AF Light Air Support Aircraft

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, Tank said:

I win if AFSOC takes possession of 1x LA aircraft (6SOS, Combat Aviation Advisor, included).

You win if AFSOC doesn’t.  

Easy bet!

You’ve got to have a timeline bro... AFSOC has been promising this for years at some point we have to circle a date on the calendar.  Using your criteria above, I’ll never get my scotch. No loopholes! 

 Also, I notice your position changed from “AFSOC doesn’t need as many LAA, lead command, designated mission set...“ to now “AFSOC might get a single LAA for the 6th.”  

Sorry, CAA isn’t combat.  I’ll say you win if AFSOC actually has LAA that they’re fighting with with in what, 2 years?  I’ll even say you win if AFSOC is standing up an operational LAA squadron in 2 years... they don’t have to be IOC or FOC for me to pay.  But they can’t be play fighting like CAA, they have to be actual pipe hitters.

AFSOC aquiring a single aircraft to teach afghans/Nigerians/whoever does not meet the intent of this thread.  I’ll submit my position for the wider audience to adjudicate.  

Edited December 4, 2018 by tac airlifter

[Tank]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

You’ve got to have a timeline bro... AFSOC has been promising this for years at some point we have to circle a date on the calendar.  Using your criteria above, I’ll never get my scotch. No loopholes! 

 Also, I notice your position changed from “AFSOC doesn’t need as many LAA, lead command, designated mission set...“ to now “AFSOC might get a single LAA for the 6th.”  

Sorry, CAA isn’t combat.  I’ll say you win if AFSOC actually has LAA that they’re fighting with with in what, 2 years?  I’ll even say you win if AFSOC is standing up an operational LAA squadron in 2 years... they don’t have to be IOC or FOC for me to pay.  But they can’t be play fighting like CAA, they have to be actual pipe hitters.

AFSOC aquiring a single aircraft to teach afghans/Nigerians/whoever does not meet the intent of this thread.  I’ll submit my position for the wider audience to adjudicate.  

“I think AFSOC still has no LAA by 2021” - your direct quote.

 

The bet is a bottle of scotch that AFSOC will have LAA by 2021.  The 6 SOS is in AFSOC, so technically the 6 SOS acquiring 1x LAA means AFSOC has LAA by 2021.  I said nothing about an operational LAA squadron when you offered the bet that I accepted.

 

AFSOC mission set 1  (#1 priority) is acquiring 3-5 LAA for the CAAs.  AFSOC mission set 2 is all additive and that is SOF CAS.  

 

By by the way, “play fighting like CAA”?  Do you even know what the CAA missions are?  Directly fighting ISIS or Boko Haram in Lebanon or Nigeria or conducting unconventional warfare sure doesn’t sound like “play fighting” to me.  

Edited December 4, 2018 by Tank

[tac airlifter]

46 minutes ago, Tank said:

“I think AFSOC still has no LAA by 2021” - your direct quote.

 

The bet is a bottle of scotch that AFSOC will have LAA by 2021.  The 6 SOS is in AFSOC, so technically the 6 SOS acquiring 1x LAA means AFSOC has LAA by 2021.  I said nothing about an operational LAA squadron when you offered the bet that I accepted.

 

AFSOC mission set 1  (#1 priority) is acquiring 3-5 LAA for the CAAs.  AFSOC mission set 2 is all additive and that is SOF CAS.  

 

By by the way, “play fighting like CAA”?  Do you even know what the CAA missions are?  Directly fighting ISIS or Boko Haram in Lebanon or Nigeria or conducting unconventional warfare sure doesn’t sound like “play fighting” to me.  

 Do you think the USAF already has a light attack squadron?  I don’t, because no one in the USAF is fighting with light attack aircraft.  Yet we have the 81st fighter SQ.  Advising with A29s isn’t combat, even when doing it in a combat theater; I’m in a position to have a valid opinion.  This whole thread is based on a desire for the Air Force to acquire light attacked aircraft to use ourselves.

