nsplayr

You said "please" as in, "please SNAP, you're full of sh*t." Based on the limits of the forum I'm unable to further expand on my reasoning. That's what I thought anyways. Whatever, I'll just drop it. I guess I don't expect you to change your mind, I'm just putting out an alternate point of view to the "one pilot maximum" mindset. You may know what some of my experiences are, but if you think it's all still rush rush throw something together you really are out of the loop. Absolutely. Hell, it's possible to integrate systems to a point where zero people can manage what once took more than one. The trend is to less personnel and more automation and that's generally worked out well for us and I'm not diluted into thinking all of our jobs can't be turned into robots one day. However, is full automation desired in all mission sets? No. Likewise, is a single-seat desired in all mission sets? I say no to that as well.

Greasy, Good post, but I think what you're talking about isn't what the program's goals are. Find, fix, finish in environments that would call for that doesn't require flares, an armored cockpit, or a gun. Since the program called for these things, I took it to be not the SOF dream aircraft, but the "ACC cheap replacement for fighters so we're not burning $69,000 per hour flying vipers to do NTISR in a no-threat airspace" platform. It accomplishes the dual goals of increasing manned cockpits and iron on the ramp as well as frees up high-end fighter platforms to actually focus on high-end missions. What you're describing would be awesome though.

Our squadron has heritage patches that we wear instead of the squadron patch on Fridays. Haven't gotten anything but positive comments even from higher leadership. Hopefully the morale patch rule will continue to be selectively enforced at the same rate as the "hat pocket must be zipped" rule. I've never zipped that damn thing closed probably ever.

Sarcasm detector set too high, false positive; recommend reset. I was being serious, you seem to know what you're talking about so I asked a legitimate question. Does the A model somehow integrate all the systems up front where the B model splits some things off to the backseat guy or does the B model add additional systems? It's the crux of the idea of 1- vs. 2-seat for this mission; does the 1-seat have all the toys the 2 seat does? If so, and the pilot can handle it, then you're correct that the second guy isn't needed. I don't know the super T or AT-6 enough to know this, maybe you do. This is what I'm talking about...you claim not to be an expert but then whip out very strong opinions based on facts I don't have. Convince me why a 2nd pilot or CSO should not be aboard beyond "it's an SA drain." You might be right and we're headed down the wrong path on the program, but I think the fact that we're only considering 2-seat options is telling. Aren't we exclusively looking at the A-29B rather than the apparently also available A-29A? Sooo...you say you've been out of the game for a couple of years and thus may not be familiar with the latest and greatest sh*t you can strap to a jet, you want to have this discussion on an open forum, but want me to be more specific than to say that there's enough magic to helmetfire any human being? No thanks, that's my position and you can disagree. I'm aware of what can replace a nav or EWO (and rightly should on many platforms) and I'm also very well aware of what kind of stuff is a huge attention drain and that pilots are glad to have someone else handle while they actually fly the jet and think about the big picture. No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you really think the mission can be done with one person, design the plane to be single-seat and put more gas/bombs/systems on board. The benefits of taking up the occasional GFC/JTAC/foreign national backseater are outweighed by the extra gas and thus loiter time you could give the ground guys on a daily basis; it's not a good trade off for occasional use only IMHO. On the other hand, if there's a second seat, systems back there that a person can use, and you don't have the option of just taking more gas if you left him behind, then why would you leave him on the ground? That's what I'm saying. If hoss and rainman are correct that you only need 1 person for this mission, then the program is f*cked up in a serious way from the start since we're buying airplanes that appear to carry 2. Somehow I think the program managers don't agree with their point of view based on their decision to pursue a 2-seat platform. Other than the unintentionally homo-sounding backend magic, yes, I totally agree and you've written more clearly than I have done in about 10 posts combined. There are missions where a pred is not a good asset for what you're trying to accomplish. It's not a knock on pred guys, it's the limitations that the system and platforms impose on them that we haven't found a way to solve yet. Why did we build all those MC-12s if we could have just used RPAs the whole time? I have no doubt that RPAs will replace most of us eventually, but for now there are manned assets doing this sh*t for a reason.

