work, that you and many others are under the incorrect and assuming impression of. While I agree with you on not blurring the lines between military and law enforcement to the max extent possible, the military isn't being used for domestic law enforcement; and acting against or being used to counter external threats to this country, shouldn't blur those lines either. Take care of things overseas as-needed. Don't leave the gate to the yard open while doing it.

The Sandy conversation is the elephant in the room: I don't see how a CSAR package is survivable in a modern threat environment. CSAR-X will never happen, and I see nonconventional assisted recovery becoming the primary means of personnel recovery in a high-threat environment. What good is your RESCORT if the Jolly can't make it? On the other side, low intensity CAS is becoming a crowded market. These days, if it flies, it can probably have a multi-mode munition attached to it or built in to it. Most of these options are cheaper and can be employed faster than getting Hawg Flight on scene. This is the A-10's problem: it's increasingly unsurvivable on the high end of the air combat spectrum and there are a plethora of options at the low end. The Hawg is getting niche.

Anything that can loiter above 20K can deliver effective (granted, not Hawg awesome level) CAS. I want to know how the A-10s that weren't in theater at Day 0 are going to get to staging bases with limited tanker assets. Also, what bases are they going to be based at? The ones near the front will likely be unusable, and the ones far away severely limit time on station. How are they going to survive in an environment where US air dominance is not a given. Look, the Air Force at large is trying to figure out how to establish and maintain air superiority against a near competitor who will likely not give us six months of planning time the way Saddam did. US air dominance has been a planning assumption for 50+ years... I'm worried that assumption may not be valid any longer. Given both the budget and the threat, I don't see continued investment in a platform that requires air superiority as a good idea. We need platforms that can kick down the door, and I view going from awesome to just effective CAS as the price we have to pay due to budget limitations.