nsplayr

Just for shits and gigs, a savings of $15-20 per ticket, for US domestic passengers only, would be a savings of $17.9 billion dollars per year based on a 2015 total passenger volume of about 896 million. When you're dealing at this scale, saying you can save even $0.25 per passenger per year with no other externalities would be tremendous savings for the airlines. So if your random ballpark was meant to demonstrate how the R&D required for more serious flight automation isn't worth the potential gains, I think it basically shows the opposite.

The complete opposite is true. Once you're over the speed where fatal accidents become more certain in a crash, it doesn't really matter if you hit something at 120mph closure or 400kts closure, you're still in a bad place. On the ground, you're sometimes inches and often no more than a few feet away from numerous other objects, including other piloted vehicles whose drivers may or may not be paying attention. You're dealing with pedestrians, stray dogs, limited sightlines with no ability to see through the obstacle, confusing or missing road markings, and most of all, other idiot human drivers an arm's length away. Compare that to IFR flying, where the roads are mostly straight and all well-marked, you're not anywhere near other objects (relatively speaking compared to driving), and all pilots in that environment are much more highly trained than your 16 year old daughter in a mustang talking on the phone. Obviously I've simplified both environments, but you get the idea. Controlled for volume, there's a reason that traveling by air is orders of magnitude safer than traveling by car. Flying is almost 96x safer depending on how you work the numbers, and that margin of safety isn't just because the airlines have two pink bodies up front rather than one. Edit to add: Pilots can safely fly an RPA, even in a busy stack, with a 2-second delay in control inputs. Do you think you could remotely pilot your car through an urban commute with that same 2-second delay and maintain an acceptable safety record over time? You mean like a single commercial pilot flying passengers in a single-engine airplane? Something that preposterous would never be allowed by the august regulators at the FAA!

I'll bet ya a bottle on that one. A generation is what, 25 years generally? And what's the criteria for "public to be okay with" and "government able to regulate?" Uber/Otto already delivered 50K cans of Budweiser using a driverless truck last October. Daimler is investing a ton of money into driverless trucks in Europe. Most experts believe significant job disruptions in the trucking industry are more like 5-10 years away. I mean honestly, depending on the criteria for the bet, the video below kind of contradicts both of the issues you raised. The truck drove down a public highway in a populated area, with hundreds of other civilian vehicles, and the trip was done legally meaning there was coordination with the appropriate levels of government. Granted this setup still required a man in the machine for city driving, pickup/delivery, etc., so not fundamentally different than what airline guys are doing today. Either way, this bet should be settled waaaay before the leaving Afghanistan one p.s. - this thread is way off the rails...+1 for separating out automation stuff

With the FBI and 2x Congressional investigations still ongoing, this is a bold statement to make. Saved for posterity; I hope you're right.

Not that you asked me, but this is how: USG intelligence agencies examine the digital forensic evidence, looking for markers commonly used by known Russian state actors, while also making analytic assessments of intent based on open-source and classified communications. In fact, this very thing you're asking about was in the news yesterday. On 6 January 17, the intelligence community, via the DNI, released a report titled Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution. It's an unclassified version of a classified assessment that obviously isn't fully releasable to the public. To be exact, the report itself says, "This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign." The report presents the publically releasable evidence leading the IC to jointly conclude, "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." The reason this was in the news yesterday once again was because the following Trump Administration officials testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee: Director of National Intelligence, former Republican Senator Dan Coats, Director of Central Intelligence, former Republican Representative Mike Pompeo, acting Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, and Director of the NSA Adm. Mike Rogers. These officials were nominated and appointed by President Trump, minus McCabe who just got in the seat two days ago and Rogers who remained in place from the last admin. The IC leaders were asked by Senator Mark Warner if they accepted the conclusions of the 6 Jan 17 report, and all answered yes. So this conclusion, that it was indeed the Russian government that directed and carried out an influence and hacking campaign against the US during the 2016 election, was unanimously agreed upon by officials at all 17 intel agencies during the final days Obama admin IC officials, and yesterday was once again affirmed by the four top IC agency leaders of the Trump admin.

It's fairly technical, but all things are possible with 1s and 0s + time + money. But the bottom line is that it will never work if the industry partners in question don't work together. GA has typically not been friendly at all to other companies "encroaching" on their fairly sizable RPA empire, even when the operators are jumping up and down for improvements that are par for the course on other platforms.