What I found beyond Wikipedia... Ah ha, so if you're gonna replace the second seat you should probably add something like extra fuel, not just have an freakin' empty seat. Since you're extremely knowledgeable on this it seems, do the A models have all the same toys as the B models? The same interface/avionics? I'll still maintain that if you add the level of modern magic toys that is possible, you're better off with 2 brains to run all that crap. Thanks for the history edumacation on previous light attack platforms.

It was my understanding that the Super T was purpose-built for combat and has always had 2 seats. To me, if there are two seats and a job for a second person to do, take 2 people. If you want 1 person to fly the plane, design it with 1 seat so you can have more gas/bombs/toys. I'm not arguing that 2 people are always better than 1, I'm arguing here that if you build for 2 people, take 2 people. Anecdotal, for the mission and the proposed capes/equipment, I also believe more than 1 person helps but that's a secondary argument and I don't suspect we'll agree on.

Agreed, this is my opinion and it's based on my background. I'm not a single-seat dude and clearly you and Rainman have some highly valid experiences coming from the single-seat A-10 background. I hope none of us expects to change a lot of minds, but clearly this is up for debate. Well if a single second dude in the back is a hindrance than the gunship must be a total sh*t show! ::sarcasm:: I know what you mean but clearly the -15E makes it work in a CAS environment with 2 dudes and the gunship makes it work with like 14. And although you and rainman deftly stomped on my challenge to provide examples of 2-seat platforms launching with just 1 dude, there is plenty of precedent for 2-seat being workable as well so your opinion that a second dude is a hindrance doesn't jive to me. A second dude in an A-10 might be a hindrance but history shows that both 1- and 2-seat platforms can succeed at CAS. Your opinions that a trunk monkey messes up your mojo is based on your background and to be expected but that doesn't really make it more valid. I assure you this is within my lane, let's at least take each other at face value here. So back in reality versus the philosophical 1- vs. 2-seat mentality argument, can we agree that either the AT-6 or Super-T should fly with a mission-oriented backseater or sometimes a GFC/JTAC/etc. since they were designed to do so?

I'm not sure what you guys' ABUs are made out of, but the fabric is so damn thick that when the sleeves are rolled my arms barely squeeze through and I look like I'm swole all day. Unless you have the biceps of a 12 year old girl it's just not comfortable or worth it...maybe there's a summer-weight version I'm missing out on? I'm all about fighting shoes with their own shoe rules, but the day we start adding to the bullsh*t just to f*ck our buddy is the day we're truly fit for managership (note I didn't say leadership). The big wig for uniform BS is an officer and in all likelihood a pilot (although not the current one) and maybe someday in the distant past he was just like us. But at some point he drank too much kool aid, became the good idea fairy, and bam, now we have more stupid sh*t in the new AFI than in the last version. Be careful about playing the shoe game too well. Also, here is the process for trying to reverse some of the dumbness:

Exactly. If we're talking "light attack" only, then by all means a single-seat aircraft designed for attack works great. See A-10 for reference. IMHO, we don't need smaller A-10s with this program, if you want more A-10s then get more A-10s. BUT, if you want to track man-sized targets through complex environments for hours and hours, lase for other platforms or for yourself without needing a wingman, constantly push and share data with other platforms, talk on 6-9 radios, and also employ both guns and AGM/LGB/etc., it's very beneficial to have a second person. Is it necessary as rainman asks, perhaps not, I'm sure the laws of physics will still allow the airplane to take off with only 1 pink body up front. But is there a better way to operate than the minimum absolutely necessary? When you add on a sh*t ton of other ISR-related tasks besides flying and releasing weapons, maybe there's a reason all these platforms were designed for 2 seats. If 1 seat could do that mission just as effectively, why were there no single-seat proposals?

