nsplayr

Vortex is a dumpster fire POS and I blame whoever at the NSA sunsetted the PACWIND crypto about 5 years too early. It's almost as if we just need a common, pilot-proof, on/off system that works 99% of the time out to 80nm...sounds real familiar... I slammed my head against the wall so many times trying to integrate Vortex back in 2012 and working with it regularly today, 5 years later, it is still horrible. Apparently Vortex 2.0 will be "a lot better," but a pox on Comms West's house for the current box and I don't trust them at all because they also think Vortex 1.0 is just fine.

You want BLOS comms and VDL so the FSO can clear you hot in places where no JTAC is on the ground. Absent executing true SCAR doctrine, it's how business is done. Fair enough. I guess I'm just ready to write the check so I wanna see a full requirements list that has all the stuff I think the platform will need to succeed.

Here's the current Invitation to Participate for the Capabilities Assessment. Relevant for discussion is the Notional Light Attack Requirements that make up Annex 1. Updated from what Clark posted from 2009 although not significantly different. Big misses IMHO are: - Dual FMV sensors not required and no mention of other INT sensor support. Dual sensor allows for single ship ops to fully support a DA or kinetic strike (i.e. target designation and CDE scans) and doing so about halves your operating costs compared to always needing a 2-ship - 2.5 hours of mission endurance is weak sauce. Also not specified at what distance from base so that time is kind of meaningless. 2.5 overhead the field is way different than 2.5 after a 300nm transit - 2x voice radios with no requirement for BLOS is super weak sauce. Potentially can't talk to the JOC, to the JTAC on fires and air cord at the same time - No requirement for BLOS datalink isn't smart - 80% FMC MX availability is kinda shit for an aircraft this simple carrying mission systems that are proven capable of much more reliability. I'm assuming all comers will great exceed this one - Rough field ops induces other design limitations for very little gain, see above for my rant on that Just one man's opinion, but changes I would have made if I was King for a day. Hope we pick something and field it quickly, and if it goes to the ARC I'd gladly volunteer to fly any of the likely competitors for a tour.

The RFI, IMHO, seems to favor the A-29. It's my understanding that the Scorpion and A-29 will compete for sure, with the AT-6 a possibility. Since Textron owns both the AT-6 and the Scorpion it's kind of an interesting business decision on whether you put forward two entrants or just push the one you think has the best shot at winning. We'll get to find out shorty here in prep for the actual fly-off. I've got a personal favorite based on working somewhat closely with one of the platforms, but truth be told all three would make fine LAAR aircraft and the AF should just shit or get off the pot here. 16 years too late is better than never I guess... Edit to add: TL;DR for below: rough field, forward-arming as a doctrine is stupid regardless of what airplane they pick Sidetrack here, but can we all stop kidding ourselves that we need "rough field" operations, forward-arming/fueling, etc.? We have airbase access across the globe and the diplomatic clout to gain more if needed. I've never thought it was a great plan to land a bunch of $15-20 million+ airplanes on a gravel road in some hellscape to be met by forward loggies for a gas-and-go. Who's protecting and supplying said loggies? Why did we haul the gas and bombs forward rather than just transiting the aircraft back further rear? Never understood that fever dream of a desired capability for one second, and I've participated in operations where that would have been useful...it all comes down to the risk of setting up the staging point and it never turns out to be worth it. Even if the plane itself can take rough field ops (like the aircraft I flew on AD), once you start hanging million-dollar sensors off the bottom that kind of changes your calculus again on how many times you want to risk that rough field before you fling a rock right through the sensor glass and cause a Class A. Like the F-35B lift fan, this is a desired capability that induces other negative design trade-offs for what I would consider at best fringe-use situations. Hell, I can make a better argument for jump-jets from USMC short boats than I can for "rough field" operations and forward arming somewhere other than an airbase. Great for your Mad Max-type dystopian futures, but not for how the US mil actually operates.

Excellent piano burn to honor Andy, Kenny and Drew last night. Thanks to the squadron for organizing and to the city for letting us do it.

Just to be clear...someone would not be up for either #1/32 Majors or #3/216 CGOs, right? Majors are field grade officers and thus would be compared to other FGOs. Likely a typo, or am I smokin' dope on this somehow?

^^ yep. Emphasis on the last sentence...if the CC delegates as intended. Haven't seen that critical element outside the textbooks yet.

And I'm the first one to advocate for using the doctrine we have, like SCAR for instance, instead of the bastardized CAS pseudo-9 lines that are common today, even when there are no friendlies on the ground within 100nm. +1 for any effort to make smart changes to that effect.

IDK, I've not found the current targeting and approvals process to have significantly harmed our ability to prosecute targets, at least on the SOF side of the house. YMMV. Definitely seen ITCs and GFCs in the JOC too big for their britches and there are times when I wished the overall C2 apparatus would just let us loose with an intent and a "good luck," but I guess the former just didn't happen that often and the latter isn't really realistic in a permissive, BLOS-enabled environment. I'd rather teach a guy how to make smart decisions in the plane and BFM the system when absolutely necessary than try to wish for something different when I'm fairly certain the system we have won't appreciably change.

