BigFreddie

I don't think an underfolder would be the first AK I'd pick up... They have a high-CDI factor but they are not comfortable to shoot. I have 13 AKs right now - if I could only have one it would be an Arsenal 107CR. They have 16" barrels while the originals have 12.5" barrels - if you ever decide to, you could easily chop the barrel (with proper ATF paperwork) and have a very handy easy to shoot rifle. They have a side folding stock made of polymer - they feel just like a normal fixed stock when you shoot but you get the reduced overall length when it is folded. You can add any of the standard accessories to it - I prefer the Ultimak railed gas tube with an Aimpoint T-1 and a Surefire G2 in a Vltor mount - covers all your tactical bases in one shot... I have heard of very few issues with these from Arsenal - there were several periods where Arsenal put out some guns with canted front sights which they would fix under warranty - but the CR models never seemed to have that issue. They also make the same style of gun - 106CR in 5.56. The only drawback is that the 5.56 mags are harder to find and more expensive than the hugely mass produced 7.62 mags. Following the Arsenal 107CR would be the Arsenal 107FR which is essentially the same with a longer barrel. The Russian imports Arsenal has now are very, very good options as long as you can live without the folding stock. BF

My info is two years old but I left UPT as the fixed wing qual flight commander in the T-1 squadron. One of the students there had 6,000 hours of fixed wing time and actually got hired by Northwest while in T-1 training - yet the AF made him go through the FWQ program. At the time, the T-6 program was fairly fast paced - done in three, maybe four months. T-1s were a little less forgiving - you had to do all the academics which made you first couple months slower due to scheduling restrictions and contracts with the civilian instructors. Once through that you would be pushed as fast as you could handle it and you were able to proficiency advance as able. Some guys were spending 4 months in the T-1 program if they went fairly fast. There were hints AETC was going to create a completely separate T-1 FWQ syllabus but that hadn't happened when I left in Nov 08. I had really, really good students. They realized that a lot of UPT was a game. They also recognized there were important parts as well where they needed to be on their game. Many issues came from adapting from Army/FAA rules to USAF rules. Once guys quit fighting the fact that the rules were different they did very well. Approach it like a professional aviator and it will be a good time. Approach it like you're entitled to a set of AF wings and you're only checking the box - and you will not have a good time... BF

I hate the fact people are going to jump through hoops to set up programs in the desert to do this. You'll have to get a track/course certified. Then get PTLs trained. Then fight the system to all the stuff put into the recording system. We all need additional duties when deployed... It is a waste, pure and simple. If you are in the "fight" it is probably too late to be worried about getting fit. In all reality it is going to only hit the PCS/365 day TDYers now. I could see it spreading to everyone though. And I've always hated the fact that guys with smaller waists who ran slower and did fewer push-ups and sit-ups scored higher than me on the PT test. Naturally slim people have a definite advantage. Hell, the CC at my deployed location is 6'6" or so, with a slim athletic build and he runs like the wind (15' stride sure helps) but he's always on the verge of failing due to having a 39" waist. BF

The C-17s have the MFOQA system and AMC safety has started publishing some of the data they get from them on a quarterly basis. They will call folks out by their base/theater assigned call signs and locations where they were operating. They take a couple snapshots of the final approach which aren't great indicators unless they are sampling more of the data. The Class E HAP report that AMC finished in February is a good 35 page read about how AMC is thinking in regards to using MFOQA and LOSA programs to make us all safer when we fly. Both of these are airline programs that the Air Force seems to be adopting. If you want more info on the C-17 report, ask your safety folks to find AFSAS Report #834585. It will be very interesting to see what comes of the PAED crash. They were being taped by folks with very good video cameras from the tower and we'll see what comes from the FDR and MFOQA data... BF LOSA = Line Operations Safety Audit

