Leaderboard

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.

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.

Another one from Tosh.0...

I knew they couldn't keep 'em retired forever! But in all seriousness, it looks like they're cramming as many WSOs into the Strike Eagle pipeline as they can. We need them!

So are the last 69ish surveys about the same subject invalid?

Well no shit dude FY 17 is in four days

If only there was some platform capable of carrying lots of ordnance, loitering for forever, and didn't cost an arm and a leg to develop or maintain. Besides another A-10, of course. If only...

You also may want to check out hedonisticsexualdeviantfighterpilot.com for better ideas.

ATIS, you guys really do impress the ladies in Singapore and Thailand with those whites. And your bar act. But, I've got bad news for you... They look like hot chicks, but they are really guys. Sorry.

I'd like to present a motion to remove the JQPublic Forum from BODN. I think JQP started out with an excellent mission - an insider exposing the many faults of our great service. However, I think it's very quickly morphed into a for-profit enterprise, with a diluted mission, and a very low signal to noise ratio. And now a pop up to ask for money. Exhibit A: Nothing more than a PA press release Exhibit B: Shameless paid advertising Exhibit C: More shit not worth reading Can I get a second?

You mean a link in the threat titled "WTF? (**NSFW**)"?

Look at that, democracy actually works...

He's not paying anything. He's not. Originally, based off of content, I assessed it was a good idea to include a feed of JQP articles into a sub-forum so folks could continue in a semi-anonymous manner to provide feedback using BODN. Now, based off of a lack of valuable content, I am removing said sub-forum. If you like his articles, favorite his page.

Concur. It's not doing much on here other than promoting what is now a paid website. While a few posts in that section generate discussion such as Top brass plan incentives to fix fighter pilot shortage and Internal Email Shows Air Force Pilot Shortage at “CRISIS” Level, the vast majority have zero responses. I believe the intent was to discuss issues on BaseOps, as such it's not achieving that objective, so I would be agreement with removing it. Most folks on here are aware of the blog, and if they're so inclined, they can follow it directly. I don't see the purpose of repeating its topics on here, especially given how much it's changed...

^ + 5 likes if I could.

I love the irony of the situation Big Blue finds itself in. For a decade, rated retention was an afterthought; airlines weren't hiring, the economy went south and they enjoyed ~2 years where no pilots could get out. During that timeframe queep mounted as CSS troops were cut and flying hours were slashed. At the tail end of it all they reward the military with pathetic 1.X% raises and lower BAH. Their attempt to recapitalize the fleet (JSF shitshow) is falling squarely on the shoulders of AD troops. Almost as if on cue, the economy finds its footing, airlines start hiring like gangbusters and every ANG/Res unit is looking for good people. There is actual movement on bonuses for technicians and the AGRs will likely partake in whatever boost their AD counterparts get. AD has competition both from airlines and a RC that may have decent bonuses to offer. Sorry, Big Blue - timing is everything.

just my opinion, it is something new, not low threat but not expressly medium or above, it's an unpredictable threat level environment, most of the time the SAFIREs are small arms but there are MANPADS, medium level AAA pieces (57mm and up) that show up occassionally and the big wild cards are the remaining air defense capabilities of the failed or failing state and in the case of Syria, the very serious capes their allies (Russians especially) bring to the AOR the air environment for what's being called the "Grey Zone" conflict, a mixture of not equal parts of war, tension, stabilization, chaos, crime, etc... Is the A-10 the best weapon for CAS? Right now absolutely, but the operational environment can and always changes. In the future maybe not and if we keep intervening in these Grey Zone fights we will likely need an A-X that is built for the unpredictable threat environment, unpredictable required effects delivery all while not punching a hole in the budget stretched thin from the weight of 5th gen acquisitions What I would design for in a X-gen attack aircraft: Reduced signature and self escort / air to air (BVR) defensive capability Networked with integrated sensors for self-cueing, PID Designed around delivering PGMs vice direct fire weapons Long combat radius or endurance with AR flexibility, boom or drogue UAV wingman or drone control from a backseater, a UAV tanker and/or ISR platform like the X-47 the Navy is developing All those capes I just listed would likely make this hypothetical A-X unaffordable in this climate and may be more than is needed right now but considering how this first Grey Zone conflict in Syria is going, I think the argument can be legitimately be made for this type of attack aircraft. Not a pointless effort to do CAS in high threat environment like a mission over Moscow but one where conventional military capabilities and threats are being used by competitors to shape the operational environment, either by denial, intimidation or actual use in limited ways. Even though it was an abortion of an acquisition attempt, the A-12 Avenger II (or an updated version of it) is what I am thinking of for an A-X

END 17-08 9 AD T-38's (no shit), 1 INTL, 1 Guard, so 11 total T-38's 13 T-1's 1 Helo