AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[nunya]

33 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

all the ex MC-12 guys I know have taken their experience to Delta.

Well, you give a guy an ATP, another type rating, 800 hours of multi-turbine-PIC, send him to a shithole country for 8 months with plenty of time for networking, and expect him to hang around when he's done?

[Standby]

I have no qualms with pulling shooters from other platforms to stand this program up. My beef is the authors claim that his MC-12 experience gives him the cred to be a first-in flight lead/IP for this program. 

[Duck]

As desperate I am to leave the AF, I would volunteer for a 3 year tour for the OA-X. Which would be an amazing deal for the AF because although I am extremely lazy, I’m also the best pilot I know, just ask anyone who knows me.

On second thought, I see the AF messing this up too, nah I changed my mind, I’m still out.

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Standby said:

I have no qualms with pulling shooters from other platforms to stand this program up. My beef is the authors claim that his MC-12 experience gives him the cred to be a first-in flight lead/IP for this program. 

shack

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, Standby said:

I have no qualms with pulling shooters from other platforms to stand this program up. My beef is the authors claim that his MC-12 experience gives him the cred to be a first-in flight lead/IP for this program. 

100% valid.

[viper154]

7 hours ago, Standby said:

I have no qualms with pulling shooters from other platforms to stand this program up. My beef is the authors claim that his MC-12 experience gives him the cred to be a first-in flight lead/IP for this program. 

Sure, but I think the AF is missing a large pool of potential drivers by making the program a -38 only assignment though. Reality is we have a shortage of pointy nose types, and the trainer we are using to make new ones is only getting older and more expensive to maintain. Using a initial cadre of CAS experts (A-10 guys) to start off think the AF could motivate a lot of MC-12/RPA/U-28 types to stay in and utilize the ISR/attack training they have already received. Are some dudes going to wash out? Sure. Send them back to where they came from or a large airplane that needs bodies. In the end, what is more feasible, safer, and cheaper? Trying to shove even more UPT trainees through -38s to go to this program and/or replace all the pointy nose types they send to light attack, or take already winged pilots that need a home? Whatever ac they buy is going to be cheaper to fly than a -38 per flight hour, spend that money on a extended syllabus for dudes that came from T-1s. 

 

And I don’t for a  minute buy the “mindset” argument. There are plenty of 18x ers that never have flown in a T-6/T-38/T-1 that have kill numbers well into triple digits (and some of them 1Lts). 

 

Just my 2 cents, and a solution that minimizes the pull the program would create on the 11F community. 

 

Disclaimer: I am biased, I have a T-1 and RPA background and would give a testicle to fly light attack. 

[Duck]

They should probably start by grabbing all of the guys who were 38 guys during the last “overmanned fighter” period back in 2009-2012. At least the ones who are left.

[LookieRookie]

4 hours ago, viper154 said:

 

And I don’t for a  minute buy the “mindset” argument. There are plenty of 18x ers that never have flown in a T-6/T-38/T-1 that have kill numbers well into triple digits (and some of them 1Lts). 

I keep seeing the argument about Reaper weapons equivalency which I don't understand. 

 

Sure there are some similarities but there is a huge gulf between being in a GCS and flying in a 2 ship A-29/AT-6 and employing.

 

And then there is the argument that most of the new UPT-D guys from T-1's were from the bottom of their AD class, at least that's how it worked at CBM.

 

Edit: This isn't to malign RPA dudes, it's my opinion that they probably would require a significant additional IQT/MQT spin up.

Edited January 17, 2018 by LookieRookie

[Clark Griswold]

16 hours ago, nunya said:

Well, you give a guy an ATP, another type rating, 800 hours of multi-turbine-PIC, send him to a shithole country for 8 months with plenty of time for networking, and expect him to hang around when he's done?

Not surprised just noting it.

15 hours ago, Standby said:

I have no qualms with pulling shooters from other platforms to stand this program up. My beef is the authors claim that his MC-12 experience gives him the cred to be a first-in flight lead/IP for this program. 

Will respectfully disagree, I didn't get that idea from his article (MC-12 experience automatically meant you were highly qualified in the attack mission set) but I agree with him that it gives a level of experience and background that could be useful to become a qualified, proficient OA-X pilot.  Ditto for a baller from another platform transitioning to a cso seat in an OA-X (if it even happens).

Both of those ideas caveated that not everyone from an MC-12 background (or any platform for that mater) is right for a potential OA-X, same for a baller from another platform.  All aircrew should be (IMO) eligible to apply, judged on their record of performance and then selected accordingly.  Previous experience in air to ground would not be a discriminator, IMO.

A potential OA-X training program would have a syllabus that would train dudes new to the attack mission set appropriately, dudes with previous fighter / attack experience would like PA over these rides / sims & academics.

Given the affordability of the per flight hour cost of the offerings for OA-X ($1,500 to $3,000 per flight hour), bringing up to speed in the attack mission set would not be cost prohibitive and a worthy strategic investment in the Line of the Air Force. 