Regarding CAA, I don’t want to argue, we won’t agree.   Suffice to say yes I am intimately familiar with those missions sets and no it is not actual fighting (minus very rare exceptions) regardless of what theoretical authorities exist.  Look at what AFSOC strike assets did to ISIS, that’s fighting.  Sell CAA as fighting to someone else, I’m not buying it.

at the end of the day, I think there’s no operational LAA in AFSOC by 2021.  You think a single A29 used by the 6th to teach other countries how to fight = AFSOC LAA.  We fundamentally disagree on terms, but I’ll still accept the bet because I don’t mind buying scotch for a bro.  So either way I win!  See you in 2021.

[slackline]

 Do you think the USAF already has a light attack squadron?  I don’t, because no one in the USAF is fighting with light attack aircraft.  Yet we have the 81st fighter SQ.  Advising with A29s isn’t combat, even when doing it in a combat theater; I’m in a position to have a valid opinion.  This whole thread is based on a desire for the Air Force to acquire light attacked aircraft to use ourselves.
Regarding CAA, I don’t want to argue, we won’t agree.   Suffice to say yes I am intimately familiar with those missions sets and no it is not actual fighting (minus very rare exceptions) regardless of what theoretical authorities exist.  Look at what AFSOC strike assets did to ISIS, that’s fighting.  Sell CAA as fighting to someone else, I’m not buying it.
at the end of the day, I think there’s no operational LAA in AFSOC by 2021.  You think a single A29 used by the 6th to teach other countries how to fight = AFSOC LAA.  We fundamentally disagree on terms, but I’ll still accept the bet because I don’t mind buying scotch for a bro.  So either way I win!  See you in 2021.

But CAA have berets... That means they're warriors...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

"play fighting?" Dude are you a proffesional? The CAA mission set and execution model is built on the exact same structures as an ODA. Work by with and through partner forces to accomplish US security objectives. If you want to argue theyve been short combat the last decade due to a lack of missions ill buy that but throwing terms like "play fighting" sounds utterly ridiculous. Do B-52s "play fight" because we havent actually dropped a nuke in 70 years? Its a mission set and a capability that they maintain readiness on and we have used extensivly in the past, regardless if we are actively using it today. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by FLEA

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

"play fighting?" Dude are you a proffesional? The CAA mission set and execution model is built on the exact same structures as an ODA. Work by with and through partner forces to accomplish US security objectives. If you want to argue they've been short combat the last decade due to a lack of missions ill buy that but throwing terms like "play fighting" sounds utterly ridiculous.

You're right, that is a more professional way to say what I mean.  Valid spear, I'll take the feedback.

Regardless, we have a bet gentlemen.

[Cooter]

9 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

as an addicted gambler i want in this somehow

Bashi I'm with you and have an expanded proposal...

Participants allocate $$$ toward a fine bottle of scotch (more players the better the bottle!)...

Although FY vs CY needs to be clarified.  Propose closeout by FY21 since the decision is based fiscally.

I'm rooting for LAA...but I LOVE scotch.

Cooter

[BashiChuni]

Haha!

im w tac

FLEA...thicker skin please. K thanks. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by BashiChuni

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Haha!

im w tac

FLEA...thicker skin please. K thanks. 

Apologies, not sensitive about it. Just that when you claim to be a combat aviator and throw a term like "play fighting" to describe a mission set your credibility is in question. 

But play fighting sounds like something the mother of a snowflake drama student would use to describe his weekend LARP club, and I think we are all above that. "Henry, are you done with your play-fighting? Its time to come in for dinner!" 

For what its worth I'll agree the CAA's don't really seem to have a lot going right now outside of guchi vacation deployments and cool training opportunities. But there was an era (thinking Nam, Loas, Cambodia, Cuba, Thailand) in which that shit was really important and extremely kinetic. 

Edited December 4, 2018 by FLEA

[SFG]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Apologies, not sensitive about it. Just that when you claim to be a combat aviator and throw a term like "play fighting" to describe a mission set your credibility is in question. 

But play fighting sounds like something the mother of a snowflake drama student would use to describe his weekend LARP club, and I think we are all above that. "Henry, are you done with your play-fighting? Its time to come in for dinner!" 

For what its worth I'll agree the CAA's don't really seem to have a lot going right now outside of guchi vacation deployments and cool training opportunities. But there was an era (thinking Nam, Loas, Cambodia, Cuba, Thailand) in which that shit was really important and extremely kinetic. 

I don't think the CAA deployments right now are guchi, nor vacations. Combat? Maybe, maybe not, but guchi? Nah. Nuff said.

