Leaderboard

Hey WayUp, while I appreciate the effort to keep your bro in line (though you're too late to keep his post from getting kinetically posted in the U-2 bar), there are some other issues here: - You want the CAF to wait until the GH is ready to get the party started? What if there's icing? Or weather? Or Satcom jamming? Or an IADS? Or a credible cyber threat? The GH won't be operating for very long in those cases. The CAF fights with or without you because they shouldn't need a handful of "special" jets (including the U-2) to make the mission happen. The job of both our airframes is to enhance their fight (in different ways) without introducing chaff. - While on one hand you believe the CAF needs you, you also don't care if you get shot down. You want to use GHs as SA-XX sponges, go ahead, but at least remove the expensive parts first; the U-2 would be glad to have more spare ASIP bits for test and training. Joking aside, there's a bigger problem here. GH operators really don't seem to care as much about their jets as their manned counterparts, and that's a problem for more than just them. I've watched them on multiple occasions not really GAF about their own buffoonery and equipment malfunctions even when they physically threaten the safety of others. As for why, my personal opinion is that millions of years of human evolution makes people just not care that much when they're not physically co-located with a jet or operation. - "...multiple times in the last year where the RQ-4 was more reliable and capable than the U-2..." I'll go ahead and call bullshit if you're referring to operational missions; if you're referring to how we did with a cobbed together jet in 16-1 I'll acknowledge that our stateside Ops-MX-DGS-CFSR team underperformed. 16-3 was pretty good, though, and I know of at least a couple pretty important Ex events this year where you guys were completely unable due to WX or equipment. - "...it's not a secret that we can replace the U-2 in what it does." Make no mistake, the GH will never be able to replicate what the U-2 can do. The U-2 has twice the thrust and electricity, which means it can haul more powerful sensors (particularly the radar kind) higher and faster that a GH ever will. And it'll do it in kinetically and electromagnetically contested airspace with a co-located pilot and a kickass defensive system. The GH's big programmatic mistake is that it's still trying to be a U-2 replacement. It will always fall short of that due to the above reasons, so the program relies on NG's political donations and book-cooking to get continued funding. Where it could really shine, and make itself much more useful than it currently is, is enhancing and expanding the BACN role. A bunch of networked GHs flying around outside of threat rings relaying IP-data is where the money could really be at. And as SAM sponges.

Is that like the starting point guard for St. Marys School for the Blind and Death?

LOL. Who said they balked because they didn't want to work the hours? They balked because it's dangerous to put guys through a even more shortened RTU. It's already a shadow of what it was just 10 years ago. Get some perspective before you bash on the guard. Talking about people "working for the better good" false on deaf ears when you're referring to a lot of people who've already served 10+ years on active duty.

I'm sorry, but opening this up to T-1 FAIPs is not even going to dent the problem. Letting MAF dudes go be 11Fs isn't going to fix the problem, giving fighters to every booger eater that goes through UPT certainly won't fix the problem. Poor leadership, poor people management, not truly valuing your people and placing acquisitions priority #1 over your people. Plus for about 3-4 years we almost completely shut the 11F pipeline down. Those year groups would have been your young Maj/Senior Capts/IP types. Now those dudes mostly VSP'd back when they had their 3 opportunities to do so because the AF said "leave, someone will take your place."

Soooo, the fix is to burn out the IPs in the training pipeline to fix the shortfall in line fighter manning which was destroyed by burning out the line fighter units... CSAF within a couple of years: "Hey, A1, how come we are so short of RTU IPs AND line fighter pilots?"

Valid question. The guard and reserves are built around a technician schedule, 40 hrs a week + AFTPs. The bulk of our force (look beyond pilots) are techs. The govt did this on purpose, to get more bodies into the mil business while disguised as civilians. They get a better work schedule, but pay for it in reduced benefits and a crap retirement. you got what you wanted, so do we fly a 3rd and pay them all that overtime? Well, wait - that's not what we structured the guard to do!?! Bottom line, it's a lot more complicated than your little AD mind can comprehend. Telling the RC to suck it up has consequences, and for good reason. We are not here to compensate for incompetent AD management.

Delta Hotel

That's an easy fix, just rewrite 11-202v3 [/sarcasm]

Not all, I know two that "escaped" to the KC-135.

No. The problems the shoe clerks have created are now coming home to roost and in typical fashion, rather than just doing what needs to be done and write a big enough check, admit their mistakes and CHANGE when conditions warrant it they prefer to put the lash to force, deny their is a problem and give each other a high five when the system some how manages to creak along. So flying that third line for a few months is going to somehow overcome years and years of getting deeper and deeper into the hole? The number varies but let's settle on 700 fighter pilots that the USAF is short of, I would say to get a fighter pilot with the right experience and knowledge they want it takes 3 to 4 years, as a heavy pilot my knowledge is limited but as a WAG but seems reasonable. Now let's say they could get by with only filling 500 of the 700 cockpits/shelters/staff positions, so you need 500 x 4 or 2,000 man-years of MPA orders, that comes to about $352 million, or a little more than 2 F-35A Joint Shit Fighters or fly 400 heavy aircraft 40 hours less per year over 4 years and you will get the savings to pay for it. Re-program the money after doing your mea culpa to Congress and fix this. A 4 year statutory order will attract takers; long enough for a lot of them to get 7305+ points, under 5 years to assert USERRA and if you throw a bonus for those 4 years at 25K, you will get the 11Fs you need immediately all the while you are executing Operation Get Well on 11Fs, surging UPT / IFF / FTU and returning all 11Fs you can get out of the RPA career field without destroying that too. This is a complicated web to unravel without causing harm in another area at the same time but Big Blue putting its money where its mouth is and using the resources it has, ARC Fighter Pilots to solve the immediate problem while working like a crazy man to solve the long term problem is the only way to get this done. No guilt trip speeches or High Velocity Analysis efforts, just commit the resources and get it done.

