Finally done in Afghanistan?

[tac airlifter]

18 hours ago, fire4effect said:

Don't tease me. 😁

For now I think we need to be very judicious in our target selection and low key in our methods IMHO (AGM-114r9x) That said I know a good paint and body man.

R9X: don’t believe the hype.

[Danger41]

15 hours ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Obviously these guys got out, unlike a lot of other much less fortunate people, but the worldwide communications relays here sure are interesting.  

CCTs initially had the wrong freqs?
 

https://warisboring.com/21st-century-dunkirk-the-story-of-how-air-traffic-controllers-used-social-media-dms-to-help-rescue-friends-trapped-in-afghanistan/

Cool story!
 

When I used to teach at WIC, I wouldn’t let students coordinate LFE’s via text or anything to simulate geographic splits and not having that option down range. Looks like it may be time to update the white force TTP! 

[fire4effect]

7 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

R9X: don’t believe the hype.

Copy that.  Either way couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. 

[pbar]

23 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I’m confident we’re  done with the “M” portion of DIME over there for awhile. I’m sure there are some guarantees to the Taliban about how they protected the airport and we won’t bomb them back the Stone Age. And since our State Department did such a bang up job last time, it’s good to know they’re in the lead.

Seems to me the State Department has been on its own side for the last 40+ years and generally does a miserable job advancing US interests.  

[Lawman]

Seems to me the State Department has been on its own side for the last 40+ years and generally does a miserable job advancing US interests.  

Well good news considering the current president and his historic connection and views of the relationship between State/DOD in regards to Foreign Policy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HeyEng]

23 hours ago, Clayton Bigsby said:

Obviously these guys got out, unlike a lot of other much less fortunate people, but the worldwide communications relays here sure are interesting.  

CCTs initially had the wrong freqs?
 

https://warisboring.com/21st-century-dunkirk-the-story-of-how-air-traffic-controllers-used-social-media-dms-to-help-rescue-friends-trapped-in-afghanistan/

Could the AWACS guys chime in, could the E-3 act as an ad hoc airborne ATC? And if so, why was it not used?

[McJay Pilot]

1 hour ago, HeyEng said:

Could the AWACS guys chime in, could the E-3 act as an ad hoc airborne ATC? And if so, why was it not used?

Not an AWACS guy, but the wife was an ABM. They’d have been able to provide similar services as “Pyramid” used to, but they’d have had zero training or ability to control airfield ops.

AFAIK, “Kingpin” was still operating as well, but I rotated home about a week prior to the end of the GIRoA.

Edited September 4, 2021 by McJay Pilot

[abmwaldo]

22 hours ago, HeyEng said:

Could the AWACS guys chime in, could the E-3 act as an ad hoc airborne ATC? And if so, why was it not used?

Not currently an AWACS guy but I slept in a Holiday Inn last night... There are a couple of main issues as I see them: 

1. Capability. Enroute control would be fairly easy to perform from an E-3 however terminal control in and around an airfield is a non-starter based on radar/IFF update rates. Not to mention orbit locations have to balance radar and radio coverage and the ideal radar look isn't necessarily the best radio look. 

2. Training. ABMs (and their enlisted counterparts, Weapons Directors) receive no training on being an Air Traffic Control controllers. While some of the skills translate across the two disciplines they are separate career fields for a reason. Interestingly enough the Canadian Forces train their ABM equivalent to perform ATC functions so it's not out of the realm of possible but not likely given the current training pipeline. 

3. MX rates. While I won't dive into specifics here suffice it to say that if the plan calls for an E-3 to be your primary ATC function you better have a well thought out alternate and contingency plan. 

[Lawman]

Not currently an AWACS guy but I slept in a Holiday Inn last night... There are a couple of main issues as I see them: 
1. Capability. Enroute control would be fairly easy to perform from an E-3 however terminal control in and around an airfield is a non-starter based on radar/IFF update rates. Not to mention orbit locations have to balance radar and radio coverage and the ideal radar look isn't necessarily the best radio look. 
2. Training. ABMs (and their enlisted counterparts, Weapons Directors) receive no training on being an Air Traffic Control controllers. While some of the skills translate across the two disciplines they are separate career fields for a reason. Interestingly enough the Canadian Forces train their ABM equivalent to perform ATC functions so it's not out of the realm of possible but not likely given the current training pipeline. 
3. MX rates. While I won't dive into specifics here suffice it to say that if the plan calls for an E-3 to be your primary ATC function you better have a well thought out alternate and contingency plan. 

