Leaderboard

What wrong with the Air Force? We don't focus on readiness and warfighting anymore, mainly because we are not trained or educated enough for them. Air power projection is our core mission, and we've lost sight of that. Army and Marines will project ground power, Navy projects naval power, at the end of the day we have to present air power to the combatant commanders or we are all out of a job (not denigrating cyber, space, JTAC, TACP). Let's train/educate all airmen by sending all qualified Os and Es after commissioning and BMT through some kind of basic military flight training for 3-6 months (Nav, LM, FE). Non-flight physical folks get sent to ground ops training (airfield mgmt, amxs, intel, and etc...). Yes they won't be CMR, but they will have the fundamentals and understanding of what it takes to launch a sortie. With the rated and amxs shortage, they can *potentially* fill-in when the balloons goes up, more importantly this will educate why the Air Force exists and why not all AFSCs are created equal. Instead of focusing on bake sales and party planning, let's focus on readiness and the air power projection business. Soldiers and Marines all go through infantry training regardless of MOS, the sailors get trained on sea duty operations (firefighting, navigating and etc...). All airmen should have a basic understanding of how to support air operations regardless of AFSCs. The acquisitions community comes close by sending some of their officers through non-rated ops exchange programs. The 63As return back after one ops tour with a better understanding and appreciation of operational air force, as well as street cred when making decisions of a MWS acquisitions program. Yes sex assaults are bad, lookout for each other so we don't kill ourselves (on purpose or by accident), sleep with whichever sex you want behind closed (SCIF?) doors, build a home for the poor after work if you want to, those topics are not the reasons why the taxpayers are paying for our salary. We need to get back to combat readiness and the warfighting business.

God I hope not... You could not be MORE wrong on your costs. AT-6 and A-29 will come in around $20M per bird, Scorpion will be likely be slightly higher, but not by much. AT-6 is NOT $1K per hour...in 2012 OSD was rating it at $1.6k per hour and that has most certainly increased by now. Scorpion was actually rated at $2.2K per hour. This should be a far different competition than LAAR, the name says "OA-X" and that name alone implies a lot more requirement and capability than LAAR. While not an A-10 replacement, it is certainly being sold that way in the halls of Congress. In my opinion AT-6 in on an island because it has the least capability and the least room to grow. Yes it has a mature logistics backbone and an established depot, but this is a 300 aircraft program that is going to be in combat for 25-30 years and the AT-6 is out of room to grow. A-29 has some room to grow and I apparently a group of ACC IPs who are trying to shape the competition in its favor, but the A-29 is NOT made in America and that is a BIG deal these days. Aside from the fact that Trump signed a "Buy American" Executive Order last month, the Kansas delegation is STRONG and they are going to play on the "American jobs" theme because their huge plant in Wichita is now idle and they are about to lay off thousands of people if they don't get the OA-X contract. Please tell me how it will play out if A-29 wins and we shut an American Plant to buy A-29 which is made in South America. Yes I know final assembly is here, but go look at the manufacturing breakdown (all the heavy lifting and parts manufacturing is down south), add that to a logistics backbone that requires us to buy parts from Brazil for the next 30 years (you do realize the real money comes from sustainment...this would mean billions going to Brazil). My $ is on Scorpion but it depends on how the assessment is conducted, the jet has a LOT of room to grow and has some game changing capabilities. USAF did a study a few years back looking at LAAR and manned ISR and the number of aircraft required to provide the coverage offered by these aircraft. SPEED and RANGE played a huge role in that study, not because USAF thinks jets are cool, but because of the time/space continuum. The ability of an aircraft like Scorpion to go high and fast (400 knots in the 30's), to the AO actually reduced the number of aircraft required to provided constant coverage, it also reduced the number of bases required because you could stage from a greater distance. Scorpion is going to have almost TWICE the range and the ability to get there in a little more than HALF the time. In essence a two ship of Scorpions could easily replace a four ship of A-29 in both capability and coverage. Combine those capabilities with American jobs and a Buy American directive and the jet has a strong chance to win.

The modularity of the Scorpion is huge. Everyone gets wrapped around the axle on weapons and stuff but the name of the game for this type of platform isn't just a bunch of weapons; It's the find/fix capability. I don't think it needs to be a jet for the light attack, but if the thing is just a mini A-10 with weak to no SIGINT capability, don't waste our time.

From a guy who got hired a few years ago, and has sat as a member of a hiring board a word on the PCSM and PPL. 1 - The PCSM is an aggregate test produced by the Air Force. A few years ago the AF did an assessment of it's value. Roughly, your final PCSM equates to your percentage chance of making it through UPT. I.E if you got a 92 PCSM, you have a 92% chance of graduating. If you're a 70 PCSM, what's your chances? 2 - We're making an investment in you. Not necessarily a financial one, but a timeline one. We need you back in a little over 2+ years. Your PCSM, hours, PPL are a small part of our mental equation of you achieving that timeline (or graduating period) for us. 3 - I didn't have a PPL when I got hired, some did. It probably helps, but is not necessarily required. Most units don't want a financial barrier and or burden predicated on their membership. However, it raises your PCSM, shows you have been introduced to flying and enjoy it enough to continue. 4 - In summary, maybe your PCSM is good enough, maybe your hour rating/PPL is good enough. Consider this - Is there somebody I want to get hired more than me? If not, then why are you letting them have a better packet than you? Best of luck!

Fighters

Does anyone on here really think we should continue to stay in Afganistan? Have we learned anything from the past 15 years?