That's because the crossflow email specifically was to MAF dudes. Only FAIPs that have flown the -38 have gone to fighters historically, as far as I know. I think someone was making the comparison between a FAIP and a MAF crossflow on their second assignments being similar to one another in terms of what jobs they'd have in/out of the squadron once in the CAF. I don't think they're going to look for T-1 trained FAIPs to "crossflow" - no operational experience. Although strange things happen...

The easy fix is Guam and Hawaii. Both US soil and offer sufficient time zone spread to avoid mids. All we'd need to make this work is a couple of buildings and some GCS's. "Deploy" people there for 6-9 weeks a pop and we don't even need to stand up new squadrons. This could get done in 6 months if the Air Force actually wanted to solve the problem.

16-13: 5x B-52 WSO 2x B-52 EWO 1x U-28 CSO 1x AC-130W CSO 1x E-3 Nav 3x F-15 WSO 16-14: 1x B-52 EWO 2x B-52 WSO 4x F-15 WSO 1x AC-130U Nav 1x AC-130U EWO 1x EC-130 Nav 1x EC-130 EWO 1x HC-130J CSO (DM) 2x B-1 WSO 2x U-28 CSO (1 to Cannon, 1 to Hurby) 1x C-130 MN ANG 1x EC-130J NAV PA ANG 2x E-3 Nav 1x E-8 Nav 1x RC-135 Nav 16-15: 1x AC-130J CSO (Hurby) 1x AC-130U Nav 2x B-1 WSO 4x F-15 WSO 2x U-28 CSO 2x RC-135 EWO 1x RC-135 Nav 1x B-52 WSO 1x EC-130 Nav 1x EC-130 EWO

There is a very easy fix for all of this general/flag officer personal misconduct but, sadly, it will never be implemented. If a GO/FO gets cashiered for personal misconduct, the service should lose that GO/FO billet for 3 years. With this, you know that shit would get fixed literally overnight. Screening and selection would instantly double in rigor. Afterall, maintaining GO/FO billets is are among the services' highest priorities...

Dude, I did one night of cramming for the AFOQT, took it, and my PCSM went from a 55 to an 89. Pilot score went from a 65 to a 92. I'd do a little studying and go rage through it. I'm sure you'd do fine.

I failed the national security paper. I hate this course. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read this thread twice before starting the Distance Learning 6.0 course, but still didn't fully understand the whole registration and timeline thing until actually experiencing it. The main blackboard page has a picture that looks something exactly like this: I thought it was just a stupid visual of the course and them just trying to make something more complicated than it really was. Turns out, this picture is the syllabus for the entire ACSC program, with the list of all the courses and the types of courses that each one is. Each shape represents it's own "course" that has to be registered for separately through a different website (AUSIS). Plus the courses have to be done in this order, except for the few exceptions when you can double up. Now that I understand this picture, I think it is worth a thousand words. Basically, any of the large colored arrows represents a self-paced "course." Any of the greater than > white arrow thingys, are the "applied courses," which have a specific start and end date. These are the message board classes that involve posts and papers. The problem is that, generally speaking, all of these two-week applied courses are only offered once a month at the beginning of each month. And the biggest kick in the nuts is that you have to register two weeks before the start date in order to enroll. So say, for example, you are deployed and try to register for the Dec 1st class on Nov 16th, too late to meet the 2-week prior requirement. The next class you can register for is the Jan 1st class. So you have six weeks to do the one or two self paced courses, then you just sit on your dick for a while. The eight self-paced courses listed in this picture can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two if you push it. They are like long CBTs. And the speed of completion depends on your TTPs while attacking them - word search, skimming the readings, screen shots of the online tests in the event you have to take the test again, fast-clicking through the flash media content like regular ADLS courses, etc. Some of the classes are just downloaded readings with short quizzes that you can word search. Some are interactive flash video things with videos, decisions, wargames, "virtual situation rooms," etc. So even if you max performed the self-paced courses in a day each, you still stall out in the overall program because those four applied courses, represented by the white greater than shapes, can only be done once per month. You are allowed to work ahead one self-paced course while you are waiting for the next month to start the applied discussion board course. In summary, I would say it would take a total of about 5-10 full days to do all of the self-paced stuff, but it will take you a minimum of 4 months total to complete the entire course - mainly due to the waiting time for the class start dates of the applied courses. Oh, and second the frustration that you still have to wait a few days for the self-paced courses to be "graded," even if the only tests are through blackboard and are automatically graded on the spot. The previous course has to be graded and marked complete before registering for the next course.

So what ever happened to the days of working for the better good? Maybe flying that 3rd go or agreeing to cut the syllabus by 10% or so? Just seems like the AGRs I have met (title 10 guys) work 8 hours a day and what ever happens after that they don't care. I guess my theory of being on an "active duty" status doesn't mean work what is required to get the job done. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk