Leaderboard

MULTIPLE studies, papers, proposals with great merit considered and CRUSHED by senior leadership over the past 12 years. The math is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of a lite attack platform that would provide more CAS capability, help with absorption, help season and solve a host of other problems, but the all jet 5th gen mafia ran a genocide operation to kill any serious consideration. I was personally threatened (career wise), insulted, chastised and nearly banished on several occasions by VERY senior USAF officers. The truly sickening part, we could have had a highly suitable aircraft in the field YEARS ago for pennies on the dollar.

I'm tellin' ya, keep "Tops in Blue" active and this goes away. Clown noses matter...

Gotcha. Naw, AFPC actually did something that made sense: they're sending a Korean-speaking Viper pilot to a squadron in Korea. Knowing AFPC's track record, I was expecting Spang. HARRUMPH to actually getting my first choice. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Which is surprising as he was an A-10 guy, I realize there is only so much money and there are a helluva lot of mission and requirements to be met but I doubt the A-10 or Attack aircraft capability is the appropriate thing to give up. Having to prioritize and I hate to loose anybody from the team but I would have looked at one of the two non-stealth heavy bombers as who was going to get the ax, admitting the F-35 Golden Calf was just too damn expensive would have further irked Congress and have done no good. Or alternatively if we are talking trades, looking at accepting the risk and curtailing both the B-1 and B-52 while bringing back the F-117 (stored in a condition that allows for restoration to duty) could have been a short - medium turn COA to save money right now to preserve the A-10 / Attack mission and light a fire to get LSR-B done and fielded. Break, Break... From Wikipedia on the Requirements and Context on the YA-10 vs. YA-9, Attack aircraft competition from the 70s... In May 1970, the USAF issued a modified, and much more detailed request for proposals (RFP). The threat of Soviet armored forces and all-weather attack operations had become more serious. Now included in the requirements was that the aircraft would be designed specifically for the 30 mm cannon. The RFP also called for an aircraft with a maximum speed of 460 mph (740 km/h), takeoff distance of 4,000 feet (1,200 m), external load of 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg), 285-mile (460 km) mission radius, and a unit cost of US$1.4 million.[6] Simplicity and low cost were also vital requirements, with a maximum flyaway cost of $1.4 million based on a 600 aircraft production run. Performance was to be sacrificed where necessary to keep development and production costs under control.[7][8] During this time, a separate RFP was released for A-X's 30 mm cannon with requirements for a high rate of fire (4,000 round/minute) and a high muzzle velocity.[9] Six companies submitted proposals to the USAF, with Northrop and Fairchild Republic selected on December 18, 1970 to build prototypes: the YA-9A and YA-10A, respectively. Meanwhile, General Electric and Philco-Ford were selected to build and test GAU-8 cannon prototypes.[10] Looking at that, you can see how they specified requirements and performance necessary to accomplish them, from the FlightGlobal article you originally posted, it seemed low risk, and in production now will have to influence to some degree the A-X requirements that are being written now. Can an existing 4+ gen meet requirements and keep risk low enough to be a viable COA? Taking those two ideas and then marrying them up to the original, disciplined approach to requirements that led to the A-10 and the specific requirement to design that aircraft for a primary weapons system, in the case of the A-X program of the 70's, a 30 mm cannon, can we not take an existing design and modify (albeit with some risk of cost escalation) around a primary weapon / mission system to quickly design, test and field before the moment to get this done passes? What would an attack aircraft, capable of operating / surviving in a medium threat environment, be built around? A highly capable radar, capable for air to air awareness and self-protection (jamming) but also very capable at SAR ground imaging, GMTI, etc. or cross-queuing with an EO/IR or other sensors? All of this data fed to any PGM quickly the pilot selects? A successor to the 30 mm cannon but this time with case-less ammunition and improved ballistics? Just thinking...

Other bro confirmed- produce your USN cert from your NATOPS jacket and you should be good.

Agreed CH. A light attack aircraft is so obviously suited for the last 15 years of war (and our projected future) that willful resistance is the only reason we don't have them in our arsenal. Talking about OA-X to 5th gen fighter guys is like talking to cult members. "It's unsurvivable in a modern IADS Kaliningrad type scenario!" Well, so is most of our stuff. And those high end wars are still theoretical. Here in the real world we need that capability, not just for CAS but light ISR strike and SCAR. this issue is insoluble for now, it has totally surpassed the realm of rationale discussion. There is a strongly emotional desire espoused by a cadre of true believers to see contested airspace as more likely than it is, combined with an emotionally based hope our current pattern of endless engagement in low end conflict is waning rather than waxing. Those folks look at the world and just don't see it the way it is; an ironic problem for a service so vocal about the value of education..... but I digress. OPs article links are wishful thinking. None of the senior guys are having it. Some of the most successful aircraft prosecuting current wars (RPAs & U28s) have been forced on senior USAF GOs rather than envisioned and embraced by them. End result: We are losing wars while simultaneously driving our best people away.