Here's a view from the other side, although to be honest the whole notion of "another side" of things is part of what's hurting our country very badly right now: Comey absolutely fucked up in his handling of the Clinton email investigation. I basically fully agree with the memo written by the recently confirmed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that can be read here. In an alternate bizarro world, if DAG Rosenstein was serving under a President Hillary Clinton, I would be fully supporting of Comey being fired for the reasons stated. The FBI needs to never be even perceived as putting a thumb on the scale during any election. Although even with Comey's election-season actions, I'm generally an institutionalist and don't like to see tumultuous upheaval in important US institutions. If Clinton and Comey could have found a way to coexist in the same administration, that would have also been fine by me, even preferable. FBI Directors are supposed to serve 10-year terms that are not aligned with Presidential administrations for a reason. That all being said, everything changed when the March 20th Comey testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee happened. At that point, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Comey's boss at DOJ, had recused himself of any possible inquiries into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia after it was revealed he had undisclosed contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. On March 20th, while under oath, Comey confirmed what many suspected for months, that the FBI had an open and ongoing inquiry into the Trump campaign and possible ties to Russia. This isn't "fake news" propagated by the "liberal media" and Democrats, it's straight from the horse's mouth while under oath. As soon as that was openly acknowledged, Comey absolutely, 100% needed to remain in place. With Sessions recused and the FBI typically being fairly independent anyways, Comey was completely in charge of investigating the sitting President's campaign and associates, looking for possible ties to, collusion with or other assorted nefarious business with Russians and/or the Russian government. That investigation is still happening today. Now Comey is summarily fired, ostensibly for reasons not related to the Russia investigation, and that is a really, really shocking turn of events. There is bipartisan outcry over Comey's firing and for good reason. In the House, Justin Amash, a member of the very conservative House Freedom Caucus, is looking at legislation that would establish an independent commission on Russia, and further called the second paragraph of President Trump's letter firing Comey "bizarre." Republican Senators Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, John McCain and Richard Burr among others have put out statements variously stating they are "very troubled," calling for a Congressional select committee, and generally decrying Comey's departure. Democratic legislators have obviously been even harsher in their condemnations. Look, partisanship is a hell of a drug, I take it myself regularly. During the Obama years, and 2011/2012 in particular, I was a vigorous defender of President Obama's policies and leadership qualities on the boards here. I was highly inclined to see the best in him and his actions, and quick to downplay what others saw (rightfully or not) as missteps, errors, or bad intentions. So I get it, trust me. But where do we draw the line? When do Republicans stand up for The Republic first and party second? I'd like to think that were these the action of a Democratic President, I would be making similar arguments to my political allies on the left. Here's the bottom line, pretend you're reading this about some tropical South American backwater if that helps: the President just abruptly fired the leading domestic law enforcement official who was leading an ongoing investigation into that President's previous election campaign, looking into possible ties between the campaign and a hostile foreign power. This is not a good turn of events for the country, no matter who you support politically.

Yes. Live version of the page is 404, but see the google cache link below. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o-XVgMeVCPUJ:www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1038723/agilepod-reconfiguring-isr-mission/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Dual sensor on a single platform, let alone dual sensor in a 2-ship, changes the game for strikes where CDE is a concern (i.e. a huge percentage of all operations). Cheaper than MQ-9 when factoring in all the link architecture. Helps with pilot retention issues vs hurting them (i.e. people would want to fly the light attack mission, not so many pilots are volunteering for RPA). Much faster response time from launch to target area (400+ kts vs 200 kts). As stated, all WX capability. Better LOS radio comms and better maneuverability = better CAS support when friendlies on the ground. MQ-9 is great at what it does and is getting better every day with new tech and weapons, but I wouldn't think I'd have to advocate for the pros of a manned platform on BO.net!

Pretty sure he meant the party planning and ball washing, not the RPA flying, had nothing to do with the AF's core mission.

