Dupe

Here's what I tell guys: call yourself whatever has emerged as the title in your community, but don't allow those semantics to create blinders. What will we call C-130Hx Navs if we put weapons on that platform? Probably stil "Nav." What will we call the dude pushing the button on an ABL-type platform? There's a few RPA guys with bug-smash wings around...what's the most correct name for those dudes? They mostly do ISR, but there's some weapons employment in there. The world is changing rapidly...so rapidly that there isn't really any great term for what us non-pilot rated officers universally do. I can tell you one thing, though...the term "Navigator" is wholey inappropriate and antiquated. This then begs the question: if our jobs are all rapidly changing, and very different when compared with all the other 12x jobs out there...how then can you effectively train everyone in one CSO course at Pensacola? My view is that you can't. The best you can do is teach guys the basics, hammer in the right attitude, educate them on all the MWS communities out there (to include the ones that don't have some flavor of CSO aboard), and make it crystal clear that nav-school skills are not likely to be any more than 10% of the required knowledge for follow-on platforms.

Great! Finally! How many bros morted during an T-38C ejection that wasn't sequenced or was out of limits for the seat? I can think of at least two dudes, and I have minimal T-38 historical knowledge. My point is that the program spent money on a nice-to-have system right away in the T-38C, but took better than a decade to update the seat. Sure...the GPS gadgetry was probably a cheaper mod. All it cost was a couple of lives. The excell gonkers have been around for a while: calculating TOLD is a snap...but I really think that its pretty damn complicated. You've got NACS, MACS, RS-BEO, RS-EF, DS, SETOS, and CEFS. Those are alot of numbers for a young guy to keep track of all at once. For an trainer that is rediculously underpowered on a single engine, I really think there should be a more LT-proof TOLD scheme. But hell...what do I know? Opinions are like ass-holes, and I don't have much T-38 time in my ARMS products.

I don't quite understand why the T-38C has FMS-type avionics in it when none of the Air Force fighters that T-38 studs will follow on to have that capability. Why didn't they save the money on some of the avionics and put it towards an ejection seat that won't kill you or figuring out a way to calculate TOLD that doesn't take a degree in theoretical mathematics to understand?

When the Raptors move from Holloman, there won't be a huge need for ACC-owned T-38s there. I imagine those airframes will go to Tyndall.

The post from 21 Nov where daynightindicator presented us with the glory that was "OPR review" as well as the xtranormal.com link are now gone. I suspect this didn't turn out well. As funny as these videos are...and I loved "Gold Bond Powder" and "I'm Hot 'Cause I'm Deployed," I can not think of any instance where the Air Force did not try to crush the creators of any of these vids. It's a damn shame that the "Dear Boss Letter" could only happen once. I hope the maker survives this...

As a helo guy, you should want to go to Pax. Pax is the global center of the rotary wing flight test community. There are instructors there who have tested nearly every US rotary wing program since 'Nam. The folks you meet there will help you later in your career. Fixed wing Air Force guys are best served by going through Edwards. USAF TPS is the only military Test Pilot School that offers a Masters. Since most of the fixed wing DT in the Air Force is done at Edwards, its one less PCS. On top of that, USAF TPS uses the same test support assets and test program structure as the rest of Edwards, so its usefull to see the process as a student. Going to Empire or EPNER would be a neat experience for a year, but I think there's alot of hidden disadvantages. I think there's even a pretty big disadvantage for the one fixed-wing Air Force guy per class to go to Pax. Here are the data: every year since they instituted the flight eval, results have not been out before the new year.

I went through the Navy program at Pensacola. From my perspective, tomorrow's F-15E WSOs will have less training than those going through the T-39 program. However, the competition required to get to the F-15E pit will be higher, so the Strike community will be better off. As an added bonus, hopefully we get WSOs to the FTU in less than 16 months. CSO studs: The systems we're putting on aircraft are rapidly changing. As a result, virtually any training you recieve will be outdated and possibly not appropriate to the platform you'll end up in. Your job now is to learn how to learn. You'll use those skills when new equipment, systems, and capabilities get bolted on or integrated in to your old-as-dirt airplane.

