xcraftllc

Pssht, trim is for the weak...

Copy, fixed, if you could change yours now it'll be clean.

PM sent.

I know him pretty well, yep they sure made him wear it.

And they're already considering phasing out the F-15C anyway.

Very interesting. If the AF opts to do that hopefully it all happens swiftly cuz the F-35 fuel consumption and operating cost is truly concerning. I'm a much bigger fan of going all out with the adaptive cycle engine though. That article mentions it briefly at the end. It offers much better gains than the measly 6-9% better fuel consumption and thrust of the F135 upgrade. Here's what they're talking about: https://www.geaviation.com/military/engines/ge-adaptive-cycle-engine Frankly with regards to the disappointing issues we've had with Pratt's current engine, I think a switch to GE would be appropriate. What would suck though is a franken-fleet of jets with various software blocks and engines of widely varying performance much like the Strike Eagle and Vipers out there. If that would be the case it might just be better to go with the upgrade to the F135 that the article mentions.

Dude, PM sent. I got you 187% man. If you can pull this off all the power to you. My only real advice to you and all the other Army guys who might be reading this is: play it smarter not harder for reals this time (it's not just a passing phrase in the AF, it's something you will be judged and graded by). To answer your question: No. Literally just be your Army self and be respectful and humble. All the skills and traits you learned in the Army will suit you well in the AF because although they might not like to admit it, they are a product of the Army, and still hold true to the same values. Rock on man.

I just posted that because I came across it (sts). As an Army Guy at heart, I'm still 169% about upgrading the A-10.

https://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/May 2017/Holmes-Has-an-OA-X-to-Grind.aspx

No I mean the Wright Flyer

It would have pretty good hourly operating costs.

Even the local wildlife is getting tired of ISIS's shit: https://www.yahoo.com/news/isis-fighters-iraq-killed-wild-215348697.html

Yeah the regular old anti-tank Hellfires had a tendency to just plunge into the ground and blast dirt up. There were blast frag variants (Mike models) made which helped and now the Army is buying "Romeo" models which incorporate a multipurpose warnugget, it helps but nothing's guaranteed. I have no experience on the subject but I suppose the rockets would work better since they shoot directly at the laser point and use the M151 warnugget right? Never had the chance to use those but a guy in my unit did some nice work with them on a couple of dudes in an open field!

I'm not sure about the exact numbers either but I had heard from guys in the know a few years back that they were disappointed in unit cost and that's why it never really caught on (wikipedia agrees with that article at around 30K). Cheaper than a Hellfire or Maverick but about the same amount as a small guided bomb. Hard to sell it as a Hellfire/Mavrick/GBU/SDB replacement unless it's dirt cheap cuz those other weapons can also be used to take out a variety of heavier targets effectively. Most of the cost of such systems is the gadgetry and not the explosives or propellant so you literally get more bang for your buck with larger munitions. Friggin awesome idea though, really disappointing that it isn't cheaper. Lightweight, compact, high PK, low collateral, short danger close range, pretty much the perfect COIN weapon. *It does make you wonder though what kind of production rate would be required to bring the price down to a level that would make its merits worth it.

For sure, it's unreal to think how long the fight has been going on and will continue to (The DuffleBlog shacked it as usual): https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/04/american-public-learns-still-fighting-afghanistan-pentagon-drops-huge-bomb/ Oh no I don't think we'll ever loose the coin/CAS mission, but wish I could say the same about the budgetary interest on the subject, the leadership is having a hard enough time right now just trying to get rid of this "continuing resolution" mindset that acts like we're just about done figuring out Afghanistan and will soon be leaving or something.