Expand your horizons a little bit brother. Think about this: WAMI sensor that can cover a large city center on the ground with multiple individual streams that can all be independently controlled. It's like having a handful of MX-15-like sensors onboard, all in one turret. The aircrew controls a couple of streams plus a second targeting turret (20in or 25in class) for PID and lasing. Now off-board the rest of those WAMI streams BLOS so some nerd in the JOC with a laptop and an X-box controller can look wherever the screeners or the Boss wants. That kind of setup is not only a game-changing capability for the aircrew in certain mission sets, but also would enable more aircrew independence, since the JOC can independently look at whatever they want rather than having to ask the aircrew to zoom in or pan left or whatever. Honestly this capability isn't quite a fit for OA-X IMHO, much better for pod-mounting on an RPA, but you get the picture. And all of this technology exists right now, off the shelf, and works...I've done this personally, no BS. On the main topic, I know CH and Cooter personally, they've BTDT on the types of missions OA-X will be tasked with. They absolutely speak the truth. IMHO, A-29 is the way to go if you want a slightly cheaper, more rugged and proven platform where it's capabilities are mostly fleshed out. If you want to put .50 cal on a pickup you visually ID and then land on a dirt road, it's a great platform. Weaknesses are sensor fidelity, the human/machine interface in the cockpit, speed/ceiling/capacity compared to the competition, and future possibilities. And even though I don't personally care as much about this, the "Made in America" or lack thereof will be a factor. On the other hand, if you want the ability to grow capabilities in the future (i.e. more sensors, weapons, "boxes," fuel, etc.) the Scorpion's modular bay is an incredible asset. And as CH spoke to directly, the additional range and speed of Scorpion can enable things the A-29 is simply not capable of due to physics. Basing in friendlier places yet still making it to the target area with plenty of loiter time, requiring fewer jets to service a target area due to faster transit time, etc. Costs begin to look different when you go from strictly, "How much is the unit flyaway cost?" to "How much will it cost to hit a target 300nm away from base X after 10 hours of coverage ahead of time waiting for a strike window?" Overall I absolutely want the AF to buy one of these at the end of the day, but if I'm King, I'm choosing Scorpion no question so long as everything can be successfully integrated and works as promised. Really if I'm the King and I can do whatever I want, I'm buying both (or Scorpion and AT-6) for slightly different missions to take advantages of both of their strengths.

So this is an Eagle unit, copy.

Looks like he choose both!

To be clear, I'm not personally advocating for keeping Cannon open due to the massive MILCON investments that have been made there in the last 5 years, I'm just saying that's the reality. Cannon is a massive vacuum on a relatively small command, strategically sucking good talent right out the door. Never too late to correct a bad mistake, but the Air Force and Congrrss more importantly are rarely if ever willing to offer a full mia culpa and spend the kind of $$ necessary to make things right. Personally I would love to see the 33rd SOS specifically relocated to the top couple of floors of Freedom Tower in NYC so they could rain reightous payback on some of the terrorists that would love to see another 9/11. Hell, if they made a 4-year RPA tour in NYC come with complementary season tickets to the professional sports team of your choice (many to choose from), I'm sure you'd have a few more volunteers compared to being exiled in rural New Mexico.

I'll be pressing-to-test this for accuracy starting in June, so "may the odds ever be in my favor." It does beg the question of where the line is drawn, i.e. could I do 30 days of Title 10 and then 1 day of no orders and still be eligible for MHA? My spidey sense tells me this will not work out as smoothly as the STL RPO thinks it will...

Here's my question and the response from the VA using their website's "Ask a Question" function: QuestionMy wife plans on utilizing my transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to start attending grad school. I'm currently a part-time Air National Guard member (with full eligibility from my time on active duty). I work anywhere between 5-10 days of Title 10 per month and some additional Title 32 days as well.I'm wondering how those days of Title 10 will affect the MHA payment we would expect to receive. Is it prorated? Does even one day of Title 10 in a month make you ineligible for MHA payments? If I went on Title 10 orders long-term I'm assuming that we'd be ineligible for MHA just like if I were on active duty, but the intermittent orders is really what's driving my question.I've tried to search for answers but can't find any articles or FAQs that cover this specifically. Thanks in advance for your help! Answer Hello, Your housing would only be affected if you were on continuous active duty (you would not receive housing at all). All other intermittent days will be added to your service time and should not affect housing payments (unless you generate enough days to warrant a percentage increase) if you have not already reached 100%. Thank you for contacting the Department of Veterans Affairs. St. Louis RPO/TL

We're not saying likely, but answering, "What should be done?" Also Cannon specifically ain't closing...AFSOC pumped so much money into MILCON it would be irresponsible to close it now. Lots of improvements on base and some in town which are nicer than before, but since the location isn't changing my recommendation is some kind of incentive pay scheme to try to keep people from punching when those orders drop. Same can be said of at least half a dozen other garden spots although I fully agree that if the taxpayers haven't recently sunk millions into undesirable bases, they should be closed. BRAC is needed and I'm pretty sure wanted by Big Blue management in order to pay for fleet recap and other priorities.

