Leaderboard

I'm still perplexed as to why people suddenly believe that formation landings are this massive risk. Compared to the number of times they are performed (with regularity) incident-free (also with regularity, even with student pilots at the helm), the rate of incident/accident is phenomenally low. By definition, based on that data, they're not "risky". Yes, there is a small margin of error (just like a vast many things in high performance military aviation), and the consequences of some modes of error can be severe and/or fatal (just like that same vast number of things in high performance military aviation)...so what makes formation landing now some kind of exception?

Complex solutions are the hallmark of a poor problem solver. There are plenty of skills to learn in any trainer that would translate directly to tactical employment in a follow on aircraft.

I had the same with Reaper just prior to COVID hitting full force. I ordered patches in Jan and it took over a month for them to show up. I emailed them and got no replies, nor did I get any updates for the order shipping when it finally did. I was a couple days from just calling the credit card and charging back the order when they just showed up in the mail. They came through in the end and the patches were fine, but the timeline and communication sucked.

Time now and with our (SOF) RPA partners, I’d agree with Bashi on that. Not the case 9 years ago, but where the MQ-9 RPA community is at now is very impressive. I don’t mean to exclude the ACC MQ-9’s, just not as habitual of a relationship. On the ground force topic, it does depend but I’m not going to argue because you both have good points (I’m personally more with Lawman but you both have good points). One thing that blew my mind was talking with certain JTAC/FSO’s is that they know which squadrons are in theater and adjust their game plans accordingly. We were developing a CoF one time and the guy said that “we won’t have the *certain state ANG A-10’s* doing this next week when the *other state ANG A-10’s* leave”. When I asked why it was because “they’re assholes”. That really drove the value of relationships home.

Shack. Not once has anyone ever given a convincing argument for the need to do a form landing or takeoff that could possibly justify the increased risk. Given that a significant percentage of fighter accidents happen at takeoff or landing and another significant percentage involve mid-airs, why combine the two risks? I've brought guys back to land who had significant issues at night in the weather, but I dropped them off in the flare. That is nothing more than flying fingertip.

Formation landings and takeoffs have always been considered a risk with pilots being against them as long as I’ve been in fighters. The Vance incident was just the perfect example of why. TRs are written in blood. It shouldn’t have to be a daily occurrence before it’s addressed. Risk in our world has to be accepted for a purpose. There is no benefit in a form landing or takeoff to justify acceptIng the risks. I don’t want to be near someone if I lose an engine, have to punch off my stores, or punch out.

All things Equal the manned platform will be preferred over unmanned. Yes *insert call sign here* was padlocked to just go look at something not even in the city limits of Raqqa repeatedly and not just by one task force JTAC. Yes, I’ve watched 9 lines punted from one asset to another because dudes training didn’t get it done or because they weren’t responsive enough to the dynamic nature of the target. Drones weren’t the primary VBIED killer over Mosul, the Apaches flying at Block 7-9 under them were. Or did they just imagine the 1100 Hellfires we shot into that city. You guys asked the open ended question of “does the ground force care” without actually living/knowing the ground force and you seem to have definitive answers to speak for those guys. Or you don’t buy it when somebody gives you their take. Which one of us probably has the answer and backstory as to why they feel the way they do about it. It’s not hard to know how they feel about drones vs manned aircraft and why they prefer one over the other when you actually spend time with the dude who to the rest of the stack is a callsign and suffix. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RPAs, at this point of the war, are as good as anyone else with precision strike. Better than many others, frankly. I have personally booted them out of the stack, but you’re right, it was 9 years ago when they hadn’t yet professionalized. The state of their community then was 100% the fault of myopic senior leaders not crew dogs trying their best. Bottom line- right now I prefer an RPA in the stack with me on any mission. regarding their utility on DA, the only germane question is what does the ground team want from air players? If ground forces need target slant count with zero audible signature, RPAs are the premier asset. If TAC(A) is desired, their comm suite simply isn't robust enough to be the primary choice. I have no doubt RPA crews can train to any task, but we’re best as a team when assigned duties are paired with our strengths to offset each other’s weaknesses. there are discussions about armed Overwatch being an RPA; probably non-viable because more pragmatic options exist for cheaper. **caveat: I’m only speaking if USAF RPAs. Other services still suck.

I don't find any truth to this statement. It might be anecdotal but I've never seen an aircraft removed to the penalty box although I have heard rumors of it. Every aircraft has bad players though. Off my head, I can think of an F-16 that busted altitude and almost killed me, a B-52 that couldn't take an LSST after 40 minutes, and an F-15E two ship that struck the wrong building. Yes, RPAs have had problems as well. I remember getting a phone call about a guard MQ-1 that was fucking comm flow left and right. But most of the time these are training issues and have nothing to do with the platform. Your arguments sound like stuff you hear from your buddies or things that may have came out of the Enterprise 9-10 years ago when the community was expereincing growing pains. However, having seen the metrics out of the AOC and JOC circa summer 2016 (the height against ISIS), I don't get the impression that those utilizing them had a low degree of confidence in their ability to perform.

Just curious, can you articulate why you think this or why? I've been in CAS stacks manned and unmanned, albeit without weapons manned. Also worked in several MPCs for major SOF air operations. Regardless, I never felt the JTACs cared so much as long as the people there did their jobs. I'm not buying the "skin in the game" argument because it's weightless.

Hate speech if you say “Chinese virus” in San Antonio.