di1630

The split track has also helped with attrition. Nobody likes to officially admit it but you can put people into a T-1 that would have not made it to solo in a -38. Possibly tweaking performance expectations, tracking into heavy/fighter earlier. There is no reason a guy on his way to AWACS needs tac form etc.

The high def full version is great. It is in the hands of the right people. Apparently after seeing the video, USAF leadership deemed it too "pro A-10" which could hurt divestment efforts and ordered it destroyed...only to release and promote the similar F-16 version. Nothing says "thanks" to a community for years of deployments than censoring a video that praises your work. Reason #69 I don't trust our political leadership and evidence they have zero F-ing clue on why they aren't trusted.

Correct, let me use some lessons learned from current esteemed military leadership, F-35 marketers and USAF PA to bolster my multi role A-10 argument. Just as the B-1 has become a premier CAS platform and the F-22 has excelled in combat over Syria, the A-10 has proved itself an incredible multi-role fighter in the A/A realm. After scoring more kills versus aerial tgts in the Gulf War than F-16's and with a current A/A kill record better than the F-22 and F-35 combined, the A-10 also has also never lost an aerial battle, unlike Mig-29s and other 4th gen fighters. In fact with up to four AIM-9 sidewinder missiles and more bullets than any other A/A fighter aircraft, the A-10 is exceptionally suited for the majority of current A/A missions. According to USAF statistics 90% of A/A alert missions have been launched versus Cessnas and helicopters, airframes the A-10 can more easily intercept given its slow speed, tight turning radius and long loiter time. The A-10 can do missions such as Noble Eagle cheaper and with less risk of fratricide than fighters such as the F-15C which shot down 2 friendly helicopters in the past, making it the most dangerous twin engine, two tail aircraft with PW-220 engines to friendly pilots in the history of mankind.

A-10's are being targeting as single role but thats a stretch. They are the experts in CSAR, FAC-A, CAS and those missions while all A/G, are far from a single role. You could make the same B-1 argument that it is much more single role. The chances of F-16's being used for A/A or even AI vs modern threats is so small that their primary job has become PGM CAS. I stand by my argument that you don't cut the jet tha is best at the mission you have been executing for the past 20 years for the cheapest price with no end to the ops in sight. And we shouldn;t cut any jets until we've trimmed the fat everywhere.

Just saw that he's gonna be charged with desertion via USA today

I understand the need to save money...but you don't do it by cutting one of the most used aircraft in the most used missions when the aircraft is hands down the best at what it does. A year ago our esteemed USAF leadership told us we'd be done with the low intensity conflicts in 6 mos. Now it appears we are nowhere near being done with them, but I'm supposed to believe The need for CAS in China 20 years from now is such a priority that we need to divest the A-10 now to meet that threat. And then leadership comes out on record with false stats and politics to support their argument.....f-ing looking like morons. How about we reign in the F-35 4bn over budget per year first. Then we phase out jets that the F-35 is designed to replace when it's ready. F-16, etc.

Holy Fvck ygbsm....the F-35 was over budget by $4B last year alone. The USAF is like an obese person who takes the pickles off a Big Mac because they are watching calories.

This whole argument in divesting the A-10 is beyond ridiculous. Either our top leaders are actually dumb and do not understand CAS, threats and the aircraft capabilities or they are compulsive liars. I'm really not sure but it's baffling. It's absolutely destroyed my faith in top leadership.

I've made up my mind after watching Welsh in front of Congress. He's kinda like Obama. Rode into power on a wave of hope/change, hasn't lived up to the hype. Great speaker to a seated audience (Although the one time I saw him in person he danced around a blunt question politician style), but I have just lost faith in the guy overall. As I have with many other generals as I've watched them lie, distort facts and play politics instead of lead which makes me wonder if they are incompetent or liars.....either way, not people I'd want in charge.

I had an accident which required a fusion of my vertebrae. I know this is FC2 waiverable but the waiver guide says its 6 mos DNIF. My docs say I should be healed in 2 months and good to go. Anyone know if there is a way to appeal to get the time reduced if all tests/x-rays come back normal?

Yeah...Robin Olds grew an out of regs stache because he was really pissed at those facial hair rules during Vietnam. Or did I read the 1. Bullet punctuated wrong?