The UH-72 may be a poor solution. Hopefully, the acquisition process sorts that out. The program has yet to produce an acquisitions strategy. Essentially, its an option of a) deciding to take Army UH-60Ms in the biggest Economy Act deal ever in an aquisitions environment that is downright hostile to such a move or b) Generating a set of requirements and then posting those requirements in a Request For Proposal. Based on the high scrutiny of current Air Force aquisitions, I give option B a 98% chance of happening. Having a RFP does not mean we'll get the UH-72. It means the Air Force will publish all of its requirements and let any defense contractor bid. Folling the RFP, there may be a downselect and even a fly-off. That will all be in the aquisition strategy. Key to all of this is the requirements that GSC puts out in the RFP. Where do these requirements come from? The helo staff guys at GSC come up with them. As much as I love flying, I'm now convinced that the right rated guy in the right staff job can make an impact for decades in his MWS. The requirments for your next helo are being hammered out right now.

There's no question that we could keep UH-60s working for a long life. The real question is "What's the cost to do so?" There's some land mines in a GOTS solution that ops level bros probably never see. So if the Air Force acquires UH-60Ms, how are we getting the parts / contractor support? If the Army directly supplies them to us and they keep the parts / support contract alive, that will mean that Global Strike Command will be relying on Big Army to accomplish their missile launch operations. I don't see GSC going for that. If we start a new supply / support contract with Sikorsky, they are then free to rape the Air Force because they know they will be the sole vendor. Even if all that were sorted out, I think the UH-60 will be more expensive to operate than any of the medium lift helos currently on the commercial market. Have I beat the drum enough that O & M costs are orders of magnitude larger than Procurment and Testing costs? I don't see the AF buying a cheaper asset upfront (even if it is more capable) only to have it be grossly more expensive to operate in the long run. Are you suggesting that the Air Force would not require OT&E for the UH-60? Program guys always sell GOTS/COTS as "no testing required." Usually, that's false. Even for the Black Hawk, AFOTEC would certainly require some form of suitability and maintainability testing. Once you factor in Procurment cost and Operations and Maintanance costs, the OT&E are usually only a few percentage of the total lifecycle cost of the acquisition. OT&E would definately be cheaper for the UH-60, but its all peanuts compared to other costs Realize that the operations you do with an aircraft and the requirements you place on aircraft procurement are two completely seperate animals. Ideally, the lead command for a system would make its requirements clear to the program office. The lead command should also tell the program office which requirements are more flexible than others. Aircraft performance requirements aren't the only requirements out there. There's also cost and schedule requirements. For this program, the party line seems clear: "We need a low cost platform that meets our schedule. We're willing to skimp on performance to do so." Sure, SAR is a meaningfull mission to the guys flying the lines and the world at large, but does GSC really see high altitude performance as hard requirement? Since there are no missile fields in the mountains, GSC will probably see this one as flexible. Having a deployable asset doesn't look like it will be a requiremnt at all. We'll see what the requirements are when (or if) a RFP comes out. I understand the Dustoff challenge downrange, but the view from the program office is that they shouldn't pay extra for something that is essentially an Army need...even if it sadly isn't being fully met.

This whole story is really a defense contractor flapping his wings to get the Air Force to move away from a strategy that they haven't even decided on yet.

Do y'all do sticks? The one company I know for sticks takes forever and occasionally botches an order.

My desk does need a model. Something like this will work:

Does having a board for Captains now mean that PRFs are now all required for 1LTs going to the board? That's going to produce an ass-load of work for FTUs and Ops units.

Mostly false. AAFES Profile So my real question is that if the activities are all supposed to make a profit, where does the AAFES money go? Is it a case of the profitable activities getting richer (Outdoor rec, mostly), or is that money used to bolster activities that maybe wouldn't otherwise make the cut (hobby shops, aero clubs, etc)? I wish that the NAF activities at more remote locations were better than those of high population/retirement areas, but we all know that's simply not the case. I doubt the AAFES money goes to bolster the activities at the more desolate locations.

If all the NAF activities are now supposed to be self-sustaining, where then does my AAFES money go?

Having seen airshows from a few different vantage points now, the aerial demonstrations aren't the most risky part of the show. To me, the most dangerous part is about 20 minutes after the last act when half the statics are trying to bolt from the airfield. At the same time, all of the folks attending are leaving and vendors are concentrated on getting their crap packed up. Everybody is tired and everybody's guard is down since the airshow is complete. Its this environment that allows some pretty insane ground mishaps to occur. The show ain't over untill you do the Monday morning FOD walk.

