brwwg&b

I think this is the same concept as a wider problem with the rate of UPT adjustments moving track/specialization earlier and earlier in the syllabus. Yes, there is benefit to devoting more time to specialized skills, even in the T-6 as is happening now. However, I think it's forcing decisions to be made at such an early point in their aviation career that they honestly have no idea what they want (or at least no relevant data to base it upon) Couple that with not having an appropriate cross-section of exposure to different MWS mentalities, and they're making ill-informed decisions at best

https://theaviationist.com/2020/04/18/watch-rocket-accidentally-fired-by-chadian-air-force-su-25-frogfoot-nearly-hits-french-c-130h-at-ndjamena-airport/ Unfortunately assessable...from the article: The rocket missed a French Hercules but hit a house killing four civilians.

Assume you had 60 days on 1 Oct 19, didn't use any yet this year (and won't be able to) ... and then this thing goes on for 18 months. There's your 120 days.

If you want to just pull from communities, then why not BUFF/B-1 guys to fighters and AMC guys to AFGSC? At least the A-G weaponeering, SAM threat knowledge etc is there for the bomber dudes, and they are 90%+ T-38 trained as it is

Don't know what awareness the guys mentioning F-35 first or as a "not many guard/reserve options exist" are smoking... F-35 is going to be the new pred porn, on demand asset and you will be gone ALOT (outside of stability of an AETC job, i.e. Luke/Eglin) However the Guard/Reserve options will be out there, VT just got delivered the 500th production F-35, and Fort Worth, Madison, Bama will all have them before you get an option to Palace Chase

Also: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/autonomous-highaltitude-refueling https://defensesystems.com/articles/2015/04/27/navair-x47b-uas-midair-refueling.aspx 2007 and 2015...turns out, refueling just ain't that hard

Fly them over manned. QF-16 is optionally manned currently.

Beats me. Certainly lots of smart ways to utilize them as you pointed out. QF-16 already exists so at least a portion of the mechanics are figured out. Airborne control, via whatever means I think is being somewhat explored in the "loyal wingman" realm. I always just worry that these good ideas get so distorted in practice and don't end up matching original intent. Plus alot of fighter pilot egos get crushed if they don't have the sensibility to realize risking $'s is always better than risking American (or other) lives

https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/us-navy-flies-two-ea-18g-growlers-autonomously-third-growler-used-as-controller/136532.article Navy turns Growler into drone, flies 2 unmanned controlled from a third manned

Also it's pretty shortsighted to judge an airplane on appearance solely

There are a bunch of Latin American nations who still employ the A-37B in their Air Forces, unless I'm missing something?

Meanwhile, some CAF flying squadron commanders are now non O-5s ... no doubt qualified, likely with a line number to O-5, but it speaks to the straits we're entering. It used to be rare to see a Maj DO, then common... just saying it's setting a trendline

No idea how they're really planning to implement it, but I would think the true advantage of the Valkyrie would be moot if you planned on just dragging it on your wing to a merge.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30333/air-forces-xq-58a-valkyrie-drone-suffers-damage-after-third-flight-test Might get some delay due to damage on their third test flight "High surface winds and a malfunction of the vehicle’s provisional flight test recovery system resulted in a mishap," 550lb payload would be enough for 3x of Raytheon's newly touted Peregrine missile (~150lb each), or something comparable. I doubt being subsonic really hurts it from a tactical perspective.

I don't place blame solely on human endeavors or natural, knowing there's likely a combined effect vs a glaring root cause. I'm more interested in whether any outcome is controllable / preventable and how massive an effect it will have, whether left unchecked or not. I agree. I don't think her role is significant in presenting the data, but more so in the means of inspiring other (especially young) people to get behind a cause larger than their own personal self-interest, or how many likes they can get on their latest instagram post to satisfy some dopamine thirst. If it inspires people to do some research about the (many) environmental problems which exist, and as you pointed out there are certainly tangible undeniable ones, and to contribute to their solution, then all the better.