Some nice academic theories we got here guys, but when you forward deploy an asset with capable sensors, data links and a good amount of stations time, that asset is gonna get tasked with ISR support as directed by the ITCs. There isn't enough DA going on consistently anymore to afford constantly-airborne armed overwatch/observation/whatever and it's equally unlikely you leave good jets on the ground idle, cocked and ready to respond. The community and individual crews just need to work within the confines of the system and develop strategies to avoid, minimize and squash attempts at being micromanaged. It's not rocket science and it's been done successfully.

Names of the fallen have been released. RIP brothers. Also in local news. https://www.koat.com/article/3-airmen-killed-in-crash-identified/9140899

These guys are so ignorant to human psychology the way this is structured. A few thousand dollars here or there really makes no difference at all in a guy's decision to stay. They make these numbers seem so calibrated and logical like there's some magic formula on exactly how much you need to pay to tip the balance. News flash, AFPC and Congress ain't that smart. What ends up being incredibly insulting however is being paid less than your buddy just because he has a different letter after his number, when you both can see that each of your career fields is undermanned. Even when the retention need differs across specialties (11F vs 11M), a level bonus is always going to feel more equitable and produce better results. The joy of the fighter guy getting a few thousand more will not outweigh the anger of the heavy guy getting a few thousand less,and the AF will end up with fewer pilots than if they just paid everyone the same bonus. +1 for $60K across the board for pilots, $25K for CSOs and call it a day. Have fun being the monkey on the left!

There is a theory that the President himself leaked this. The documents were stamped "Client Copy." Gaming it out: Pros: this return shows nothing really nefarious, shows that he paid taxes at some point (unlike the 1995 return that was leaked), and makes the left look like a bunch of raving lunatics Cons: none noted Just a thought... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/15/did-trump-have-his-own-tax-return-leaked-that-was-the-big-question-after-maddow/?utm_term=.0af0184bf126 Edit to add: link

For those who bank with USAA and don't already play the credit card rewards game, this is a great one-card solution. https://www.usaa.com/inet/wc/bank_cc_limitless_cashback_visa_signature BL: limitless 2.5% cashback on every purchase, no annual fee, the only catch is you have to direct deposit at least $1K monthly with USAA. Even for those with a handful of rewards cards already I think it has a place. I applied and was approved 10 seconds later and it doesn't appear like it's affected by any kind of 5/24 rule like Chase. Adding to my roster of travel cards and will be used for anything that doesn't qualify for a higher rewards rate on another card.

Ya know what, after much googling and reading the all the regs and FAQs I could find from ARPC you are correct. I had this explained to me incorrectly by multiple people over the course of several years. So for my own knowledge, to earn an active duty retirement as a guard guy, you would need 20 years worth of time spent in one of the following categories: prior active duty, AGR, AT, or Title 10 orders. IDT (i.e. Drill, AFTPs, ACSC, funeral duty, etc.) does not count toward the goal of an active duty retirement, although it does earn points toward a reserve retirement if that is your goal instead. Is that all correct? Thanks for the clarification...I'll also shut up now and let the crustier ARC guys do the advice-giving.

Can you explain further? There are different types of duties you can earn retirement points for while in the ARC, and indeed there's a limit to inactive duty points in one year (130). But points are points, once they're earned they all count the same. To get an active retirement, you need 7300 points and at least 20 good years, whether on AD or in the ARC 20 years of active service, whether on AD or in the ARC or a combination. To earn a reserve retirement you need at least 20 good years and once you decide to hang up your spurs your check depends on how many points you earned. https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/ https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/ActiveDuty.aspx https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/Reserve.aspx Edit to add: fixing stuff that is wrong

From my understanding it's 1 point for every three hours and each class has a number of hours that it's worth. There's a spot on the ACSC website hat details this, can't get to the link from my phone right now. So in your case you would just get credit for the last course which is something like 21 hours, so maybe 7 points? It's not entirely clear...the site says you get points only after the entire corse is clear. I would call them and ask specifically. Glad to help although I'm no expert...just researching ahead since I'll hopefully be doing his myself soonish. Edit to add: here's the appropriate link for how many hours each class is worth. Divide hours by 3 to get points. https://www.aueducationsupport.com/link/portal/8027/8405/Article/6242/ACSC-IDE-How-many-retirement-points-will-I-receive-for-completing-the-ACSC-DL-program

Like I said, "Without getting into the O vs E argument again." I made zero judgements on whether or not officers or enlisted guy could do the job, I just made a prediction on which of those two categories would be sitting in that seat. +1 on this being a great option for CSOs, I'm just concerned the AF either has to make way more or pull them from other communities that aren't exactly fat on bodies. If the light attack platform X community ends up with anything more than 25 tails or so, there's going to be a burden on the overall CSO force to man it properly. Re: CSO career field dying...the traditional panel nav I agree is going away, replaced by a box. For missions like what light attack will be tasked to do, the career field is strong and stable, see AFSOC as an example. CSOs from the AC-130W/J, U-28 and MC-130J would be well-equiped to fly light attack and vice versa. Strike Eagle, Bone and Buff WSOs are also obviously good candidates for crossflow to light attack.