Concur - I think we could have finished that op and many other fight stabilize missions by not expecting too much from the host nation - SK is a good example of how to save an ally stabilize then modernize them to self sustaining - it just takes decades, patience and not expecting a lot at first Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely right. But you can find a much more recent example. Think Iraq. This...Persistent surveillance/strike. As much as can be mustered overhead. Maybe the tech isn't to where we like it yet but what is state of the art now will sure as hell will give them something to think about. Wouldn't be many public executions by the Taliban on the Kabul soccer field when the executioner will likely get a Hellfire on his head when it's all over. Swift justice from above. About as biblical as it gets. While we're at it paint "To Protect and Serve" on the side

Keep minimal assets to sustain the CT mission (there is merit there), everyone else GTFO and immediately stop this nation building/FID bullshit. Whatever strategic reasons there are, they aren't worth the last 16 years and they won't be worth the next 16 years.

In a sense, yes. This isn't really about us trying to take the resources (a la "we should've taken the oil"), but a chance to build a large industry that requires significant infrastructure investment. An investment that could have been made by some corporate/government combo and could do quite a bit of nation building that required something to show for the effort. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

The thing about the Scorpion that I think makes it worth the money (IMO) is that you bring to the ISR / Light Strike missions a range of performance and capabilities that is wide for the mission and compared to its competitors, a major improvement over platforms usually assigned to these missions, with a modest acceptable increase in cost. Ultimately that has to be point behind a "high end LAAR" - you get a wide range of capability and a large improvement to those capabilities for a modest increase in cost with a platform designed after an extensive period of COIN / LIC with those LL incorporated into it. I like the A-29 and AT-6 but you are basically constrained by the design as it is now, not so with the Scorpion. It has been designed to be modular and scalable. Again it is the range of capabilities / possibilities with this design. Need dual sensors, no problem. Open architecture, done. Modular payload bay for stuff you didn't consider on initial design, got it. About 40% faster than the turboprops, service ceiling 25% higher, endurance greater since you can keep the wings clean with the weapons capable payload bay, higher altitude on station orbits possible, slow loiter speed at 140 KIAS, etc, etc... That is just my rant for why I think the Scorpion should be the LAAR, my primal scream is for the AF to just get a LAAR, any LAAR at this point. Legit critique of the frenzy for a non-mission proven aircraft but I think that is an apples to oranges comparison, the small light attack jets you are referring to were likely designed years ago and don't have what makes the Scorpion as a light attack jet unique and much more capable for this mission, endurance. Which light attack jets are you referring to? A-37, Strikemaster, Alpha Jet? They are combat proven and effective but they lack the endurance of the Scorpion. Not to be cheesy but it really is game changing when you can have a tactical jet on station for 3 to 5 hours with no AR required.

You're interviewing with the 78th, right? I got picked up by them last December. They said expect one eight-week deployment every eighteen months or so, with TDYs being more common.

Yeah, I think some people on this board are friends with and/or invested in the company. I've looked at its thrust/weight and cargo carry capacity, it isn't that great. We got rid of AT-37's a long time ago.

...unless you work fort the NSA. Then you can "go to the vault, dude."

There was one here not long ago.

Just let the CIA put an authoritarian leader in charge, they don't need a damn "democracy" this political bullshit has cost to many lives and driven up or national debt for no reason. This is the only way to have stability.

I think evidence of risking one's professional advancement to do the right thing should be required. Looking into flag officers generally regarded as "great:" As a captain, MacArthur had his first Medal of Honor denied because his boss didn't know what he was doing. As a captain, Eisenhower was threatened with court martial for aggressively advocating tank-centric tactics that looked a lot like Germany's successful blitzkreig scheme. Nimitz was court-martialed as an ensign for running his ship aground. George Washington gave advice to his general in the French and Indian War that essentially got him killed. Mistakes and risks are what make a leader better, and should be forgiven (when they aren't crimes, of course), and rewarded (when appropriate). Most importantly, they should be learned from.

It's all a test to see how those 8 will do. Judging by how AMC defines "success" I expect around 4-6 Gp Execs get slotted for this and the program ends up crashing and burning just like all the higher ups are hoping it will. But at least they can say "we tried!" Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

E-3 (pilot perspective) 1. Ops Tempo/Deployment -- Very stable. 4 months deployed, 12 months home. A lot of guys don't go on every rotation, so you very well may have a couple years or more home. 2. Lifestyle/ Family Stability -- Probably the most family friendly you will find in the AF. Deployments are predictable and spread out. You typically take off and land at the same location. Some TDYs to make flying interesting, but not a ton of them. 3. Community morale -- Here's the difficult thing about E-3s. As pilots, we are the red-headed stepchildren of the red-headed stepchildren. AWACS gets the shaft from ACC. The aircraft upgrades go to the mission systems in the back. Flight deck on the E-3 is very old school. Oh and we are a tenant wing of Material Command here at KTIK, which means our sqdn facilities are embarrassingly awful. Like third world bad. We also get the shaft in our community as well in terms of things like strats, school, jobs etc. The community revolves around the 13Bs. Most of our leadership is made up of 13Bs, which can be painful for pilots/navs. A lot of them are good dudes, but it's real awkward when a brand new CP know more about aviation than the Wg/CC. 4. Advancements & Future of the airframe -- E-3s are very bottom heavy right now. Too many CPs, about the right amount of ACs, and not enough IPs. Because of this, it's tough for CPs to upgrade. Lots of mouths to feed in the squadrons. 5. Preferred PCS locations -- Another positive of the E-3. Most guys start at KTIK. OKC isn't a bad place, but not too exciting. From there, if you stay in E-3s, it's Kadena, Elmo, or GK (NATO). All good options.

I'm not sure what "valuable information" you're referring to. You should reread his comment history. Seriously.

I wonder which three air frames would come up... Must just be a crazy theory.

Hasn't happened in a while and probably won't again for the foreseeable future.