When is the deadline? It shouldn't be hard to find an AME and get a Class I Medical within a couple of days, but if they explicitly said that Class II is acceptable for applying, then you can save your money. I also don't think that getting another 2 letters of recommendation in a relatively short timeframe should be difficult. Do the legwork and write the first drafts of the letters yourself, and tell the people you want signing them that they're free to make changes as they see fit. You can make up for weaknesses by being strong in other areas, but those 2 factors in particular are very much in your control.

If it is a short term, Big Safari program, likely it will be contract maintenance. This gets the system up quicker and doesn't require allocated manpower. If the program were to last long enough/get big enough, blue suit maintenance might become a player. Examples: MC-12 was contract maintenance. MQ-1/9 began as contract maintenance, and eventually blue suiters were added (not sure if there are still contract maintainers, or if it eventually went 100% blue suit).

Sorry for the late reply, opposite schedules on the deployment. My Marine bro said he submitted a (ARB?) giant package (sts) to turn his gold into silver. He included all training certificates and did not re-do SERE or water survival. The issue wasn't brought up any further. I'll confirm this was the same case with my squid bro as well. Hope your experience goes pain/slapless as well. Cheers, Lazlo

ATIS

Shack! It goes back to the fracturing of the service. Fingers has it right: the squadron used to be everything. You never had a NEED to go outside the squadron save for a few instances. Each squadron had a personnelist, someone to handle pay vouchers, even MX reported to the same CC who owned the jets and the mission sets. I remember going to work with my dad and seeing pilots and maintainers in the same offices working towards the same goal. If a line didn't go, there wasn't quibbling over who owned the failure: the answer was clear, the SQ! To bad we couldn't periodically autosave every once in a while and realize the unintended consequences of the path the service set out on.

Even non-pilots can as well. Careerism has always existed. It always will. "Fair-haired," "golden boy," "early identified" types have always existed. Always will. However, the deliberate destruction of the squadron has occurred since the 1990s. The focus on everything but the mission has occurred since the 1990s. Look at the number of GOs today with the size of our miniscule force compared with WWII, Korea, or even your Vietnam example. Those on the spot, usually the best able and having the most SA on what the problem is and how to rectify it, now are neutered and must ask "Mother [insert your non-gender specific noun here] may I" before doing anything. And so on until at least a GO, if not a several button type is reached. Yes, it, the Air Force has changed. And people who wanted to be a part of the older version are voting with their feet. The new CSAF is the first to publicly identify this. So they've known for years if not decades, but no one would do anything about it because they would have been fired/retired. Not exactly "service before self" behavior, IMHO.

The best self-test comes when I ask myself what I'd tell my kids. No way would I advise them to pursue active duty life as a pilot, but I would whole-heartedly support the ANG. There are just too many damn variables today, and the 10-year commitment isn't going away (especially with rumors of its increase). Variables exist in the ANG, too, but nothing like the fvcked-up shenanigans we've seen in the last 6-9 years in the active duty USAF. Honestly, if asked about a mil career by my kids, this would be my advice: Go to a great school on an ROTC scholarship, major in a STEM field, then go be a contracting officer for 4 years and get out as a young captain to make bank at a defense contractor. My kids' father got real lucky so far with his flying career. Couldn't dodge the school bullet but I am walking away with great experiences and the ability to speak an Asian language, AND I'm going back to my F-16 mistress. I am the exception, not the rule. I would not expect the next generation's experience to be as good as mine. They'll be too damn busy turning red dots into green dots and remodeling the bathrooms to accommodate the 7 different "genders" in the squadron. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

The B-52 community flying with the Raider callsign probably really struck a nerve with the Doolittle Raiders because several of their bros ended up executed in China...what a slap in the face to those men that the Buff community would dare fly with the callsign Raider. Buy you know, yay heritage!........wait, that didn't happen because none of those Doolittle Raiders were a bunch of whiny SNAPs. Sounds like some of your friends need to get over themselves. Not a bomber guy, but I think the name pays a great tribute to not only a historic bomber raid in WW2, but also to the bros who were lost in 2008. Seeing it any other way is beyond ridiculous and extremely self-centered.