If OA-X is procured, as a policy, open it to your entire rated crew force, 30% CAF 30% MAF 30% UPT (even split T-1/T-38) 10% ARC (3 year MPA tours).  Those numbers are not hard and fast quotas but broad guidelines to shape the crew force, standards would have to be met to be selected and to qualify. 

If the AF bought 100 tails and crewed at 2.5, that's 250 pilots / 250 csos, a serious bill to be sure but one that is not insurmountable, aircrew will volunteer or stay in the force to be part of the mission not TCN monitors or Power Point warriors at the Died.

I advocate for inclusion of non-CAF dudes in this potential community as I believe it is in the best interest of the AF and meets an operational need.  I've had the opportunity to work with guys from fighter / attack / bomber backgrounds and I have discussed with them their sometimes frustrations with dudes from other backgrounds, that they don't have a "tactical" mindset.  Well, if you want them to have a "tactical" mindset, include those that can hack it in the mission.  OA-X is a good place to have that cross-flow, seeding a more operational mindset vice shoe clerkism by having a greater percentage of your line officer cadre involved in the mission.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Clark Griswold

[BashiChuni]

5 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

I keep seeing the argument about Reaper weapons equivalency which I don't understand. 

 

Sure there are some similarities but there is a huge gulf between being in a GCS and flying in a 2 ship A-29/AT-6 and employing.

 

And then there is the argument that most of the new UPT-D guys from T-1's were from the bottom of their AD class, at least that's how it worked at CBM.

 

Edit: This isn't to malign RPA dudes, it's my opinion that they probably would require a significant additional IQT/MQT spin up.

such a good post. totally agree.

[viper154]

5 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

I keep seeing the argument about Reaper weapons equivalency which I don't understand. 

 

Sure there are some similarities but there is a huge gulf between being in a GCS and flying in a 2 ship A-29/AT-6 and employing.

 

And then there is the argument that most of the new UPT-D guys from T-1's were from the bottom of their AD class, at least that's how it worked at CBM.

 

Edit: This isn't to malign RPA dudes, it's my opinion that they probably would require a significant additional IQT/MQT spin up.

I think the bigger difference is in how we employ. Reaper is a precision/surgical/assisination  strike tool, we have reallly gotten away from doing traditional CAS, which is what the light attack would be doing. 

 

I will be the first to admit, I would probably need some extra rides, I’m by no means arguing that you can take someone from a ISR/ GCS platform, give them a quick T-6 refresher and call them a expert in the A-29/AT-6/whatever.

The drone is very misunderstood plane, and it draws hate easily, hell I still do hate it, but I caution against assuming it’s a walk in the park. There are some very complex environments and situations you find yourself in if you aren’t the shitbag doing transits (or forced there because you suck) and not having a window forces you to develop a lot of your senses and tools to build a solid battlefield picture. It really does help build your aviation skill set overall when you return to normal flying. Again, not trying to argue that a RPA bubba is equivalent to a 4 ship A-10 lead, but I caution people to being closed minded, I was before I went to them and have be surprised. 

 

I went to CBM, and was a UPT D, maybe in your cases they grabbed the bottom of the barrel, But I can print you my training reports, and vouch for several other bros from CBM and the other bases that dudes were getting snagged from the middle and top ish portion of their classes. 

[MooseAg03]

The last round of UPT directs into my RPA squadron were definitely not the bottom of their class.

I agree that RPA weapons employment /= OA-X weapons employment. Once we are established in the stack, it’s a 2D maneuver (3D if including timing), but learning fundamentals about weapons employment like how to run checks, weaponeer, final cross check, and employing at the optimum geometry for weapons effects would carry over. I’ve already got one foot out the door and OA-X probably won’t hit the ramp until I’m an airline captain, but it’s a mission I would stick around for if given the opportunity.

[DEVIL]

Allow me to summarize:

MC-12 dudes= disenfranchised, type rated, mostly ATP holding, bitter dudes (and chicks), mostly T-38 trained, with an assignment left. More than 1,000 hours per down range, in a stack, doing stuff. 

UPT Grads= lots of time left to pay it back, good at making corn, can station keep for the most part.

Air Force= Short on people, experience, good deals.

UPT= At max blast, still can't fix the leak.

11F= Super short on folks, but somehow still too cool for school. 

OA/X= Investors? Possibly you!

Take the author literally, yea that doesn't make sense. Got it, copy. Over.

Fusion, synergy, sygma 6, buzzword. Mix it all up, doesn't sound too far fetched. Take your initial cadre of 11F'ers, throw in a bunch of your pissed off, MC-12'ers as the first classes (add a few UPT grads for good measure),  who are itching to get back in the game, give them a program to make their own, give them the all holy "buy in". Guess what the Air Force gets? They don't take a bunch of 11F's out of the game. They possibly retain a bunch of experience in the mcdozen dudes that are definitely gone otherwise, UPT keeps sending people to the pipelines, who loses out? The 11R pipeline? Who's overmanned? Ok. Whatever.

(insert conclusion here)

Also:

Handle of Bulleit Bourbon or  Rye at Costco $31, 750 of Noah's Mill $44. 

 

 

edit: A ton of these people are T-6 and T-38 IP/EPs time meow. It really isn't that crazy. 