Your last point is probably one of the most glaringly ignored brief points for this pretend “great powers fight” we think we are ready for.

All of our support enabling functions are being performed by aircraft that started life when people were still crossing the oceans in propeller driven aircraft and ocean liners. We need some new shit airplanes and we need them 9 years ago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lecarpetron Dukemarriot]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Your last point is probably one of the most glaringly ignored brief points for this pretend “great powers fight” we think we are ready for.

All of our support enabling functions are being performed by aircraft that started life when people were still crossing the oceans in propeller driven aircraft and ocean liners. We need some new shit airplanes and we need them 9 years ago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No worries.... AWACS recap is coming....again....maybe.....

[LookieRookie]

4 hours ago, Lawman said:

Your last point is probably one of the most glaringly ignored brief points for this pretend “great powers fight” we think we are ready for.

All of our support enabling functions are being performed by aircraft that started life when people were still crossing the oceans in propeller driven aircraft and ocean liners. We need some new shit airplanes and we need them 9 years ago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All our money was spent playing whack a mole

[Lawman]

All our money was spent playing whack a mole

And a half dozen programs to buy “low cost” strike aircraft for a low intensity fight we aren’t doing anymore….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, Lawman said:

And a half dozen programs to buy “low cost” strike aircraft for a low intensity fight we aren’t doing anymore….

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aren't going to fight or not fight like we did for the past 20 years?  We need to fight problems sometimes but not necessarily "fix" the place.

I'm not for a part 2 of Afghanistan the Venezuelan edition or some other equally quixotic effort but methinks we may not want to get involved but we will have to prevent the formation of a world order we really really don't want. 

Anyway, fighting wars / executing operations short of major conflict in the developing world, failed states or ungoverned spaces (low intensity, counter insurgency, counter terrorism, etc...) is going to have to be done, sometimes by us sometimes by our allies / proxies / PMCs.

[Lawman]

Aren't going to fight or not fight like we did for the past 20 years?  We need to fight problems sometimes but not necessarily "fix" the place.
I'm not for a part 2 of Afghanistan the Venezuelan edition or some other equally quixotic effort but methinks we may not want to get involved but we will have to prevent the formation of a world order we really really don't want. 
Anyway, fighting wars / executing operations short of major conflict in the developing world, failed states or ungoverned spaces (low intensity, counter insurgency, counter terrorism, etc...) is going to have to be done, sometimes by us sometimes by our allies / proxies / PMCs.

It’s not so much that there isn’t a need…

It’s that in the F’d up too many chiefs not enough Indian process of acquisitions we are trying to mesh a bunch of concurrent requirements from reps fighting for AFSOC, ACC, USSOCOM, AVFID, AETC, and what the hell why not the Corps of Goddamn Engineers or some such. So everybody has their own list of things this airplane needs to do to please them and screw the other guys at the table.

So in the end we are going to get a high utility low hour cost “commercial off the shelf” *insert necessary buzzword here* aircraft, but we will end up spending F-35 level dollars to do it.

That’s why I’m choosing to advocate the following COa: F it lets just buy some more F-35s and continue to use race thoroughbred horses for a job more suited to Mules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dream big]

16 hours ago, Lawman said:

Your last point is probably one of the most glaringly ignored brief points for this pretend “great powers fight” we think we are ready for.

All of our support enabling functions are being performed by aircraft that started life when people were still crossing the oceans in propeller driven aircraft and ocean liners. We need some new shit airplanes and we need them 9 years ago.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

9 years ago? That’s when then POTUS and congress started gutting the military budget while surging in Afghanistan.  That didn’t age well..

[disgruntledemployee]

On 9/3/2021 at 6:13 PM, HeyEng said:

Could the AWACS guys chime in, could the E-3 act as an ad hoc airborne ATC? And if so, why was it not used?

Not an AWACSer either, but here's a crazy idea.  Get a handful of ATC types (like previous Kabul tower controllers), give them a flight suit and a console on the E-3.  Then say, you are going to control the airfield from the sky.  You may not have perfect radar, or perfect comms, and will definitely need to be agile, so do you best with what you have and fall back on procedural control/slotting.  It'll be like the wild west.  NOTAM forthcoming, what do you want in it?