I agree with this. Fighters are great to watch but that is really what I expect them to be able to do - upside down, loops, fast, noisy. When you start watching a heavy maneuvering very close to the ground aggressively it is impressive because you don't expect that. Same with Matt Younkin in his Beech 18 - an airplane like that shouldn't go upside down but he makes it happen. For the former/current C-17 demo pilots - was there an AMC approved profile plus training syllabus? I know the C-5 community was looking to get an approved profile so they could go lower than 1000'. I also watched the last Dover airshow with a Dover C-17 crew doing a demo and a C-5M doing its air show debut - I was near the OG/CC and once the demos were done with no issues he said, "Good, I don't have to take anyone's wings tomorrow." And the only way not to have crashes at air shows is no flying at air shows - which is also the same way not to have crashes operationally - no flying. Yet we must weigh the risk versus the reward - and risk is the cost of accidents and even the cost of having an air show (was $180k worth a one day air show where 10k people showed up?). BF

When I was transient through there a couple months ago Skype was available in several places on wi-fi. The connection wasn't great but it got the job done. When they say over .mil it means the official work network and computers. You can bring your own laptop - no issues there. I can't remember any issues with power but I always have an adapter with me. Most laptop power connections can convert electricity from one to another. Never used the BX there so I have no idea on that... BF

The "wet-stacks" are mostly two to a room unless you are permanent party (365 TDYs/PCS) with enough rank or the right duty title. Only the special needs flyers get single rooms in them.

Just got this from home station: Thoughts?

And the former head of NASA, Sean O'Keefe who happens to be the current CEO of EADS-NA (bidding on the KC-X contract) was on board the aircraft as well. It has been a bad week or two up there for sure. A civilian PA-32 crashed on a glacier, the Army National Guard sent a UH-60 to retrieve them and it ended up rolling over when it landed on the glacier. When the Alaska Air Guard HC-130 and HH-60 were sent to pick up that group, they couldn't get to the scene so they dropped off 4 PJs who skiied into the scene. The HC-130 and HH-60 then got re-routed to the Stevens crash... Busy week in Alaska... BF

You can go here. They have a couple nice lowers that meet what you want. Not $250 but you won't have to swap out too many parts either. Good to see folks getting into ARs. There are a lot of good sales out there now too! Bravo Company has a great sale going on their uppers. Plus Daniel Defense is having a big sale as well. BF

Go to theakforum.net and browse their builders section. You'll get all the info you need. I've looked into building my own kits before but the tooling is not something I had sitting around so there would be a serious investment to get it. And it is a little more involved than building an AR which is all pins and springs... BF

I saw Sitka 43 somewhere...

Local news channel carrying confirmation of all crew lost... https://www.ktva.com/topalaskanews/ci_15624724 Here's a toast...

That is not good. Keeping my fingers crossed for survivors...

Don't get me wrong - I think the M14 is an awesome rifle. It does have drawbacks though - an accurized/match grade rifle will not hold that level of accuracy without fairly extensive maintenance. Most of the newer 7.62 rifles out there today are based on the AR platform - they are much easier to keep at higher levels of accuracy and there are trained maintenance folks who can do necessary repairs on them. I also find the M14 safety to pose an issue as well. It is never good to have your finger in the trigger guard attempting to take the rifle off safe. That being said, training will go a long way to solving that issue. I'm also not sure I would want to get into the M1A now though. My first M1A was a pretty low serial number Springfield Armory that was loaded with USGI parts - barrel, bolt, trigger group, op rod. The newer ones have far fewer USGI parts and many more commercial ones. My second M1A I mentioned already - highly modified, heavy as hell but looked cool. I ended up selling it to finance another gun later on. It was just too heavy to be practical. And the third one is actually a Polytech receiver I had a bunch of work done on by Smith Enterprises out of Arizona. The Polytech and Norinco receivers are actually forged like the original M14s and not cast like the vast majority of commercial receivers. I had them swap out the bolt, time it correctly, then added a bunch of USGI parts, a new barrel and had them work on the trigger. I also had them put their gas block and front sight on it and I can now put an Advanced Armament suppressor on it. I financed most of this by selling off NOS USGI parts - USGI parts are more rare now and highly priced. Another good entry gun would be an FAL by DSA. They're high quality guns at very reasonable prices. The FAL has a very good reputation for being durable and dependable. Most of the other 7.62 battle rifles, especially the newer ones, are pretty darn expensive. But it is very nice to have options! BF