Right now, RPV controller time doesn't count towards the min hour requirement for pilots to apply to TPS. So a guy with only RPV experience will be ineligible. They haven't yet taken a guy with the intention of filling a RPV slot immediately following TPS, and they have yet to figure out which category the new unmanned aerial systems operators should apply in. They haven't taken an RPV guy and put him into the Nav or FTE track (as those are specified to be 12X or 61X/62X AFSCs by reg). Big picture, I've also seen a guy pulled from an ALO - Korea gig early to go to Edwards and a guy who got picked up for TPS after 2-3 years on the staff at the Pentagon.

Really, the chances change every year. Each year, the TPS board looks to provide test pilots for the programs that will be in the flight test phase about two years out. The pilots are split up into the broad categories of fighter, bomber, heavy, helo (the helo guys don't count in the 24 number as they all go to Navy TPS at Pax River, MD), or AFSOC, and their packages compete against the other pilots of the same category. The number of slots in each category is fixed going into the board as its need based. The board is chaired by the TPS Commandant, so it seems like what's important to the board (undergrad GPA vs masters vs flying experience vs officership) changes every two years. There's still much debate about how to treat the RPV guys, but for now...they can't apply. It seems that AFMC needs 2 to 4 heavy guys per year. All the heavy TPS grads I know had this rough bio the day they drove onto Edwards: -O-4 selected to TPS after 2-3 Ops tours. -Has a technical Masters -Has been a DG of one or more formal training programs -Has been qualified in two or more seperate aircraft. From my perception, being a FAIP or on a white-jet tour has not hurt anyone's TPS chances. Bottom line: apply. Your chance of getting accepted is zero if you don't. Other than that, the chances vary yearly and are based on factors way outside your control. As with everything else in the Air Force, luck and timing are the keys. Feel free to PM me if you want to know more, or want the names of some heavy TPS grads (large multi-engine...not overweight).

Brabus is right. Your ADSC for nav/WSO/CSO/EWO/etc starts when you get winged. Timing-wise, it works out so that your commitment is up about when you're done with your second rated assignment and about 7-8 years of service provided you came in the door as a non-prior 2LT.

I've got an Amber and a Farmhouse that both turned out well, and a Wit that I need to start. I tend to brew more Fall through Spring, then stay out of the kitchen for the summer...its just too nice and there are plenty of great, cheap summer beers out there. Here's my lessons for brewing in the military: I've found its not possible to do any brewing activity on the weekdays other than bottling or transfering to a secondary. It all works great if you're happy with a 7 day primary and a 14 or 21 day secondary. Bottom line is that if your beer needs some baby-sitting during the week, it will just have to wait. You're too busy as an officer to deal with it. I've also had my planned 7 day secondary time stretch into three weeks due to TDYs or a "no-notice" inspection. It always turned out fine. Good luck! Feel free to PM me with any questions you have...

I've been brewing for a couple years now. Its alot like golf in that $100 or $200 will get you started in the hobby, you can spend an infinante amount on equipment from there, and it takes up a Saturday or Sunday morning. I prefer to buy from Midwest Supplies because they were the only company who shipped APO while I was in Europe. I now have a system set up where the bros in the squadron bring me empty bottles and I bring in a batch every month or so. I ask for, but don't press for, donations to cover the costs. It seems like it revolves ok.

What if the person charged with a DUI is not some MXG or SFS airmen who quite literally is not yet mature. What if, instead, the offender is a person of such extreme rank that they have no doubt handed out or concurred with hundreds of DUI punishments over the years. Does that make it any different?

Probably, but he'll also probably be allowed to keep his retirement. I'm pretty sure that the Air Force won't really punish him...he'll simply not be allowed to advance. I think the only justice will be what the State of Nevada dishes out. I hope I'm wrong.

How on God's green Earth can a two-star get popped for a DUI and still remain in the AF complete with a full retirement? I understand the AF has changed...but its changed less for some than for others.

Alamagordo now has both a Chilli's and an Applebee's. Its crazy.