Butters, are those Fbos mil friendly? Anyone do an ATP thru them?

An old A-10 pilot once told me that in a real war, he'd jettison his bombs and other only use 30mm and Mavericks. The L model is terrific, as is the K for optical shots. Oh wait, this is the F-35 thread....last time I was at the -35 factory I was told no rockets or AGM capes....is this still true?

The F-35 was conceived damn near 20 yrs ago, and a big problem is that the world/military needs and technology changes...a lot when it takes that long to become operational. And for the price, it's not King Kong of anything, in fact less capable in some areas. Air Interdiction - hindsight would have been a strike version of F-22s. That said, would you rather send a 4-ship of LO F-35's vs a preplanned tgt...or a truly stealth tail-less RPA (x-47b type) jet to do the same preplanned job? CAS- anyone who knows CAS knows the F-35 can do some types of CAS with PGMs but cannot really do others (effective strafe/AGM-65) but it wasn't designed for CAS so I don't hold its future drawbacks against it. Proponents may argue you could load up external hard points but c'mon...at that point, why not just have a cheaper legacy jet doing the job. And don't give me contested airspace bullshit...the radar threat is not the main one in f on f CAS A/A...again, should have bought more F-22's. Hope LO pays off but EA is a b-tch and the F-35 was not designed for a visual fight. Technology....sweet, it's got an awesome touchscreen with 2005 era display technology but can't even put down an IR mark at night. Plus, a lot of the gee whiz, cool but not really necessary stuff doesn't work too well (yet) anyhow. I'd like someone to tell me what I'm missing.

Can you elaborate for those of us without the #'s?

Ha, Chang, you have no clue. You think from my posts I'm bitter? I'm just pointing out some well known problems that leaders like yourself are either too stupid or out of touch to acknowledge. I'm truly trying to help the AF that I love. "Hide" my brand of leadership? Hell no, someone has to stand up to the madness. One of the reasons I have been highly successful with both officer and enlisted subordinates is I don't "hide" things...I don't play AF games, people see that and LOVE it. I see a stupid rule...I try to change it. I see a worthless ppt presentation....I cut it. I see a jackass fast burner being a jerk to subordinates, I call him out. I've proudly not played the game, and it's cost me a few career points but the satisfaction I get from having a steady stream of officers, civilians and enlisted tell me the USAF needs more people like me....it keeps me going. You think guys like me are causing bitter attitudes?? Get real. The guys causing the problems are the guys like you, who can't understand the core basic issues with things like morale, micromanagement, wasted time/resources, lack of mission focus, etc. Your welcome Chang...I'm constantly working to fix f-ups caused by people like you. No sweat. I'll keep doing it. You just stay oblivious.

Chang, if you are indeed USAF leadership (which by your comments, all indications are yes you are indeed), you prove just about everything I've said about the way we choose leaders in the USAF as correct....we promote (not always but too often) out of touch, careerist square fillers who can't identify with the other 69% who actually keep this bureaucratic inefficient mess of a system up and running. I'll take my 3,000 hrs of flying, numerous deployments, a real world job working in NATO and filling A LTC billet as a Capt at the wing to your exec learning how to create an outlook calendar and maxwell school taught how would Clausewitz fight ISIS lessons learned ppt bullsh!t anyday.

Wow....Chill out, take a midol there Nancy. I'm not bashing ALL the dudes who take the exec>school>staff>whatever the f-else route. Some of them are my good buddies. A lot are complete f-ing d-bags. What I will bash is the system that seems to think someone who is an exec, goes to school for a year etc. is the best person to lead. The best leaders I know didn't need that crap to lead. And finally, you think I need to go to school or be an exec to have any SA about it? Bulllllllsh!t! I have plenty of experience at all levels, I've seen the game, I know how it works and what it takes to "usually" get ahead in the USAF.

