Prosuper Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Even 1 isu 90 is 100% more than you can put on a 135. If we had ISU 90's back in 1955 and if Gen Lemay wanted the KC-135 to be a cargo hauler they would have built the airplane to handle them. I wonder if we had 463L pallets back in 1955. But it has done its job of what it was designed to do since 1955 with some upgrades. We were still using water injection up to 1994 when AMC said enough of that. At least it is RVSM capable. FYI, the original contract was won by Lockheed with a paper airplane but Boeing was ready and LeMay did not want to wait.
busdriver Posted February 13, 2015 Author Posted February 13, 2015 Seems to me a KC-135 replacement is all about number of booms in the air and available offload. Why are we talking about cargo? 1
lloyd christmas Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 I wonder if we had 463L pallets back in 1955. The 463L system was implemented in April, 1963. That's where it gets its name. L stands for logistics.
Vertigo Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 You're a fucking idiot. I've loaded plenty of ISU-90's on a -135. You mean isu-60s
Homestar Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 You're a fucking idiot. I've loaded plenty of ISU-90's on a -135.
Azimuth Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) You mean isu-60s No I read that wrong, ISU-70's. Seems to me a KC-135 replacement is all about number of booms in the air and available offload. Why are we talking about cargo? The KC-135 replacement is all about having better cargo/passenger/AE carrying capability than the -135, have a MWS/Countermeasures to be colocated with CAF aircraft in the AOR (less drone time = more fuel to offload), and be able to onload fuel as well. Edited February 14, 2015 by Azimuth 1
McDonut Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) He says he loves to talk to the many Airmen he meets, but the most common topics are sequestration, compensation, retirement, health care, and benefits in general. He says we should refocus discussion to our mission, equipment, and capabilities. He compares his conversations and the Air Force to the Marines ability to focus on the mission. I'd love to talk to him about the mission, equipment, and capabilities. Do you ever think he would able to talk to me? Probably not, because visits are carefully orchestrated (see JQP: https://www.jqpublic-blog.com/degraded-dogs-ponies-lying-game-air-force-vip-culture/ Now I understand why he might say that--his job is primarily to make us the best Air Force possible, to fight and win America's wars. Unfortunately, the concerns of the Airmen regarding their families and their benefits will decide the future manpower and readiness of the volunteer force. We've heard from the various defense officials and committees multiple times that the DOD is competing with civilian organizations for talent. Well, this is what that competition looks like. And you'd be right, his job and the Airman's job is to make the best Air Force possible. It's Congress' job to set benefits properly, and they do that with the guidance from upper AF leadership. If he didn't want to deal with Airmen asking about benefits and other bull**** all the time, then he should spend some time telling his peers to stop saying s*** like this https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/03/26/generals-say-troops-understand-need-for-pay-cuts.html. Edited February 14, 2015 by McDonut
TarHeelPilot Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 U-2 I saw that too. Hell of a point.... <*sigh*>.... And the C-130? Let's write off the J model since the C-130 has been around since the 50's. All of the current U-2S's were built in the 1980's except 3 aircraft...a few years older than the B-2, to offer some realistic perspective.
JarheadBoom Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 18 pallet positions vice 6... And those 18 pallet pallet positions will be even more contour-restricted than the -10, which is already pretty restrictive. 767-200SF pallet contour chart This doesn't even take into account the requirement for an emergency access aisle... unless AMC is planning to drop the requirement to be able to access the cargo in an emergency (i.e. cargo leak, fire, etc.). [/threadjacking]
Vertigo Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 And those 18 pallet pallet positions will be even more contour-restricted than the -10, which is already pretty restrictive. 767-200SF pallet contour chart This doesn't even take into account the requirement for an emergency access aisle... unless AMC is planning to drop the requirement to be able to access the cargo in an emergency (i.e. cargo leak, fire, etc.). [/threadjacking] Totally agree. I'm not saying this jet is the be all end all. But you can't discount the upgrade in cargo capacity over the 135.
HU&W Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Totally agree. I'm not saying this jet is the be all end all. But you can't discount the upgrade in cargo capacity over the 135. The real question is, how many G's can it pull? 2
sky_king Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 The real question is, how many G's can it pull? Is it a better CAS platform than the F-35? 1
baileynme Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Is it a better CAS platform than the F-35? Still trying to find out if they put in the flamethrower feature I suggested but they won't respond to my emails.
di1630 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Back to Gen Welsh. I had very high hopes. He seems like he'd make a great politician or Lockheed spokesperson as his speeches are great...but I was hoping to see something more. I know his job is tough and he's done a few things to reform, but overall, not real impressed. I'd rather see a 4-star utter unpopular truths than play politics. This is sad because I imagine he was one of the best prospects. Other views?