@herkbum Good to know! Sorry in advance then that my Guard OPRs from my old unit are marginal at best. I'll try to suck less and kill more bad guys on Uncle Sam's naughty list here shortly...

@Ebony zer Not sure you got good gouge on how points work brother. Points are points when counting toward retirement. Whether it's the 4 points you earn over a drill weekend, the 83 points you earn for ACSC, or 365 points for a year's worth of Title 10 orders, they're all the same. This article is excellent at explaining how the system works. If you reach 7300 points (i.e. 365 points x 20 years), you collect your retirement right away just like if you were AD. If not, assuming you have 20 good years (good year = > 50 points), then you get a reserve retirement that you don't collect right away and that is calculated based on whatever points total you have when you retire. On your other advice, you're right that ACSC is necessary to make O-5, but you can be an O-4 for 8 years so it's not like you need to rush and knock it out on AD unless you're bumping up against that window. I would also forward that OPRs have been entirely meaningless in the Guard both in my (limited) experience and in that of much more senior dudes I've tried to learn from. It's a small, insestous family at whatever unit you're in and your reputation for quality work and being a good dude is what carries you forward rather than wordsmithing a "great" OPR. Also, as @nunya said, most dudes are finding ways to complete that PME while on pay status, so you're still doing the work somewhat on Big Blue's time while you're getting paid to be there, and you also earn the 83 points on top of whatever you earn money and points-wise just for being there at the squadron. Edit to add: One wrinkle is that there's a limit to the number of inactive duty points you can earn in a single year (130 is the current limit). That would be relevant if you maxed out UTAs (48 points), AFTPs (48 points) and did ACSC (83) in the same year. Even doing ACSC and all your drills, i.e. not working any AFTPs, you're at 131 points so I guess one of those points won't end up counting. All this to say, if you want to maximize your points for effort calculation, try to do ACSC on a year where you're working other types of active orders i.e. you're lighter on inactive duty time anyways so as to not go over the limit and waste those points. However also try not to do it in a year where you're on Title 10 the whole time if you don't have to, since the most points anyone can earn in a year is 365 or 366 for a leap year. Edit to add more: crossing out stuff that is wrong

https://www.businessinsider.com/nude-photo-marine-corps-pentagon-scandal-2017-3 The investigation is zooming out. Check your 6 if you've ever taken part in anything even tangentially related.

Without getting into the officer vs enlisted beat-around-the-bush, not saying right or wrong, but name one ejection-seat aircraft that flys with enlisted dudes. I can't thinking off the top... I would bet the farm this platform, if it happened at all, will be crewed by an officer pilot and officer CSO/WSO/whateverjust like the strike eagle, bone, buff, hornet, growler, etc. Manning issues will either be overcome via time and money, or the fleet will be small, or some combination of the two .

You also earn 83 points for completing the ACSC course in the ARC, so if you're not a full-time guy that's another way to get a few months of gimmie points toward that check of the month club.

Agreed manning would be the main issue, especially as people head for the door. If the platform does have CSOs, which it looks like it will, it would be an extremely popular option but the manning pool is small. There are soemthing like 2K CSOs on AD. No way that pool can support the McCain pipe dream of 300x tails. Even a U-28 sized community would be a lift...that new platform alone ate up what, like 160 CSOs at a time maybe? Damn near 10% of all CSOs in existence. Not sure where those extra dudes come from unless you cut manning in other platforms if you do even that modest effort again. 300x tails at reasonable crew manning would be 1/2 the force... Let alone pilots, many of whom have excellent options on the outside right now... I'm still a huge fan. Would be a great mission, something the AF should have been doing way more of all along, and if it requires more $$ and manning then so be it, let Congress appropriate it.

I was hired to become an MQ-9 pilot last August so I'll speak to my experience & the particulars of my unit as I understand them. Ask your local unit of interest for better specifics: - Day to day: A version of the Panama schedule, 3x 8-hour shifts, not in the seat for all 8 hours - Flying min: 5 sorties a month plus drill minimum for DSGs - Deployments: No deployments unless you volunteer for LRE - Timeline: I would estimate at least 1 year if not slightly more to go from enlisted to fully mission-qual'd RPA pilot, between AMS, URT, IQT and MQT - Age: I was told 35 is the new age waiver limit, with waivers being automatically approved up to that age rather than having to staff paperwork. I can positively confirm that 32 is not a limit since myself and one other guy hired at the same time are > 32 and haven't begun training yet. Cavet - we're both current flying officers (CSOs) so YMMV if you're coming in as an E. Also note that I was hired in August and haven't started training yet, so there may be a pretty significant lag time between getting hired and even starting that 1+ year process. Luck & timing, the true Gods of the Air Force. I've had a lot of luck, timing not so much... The main reason I left AD was the endless carousel of deployments with no end in sight. I love helping the good guys on the ground and killing the bad guys, but I'd "been there, done that, gotten the t-shirt" for living in a tent more than a few times. RPA lets me do the mission I love and still sleep in my own bed, so if that's what you're looking for, RPA ops offer some unique advantages over a manned platform. Hope this helps, good luck!