No, married to one so I've seen the work, but being a glorified secretary was never my goal when joining the AF. I've attended a few worthless USAF schools but not ACSC in res as I presume you are inferring. All my knowledge of the happenings are from friends and colleagues who have. I'm not sure why my attitude seems the exception but I could think of nothing worse than spending a year of my life at Maxwell. The only good thing I've heard is its a year long vacation from the CAF and it's easy. But I don't hate the CAF so I'm fine sticking around. I fly my lines, do my work and go home to my kids while the careerists slug it out with extra work and politics for the same paycheck. While they take on an extra meaningless project to impress the boss, I have a jack and coke in the bar. Someday their hard work might pay off with a sweet Pentagon staff tour or being a generals aide. Good for them if that's what they want. Climbing the big blue ladder by being an exec and doing school was never a dream of mine. Getting paid to fly jets and have a family was. And I'm succeeding. Cheers

Back to Gen Welsh. I had very high hopes. He seems like he'd make a great politician or Lockheed spokesperson as his speeches are great...but I was hoping to see something more. I know his job is tough and he's done a few things to reform, but overall, not real impressed. I'd rather see a 4-star utter unpopular truths than play politics. This is sad because I imagine he was one of the best prospects. Other views?

Somebody please tell me these super awesome exec duties that I missing? Granted, execs do more than the GS-6 secretary, I get that. But in the end, proofreading OPRs, writing eSSS' for staffing, making schedules, organizing paperwork... That's what a good secretary does in the business world. The sad part is reading on here how many people are buying the "become an exec, get a strat, go to school, guaranteed O-5, don't rock the boat, make your bosses goals "your" goals to succeed" bullshit. And we wonder why many of our current leaders can't speak with credibility, can't identify with the masses and why a ton of good leaders go guard/reserve and say f-you to the system that promotes mediocrity instead of actual leadership. Because the guy slugging it out on line, doesn't get stratted because while he's teaching tactics in the bar, talking with the young guys, the careerist pussy is hobnobbing with leadership knowing that hard work only matters in the USAF when seen. That's the issue.

That's what the USAF would have you believe because you are given a #1 strat and sent to a worthless school as a reward for your outlook skills, OPR organizing and deciding to put the USAF bureaucracy #1. In the real world, exec duties are done by secretaries. And in not knocking secretaries, it's just not why I joined the AF. Here's the definition. (USAF exec) A secretary, personal assistant, or administrative assistant is a person whose work consists of supporting management, including executives, using a variety of project management, communication, or organizational skills. These functions may be entirely carried out to assist one other employee or may be for the benefit of more than one. In other situations a secretary is an officer of a society or organization who deals with correspondence, admits new members, and organizes official meetings and events. -sounds a lot like exec duties to me.

Being an exec has NOTHING to do with leadership potential. My wife was an exec, and damn good, much better than the pilots (all top notch people) she was an exec with. Guess why? Because she had worked in college as a secretary. An exec position is nothin more than a glorified secretary. Sure, you are asked the occasional input by your boss, but that could come from anyone else, you are just the easiest to ask. In the end, being an exec, DS etc, is nothing more than a secretary job where you get the education of watching a dysfunctional bureaucratic organization like the USAF work its magic thanks to hardworking tactical operators and gobs of cash and resources. If the USAF started promoting people it needed to be leaders instead of the bullied high schooler who finally got a taste of power in ROTC and learned if he kissed enough ass and filled squares he could someday be in charge. We'd have less Chang's, less people making exec and worthless schools a goal and more warrior minded leaders who gave a shit about things other than their rise in the ranks of big blue.

Chang, I'm not bitter, and while you and Learjetter may disagree with my statement, I'm passing along words of what a ton of people think. My proudest accomplishments of saving lives during TICs, killing bad guys, training new pilots, etc. has not meant $hit to the USAF in comparison to my skills in my additional duties (which I excelled in) but I can admit that work was std USAF qweep with little to zero real world impact outside keeping leadership happy with green metrics on ppt. Chang, I advise you to listen to all the people who have realized and reacted to the fact the USAF system does not always promote the best "leaders". Instead it favors risk adverse, metric chasing personnel managers who will go with the system. Why do you think so many people say Robin Olds, Chuck Yeager and other historic leaders would have been passed over majors in this USAF? They see it...they get it.

I'm talking about the guys who really want to be a execs to get close to the boss, etc. Let's face it. The USAF cares a lot more about how you handle the OG's schedule and outlook skills than it does on how well you fly or many lives you've saved as far as career progression into leadership billets.