Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, Herk Driver said:

By whose pilots? The article avoids the subject.

True but some X amount is hidden behind the paywall, just a guess but the wingman could have been a US advisor crew.

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

AFG pilots are trained to employ.  A better question is who lazed in the weapons.  Or who cleared the strike and under what ROE.  

Concur

Too bad the window has probably closed on the USAF getting a LAAR system.  Always thought the IA-58, modernized with PT-6's, glass, etc... built in the US under license would have been a good plane

2450C9A86D3350A9B41E2C50A9AD84.jpg

 

  • 6 months later...
Posted
13 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Did any of you get the AFPC letter about flying A-29s as a GS-13?

Yes and a friend of mine who recently retired from the USAF is there now flying them.  

Posted
On 4/11/2016 at 9:57 AM, Day Man said:

From what I remember the DoD put out a memo telling people not to go to the Intercept...

Nothing wrong with the subject of Erik Prince's private AF, but the source (the Intercept) is extremely PNG for USG personnel.

Posted
2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

From what I remember the DoD put out a memo telling people not to go to the Intercept...

Nothing wrong with the subject of Erik Prince's private AF, but the source (the Intercept) is extremely PNG for USG personnel.

been out for 3 years, no clue what those mongoloids are restricting these days.

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
Logic and reason supported by data to argue for a LAAR therefore this will be ignored.


Yep. Our leadership is disgustingly piss poor at adapting to the needs of the fight and could probably give 2 sh-ts about fuel use when we need to justify every jet community getting into the fight in order to build those school resumes and groom community leaders.

But I'm just jaded.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
  • Upvote 1
Posted
3 hours ago, di1630 said:

Yep. Our leadership is disgustingly piss poor at adapting to the needs of the fight and could probably give 2 sh-ts about fuel use when we need to justify every jet community getting into the fight in order to build those school resumes and groom community leaders.

But I'm just jaded.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

Not me, I know that flying a 4 engine swing wing 475k+ GW bomber with an adhoc targeting pod added to it that will need to be air refueled at least once during a mission and probably costing around 60k+ per flight hour is the real way to deliver air power in a permissive environment where air to mud effects are sometimes called for but ISR is in really in demand.  

It's nuts to use an inexpensive turboprop that can do both of those missions at probably less than 3% of the cost per mission.

 

  • 1 month later...
Posted

f962a727be86b1243dc6b68a56d89837.jpg

I love the ideas going around to get lower cost weapons systems into the arsenal, but damn that has the be one of the ugliest planes ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted
f962a727be86b1243dc6b68a56d89837.jpg

I love the ideas going around to get lower cost weapons systems into the arsenal, but damn that has the be one of the ugliest planes ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still the reigning champion:
0163da18641c7694b9c2d8434ce185d6.jpg
  • Upvote 4
Posted
12 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

f962a727be86b1243dc6b68a56d89837.jpg

I love the ideas going around to get lower cost weapons systems into the arsenal, but damn that has the be one of the ugliest planes ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ugliness is required for CAS aircraft. 

28404bb173070960a76498d449c03c57.jpg

An-MQ-Reaper-flies-a-training-mission-ov

b1_mk82.jpg

Oh, wait...

Posted
13 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

f962a727be86b1243dc6b68a56d89837.jpg

I love the ideas going around to get lower cost weapons systems into the arsenal, but damn that has the be one of the ugliest planes ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would look better in dark grey.

Posted
On 12/24/2016 at 2:43 PM, Ho Lee Fuk said:


Ugliest part about it is that back seat, where something usable like extra fuel should go.

Why wouldn't you want a CSO?  Or have you only flown simple missions where a single human could handle the workload?

  • Upvote 1
Posted
4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Why wouldn't you want a CSO?  Or have you only flown simple missions where a single human could handle the workload?

Serious?

Posted

If the mission systems were setup like a Viper or a Hawg, you could fly it by yourself.  But with dual-FMV sensors that lack some of the more automatic lasing tools present on true targeting pods, other INT systems, Vortex and other datalinks that aren't exactly "pilot proof," plus flying the jet itself, you need more than one person.

Not that one or the other is better (ok...I think more than 1 is better but then again I'm a nav...), but the systems have to be designed with the crew in mind.  You can't fly a gunship with a crew of 1, it just can't be done.  Same here based on how things are currently architected.  The mission systems could be designed for a single pilot, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that in this case they are not, and flying solo with more gas would inhibit you from performing the ISR/strike mission to the full capes of the systems.

  • Upvote 1
Posted
57 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

It looks like something a third world country would build.

You mean like Iran's deadly Qaher 313?  That thing is amazing.  

  • Upvote 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...