Not sure the M14/M1A is supreme - and I have two of them and had a third highly modified version. It has great sights and I am very accurate with it but I don't think it has the ergonomics or durabilty to really challenge the new offerings. It is difficuly to mount a scope on it - it can be done but costs a pretty good amount and gets the scope up pretty high which creates the need for a new stock or foam with tape fix. And now that the military straps all sorts of stuff on the rifles from bipods to lasers to lights, you have to have a method to do that with the M14. You end up creating a monsterously heavy rifle. The one I had highly modified had the barrel replaced with a 16" version, the operating system was chopped and rotated about 45 deg, and then placed in a stock made of magesium - and it still weighed a metric ton. The M14 can be made very accurate but requires talent and skill to keep it at that level of accuracy. That being said, my original Springfield M1A will be the last rifle I ever part with. I shoot it very well and it is easy to shoot well too. But I think if someone is new to the market they would be foolish not to look at the other options now available... BF

Yeah, it is crazy expensive but the supply is small - probably less than double digits available. If they would have taught economics using full-auto weapons as an example I might have got better than a C. On another note... Have you seen that FN has released their .308/7.62 SCAR? Looks like it is only available in black right now. I've seen them up for sale between $2400 and $6000 with an average of about $3000. I'd love to get one but I just dropped my allowance on an LMT MWS in .308 that I'll get when I'm back from my deployment... If HK gets their HK417 civie version out this year it would be safe to declare 2010 the year of the .308 battel rifle. BF

I have seen a few fully transferable ones out there - I think they were about $250k each. I remember reading a book saying the SEALs liked them and were the biggest users and the second biggest was the Chicago Police Dept....

I've heard the Navy drove the turboprop argument before and not from someone who worked on a production line... Who knows. I have seen the "package" Cessna wanted to offer. And I really doubt the T-6 will survive 50 years of pilot training like the T-37. I would hate to see the US go through the process of trimming fighter numbers down to a very small level while buying these smaller airplanes that would have limited use in a major conflict against a well equiped enemy. BF

Barrel break-in is an interesting subject. Some do, others don't. In all reality most folks aren't good enough shooters to notice the difference because their skill (or lack thereof) or use of non-match quality ammo will mask any issues with the rifle. And most people will never shoot enough to wear out a barrel to the point the extra rounds and cleaning during break-in will really matter. I'm still a big fan of the Smith and Wesson M&P. I really wonder why hardly any police departments/agencies use the XD? BF

You suck!!! Highly jealous. You'll love the M&P 9 - I've got one and it is a very nice shooting pistol. BF

Scheduling is the real nightmare... Why are we worried about testing on deployments? You're already there, if you can't hack the job doing a PT test isn't going to prove anything they don't already know. Our base moved run locations because the reserve bubbas were having groups of 50 run with one person watching them - when the first person finished, wthe next time a person crossed the line they finished too - even if they only did two or three 1/4 mile laps...

The deployed location I'm at now has a reg in the works to have folks take a "fitness assessment" within 7 days of arrival. As of now there are no penalties for not "passing" the assessment but I can see the proverbial writing on the wall. They also weigh you on the first day you're here and if you have a BMI >30.0 you are on the fat boy program. And there is mandatory PT 3x a week for at least an hour. The EOG is trying to figure out how to balance their mission with the PT requirements. Funny thing is the WG/CC who is implementing this would fail for his push-ups without a doubt in my mind... BF

This is a pretty good picture of FRED life style. You don't deploy like other airframes but when you do it is non-flying and likely to the Deid which plain sucks (see 100+ page thread on that). Flying has slowed down since the days when I was a CP there and the M transition will likely be a slow and painful process and less hours flown. I've talked to E-3 guys lately and they seem to have a pretty good life... Between 4 dudes they averaged about 40 days gone in the last YEAR! BF

I know this one is listed here, but Jimmy Doolittle's book " I could never be so lucky again" was awesome. Great flying stories and just a great read overall. The guy stopped flying on his own accord because he couldn't get enough hours every month to be "good" at it. 10,000 plus hours in the late 40s/early 50s. Just a badass who seemed to always be at the right place at the right time. BF