tac airlifter

What gives is that "shoe" is a mentality, not an AFSC, and plenty of our senior leaders who've been exec-ing and schooling their whole career and have barely above 2000 hours as an 06 are shoes to their core. And they resent with passionate shame ops dudes like myself.

Hopefully that cunt will choke on a donut.

Why are you being such a dick?

ah, copy. Disregard rant.

Holy shit I hope you aren't trying to imply an MQ-1 w/ x1 AGM-114 is anywhere close to a DAP or AH-6 at CAS. Don't believe the hype bro. When you add up the cost/benefit analysis wrt UAVs in VI/CAS/SCAR/DA etc. you'll find them far far behind manned assets in every aspect. Steady stare or intel gathering w/ strike capability? Very useful. Dynamic engagement, comm intensive situation? Look elsewhere.

100% true, and I'll add that AV-8's also don't land with that single bomb if they don't drop. Too heavy, so they have to dump their GBU-12 (or -38) in the ocean. I'm unfamiliar with F-35 STOVL told, can they land with the same load they took off with or are we wasting more munitions in the ocean on EVERY sortie?

Yes, that's what will happen; resources/people will be diverted from OEF for CAR et al. So it would be reasonable to expect the LRA is a bigger national security threat than the HQ/AQ networks our special dudes are fighting there. Except they aren't. So again, why are we diverting resources from a higher priority threat? It's really rhetorical at this point and I copy you're in favor of it. But to me it doesn't make sense, I want to kill the dudes plotting to attack my family before I get my war on elsewhere. I'll let the reader decide, chow hall just opened so I'm out. Later man.

There are a finite number of people available and they are burned out, this further tasks them. Personal opinion only. Still not apparent to me. And the "100" number is a bit misleading since a minimum of x5 that number are going for support and logistics. All of which comes from somewhere else. And since we're all maxed on hours and doing 1:1 dwell, to plus up here we subtract somewhere else.

You're smarter than this response indicates. I know AQAP wasn't the point of sending troops to Uganda. My point exactly. We should be utilizing scant resources to win fights with enemies intent on doing us harm before we start some shit with a random group indifferent to our national interests. Apparently that isn't apparent to me, hence the disagreeing nature of my response. Copy, although the PI ops are in fact happening ISO fighting an AQ offshoot so not the best example. If the LRA in Uganda is threatening our interests, please explain how. You got me there. I saw an opportunity to point out the absurdity of the GWOT--> OCO name change and took it. Nothing has changed except the acronym on my OPR. You can support POTUS policies while still joining in my amusement at the irony of our Nobel Peace prize winning CINC who ran on a "change" platform who has, in fact, changed nothing but the name of our wars.

Fuck the DoS. Those pussies should stay in their lane. Good thing we have people willing to sacrafice and go out there to kick ass.

Copy, Nigeria is sort of western Africa. Hence "Nigeria I see a possible connection." As for the LRA, the group specifically named in and around Uganda-- there's no connection to AQAP, and I'm qualified to make that statement. And since we're no longer in a "global war on terrorism" per POTUS direction, it seems odd to me we'd start some shit with a terrorist group which has never been a threat to us. If we're going to get into a brawl with every terrorist group out there just for being terrorist assholes (which I'm fine with BTW) then let's continue the Bush policy and I'll call it the GWOT again. If you think they are a threat or may be in the future ergo they should be struck now, then by all means let's have POTUS explain why we should implement preemptive war and I'll bask in the irony. If we want to focus our limited resources on the threat, lets go kill al shabab in Somalia and finish off AQAP/AQEA... you know I'm game. I'm all for killing people bad guys simply because they're bad, once we can afford to divert our resources and attention away from dudes actually trying to kill my wife and kids.

Terrorism is real in several places, but western africa is not at the top of our list. Nigeria I see the possible connection, but Uganda? It's a waste of resources. Additionally, the group specifically named is the LRA; they practice a mystic brand of animism & christianity. Not at all in danger of linking w/ AQAP and certainly no threat to the US.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Is that an internal payload or with external mounts? I recall seeing a picture of one with hard points. Thought it was a joke at the time. Any idea of how much they can carry or is that privledged info?

Forgive my ignorance; is there an A/G mod of F-22 out there? I thought it was an air to air player only. And BQ, having been all over the third world, including present location, there are plenty of >7K runways. I've never seen STOL used, or been somewhere it was required. Anything is possile in the future, but cost exceeds benefit for that capability in my opinion.

Yup. Someone needs to go fuck them up. I'm game.

Maybe you did horrible on your checkride and they are helping you out with another chance.

Great post man, thanks. I'm totally ignorant of the entire funding process so that helped. Seems like everywhere I look good people are gaming the rules to get the mission accomplished inside a bureaucracy.

His point is still valid.

Valid, but in a squadron full of CSO's some bright dude will find a way & share it with the rest of us non-brainiacs. Thats why we have R&D.

Yup. Getting 0-6 OG/CC approval to add an extra copilot to a line or another 150 lbs of gas if one person drops off, then being lectured about what a poor planner you are when these things happen, those are reasons people leave the job.

First all female -130 crew in combat was 2005 out of OKAS, so I don't think it was very recent. AC was smokin hot, Co wasn't bad either.

Holy shit dude, my only point originally is that airpower is fighting in some places where US ground forces are not. I'm not trying to dip into the 'supported vs. supporting' battle; obviously we are there only to support the dude on the ground in OEF/OIF and I'm proud of it. But there is no US dude on the ground in Libya and a few other spots (both historically and currently) so from a US perspective those wars are an air show and we should be proud of that too; it's cool we can help our bro's in OEF and also cool we can have an effect on our own elsewhere. The whole conversation turned towards the chaff after that, which is probably my fault and unfortunately my ignoring it didn't make it stop. Let's just leave this alone, not the point here at all and who gives a fuck anyway? Supported vs. supporting is an ego black hole, I care about killing the enemy and winning. Back to the topic, our problem is twofold. First, leadership that cares about stuff other than the mission at the expense of the mission. I don't have an issue with uniform regs, except when they become elevated to the level of 3-1 knowledge. When the CC is coded UP on the orders but seems to know exactly how high my zipper should be zipped, he's a tool and unfit to command. Several people have expressed that essential truth in different ways. Secondly and perhaps more important, a broken promotion/evaluation system that frequently puts those types in charge; who then metastasize by promoting those who embrace their philosophy.

Great first post! I see nothing wrong with your comments, perhaps if you expressed this to your class they'd be more amicable. Good luck at UPT.

Is that the kind of stuff he said? I've been hearing rumblings but I'm not around HRT right now.

I agree with most of your post, but I think this particular statement significantly downplays the role and usefulness of airpower. There are places in the world where the GWOT (or OCO for you new school types) consists of multiple air assets working together and killing terrorists with little or no US presence on the ground. In the past I know air advocates have made a similar mistake- assuming ground forces are outdated and any war can be prosecuted and won by air dominance alone. OIF/OEF proved just how wrong and ignorant this mindset was. Unfortunately I've now seen a trend in the opposite direction where Army guys are absolutely certain air is a support function only; but they are usually not read in on places we're at war where they aren't. In the end we are all just tools for violence, and depending on the particulars of the game you might want air/ground or air alone. Really can't imagine a scenario where you'd ever want ground alone without air support. Ergo, I don't think your generalization above is correct. Edit to add "ergo" which is a fun word I enjoy using.