Dupe Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Back to Gen Welsh. I had very high hopes. He seems like he'd make a great politician or Lockheed spokesperson as his speeches are great...but I was hoping to see something more. I know his job is tough and he's done a few things to reform, but overall, not real impressed. I'd rather see a 4-star utter unpopular truths than play politics. This is sad because I imagine he was one of the best prospects. Other views? I don't think the CSAF has as much power to change the AF as people think he has. Quite a bit of what we see as "bureaucratic crap" is actually the execution of some federal law. For example, awesome queep job of Unit Voting Monitor is actually the AF and DoD's implementation of The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. On top of that, the CSAF will get to go battle Congress every time he wants to erase a GO billet or move an airplane to a different base. As an example, a developmental squadron I was in had two A-10s dedicated to A-10 developmental test. To increase test efficiency, we wanted to move those airplanes to Davis Monthan where there are quite a few more aircraft in the test fleet. That move was blocked by Congress as "trying to move aircraft outside of a BRAC." My one critique is that I wish Gen Welsh would do more to shape the Air Force culture. We still have the same rusty OPR and assignment system. We're still deploying dudes into "rated-required" billets where being rated isn't actually a criteria. We're still trying to accomplish all the same manpower intensive work as if we had a force 50% bigger than we actually have.
SuperWSO Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Gen C Michael Mosely provides a good review of what happens when SECAF and CSAF continue to push an agenda (more F-22s) that doesn't line up with the bosses priorities. Oh, and don't misplace nukes.
Azimuth Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Gen C Michael Mosely provides a good review of what happens when SECAF and CSAF continue to push an agenda (more F-22s) that doesn't line up with the bosses priorities. Oh, and don't misplace nukes. Bob Gates book "Duty" explains in detail why he was pissed at Mosely (and really the USAF).
Duck Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 I have always looked at Gates crusade against the Air Force as one of the many driving factors behind our recent personnel/manning problems. What do you all think about him?
Champ Kind Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Maybe the things he saw in the AF were some of our biggest blights.... botched acquisition programs, hopeless bureaucracy, senior leaders with a severe sense of entitlement, ridiculous personnel programs, and some pretty highly-publicized embarrassments.
KState_Poke22 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 I have always looked at Gates crusade against the Air Force as one of the many driving factors behind our recent personnel/manning problems. What do you all think about him? In general I liked Gates because he was never afraid to stand up to the President (Bush and Obama) and make his case heard. However his cutting of the F-22 seems like a really bad decision in hindsight. We'd likely be less dependent on the F-35.
Azimuth Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I have always looked at Gates crusade against the Air Force as one of the many driving factors behind our recent personnel/manning problems. What do you all think about him? He said he got tired of the USAF always asking for money and weapons to fight "future wars" instead of focusing on the current wars. When he asked Mosely to do a study on increasing RPA caps he'd want to talk about more F-22's. He said the real reason why he fired the SECAF/CSAF was due to the nuclear incidents. Edited February 17, 2015 by Azimuth
SurelySerious Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 He said he got tired of the USAF always asking for money and weapons to fight "future wars" instead of focusing on the current wars. When he asked Mosely to do a study on increasing RPA caps he'd want to talk about more F-22's. He said the real reason why he fired the SECAF/CSAF was due to the nuclear incidents. And by study on RPA caps, you mean he said the AF would fill whatever request the ground units put forth at whatever the cost was without regard to money or manning. 1
General Chang Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I have always looked at Gates crusade against the Air Force as one of the many driving factors behind our recent personnel/manning problems. What do you all think about him? Curious...compared to our brothers and sisters in other services, our personnel system is a bright light. We have cut our requisite bottom 10% performers (which became only the bottom 2% or so, thanks to voluntary separations) and are not facing involuntary separations in 2015. If sequestration hits again, thanks to last year's VSP, we can get rid of a few more underperformers without extreme stress on the system, but we're anticipating that will not be required. We revamped the EPR. Our list of stressed career fields is remarkably low, and we have a plan to retain our critical RPA officers by offering more money. Trust me, we are the envy of the other three services. Have some pride in your AF leadership, particularly in A1, because we've made remarkable strides shaping the force for the 2020s. 8
10percenttruth Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Curious...compared to our brothers and sisters in other services, our personnel system is a bright light. We have cut our requisite bottom 10% performers (which became only the bottom 2% or so, thanks to voluntary separations) and are not facing involuntary separations in 2015. If sequestration hits again, thanks to last year's VSP, we can get rid of a few more underperformers without extreme stress on the system, but we're anticipating that will not be required. We revamped the EPR. Our list of stressed career fields is remarkably low, and we have a plan to retain our critical RPA officers by offering more money. Trust me, we are the envy of the other three services. Have some pride in your AF leadership, particularly in A1, because we've made remarkable strides shaping the force for the 2020s. Oh GODDAMMIT... Do you actually listen to the shit that comes out of your mouth?!? Happy green squares on a staff meeting .ppt do not an effective A1 make. Christ, it's like playing cards with my brothers kids... 2
RASH Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 You really think the bottom 10% were the ones who took VSP? Good God you're an idiot... 2
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now