I read the actual article CH posted and saw that SNC is behind the Super-T. Armed with that knowledge I really hope they get the contract. A-freaking-mazing maintenance and R&D support and they have a history of taking a small, foreign-built turboprops and doing great things with them. Many old-heads from multiple previous platforms say SNC provides the hands-down best MX they've ever worked with in their careers and that us young guys don't know how nice it is not to have to fight with MX constantly. We'll agree to disagree. Not the proper forum to discuss this fully. Not saying that, but there is merit to the argument that the mission the LAS would do is best supported by a two-seat platform. Giving credence to this argument is the fact that all the entrants in the program were two-seat platforms. I'm not making this up; ask hiflyer, I have no direct experience and therefore am not the most credible advocate for this position. So you envision a situation where you would purposefully not take an in-house backseater who was purpose-trained for the platform? On a regular mission, not a mission where you're taking up the GFC or an ALO or something like that? Do tell why you would ever do that other than the one-off need for absolute maximum gas. How many times does the mudhen fly a combat mission without the WSO? Maybe they do regularly and I'm suffering from low SA, please inform me if there is precedent for two-seat platforms flying with just 1 pilot on a regular basis in combat. Sincerely, this isn't a pissing contest between 1- and 2-seaters, I'm not a fighter dude and have seen both varieties operate effectively; I just don't get why you would forgo a backseater (WSO, 2nd pilot, whatever) when the platform is designed from the ground up to have one on board...

What was the first thing you looked at in the picture? Kinda reminded me of this...

At least they got it right...cool platform at sh*tty bases. Despite Salina being in the middle of nowhere Kansas, sure sounds better than Canon! AT-6, USA, USA!

Does that guy on the left have 2 really-deformed dicks?

Check your PM. In terms of recovery, it's only the first 5 days that are bad for PRK so don't base any life-long decisions on being laid up for such a relatively short period of time.

In my (limited) experience they were already frowned upon if not prohibited by commanders at lower levels anyways. Case in point, the 562nd/563rd back at RND (old nav school squadrons) each had morale shirts on friday that got turned off by a OG/CC I believe who didn't like that we weren't "standardized" with the rest of the ops group, some of whom didn't do morale shirts out of preference. This was 2007. At my current base, we tried to do morale shirts on Fridays and the old SQ/CC said no and that was that. Maybe some pointy-nose dudes kept the spirit alive the past few years... Damn, I had almost saved up enough for one of these... I hear ya...man the bastions and protect the booze!

Yea, return those. I searched "sage" throughout the entire pub and didn't see that sage green undershirts were authorized in any uniform combination. Might be wrong but couldn't find it in there. WRT tan shirts, direct from the pub: Also note tan boots no longer authorized in ABUs after 31 Oct 11 at home station but will remain authorized while downrange and with the desert bag "indefinitely."

This has been discussed long ago in another thread, UTFSF; all I typed in the search was "boots" and there it was. Yes, it blows and I plan on wearing my black shirt and boots until the last day, but it's been a long time commin'. If I still had decent looking BDUs I'd wear those on the last day just to protest the disgrace that the ABU is. As for morale patches, I think we all know they're not "authorized" even now but that doesn't exactly stop people depending on your CC. Tan shirts under all bags, green boots at home, tan boots deployed. All of this is Nov 2011, the only thing that takes affect right now (the way I read it) is unit morale shirts (i.e. red or yellow or whatever undershirts) that many units seemed to phase out a while back anyways.

I say it entirely depends on what they decide to strap to the airplane. The OV-10 has a TON of cargo room to put more radios, more data systems, etc. I've seen setups that are physically impossible for 1 man to run; can't do it even if you're some kind of Robin Olds/Maverick hybrid with 4 hands and giant brass balls. If you think we can't add enough magic to an airplane to overwhelm one person you haven't seen all the magic. Can a hog driver handle all the sensor/data/radio stuff in that jet, obviously yes, the whole system is designed to ensure that outcome. Even beyond the argument that one dude can't handle all the stuff, which is debatable depending on the setup, training, and ability, hiflyer's argument that one dude shouldn't is perhaps more valid. Given the mission and given that the aircraft are already designed from the ground up with 2 seats, why would you seek to change that? Or is this all just a hypothetical argument of 1-seat versus 2-seat?