Edited January 18, 2018 by DEVIL

[Duck]

Allow me to summarize:
MC-12 dudes= disenfranchised, type rated, mostly ATP holding, bitter dudes (and chicks), mostly T-38 trained, with an assignment left. More than 1,000 hours per down range, in a stack, doing stuff. 
UPT Grads= lots of time left to pay it back, good at making corn, can station keep for the most part.
Air Force= Short on people, experience, good deals.
UPT= At max blast, still can't fix the leak.
11F= Super short on folks, but somehow still too cool for school. 
OA/X= Investors? Possibly you!
Take the author literally, yea that doesn't make sense. Got it, copy. Over.
Fusion, synergy, sygma 6, buzzword. Mix it all up, doesn't sound too far fetched. Take your initial cadre of 11F'ers, throw in a bunch of your pissed off, MC-12'ers as the first classes (add a few UPT grads for good measure),  who are itching to get back in the game, give them a program to make their own, give them the all holy "buy in". Guess what the Air Force gets? They don't take a bunch of 11F's out of the game. They possibly retain a bunch of experience in the mcdozen dudes that are definitely gone otherwise, UPT keeps sending people to the pipelines, who loses out? The 11R pipeline? Who's overmanned? Ok. Whatever.
(insert conclusion here)
Also:
Handle of Bulleit Bourbon or  Rye at Costco $31, 750 of Noah's Mill $44. 
 
 
edit: A ton of these people are T-6 and T-38 IP/EPs time meow. It really isn't that crazy. 

Get the hell out of here with your new ideas. We would rather just keep trying the ones that have failed and got us into this mess over the last 2 decades!

[Crackity Jones]

Are there any current or former 81FS guys flying the A-29? A-29 or OA-X thoughts?

[Clark Griswold]

Another round of OA-X demos in May - July timeframe:  https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-the-air-force-really-buy-new-light-attack-aircraft-24397

and IOMAX wants to adapt Archangel to a coastal / maritime patrol mission:  https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/singapore-airshow/2018/02/09/iomax-may-adapt-its-archangel-aircraft-to-patrol-asian-coastlines/

 

[raimius]

After canceling the "combat demo," I have doubts about the seriousness of this effort.

[BashiChuni]

agreed.

[YoungnDumb]

As much as I want this to happen, it's not shiny enough with a bunch of gee-whiz gadgets for the brass to get behind sadly.

[Clark Griswold]

Yeah, I think it is low on the priorities and they are probably only doing this to placate Congress / keep another branch from procuring this aircraft or mission ala the C-27 but one can hope.

 

[Lawman]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yeah, I think it is low on the priorities and they are probably only doing this to placate Congress / keep another branch from procuring this aircraft or mission ala the C-27 but one can hope.

 

The AF deserves every bit of hate they get for f@cking that program into oblivion just to keep it from the Army. 

I don’t give a crap how much money the 130 community needed to go J model across the board, they outright promised and then stole it from the intra theatre replacement for the Sherpa and other Army non MWS platforms that was desperately needed so in the end they get to fight to support those missions out of 130 apportionment instead 

The AF should carry some serious shame for that disaster since the only person that truly won in that who debacle was the Coast Guard. 

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, Lawman said:

The AF deserves every bit of hate they get for f@cking that program into oblivion just to keep it from the Army. 

I don’t give a crap how much money the 130 community needed to go J model across the board, they outright promised and then stole it from the intra theatre replacement for the Sherpa and other Army non MWS platforms that was desperately needed so in the end they get to fight to support those missions out of 130 apportionment instead 

The AF should carry some serious shame for that disaster since the only person that truly won in that who debacle was the Coast Guard. 

Yup. 

[MooseAg03]

When they cancel the light attack idea, the buzz phrase they’ll use will be “we need capabilities to win the next war, not the last one.” Even though we’ll be still fighting the last one when the next war kicks off.

 

[afaf]

Regarding the C-27s completely agree we screwed the Army on that one. At least the Army got some of them back, and is using them. They’ve got 2-3 at Yuma they use for MFF. Talked to one of their loadmaster equivalents, sounds like they get tasked all the time for lift requirements too.  Seems like the Army learned and cut the Air Force out where they can. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by afaf
Clarity

[Lawman]

Regarding the C-27s completely agree we screwed the Army on that one. At least the Army got some of them back, and is using them. They’ve got 2-3 at Yuma they use for MFF. Talked to one of their loadmaster equivalents, sounds like they get tasked all the time for lift requirements too.  Seems like the Army learned and cut the Air Force out where they can. 

 

There always was a requirement. The problem was we just burned up Chinooks by inefficiently moving pallet X which were needed to do other stuff.

 

Same with the C-12. We don’t have enough... ok just use 5 hours on 2x Black Hawks to move the 2 contractors from Taji to Erbil

 

It’s the same kind of issue really as the light attack argument. We’ve spent no investment on far lower cost “daily use” kind of stuff. That’s not just an aviation problem, that’s across the military. Like why are we transporting soldiers in an LMTV in garrison when the White/Blue bus fleet can do it far more efficiently and with a lot less cost per dollar in wear and tear.