You seem to really like these long articles Clark, you must have definitely been born before the '80s. Interesting read, I'm not too sure about some of those costs and Pd though (I'm not at all saying this to argue one way or another about the topic). I'm pretty sure only a TP 30mm round would be as cheap as 20 bucks, and I think the Pd of a solid burst of 115 rds would be at least .8 or so. Also .50 cal should only be about 5 bucks a round and there's no way it's anywhere near a Pd of .5, maybe like .069 if you caught the guy taking a crap in the middle of a minefield. I've seen some pretty sorry Kiowa .50 cal video and they got way closer than an A-29 would (they used to literally shoot guys with their M-4s some times). To my understanding, those Pds are based on the air-frames listed in the tables and whatever data the guy could get? Maybe an A-29 (assuming that's the plane he has data on) could do that kind of Pd with a .50 cal, but if the enemy in question has so much as a decent rock, piece of cement, or a tree to hide behind they're safe. I don't think there's anything short of a hardened bunker that 30x173 can't get past. That last table seems to bring it all together nicely in support of the LAAR (it also quite interestingly puts the F-16 as more cost-effective than the A-10) but at the end of the day, you can't take a LAAR and destroy an entire column of tanks (A-10) or fight an air threat (F-16), and you sure aren't going to survive a modern SAM threat (F-35) so I think the brass is kinda giving it a bit less than a college try since it's not appealing for more serious threats. I kinda get the vibe that this whole light attack proposal isn't going to come to fruition, hell the AF can't even figure out how to buy a god damn helicopter to mull around missile silos right now. I'm just glad I'm not in their position trying to figure out how to procure anything these days.

They complete a formal course in Dothan Alabama flying a variety of planes. It's a military program, although it is contracted through some companies like CAE. They have military and civilian instructors. Laughlin was the last location for FWQ and had it's last class in 2012. Aside from the Army guys, the AF had previously used it to spool up the AF UHT graduates back when that was a thing. They could bring it back but it would be quite a bit easier is to just make a blanket ETP for Army pilots and non-rated AF aircrew. Apparently the FWQ course didn't save them much money even though it involved less flying time. I also heard that the syllabus differences were frustrating in T-6s and many IPs felt like they were rushing the students through. To my understanding, the T-38 syllabus was no different than the regular UPT one (a good thing in my opinion), but the T-1 syllabus allowed them to complete the training at their own pace and leave early. Having completed full UPT myself, I'm very glad I did. Not only are planes much different than helicopters, but the way the AF conducts it's flying operations in general is vastly different and far more complicated. It was invaluable to get the whole experience from the mindset of a clean slate, much like the guys with a lot of civilian time have to if they want to be successful in the AF. At Laughlin I saw a 38 year old Buff WSO get through T-38s just fine and become a T-38 FAIP. I also saw a 35 year old former Army Captain get through T-1s like it was a joke to go on to fly KC-135s for the New Hampshire guard so I don't see why the AF couldn't make a blanket policy for such cases, maybe up to 40 years old? *It should be noted though that this isn't really related the pilot shortage. That's mainly an issue of retaining pilots. They can increase the output from pilot training but that's it's own struggle in it's own that FWQ wouldn't necessarily help (even with a bit less hours than regular UPT). If they could find a way to make it truly more efficient than regular UPT then maybe it could help, especially for the prior Army Fixed Wing guys.

Talked to a Helo FAIP at water survival, he had also heard about it but seemed to share the same sentiment that they weren't really sure how it would work. Briefs well on paper, seems to have worked back in the day, sure as hell works for the Army but who knows...

Sweet Jesus that was long. I'd say about 6-9 times longer than the average millennial could take. Mostly issues that are already known and basically a reminder that this program has some serious lessons learned (and relearned) that can't happen again (again). Frankly if you look at many other acquisition programs, most end up being a flying circle jerk circus like this anyway, a sad result of politics and the shear complexity of such endeavors. (Knocking on wood) at least no one has died during this one. I'm not sure about the accuracy of some of that, but that hourly operating cost is alarming if it's even remotely accurate. We need GE's Adaptive Cycle Engine for the A model like yesterday. That ALIS stuff was pretty comical and I can totally believe it having been a maintainer myself in a previous life. In their defense, they're probably stuck with 10 year old computer technology due to contract BS and software issues.

I'm still thinking the problem with such a program is more along the lines of producing/training pilots and maintainers for the aircraft, as well as places to put them, not to mention all the policies/paperwork and logistics that go along with creating a new air frame (especially if you need a CSO for every one). Is the consensus that this will be an AFSOC thing like the U-28? If that's the case it just might work, if not, all I can think is that it would probably be a lot easier just to take whatever money would be earmarked for this, bring the A-10 up to modern standards, have Boeing SLEP the fleet (maybe an A-10"D" with better engines?) and call it a day until all the F-35/KC-46/B-21/T-X/H-X stuff is figured out.

