Majestik Møøse

OK, how about this: let me try my hand at being a Strike Eagle pilot, and if I get washed out the Air Force can boot me to the curb!

Damn it. The last time I did Mustache March, I said "never again". Then I grew a stache on my very first deployment; afterwards I said "never again". Then I grew a stache on my second deployment; afterwards I said "never again". I made it four more deployments, stache free. This time, March rolls around and everyone's all about it. I said "never again", and I meant it. But after reading these stories of Wing policy letters and upset generals, well damn it. I've got to do it. I've got to let that beautiful stache blow freely in the wind for all to see. The wife will be pissed and the kids will laugh at me, but this time it's too important to pass up. I'm in. Better late than never.

Awesome. I can recommend almost everything that Vice films. Lots of varied, interesting stuff, especially their guides to travel.

What's Wrong With Army would be a lot longer thread. What a bunch of fucks.

Well, he's been taking money from Northrop Grumman and staying quiet. The U-2 isn't competing with the inferior-in-every-way Global Hawk; Lockheed is competing with Northrop. Luckily, Lockheed still likes the U-2 program and the millions of dollars of sensors they build for it. Hopefully they are pulling the right strings. And this is why I think the U-2 stands a better chance of survival than the A-10 and KC-10, two jets whose replacements are being sold by the same company that owns them. Boeing wants the KC-10 gone (try searching for the KC-10 factsheet on Boeings website) just like Lockheed wants the A-10 gone (Lockheed's A-10 page just mentions avionics upgrades and the brochure link is broken). The only thing keeping A-10s and KC-10s around is their mission effectiveness.

Well said, Tonka, especially this part: Too often we forget this and focus on the negative.

Being a missileer is important. Would you to do that?

Uhhh, no. Where did you hear that one? We only burn about 7K/hour more than you, on average, and we can carry 140K more. The advantage of the -135 is boom or drouge-cycle time; it's faster to refuel a 4-ship using 2x -135s vs 1x -10. Do you work at the CAOC, by any chance?

Just pay them more money. We pay pilots more money after ten years because it's hard to keep them around. It's also hard to keep missileers around. This shit is easy.

Ops checked the new system last week. In AA's frequent flyer profile settings, just put your CAC number in the "Known Traveler ID" field and enter your birthdate. TSA Pre Check logo showed up all over my boarding pass; it was even on the app boarding pass. Saved at least 15m in the security line.

Submariners get paid more because it sucks. Makes sense to me.

Pretty sure there was a KC-10 or 2 in with an extra 60-90K to give in RC-East!

How bout we just buy 1% less F-35s and use that money to keep flying the A-10?

I would be scared shitless riding in the back of a Chinese airliner during a cat 2/3 landing. Also during the subsequent taxi.

Damn this thing has a lot of features. The nearest function would be useful for us KC-10 guys. Will wearing this make us GATM compliant?

Uhh, I'm a tanker guy and even I see about 6.9 errors with this. 1.) AESA doesn't work that way. 2.) Everybody would be lost except the Raptors. 3.) The JASDF would shoot down at least 3 Korean airliners jets during their counterattack.

I think this is the biggest reason why many KC-10 guys are cynical. Cutting jets will just be a show; any leftover cash will eventually just flow to Boeing and Lockheed.

The vast majority of West Coast KC-10 evaluators are good dudes. But, much like the Sith, there always seem to be a couple of douchers in the mix.

Well damn you're right.

The 1st Amendment relating to military members has found its way to the Supreme Court many times. Here's an example ruling: "In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court wrote, “While the members of the military are not excluded from the protection granted by the First Amendment, the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections. The fundamental necessity for obedience, and the consequent necessity for imposition of discipline, may render permissible within the military that which would be constitutionally impermissible outside it” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974). This quote from the Court sums up what is known as the Doctrine of Military Necessity or the military-deference doctrine." Read more until your eyes bleed here: https://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/military-speech. Basically if the military has a compelling interest to limit free speech, or any other right, they can IAW the UCMJ. What the UCMJ contains was determined by Congress per the Constitution, which says "The Congress shall have Power....To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

In July I was part of a mission which required 6 KC-10s at MTOGW. Good luck planning that with -135s. According to this data provided by the AF Comptroller, the KC-135 costs about $19K per hour to fly, not including about $6K of fuel. The KC-10 costs $21K (and burns about $9K in fuel). It's pretty much a 2:1 trade-off operationally, so it'll cost much more to use -135s to replace the -10 mission. Of course, some will argue that we'll cut the -10 and just stop doing coronets, too. Maybe so. Did it have something to do with screwing up the airflow over the basket?

From what I've seen on this forum, you can't let any argument go quietly. You also come across as a bit of an ass. 1&2. You're right, it's not impossible to move fighters & bombers around the world without us. It will require tasking about 120-150 KC-135/46s to fill the capability gap left by the departed KC-10s (or multiple-leg fuel stops). How many KC-135s would it take to support just 2x air-superiority fighters over a 5-hr flight with a fight in the middle? This won't be impossible, just really hard, especially considering how limited the ramp space would be throughout the Pacific should a no-shit war ever start up. We'll save short-term money by cutting the -10, but every -10 mission filled by 2.5 KC-135s will actually cost more in fuel and flying hours. 3. The new tanker will use our boom plus a centerline drogue and be receiver-AR capable, just like a KC-10, but smaller and for only $250m each. Sweet. We'll have 18 of them by 2017 and all of them by 2028, according to Boeing. I sincerely hope they can deliver on schedule. 4. Yes, tanking is easy. But so many still screw it up. 5. Agreed. Outsource the peacetime cargo. Overall you are correct, we could get by without the KC-10, as well as the A-10, F-15, U-2, B-1, C-5, and half the C-130s. Scrap them all, we'll figure it out like we always do. So what if it costs billions and our capabilities are reduced. What do you fly, for frame of reference?

It's not that incredible, it's because we have a flight engineer.

True, but it's not due to lack of SA, it's because our boom needs more beans for the quarter! Also, the tracks are small! And the radar was clear!

Well I suppose I've had the opposite experience during exercises and in the AOR WRT airspace SA. I'm sure we both have examples of buffoonery from the other side, and we're sticking to them. I'll just say I haven't been impressed with multiple deployed operations run by -135 guys (patchwearers included) compared to my own brethren. Not sure what you mean about our displays not being able to show airspace borders, they absolutely can if they're programmed correctly. I'm curious to ask for a little more detail, PM if you'd like. Our opinions as a receiver are reinforced often. I'm sure there are plenty of -135 crossflow dudes that have been receiver pilots before, they must be the good ones. There are also some absolutely heinous guys that would never fly the way they do if they'd ever tried to hang onto a boom in a heavy jet.