di1630

After the “OSI” / you can get crucified for lies discussion in here, check out the WTF in sq bar. Real interesting things could come from that suicide of OSI prosecuted him falsely as is being alluded to. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

https://popularmilitary.com/usaf-captain-who-killed-himself-after-police-chase-was-a-drone-pilot-guilty-of-selling-drugs/ Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

There is about a zero to negative chance we sell F-35’s to an Arab AF. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Damn, digging into his pranks 10+ yrs prior in Korea. Watch your ass people. In 2020 you are one misconstrued joke/prank/drunken misstep from making the AF times or SARC briefing. Not to say this guy doesn’t sound a bit odd but compared to the stuff I’ve seen in 18 yrs, this is nothing. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Back in 2012ish, a bunch of 11F’s, mostly viper guys got F-Ed when their leadership tried to play with numbers thinking there was no way they’d get passed over, and favored the non-ops dudes with weak records. It backfired, the non-ops guys made Maj, the pilots didn’t. Weird shit happens. It’s not right but the statistical odds are that that won’t happen to most people in a normal tear. Your story sounds like something, somewhere at some level got F-ed up and maybe it was covered up and never explained to you. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

16 yrs ago was a different AF. Hell ,5, 3, different AF. I hear we are looking at 90%+ to O-5 coming up. I’ve known multiple HPO’s would could have timed into 1-star jumping ship recently to airlines. What am I getting at? If you want to fly, do it. As long as you don’t have a DUI or UIF and have min-runned your square filling (SOS/ACSC), in today’s AF, you can fly and will probably promote. *some communities vary I was told multiple times that by choosing flying over career I’d never make O-5. Best choice I ever made was ignoring that advice and choosing what I liked doing. Even if I had been stuck at Maj for life, I’d still choose flying. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Any “1917” reviews? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Guys, what makes a complex approach? Any good stories? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Why? Not that I don’t believe you but I like to know why people think their leaders suck. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Pyro was a class A dude who made the world a better place. Great attitude right up to the end. What many people don’t know is that he was given the 95% diagnosis of a few months to live almost 5 years ago. Fought like hell. I’ll fondly remember all the jack and cokes at the bar with him. Godspeed Pyro. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

It’s been a while so I’m not 100% sure but you should get orders from your current base to Fairchild with the TDY enroute annotated. I don’t think your family is included in the TDY unless specified so you’ll get generic BAH for them and TDY pay only for yourself at Altus. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I’m talking 25% of support. Not ops people. I’ve deployed numerous times the last few years, I was appalled at the support-self-licking ice cream cone I saw. It’s bad at home station also when you pull the curtain back on some of the support agencies then look across the flight line at their peers in rank. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I remember 6+ years ago moving to the wing HQ for my attached job. Couldn’t believe how unemployed half the people were. Those doing work were mostly doing irrelevant tasks to justify their job and career. I bet we could cut ~25% of the force with little degradation of the actual mission. I say actual mission because most of the support functions just support themselves and call it the mission. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Ops are probably not overpaid....go check out the support sections on your base and I think an argument could be made that some are overpaid, some shouldn’t even be employed. I was in an office last week that looked over staffed and most people are surfing the internet or playing on their phones. Don’t get me started on deployed ops. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Can you dumb it down further to what that means to the average middle class American? Ie why do I care? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Oh I’m not arguing to replace all or even a majority of flying with sims. I’m just saying that we CAN update and replace flown syllabus items with them and we should explore this and it’s being proven at the UPT/IFF level already. Which and where to cut/change will widely vary by airframe. I’d say on the fighter side the A-10 has the least potential for sim replacement due to the stick-rudder mission demand and jets like the F-22/35 which are more sensor based have the most potential but I think they already do rely on sims heavily vs other fighters. If time/money were unlimited, we’d do 100% flying. But F-22 cost what? $60k per hour? We also need to get real About updated missions. I was talking with a viper guy today who felt his community did too much A/A training vs his realistic real world combat role which he considered A/G. I don’t think he’s wrong. Yeah, I get this pisses people off. Example 5 years ago most Eurofighter pilots were claiming “not a pound for air to ground” (aka 90’s eagle pilots) and are now begging for a A/G role to stay relevant as they find themselves a 90’s 4th gen A/A fighter in a 2020 world. Heavies. I’m admittedly naive. I’d think you want to practice instruments in a sim and do real world mission stuff like assault landings and airdrop but maybe I’m underestimating the complexity of an ILS in a C-17. Good discussion guys, I’m not saying I’m right, I’m saying I believe I’m right...big difference. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

An ILS to mins is the same execution as an ILS to wx cats except the numbers change. One just has a higher safety margin for error but I’ve never had an ILS with an error so great I couldn’t land and that’s counting the ones on raw avionics. With 2019 wind corrected steering bars etc, ILS practice should not be the reason we burn 69,000lbs of gas to practice vs a sim. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

