RescueRandy

BSM. Not BSM with "V". Two very different medals. His BSM means he did a Major/Lt Col job downrange for 6 months or more. He rated it. Nothing special.

^^^ I like your style.

Surprised? No. Disappointed? Yes. This clown show is beyond rediculous.

I read the newest PSDM to say that if you're RIFed you get 1.00. Haven't seen anything to suggest that you get 1.25 if you're RIFed.

Actually, my initial denial was just because there was a conflict between what my portion of that app said and what my Wing/CC put. I don't think it even got looked at for ADSCs and that stuff. Denied purely for the clerical error.

No. I applied for VSP and am waiting as well.

LADSC Waiver Program and VSP are two separate programs. I turned in my app during the period where they were updating the waiverable ADSCs for VSP. I requested LADSC Waiver Program because, at the time, my ADSCs were not waiverable under VSP. My Wing/CC updated it to VSP program when they changed. My app got denied on 28 Apr because of the conflicting requests. I had 48 hours to draft a new request and re-submit through my chain. Emails and phone calls to AFPC were getting me nowhere trying to convince them to "un-deny" my app and just let me correct the wording. Fortunately, I was able to work the miracle to get a new app through the wickets and back to AFPC by 1 May. Rediculous.

Good article and hit the nail on the head.

The CV-22 flies with two flight engineers. The MV-22 flies with two crew chiefs. Totally different career fields. Totally different skill sets. Totally different in capabilities and expectations. However, it's unlikely that FE vs. CC had anything to do with this "hard landing."

Actually I have. Among others, they called us out of a hot LZ to engage targets after a CW-IED went off 50' outside our rotor disk in Arghandab and put shrapnel into our Chalk-2 overhead. I don't even want to get into the "alone and unafraid" thing. As far as I'm concerned, it just doesn't happen in a real, big war, CSAR. In CASEVAC (which is going away with the AFG mission), sure. CSAR, not really. That said, you're absolutely right. It's a training issue. Jolly/Pedro just doesn't train to be experts at attack. That said, if the AFSOC move doesn't happen, the RQSs will remain in ACC and will get M-model 60s with same "extra" gear they've got already on/around 2018 (maybe). If that happens, they will barely outpace the capes of the current G-models. The CV has an issue with rotor wash. Okay, I get it. Rock solid, coupled (if required), high hovers mitigate that when they can't use the primary option (for both communities) of an airland. I admit, yes, the HH-60G can reach roughly 1.5% of the earth above 9,000 that the CV can't. Great. If you want super high hovers, they should've got the H-47 in '06. Or... maybe we could ask the 160th, or the AD 47s, or the guard, or the reserve to take that one. But the speed, range, cabin space, defensive systems, marginal WX capes, funding, experience with "non-traditional" aircraft and expeditionary focus that come with an AFSOC CV-22 - in my opinion - make the AFSOC move a far better option than CRH.

Outstanding. I agree that the CV-22 faces some significant LIMFACs when it comes to performing the PR mission. But, having now piloted both airframes, I also think that the benefits of performing PR with appropriate TTPs to mitigate the CVs weaknesses and SLEPing the remaining HH-60G is a good option for rescue. The principle reason I volunteered to leave the 60 for the 22 was because of what I saw as ACC's poor management of the PR mission. The foremost example (of many) of that mismanagement is the CSAR-X/CRH debacle. I won't get into TTPs in this forum, but I wholeheartedly disagree that the HH-60 (be it a G model or the inevitable M model) is better equipped to face a contested area than the CV-22. The missions of both aircraft clearly state the the 60 is for low to medium threat environments whereas the CV is for medium to high threat. The CASEVAC mission will be significantly reduced (if not eliminated) for the AF as we draw down in AFG. Even in that mission going into a hot LZ requires attack escort. We'd be naive to think that sending rescue back to AFSOC wouldn't benefit AFSOC. But given the current fiscal environment, the state of current dedicated rescue airframes, and ACC's inability to adequately support the mission, it seems to me that the previously detailed plan would benefit AFSOC and the rescue triad.

Any pilots besides Rucker students still do this? "Clock to map to ground" was a significant portion of our training at Rucker in '08-'09.

I just closed my second transaction with Dave Devine on 22 July. The first was a refi on our place in Tucson and now a place for us to live in Florida. Both experiences were excellent. In regards to Daniel Stevens' comment above, we did experience a rate hike and reduced lender's assistance due to the more competitive market over the last 6 weeks or so. In spite of the more challenging lending environment, Dave did an outstanding job communicating with us on the ins and outs of the process as well as how he thought the market was looking in regards to interest rates. I would highly recommend Dave and the NBofKC team if you're in the market for a VA loan or a VA streamline refi. Happy hunting!

Since there was some confusion. Enjoy!

Wasn't around when CSAR was under AFSOC, so I can't speak to how it was. However, I think it's worth noting that AFSOC's been through and done a lot since they had the CSAR mission. Honestly, I think that regardless of how the decision goes, it's important for AF leadership to be having this conversation. If ACC thinks they might be losing the mission (money) maybe they'll pony up a little more in order keep it. Agreed. Like I said, I freely admit that the CV still has some significant features with which crews and teams must contend during every mission. Are they insurmountable? Not by a long shot. Also like I said before, the Osprey vs. 60 argument is very much dependent on the specific missions (within PR) that we're talking about. I thought better of doing a pro/con listing in this venue, but the CV has some serious strengths when it comes to the traditional CSAR (big war) mission set. Clearly the -60 is a proven platform in the CASEVAC arena and has proven acceptable in the CSAR arena. Either way, while likely a more expensive option, I'm fully in favor of a (more) mixed fleet of CSAR assets. ACC already has the "rescue triad." What's to say that the CV-22 doesn't have a place somewhere in there as well? If asked, I'd be in favor of tasking some CAS assets with a primary mission of PR as well. If we all pigeon-hole ourselves into doing one type of mission only, we'll all end up specializing ourselves out of a lot experience and usefulness; as rescue learned in AFG when they accepted the CASEVAC tasking. As far as AFSOC vs. ACC: I still believe that rescue forces meet the joint definition of SOF. As far as if the forces and the mission would actually fair better in AFSOC... Well, only having them there would give us the answer.