Clarification on SERE-C/SV-80A: Seems to be some confusion on the AF side since the average Schools NCO hasn't done one before, but I just got my SV-80A waiver signed so yes, it is a thing. Might be a bit different for active duty guys but myself and one of the guard guys a few months ahead of me simply sent our Army SERE-C Certificates (the ones from the "new full-up SERE-C" program that began around 2010) to our Schools NCOs. I'm not exactly sure who/what the appropriate channels are from there but the waiver approval authority is an O-6 position titled "Chief, Special Operations & Personnel Recovery". The current one has had at least a couple of these cross his desk recently so it shouldn't be an issue. That might help you AD types if they say they don't know what to do with your certificate and waiver request. If you need a template for a memo, PM me and I'll hook you up. I have some contact info for the Rucker SERE school that might help if you have any further issues. I emailed them first before I sent my waiver request up just to get their input and add it to my case. You will still need to complete SV-90A, -80B, and -90B which are the water survival, land parachute, and water parachute courses. All of those take place at Fairchild and they only take about a week total to complete. At the end of the day, it saves the NGB/AF some money and a slot so it's a good deal for them. Put it that way if you get any push-back. As fun as it was, if you're anything like me, you got the point the first time. There is still some kind of SERE-qual refresher training you'll need to do every 3 years in order to be deploy-able but it's in no way the full program so don't get confused about that if you hear about it.

Nope, I'd say the WO thing would have all the same issues that 2020 and matmacwc are talking about with the added complication of a Warrant corps in the AF and still come along with all the military lifestyle obligations and queep etc...

That's what made me wonder about this in the first place being former Army myself. Seemed to work out great. The instructors liked being able to fly without all the other obligations that come along with military membership. The Army even uses some blue-suiters to augment actual MWS qualification training. All contracting work under a company called URS (I think their fixed wing contractor is CAE or something). Gives the Army a bit more ROI from the money they spend training pilots since a lot of guys get out as soon as their commitment is up, totally down to keep flying but tired of all the deployments,pcsing, queep, CBTs, change of command ceremonies, field training etc... One of the limitations with the guard/reserve thing is that a former military pilot still needs to get hired by them in the first place which (so I've heard) can be challenging for guys with 15-19 years of service or so, because the guard/reserve unit doesn't want to get stuck with the retirement bill. I think the up-or-out stuff screws some otherwise highly qualified guys as well.

Just a thought that popped up in my head with the AF being short on pilots and all. I mean, they already have the reserve units at UPT bases which helps but I'm sure there are plenty of qualified pilots out there who wouldn't mind being a civilian flight instructor for T-6s.

Some more tips and advice: One of the things I experienced that needs to be taken into consideration when doing this is the financial aspect. In order to submit my officer and UPT packet, I had to be enlisted in the ANG unit. This meant having to accept a demotion to SSgt. I was a prior E-4 in the Army before going Warrant and therefore had no NCO time or schools which qualified me for anything higher. This also meant that I was out of a job and steady income until OTS and UPT. Luckily between UTA days and AT orders etc, I was able to pay the bills, but was still only getting paid as an 8-year E-5 (quite a step down from a W-2 with flight pay). Another former Warrant I talked to had the same experience with active duty, only he didn't have to worry about the time in-between training. One might assume that you would be entitled to Save-Pay since you're promoting to lieutenant, and if you commission in the Army you indeed are; but there is some kind of stipulation about having to first enlist in the AF to do this (since they don't recognize Warrants), and therefore you are actually first being demoted to an enlisted rank. Still all worth it in the end but something to keep in mind. I'm actually getting paid a couple-hundred less now than I would if I stayed in the Army but it's a small price to pay for the opportunity and training. Your years of experience that apply to your flight pay do indeed carry on forward into your AF career, so don't worry about having to restart that clock. Some things to keep in mind which might help: The Army will still pay for your move after ETSing and if you do a DITY (since you have nothing else to do anyway), you can make some change off of that. I moved to Alabama which worked out well. I didn't have any issues getting out of my lease when my UPT orders came out. Also, I sold 57 days of leave since staying in the Army using that leave would have just prolonged everything else and risked me not getting into UPT on time. All things to consider.