While everyone is up in arms over the medium, no one has really attacked the message. Who benefits most from climate change being denied? Who suffers most? Is data being manipulated one way or another to sway "beliefs" about this? For the visual types: https://climate.nasa.gov/

Slackline, I'm with you. Amazing how people are quick to attack a child vs being impressed by the conviction present and taking the suggestion to educate themselves on the matter. How many others (age irrelevant) would sail themselves across an ocean to pursue one's motivations? If I had a commander who sounded half as interested in something bigger than themselves vs just CYA mentality, it would solve alot of problems...

I haven't totally kept up with how classes are being divvied out or if its a static or fluid class these days, but... Looks like (for the US guys) 4-5 T-1 and 8-9 T-38 students (not sure what track the T-6 FAIP guy is from) is that normal? i.e. what % of guys through T-38s in your average class these days? Holloman better buckle up with these kinds of numbers. No wonder they're looking to cut the syllabus shorter there

To be fair, the T38C doesn't really offer much over the T38A in regards to shaping a student to be prepared for anything beyond a Vietnam era fighter. Also, why would an article entitled "...Reshaping How the Air Force Trains Fighter Aviators" be a surprise that it's an advertisement for the T-X?

This. This. A thousand times this. Belongs in "why the AF is f*&#ed" thread. I've considered myself lucky anytime I've had leadership I feel comfortable being open and honest with (i.e. no reprisal for my sharing information about my personal/family career desires and goals), and it's certainly been the exception and not the norm. When you win the lottery with a commander you are able to be honest with, without exception, it is a drastically different feeling (empowerment) and the system can work SO WELL. Sadly it's not common.

2, my understanding is the same as nsplayr mentions This is one way in which the BRS is lacking (/advantage goes to the government). Especially given that the airman may want to adjust monthly contributions in order to maximize yearly investment in response to deployment / tax free areas, based on either attempting to maximize tax exempt input into TSP, or utilizing the ability to invest above and beyond the annual elective deferral limit. In each of those instances, you will miss out on government matching vs. if you had spread the contributions over all pay periods of the year. Caveat : I am not a finance wizard

Maybe at Sheppard. Nowhere else. To do so would mean increasing PIT syllabus to teach everyone who isn't versed in those skills how to do so. Hint: it already got removed from the syllabus years ago because people were washing out of PIT for it. Kinder, gentler...at this rate even the future instructors will just be told to punch out of a plane that has an engine hiccup. YGBSM Next bright idea will probably be a paper airplane book and then direct to F-22

Precisely

Caveat that I'm not 100% sure what's up with the external CFS issues. However, I could certainly see someone flying in this proposed config and ending up with either smoke and fumes leading to use of OBOGS or just (since the actual cause is still undetermined) getting hypoxia symptoms off of engine bleed air which is being fed into the cockpit as part of the pressurization system. Maybe they are afraid to punch out without a mask to help protect their face from burning shards of glass, or maybe they are just making poor decisions based on just being hypoxic (Ace of Spades...Ace of Spades...) So, they decide to try to the land the thing and end up porking it away due to lack of available instruments (smoke & fumes) combined with weather, or just lack of athleticism/experience (hmm...this IS the first USAF aircraft most people will fly solo) say they land short/long/sideways or just roll off the runway and stick with it. Even if the pilot is conscious at this point to try to egress themselves, they're again driven to use the CFS which will result in severe face-mangling without any mask to protect. Worse, they could be unconscious and (from the sounds of the current MX status?) the fire crews will have to resort to the axe to get them out. Standby, yeah people do dumb stuff on their own time and put themselves in risky situations. For your example, the difference is most people will choose to actually ride a bike that is fully functional. The similarity is that the most dangerous thing in both scenarios is the other people on the road, or the leadership in the T-6 scenario, who are making stupid decisions which impact your life. And at least on the motorcycle you get a vote of how to react. Hopefully anyone uncomfortable enough with the situation in T-6 land has the balls to realize they have a vote. But will the student with 6-9 hours who doesn't have any better clue really have the airmanship to do so? Or will they just accept whatever the USAF hands them and trust it's in their best interest, not realizing it's just a Band-Aid fix of the USAF in order to preserve the USAF's timeline interests? Especially for a young eager aviator who just wants a chance to fly. They don't have the SA to realize the risk. They have to trust what their IP's tell them, and if the IP's hands are tied, and they are forced to fly...well, bottom line is it falls in line with AF's desire to produce but not retain

What do you propose? Burkas?