But again, this might have been an idea to a possible problem if THERE WAS A PLAN!!!  Would it have worked?  Probably.  We can be pretty crafty with problem solving as long as we can get out of our own way.  Those ATC guys did it with Twitter and DM.

[jazzdude]

What happened to all the chest beating about uncontrolled airfield ops? Make your pattern calls, visually clear the runway, etc. Same for the terminal area, at least in VFR.

[Scooter14]

Accelerate change or lose?

[SocialD]

39 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

What happened to all the chest beating about uncontrolled airfield ops? Make your pattern calls, visually clear the runway, etc. Same for the terminal area, at least in VFR.

 

This!  Years ago, we pretty much did this at one deployed location I've been based.  Basically had a CTAF freq where we ensured we were all deconflicted and used our targeting pod to scan the runway.  It was pretty simple and worked just fine. 

[Lawman]

 
This!  Years ago, we pretty much did this at one deployed location I've been based.  Basically had a CTAF freq where we ensured we were all deconflicted and used our targeting pod to scan the runway.  It was pretty simple and worked just fine. 

Given the varying quality of ATC at some locations it’s sometimes better to not tell them what you’re going to do…

Taji Tower unsecure: “Army aircraft I need to know your type!” Then clears a flight of Iraqi Hips in a language only they can understand…

Escorting a flight of Chinooks with the Theatre commander and his staff: “My type is Army and you can go F yourself if you need more than that.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

Big difference going into Bumfuck Municipal and HKIA as it’s swarming with thousands of refugees. Even if you can land, where are you going to park your airplane without direction in that environment? 

[jazzdude]

Yeah, that's not an ATC problem, that's an airfield security and aerial port problem.

Point is, an AWACS controlling the pattern and acting as approach/tower doesn't solve that problem.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Lawman said:

It’s not so much that there isn’t a need…

It’s that in the F’d up too many chiefs not enough Indian process of acquisitions we are trying to mesh a bunch of concurrent requirements from reps fighting for AFSOC, ACC, USSOCOM, AVFID, AETC, and what the hell why not the Corps of Goddamn Engineers or some such. So everybody has their own list of things this airplane needs to do to please them and screw the other guys at the table.

So in the end we are going to get a high utility low hour cost “commercial off the shelf” *insert necessary buzzword here* aircraft, but we will end up spending F-35 level dollars to do it.

That’s why I’m choosing to advocate the following COa: F it lets just buy some more F-35s and continue to use race thoroughbred horses for a job more suited to Mules.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur on your Chief & Indian point, Gen Milley back in the day before the current debacle of Afghanistan expressed correctly frustration with the inability of the DoD to quickly get to a solution for what I would call important but not premier weapon / mission systems

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/dod-reporters-notebook-jared-serbu/2016/04/army-chief-says-hell-fix-ridiculous-handgun-acquisition/

Quoting him from the article: "The technology’s been around for five centuries, and arguably it’s the least important weapons system in the Department of Defense inventory.”

I would have extended that idea for the LAAR for the AF but not as a least important weapon system.  Not a premier system but one important and urgent enough to allow an exception to policy via legislation to have proceeded VFR direct to solution, ditto for MRAPs, JCA, etc...

The care and feeding of this mission (equipment, people, skill sets, experience, etc...) was and remains a good set for the Guard (Air and Ground).  

Anyway, like Cato saying "Carthage must be destroyed." repetitively, the AF needs a manned light attack / observation platform and the US needs to retain some percentage of its military, diplomatic and assistance capabilities OT&E'd for LIC-COIN-NEO-Stability Ops.  Just an unpleasant fact of life in a world with scarcity, competition and conflict.

[Danger41]

It’s both. You get C-17’s and whatever else stacked up waiting to land and a bunch of dudes showing up with a “Kabul traffic, Reach 69…” it’s going to be a massive disaster. Any of you MLAT types pitch in.

I’m all for CTAF and uncontrolled ops (I was a CFII before I joined and flew that type of flying 90%). My community still does it quite a bit and it’s funny how quickly it can fall apart with a few airplanes and nobody talking charge.

[dream big]

13 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Big difference going into Bumfuck Municipal and HKIA as it’s swarming with thousands of refugees. Even if you can land, where are you going to park your airplane without direction in that environment? 

This is what the CRG and STS career fields are for.  Bonus, both carry with them organic security capes.  If CENTCOM and DOD aren’t run by a bunch of idiots we would’ve figured this out before the withdrawal went south.