$70 less in my zip code...glad I’m grandfathered Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I would expect the F-35/22 trainee to gain a lot of those skills in sims regarding tailored instrument events. As for heavies, I think the T-1 could be used as a sort of heavy track version of IFF. Build solid airmanship in T-6’s, have 10-15 T-1 flights built around your heavy skill set. I don’t have a lot of experience in crew aircraft but from sitting jumpseat in C-17 and C-5’s watching an IP look over the shoulder of a AC and copilot, I don’t see why a lot of the systems/EPs, instruments couldn’t be done in sims and the most of the learning on real missions with proper supervision. ....Like the airlines, who care about efficiency. I am admitting I may be naive on the heavy side so Spears accepted if there are good counterpoints. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Problem is real: we waste a lot of time/money teaching unnecessary skills and skimp in other areas because we are comfortable doing it the way it’s always been done. And on the heavy side: I’m not sure why they even need to fly so much vs sims. I always wondered what they were doing for so long in T-1’s. Why not just axe that phase and get them into sims in their primary jet. I can’t imagine a C-17 sim hour costs more than an actual hour in a T-1. Any heavy guys on here care to debate the finer points? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I was chatting with some old who retired 20+ years ago dudes the other day, they had flown F-4’s, vipers, eagles, hogs, the spectrum and they were asking about what the flying was like these days. A lot of “I can’t believe you guys don’t do xyz anymore! That’s all we did back in 19xx.” I did my best on an unclass level to explain our weapons and technology. Hearing things like the how PGMs work and the TGP capes blew their minds. The look on their faces when they heard the lowly A-10 from their day now had a color HMD, PGMs etc was classic. In the end, I realized that these guys were stuck in time and their legacy viper/hog/eagle was nothing like the ones of today. That’s why I am all for change and applaud our leadership for breaking the cycle of “well, that’s how we trained in 1995 and I turned out ok.” Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I flew the tweet, dropped BDU’s from a T-38A with a manual pipper and I still have become completely reliant on datalink and other technology to the point that when it fails, it’s mission degradation. Yeah, I’m more comfortable than the young guys when some stuff fails but that doesn’t happen often. I’d hate to dust off my manual bombing skills on the fly. We were saying the same thing about datalink/HMD/PGM reliant Lt’s in 2012 and most of those guys we worried about “what if” have all been just fine whether it be combat in Syria or training at home. In 2003, my b-course IP’s were saying the same thing about my class because we had EGI and if that failed...watch out, those dumb f-ers can’t navigate with INS drift. Every generation is one computer glitch away from catastrophe, only to be saved by their tacan, eyesight and stby pipper. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

No, I’m talking about how today’s new jets train for future peer fights. F-4’s without guns, I get it, I’ve heard it too many times to count and it’s valid to argue if the F-35 should have more gun, maneuvering ability etc but that ship has sailed and we are stuck with it. The contingency plans in 2019 generally aren’t “you might have to dust off those old fashioned fighter pilot skills” and I’d they are, you were sent into combat in the wrong airframe for the high end fight. Some airframes probably require a bit more legacy skills than others. A-10 for example operates a lot and always will where nose position and maneuvering is important. Other jets focus on running the electrics and staying as far from the fight as possible. For them, the current T-38 syllabus is less relevant. I’m not saying cut it all, I’m saying tailor it for the spectrum of jets a t-38 grad can go to, and the legacy “one size fits all” t-38 track is not the answer. F-16 is a great example where contingency plan in a big war may be “dust off some old school skills” but that is a remote contingency. But yes, a F-16 pilot probably needs IFF / b-course focus a bit more in some areas. T-38 is great for teaching certain flying aspects but a lot of those aspects have drastically decreased in relevance over the past decade or two. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

In limited cases, yes. I heard the instructors could not tell a difference between them vs a UPT grad. Caveat, these people were super sharp which is why they were selected. It shows you can train a good product on minimal flying if you select the right people. This could go down the wormhole of are we as a AF selecting the best pilot candidates. I don’t think we do. Other variables...how is IFF doing on training a product? When I went thru, very little was relevant to what I saw in the b-course skills wise. It was BFM and dive bomb-centric with legacy wingman admin focus. Today, wingmen are expected to fly formations based off sensor cues at 6.9+ miles, work their systems and have tools like HMD and data links to free up flying workload so they can maneuver to a large bubble in space to release their PGM’s. It’s a far cry from following lead to vid your target and roll in for a weapons pass. Whole new world, I say embrace it, move on. Accept some short term pain and flailing while we experiment to make things better. *IFF has complained about the UPT product for as long as I’ve been in the USAF and I’ve seen specific people they thought were bad UPT products go on to be tactical leaders in our most advanced jets. Because guess what...being .2nm wide on the way to the MOA or setting bad aspect on a BFM set just doesn’t matter much in reality. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Sure, as of recently, the T-38 track was designed to produce the standard legacy wingman in attitude and aptitude. Tons of tac form, how to take direction as 2 some blatantly outdated things like a bunch of formation landings. The avg standard was based on setting the foundation for a basic F-16/F-15C wingman. We need to shift our training on the fighter side towards the “cough” 5th gen wingman mentality. Unfortunately the T-38 really can’t do a lot to prepare kids to fly jets like the F-35. I’d say airmanship, the basics of handling/tac form, form approaches are valid but there’s no reason to spend 20 flights focusing on tac turns. UPT next has shown that we can put the “right” people in fighters with a fraction of the training vs legacy UPT and they can excel. Of course kids going to legacy fighters might need some prep but those skills can be focused on in IFF tracks and polished in the B-course. I say cut the syllabus, place more focus on specialization during IFF to meet the needs of VASTLY different skill sets required in the spectrum of current fighter aircraft inventory. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app