busdriver

Sounds to me like he's saying they're gonna be putting GCS's in locations other than the current launch and recovery points. Whether you think that warrants any level of resistance training.....

Jesus, that is some old and very bad blood. I really hope the 71st has taken that lesson to heart by now.

I'd have to guess they're referring to the odd full procedure approaches in places not serviced by "vectors to final for XXX approach." But what do I know, I'd rather fly special VFR in .25nm vis than fly an instrument approach.

I'm gonna side with Kuma on this. Unless it happens on base let the civil side of things decide the punishment.

Don't just think WSO in the back, think Iraqi trainee in the back, think Afghan trainee in the back, etc. Assuming the AF isn't fucking this up, a major part of doing this correctly would be training host nation personnel and eventually "giving" them the aircraft.

Solid "2" on this. Randy was an IP at Rucker when I went through. RIP brother

OK rant switch on/ Who's the asshole that thought that horizontal shoulder holsters result in flagging of people? Why is this asshole in the military and allowed to touch a firearm? Does this asshole think that firearms go off on their own? He probably thinks having people clear their weapons every ten feet also makes the base safer. /Rant off I don't know, when I was there this past summer, I carried with a paddle holster and a riggers belt. I hate the way the shoulder rigs flap around without being tied to a belt like they're supposed to be.

I have a great idea, let's throw shit at one another like a bunch of fucking monkeys. In this thread we've discovered that the tail number requirement is stupid due the billing being done to the wing not the aircraft itself, and that info came from a tanker guy no less. The system says we have to pass you guys tail numbers, fine I've got a co-pilot no big deal, doesn't change the fact that we've invented a process that makes everyone's lives more difficult for no good reason. Do we drive on with a stupid system, or do we fix the process to make it better? Don't get me started on comm in tanking....

A Toast.....

He's struggling to maintain power. Autocratic leaders will do crazy stupid things to maintain their power. Saying "he's our son of a bitch" and backing him regardless is a bad move in my opinion, didn't work in south Vietnam either. That said, I think this is just a saber rattling load of shit.

If I had to guess, all three aircraft the Merlin and S-92 offered in the CSAR-X competition could meet that requirement. Comparing the three is extremely difficult without actually seeing the offerings, and no one outside of the source selection team have seen all three. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure the Osprey could meet that spec as well. EDIT: Changed after reading the rest of the spec, not just range and hover performance. But still just idle speculation. If Sikorsky can come up with a 60 that can do what is being asked without adding the external drop tanks, I'd be very surprised.

stract, unless the 60 gets much more powerful engines that are also much more fuel efficient and the empty weight drops significantly I don't see how a mike model with appropriate mods can meet that spec.

Careful guys, they didn't say the CV-22 would replace the 60, it won't the Air Force cannot afford to buy that many. There is nothing good in that article for Air Force 60 drivers. This is what I was talking about with regard to returning to AFSOC/SOCOM. Unless I'm completely out to left field, I read that as plus up the CV-22 fleet a bit and add a CSAR mission to their DOC statement. This is what having SOF as a mission gains you, they get to fund one community and support multiple mission sets. So when he said: not forcing USAF to give up the CSAR mission; he did not say: keep tactical helos in the USAF inventory.

Maybe you can convince the Army they need something bigger, and we can dream up a joint helo buy?

Bronze Start w/ Valor is a different animal. That said, I don't like it either. If the Bronze Star has become the MSM for combat service, why not just award an MSM?

I know what you're saying and agree. However, never happen. They'd pull the probes off and poof, the Huey replacement question is answered.

Actually, from what I've heard the CV-22 was a heavy hitter early in the PRV program, until they realized it was completely unaffordable. Do we need something bigger than a 60? Yes. Do we need something as big as a 47? No. Would the 47 have worked? Yes. Was it perfect? No.

Short and sweet of the above: Rescue better not be holding its breath. Like I said earlier in this thread, we (both helos and hercs) need to be back in AFSOC/SOCOM, AND fully embrace the SOF mission to ensure continued survival. Well that would at least ensure the Kings' survival.

What we get from new birds is really a matter of money, as HiFlyer stated. In the end we'll still have a space & range limitation (although probably better than current) but could fix issues like usable aircraft load, power margin and maintainability.

You are correct, this year's budget allocates funding for I think 5 aircraft that will be used for testing and development. Like I said, a near duplicate of the MH-60M, they need to determine what needs to change for the CSAR mission and how those changes will affect the airframe & avionics. That's assuming the funding in this year's budget goes that route instead of straight up combat loss replacement, which would mean a single guard unit gets new toys.

My guess is that if this goes forward the aircraft will be a near duplicate of the MH-60M, what it'll be called is anyone's guess.

Why is loyalty to your MDS required? To that community sure, but the actual airframe means almost nothing. In other words, is it about the mission or the aircraft?

Blaming one man for a long standing foreign policy paradigm is a bit short sighted. Also the idea that "Charlie Wilson supported the Taliban" is incredibly simplistic, and even the freaking movie covered that angle.

Sign on the door as you left the 41st RQS (at least two years ago)read: "Don't Forget to Grab Your CAC"

The AF.mil story The above link focuses on the crew from Moffett as the article was written by their PA office. I was the Aircraft Commander on chalk 2. Another one of those didn't have time to think about it then, but after the fact it's kinda creepy. After lead got shot up, I ended up landing to pick up some of the folks on the ground at their emergency landing site, another 30 seconds and it probably would have been a crash landing site. At the time it almost didn't seem real, watching rounds hitting the dirt just outside the rotor disc and just waiting for the PJs to load everyone up. How we didn't take a single round is absolutely beyond me.