tac airlifter

I don't get it.

Thank you for the explanation. I've been on a 1:1 dwell for just shy of 10 years, so my numbers are definitely incorrect. Will attempt to get records fixed when I return from current deployment.

Can you explain what I'm looking at on the IDT counter? Mine says 172 days but TDY history doesn't show anything more recent than 2012. Thanks.

It's the new nomenclature for M-28. Good on Maj Little.

I accidentally upvoted this comment. Grow up.

I appreciate the offer. But I'm deployed and unlikely to seek out a stranger on SIPR; might I suggest a representative with details of the conversion attend a CC call at one of the SQ's to dispel myths and address legitimate concerns in person? There's a perception that decisions are made in a vacuum, void of any ISR experienced crews, and outcomes will decrease mission effectiveness. This isn't standard aircrew whining, we're genuinely afraid HQ will hamper the mission.

Thanks for making an appearance; I've been telling everyone who will listen what a terrible plan the MC-12 conversion is, you've now given me an opportunity to plant one more seed. First let's start with your assurance that MC-12's will be modified to match U-28 CAPES. The current plan has us using single sensor MC12. That's a downgrade, not an upgrade. There are numerous talking papers on the subject including an excellent one from CC of the 34th SOS. If you follow his paper this will be a true upgrade. If you don't this will be a huge step back and the mission will suffer. Second, you make the standard point about how two engines increases safety. How times have U-28s lost an engine? You're attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Law of unintended consequences: your solution makes me significantly louder. Without upgrading from a 15" to 20" sensor I'm stuck at a further Echo from target, giving a shittier picture to the GFC. Again, the mission will suffer with this change. Third you talk about the increased range. I'm sure you're aware that current B-350 types and U28s have the same block time on ISR sync without staging from further bases. I won't delve into the regulatory foolishness forcing this, but if you really were to add all the extra stuff to bring MC12 to the level of current U28, plus the weight of an extra engine, plus compliance with multiengine departure rules you'd have about an extra 15 minutes on target..... But be louder and need to stay further away. The unanimous opinion from your experts in the ops SQ's is this change as currently constructed will be worse for the mission. Finally, you claim AFSOC is getting them at no cost. You sure there is zero cost at all from AFSOC to take these aircraft? No hidden fees? I'm tracking otherwise. I've heard your talking points before; I'm disappointed at the lack of depth. Unless we add 2 x 20" balls (and some other stuff) this will be degradation in capability and worse for the mission.

If you're putting a gun on it, it won't be an MC anything for long. Recall the metamorphasis of MC-130W to AC-130W. I'd postulate the need for strike exceeds the niche need for infil; and the idea of crews exceling at both mission sets simultaneously is a fallicy. As for why would a 'gunship' not need all that extra gear.... maybe it shouldn't be a gunship. There's a current and future role for robust F3 platforms with a small footprint. That's a different animal than a gunship entirely.

Valid. If it has a gun it should have hard points for -114R2's, GBU-39B or internal SOPGMs. AC-130 is a great platform for its purpose. But we're fighting a lot of places (and projected to continue post-OEF) where you just can't have a ground footprint that large, an audible signature that loud or a plane flying that close or that low to target; nor do you have any need for RWR, LAIRCM, etc. There are numerous similarly envisioned twin engine CONOPs out there; unfortunatly AFSOC has chosen the worst of the lot.

yup.

You just made the list buddy.

I'm unfamiliar with the capes on existing B squadrons, but you hit the nail on the head associating the stigma of AV8Bs with -35s. Two ships checking into a stack with 15 minutes playtime & a shitty sensor that prohibits tally, then dropping their bombs in the ocean because they can't land at that weight gets embarrassing fast. If the -35 is better: I can't wait to see it perform. how much experience do you have conducting airstrikes?

There was a discussion in AFSOC about getting additional $ for school from a joint account. Didn't happen apparently.

Wow, the list is brutal for candidates. Look like select at the majors board is the only realistic chance of getting school. Will be interesting to see if MAJCOMs push back if this continues.

Who are you to decide what I need to correctly ascertain the lesson? What if 7 day history is part of the problem? The system is terrible and doesn't work at all. TS is required for my job; somehow I'm professional enough to keep those secrets; why do you think I would go post on YouTube if I saw the recreation?

You sound like a crybaby. This is a good change, and I'm glad the AF is at least acknowledging the importance of mission accomplishment when evaluating that whole person thing.

Wow, you are what's wrong with the Air Force.

Is this one if those ethereal 'everyone supports someone' statements? Copy, we all support national objectives. But 'supporting force' implies the presence of a supported force; as we expand our geographic presence often we directly execute objectives with air power rather than using air power to support others executing objectives. It's kind of cool to see USAF aircraft influencing regions independent of other services.

I guess that depends on how you define support. If you think 99.9% of sorties are being flown in support of a dude physically located on the ground you are completely wrong. Most missions I fly aren't in support of ground forces anymore, and that's changed over the course of the past 10 years as we pull back from certain areas and attempt to influence others without introducing friendlies on the ground.

Along those lines, does top third or any of that other shit get looked at?

Good post Animal, maybe we can branch that into another thread because I'm equally tired of hearing about STS and bar songs.... Seriously, we have a dude claiming to be senior leadership talking to us & this is the topic we choose? I am personally convinced that killing is the only strategic solution against our current enemy. It sounds simplistic, but we've tried nuanced COIN operations to no avail. War is politics by other means, right? So we're using violence as required to achieve desired political outcomes. Our enemy is doing the same thing. Logically, we stop using violence when it's no longer the best tool to accomplish our desired outcome. However, our enemy doesn't share this logic. They would gouge my sons eyes out with a spoon if they could because they genuinely believe God wants them to. We can never compromise with them, we can never get along with them. Our only answer for this particular ideology is to destroy it. So yes, we need to convince our civilian leadership to loosen the ROE and let us kill more people. I understand the dangers of creating new enemies by killing old ones in the wrong time or place, but the only response to Zarqawi's horror houses in Iraq was death. By killing the few utterly resolved to our destruction, we not only mitigate that direct threat but indirectly we strengthen whatever moderate elements within our enemies camp who think they can achieve an acceptable outcome without terrorism. In this case more killing is the right answer. Nothing else we've tried against this enemy has shown results.

That's not just CVS bro. And shouldn't you change your location status now?

This is what we should be talking about. Leadership in AFSOC has spent years giving commanders calls about uniforms, sexual assault, professionalism, etc. Never once have I seen anyone over 0-5 ask about getting better at the mission. I've had a few talks here and there about specific problems, but fundamental fixes never came and as soon as we weren't fucking it up down range the attention left. Maybe you are a fantastic leader who facilitates tacticians tweaking the latest TTPs to outmaneuver and enable F3 of HVIs. Or maybe you're FOS; I'll likely never know. Regardless, I don't know any 0-6s who read AARs so your sentiment seems disingenuous. Which is a damn shame because our joint partners (who always seem to be the down range CDRs instead of AF) often ineffectively employ us and we could use some knowledgeable and credible advocates.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2434278/Kenya-mall-attack-torture-claims-emerge-soldiers-Eyes-gouged-bodies-hooks-fingers-removed.html We need to light these motherfuckers on fire.

Smells slightly worse than your average deployed spot, but not by much. If you have a few days off you can swim with whale sharks. Food is the best in the AORs I've been to.