I just highly doubt this. Remember the very recent uproar with very modestly raising rates on tricare? The first rate-hike in over a decade I think? It was ridiculous, to the point that to me, some groups were discredited by their hard and fast, line in the sand "no increases EVER" stance when what the DOD was proposing was a very small increase in premiums that are far, far below civilian world standards. To me, military healthcare will be one of the last things to get cut, the emotional argument of the vets with their freaking legs and hands blown off. The argument that even above pay, that vets who have put their lives on the line for the good of the country deserve good medical care at low cost is extremely politically and morally powerful. I've argued this numerous times that more people, especially non-rated officers, would stick around longer if you were vested before the all-or-nothing of 20 years. When your commitment is up at 4 years and you're looking at a long 16 more years when you've already had a big spoonful of BS it's a difficult decision to stay. I don't know a single one of the non-rated guys I commissioned with who's staying more than 2-3 years past their commitment (mostly due to taking TA too late to punch at 4).

Wasn't trying to agree with Gordan England necessarily, just saying the fact that his op-ed ran in the Times didn't necessarily mean it was infected with evil liberal bias. What's your take on the JSF future? I think most crew dogs are very skeptical it's gonna pan out anywhere the numbers being planned for.

Yea, cheers to that As much as it sounds like BS, I've definitely come to more greatly appreciate what other communities do on a daily basis the longer I'm in the AF. As much as I like to give pilots and especially pointy-nose dudes sh*t, I give much respect the guys who are out there actually killing the enemy for a living.

Some of this is true and some herbivores get butt-hurt, but not every "heavy" is hauling trash from A to B. Based on knowing tacairlifter as an acquaintance, the platform he flies is neither a jet or a trash hauler so there is room for non-jet pilots who get down in the weeds of a mission where actually flying the plane is a secondary concern. What you fly doesn't necessarily validate opinions one way or another, but I can see where he's coming from based on what I assume his experiences are. I somewhat agree with the thrust of what he's saying (sts) WRT two heads are better than one especially with all the technology/radios/sensor/data stream sh*t we're strapping on jets, notably disagreeing with the idea that mudhens are the preferred CAS jet... I'm guessing you speak of Scorpion HMCS?

Definitely a good read and it being an opinion piece by a long-serving former DOD official, the source that happens to run it doesn't really even matter...

Rum - Tanduay, the 12 year aged is phenomenal and even the 5 year is good enough to sip straight and enjoy it and best of all it costs less than water!

You're right as well...I didn't realize you were speaking strictly in terms of the MBA they offer. Since many other AMU programs are in different fields where regional accreditation is the standard, the "legitimacy" of the school it's not a problem. Some of it's professors, their grading system, and the insane level of dumbness of quite a few of your classmates are all bigger problems and make me with I had chosen differently when I started my studies there. Tried to educational delay out of ROTC and pay for a good school 100% on my own dime in exchange for a 2-year delay with no pay or benefits, but of course that was denied (bad luck/timing)...yea, the AF really values a good education...don't ever believe that for a second. Like I said before and others have reinforced, go to the best school you can afford (in both time and money) because I've never met someone who went to a good school and in hindsight regretted "working to hard" or having a degree with "too much credibility." I didn't know anything about MBA accreditation so thanks for the learningz. From what I briefly read it seems like AACSB is the standard and what all the major school have, but that ACBSP, which accredits AMU's MBA, is a legitimate if second-tier accreditation. Like you said, know your goals and if there is clearly a higher standard out there you're much safer going to a school that lives up to that.