Excellent that the article's main point wasn't just to slow the roll on PCSing, but that the incurred service commitment for a mandatory PCS was the issue. 100% agree...when faced with A) accept PCS and add to my overall ADSC or B) punch, I took the red pill. To solve the problem of massing folks in desirable locations, you do what every other large organization on earth does: leverage incentives. Pay more for less favorable locations. Offer career benefits for accepting tours in less favorable locations. Also you probably just accept that quality at those less favorable locations is going to inevitably be lower due to the trend of people with their heads screwed on straight will choose more favorable life conditions for their families.

Not sure if this has been posted on BO.net before, but I agree with this: https://philipgmorrison.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/its-your-move-the-dilemma-of-incurred-commitment-in-the-modern-job-market/ BLUF: frequent PCSing leads to unnecessary separations, even for "free agents" who could otherwise punch more or less immediately Completely true in my sample size of 1. My departure from AD was driven by a PCS, yet I likely would have stayed on at least a little while beyond my ADSC had I remained in place.

Also what dude had 11,500 hours of mil flight time?? 30+ year CW5 or something? I knew a guy who retired with 8,500+ and thought that was pretty up there...

Ok, which of Chang's multiple personalities are we talking to today?? Compared to And Just some of the greatest hits for posterity. ^ I hate to be the one to say it, but mods, WTF is with this guy? Why do we let this assclownery persist? He simply can't be for real. Chang has stirred the pot vigorously so many times I've lost count, and it's pretty clear that he bumped his head and/or forgot to switch to his "other login" last Monday. He's gone from full left-boot A1 window-licker rah rah cheerleader kool-aid drinker to full-right boot "one of the guys" pilot bro in the snap of his fingers. As someone who's posted a lot of stupid shit over the years, GC has jumped the shark for me and I'm ready for a roll call to end the bullshiite. Chang, beers on me if you post your quals and ever wanna get together in person to discuss.

Killed by a pig...definitely not making it into Paradise that way! AMF to them all

You have no credibility here to ask serious questions and receive serious responses. Your trolling is A+, but the downside of all those grins is that no one takes you seriously, nor should they. I highly encourage everyone else to either move along or make this thread a new chive image repository for morale purposes. To Chang: re-cage your attitude and approach, delete your account, GFY and have a great Air Force day.

Not just no, but hell no on many of these. Why, in our wildest dreams here on BO.net, are we basing this theoretical platform at lower 50% shitty bases that happen to be near shitty Army bases? Creech AFB in particular should be nuked from orbit after moving all of the assets there somewhere better...same can be said for about 4-5 other Air Force installations out there. Also, I'm not sure why everyone keeps thinking you can just easily dual qual dudes in the MQ-9 as well as some other platform like light attack. RPA isn't just some side gig you can sluff off on comm guys or as an additional duty, it's a full-up mission that requires just as much attention as flying many other platforms. Especially since the GCS interface isn't ideal re: human factors and the missions being tasked to many MQ-9 units are increasingly challenging. Ask yourself how many guys are dual qual'd in two different mission airframes and why maybe that is. Lastly, CSOs with commercial licences are not eligible for RPA pilot and haven't been for a long time...12U was (stupidly) shut down on the AD side at least 6 years ago. AFAIK that is the case, at least that's what they told me when I tried to apply in 2011 on AD.

ain't that the truth. I literally lol'd at the "asshole riding a horse," seen that one specifically more than once. Also have seen probably ~$500K spent "triple-checking" that some low level facilitator was definitely dead out in the middle of the desert. Come on guys...even if it's a spectacular mobility kill or he's just grievously wounded, this guy is dozens of miles from even an Afghan-level of civilization and we're watching him...I'm pretty sure that's good enough to meet the intent of dead without clearing the whole stack hot on his corpse.