[Tank]

1 hour ago, Klepto said:

I don't think the CAA deployments right now are guchi, nor vacations. Combat? Maybe, maybe not, but guchi? Nah. Nuff said.

Agreed...

Not guchi:  Last 5 years - Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Presently - Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia. 

Guchi: Panama, Peru, Thailand

Lucky that there is no Al Udeid, Kabul, Bagram, Erbil, etc...

Edited December 4, 2018 by Tank

[Cooter]

12 hours ago, FLEA said:

Apologies, not sensitive about it. Just that when you claim to be a combat aviator and throw a term like "play fighting" to describe a mission set your credibility is in question. 

But play fighting sounds like something the mother of a snowflake drama student would use to describe his weekend LARP club, and I think we are all above that. "Henry, are you done with your play-fighting? Its time to come in for dinner!" 

For what its worth I'll agree the CAA's don't really seem to have a lot going right now outside of guchi vacation deployments and cool training opportunities. But there was an era (thinking Nam, Loas, Cambodia, Cuba, Thailand) in which that shit was really important and extremely kinetic. 

Tac is not speaking from a position of ignorance, nor I, and I tend to agree with how he put it.  There are non-6 SOS advisors with a fraction of their training (a couple weeks at most) doing partnered missions almost everyday.  To say they are in harm's way is putting it mildly. As someone who was in the process of applying for the 6th, I will tell you my perception and reality were very different, which is why I did not go through with it.  Flying combat missions is my jam and that was not the place to do it. Not knocking the 6th, valuable asset in high-demand but not what I was expecting from Combat Aviation Advising. 

If you want fully partnered combat ops advisor positions, they are out there, you just have to look for them and be ready to sacrifice a year or more of your time. Rewarding and frustrating at the same time.  But hell of a lot better than spending time an effort to train and advise folks to only wave at them as they head off to get after it.

Cooter

[tac airlifter]

14 hours ago, Tank said:

Agreed...

Not guchi:  Last 5 years - Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Presently - Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia. 

And not fighting in any of those locations, whereas other AFSOC aircraft are burning MF’ers in many.  That was my point: LAA for AFSOC in this entire thread is about fighting.  If we give it to the 6th, it won’t see action and that’s a shame.  

[Tank]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

And not fighting in any of those locations, whereas other AFSOC aircraft are burning MF’ers in many.  That was my point: LAA for AFSOC in this entire thread is about fighting.  If we give it to the 6th, it won’t see action and that’s a shame.  

Wrong again about not fighting (the CAAs don’t just fly SOF Mobility & ISR)...

You are correct though in regards to the 6th getting LAA. The 6th LAA will only be used for CONUS training and those aircraft will not deploy.  

Edited December 5, 2018 by Tank

[Tank]

https://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/December 2018/Light-Attack-Basing-Deployment-Model-and-Command-Assignment-Determined-by-Size-of-Buy.aspx

[YoungnDumb]

While valid, it sounds like another excuse to keep delaying it.  They say it'll be released in early 2019, any bets on it not occurring at all in 2019?

[Breckey]

Should have taken that bet...

 https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/01/18/the-air-forces-plans-to-begin-a-light-attack-aircraft-competition-are-now-deferred-indefinitely/

Quote

The start of a competition to provide light-attack aircraft for the U.S. Air Force has been postponed for the foreseeable future, as the service decides the way forward for additional experiments, the Air Force’s No. 2 civilian said Friday.

 

[Danger41]

Wow. I’m shocked. 🙄

Get those Strike Eagles back here quick for this dirt farmer!

[Clark Griswold]

[pilot]

With SecDef Boeing at the helm now, of course it will be re-evaluated...with a product that will give Boeing a huge contract. 

[tac airlifter]

[MooseClub]

[DirkDiggler]

Copy/pasted from a text a good buddy of mine in the know sent me 3 days ago:

AF has fully pivoted to:  thanks congress for the money you gave us for light attack procurement this year.  We will use it for research and development instead iot buy a jet based LAA by 2020...forget the past two LAA experiments.

In the words of the SAF/Financial Management Budget Liaison AO, "sorry man, they just don't give a fuck about you guys."

[nsplayr]

This is my surprised face 😑

[MooseAg03]

Jet based? Scorpion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk