YoungnDumb Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 1 hour ago, ViperStud said: For the Vance bubbas - did they get the Woodring runway extension done? Is that how they are getting 38 dudes to fly 7 days? Sounds friggin miserable. I hope leadership is taking care of the IP cadre to make sure they get 2/week off. I was teaching at Luke when we had dudes waiting a year for FTU back in 2009/10, and that was before we closed 2 SQs there. This has dumpster fire written all over it. Yea they finished last year around this time. To my memory the 38 bubbas have only used it occassionally. Last weekend I heard they opened Vance up fully to support a full day of flying. Out of curiosity, how is DLF washing people forward? Weren't they several weeks behind recently due to MX issues and other stuff? Not throwing spears, just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMILL Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 Yea they finished last year around this time. To my memory the 38 bubbas have only used it occassionally. Last weekend I heard they opened Vance up fully to support a full day of flying. Out of curiosity, how is DLF washing people forward? Weren't they several weeks behind recently due to MX issues and other stuff? Not throwing spears, just curious.Well MX has gotten a lot better + incredible weather = timeline successSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer6 Posted February 20, 2017 Share Posted February 20, 2017 2 hours ago, ViperStud said: For the Vance bubbas - did they get the Woodring runway extension done? Is that how they are getting 38 dudes to fly 7 days? Sounds friggin miserable. I hope leadership is taking care of the IP cadre to make sure they get 2/week off. I was teaching at Luke when we had dudes waiting a year for FTU back in 2009/10, and that was before we closed 2 SQs there. This has dumpster fire written all over it. 38 dudes aren't flying 7 days a week. Woodring is generally only used as a divert if the center rwy shuts down for some reason (outside rwy still under construction..) Once in a while it's used to launch/recover XCs that won't fit into the XC dep/rec window. Also, Vance only opened up for Saturday flying a few weeks ago. Not a constant thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innovator Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Vance 17-06 T-38s (fighters rained like candy on carnival) F-35 F-22 F-16 X 4 F-16 Iraq C-17 Travis C-17 Charleston T-1s C-5M Dover CV-22 Hurlburt field EC-130 DM C-17 Charleston KC-135 MacDill KC-135 X 2 Fairchilds KC-135 Scott C-21 Scott KC-10 Mcguire HC-130J Moody T-1 FAIP 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inertia17 Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 DLF 17-06 T-38 1x F-15E 1x F-16 1x F-16 ANG1x F-16 Iraq 1x F-15/16 Singapore T-1 1x B-52 3x C-17 1x U-28 2x KC-10 1x KC-10 AFRC 1x EC-130 2x C-130 ANG 1x HC-130 1x T-6 FAIP 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudemanbro Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) CBM 17-06 38s: 1 x F22 TY 1 x F15E SJ 1 x A10 DM 1 x T6 Faip 3 x F16 to Kelly Showed up late and didn't catch the whole T1 side. I'll update as I hear it AC130 KC10 Mcguire C17 McChord T1 FAIP T6 FAIP C146 Duke KC135 BHM Edited February 26, 2017 by Rooster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 19 minutes ago, Rooster said: CBM 17-06 38s: 1 x F22 TY 1 x F15E SJ 1 x A10 DM 1 x T6 Faip 3 x F16 to Kelly Showed up late and didn't catch the whole T1 side. I'll update as I hear it AC130 KC10 Mcguire C17 McChord T1 FAIP T6 FAIP C146 Duke KC135 BHM Were the 3 F-16s to Kelly all Texas ANG guys or is Kelly being used to train active guys, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Powers Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Were the 3 F-16s to Kelly all Texas ANG guys or is Kelly being used to train active guys, too?Kelly is a full up B-course. Typically they only have 1 class at a time though.Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 1 minute ago, Kenny Powers said: Kelly is a full up B-course. Typically they only have 1 class at a time though. Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk Ah, gotcha -- thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudemanbro Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Thor said: Were the 3 F-16s to Kelly all Texas ANG guys or is Kelly being used to train active guys, too? All 3 are AD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bode Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Vance 17-06 T-38s (fighters rained like candy on carnival) F-35 F-22 F-16 X 4 F-16 Iraq C-17 Travis C-17 Charleston T-1s C-5M Dover CV-22 Hurlburt field EC-130 DM C-17 Charleston KC-135 MacDill KC-135 X 2 Fairchilds KC-135 Scott C-21 Scott KC-10 Mcguire HC-130J Moody T-1 FAIP 17s from the 38 side??? Thought is was CAF only? Yet DLF dropped a BUFF from T-1s? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
innovator Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ulysses said: My personal guess is the 17s were non-recs, from what I've seen so far in the past few weeks/months. But even then I thought non-recs from 38s were supposed to go bomber. The BUFF from Tones sounds consistent. Ulysses is correct. They were both non-recs. Alright, I am gonna bitch. Despite what the bigwigs say, both of those 17s were taken from the T-1 pool of assignments. The outcome: those two T-38 students were "saved" from a bomber and in return two of the T-1 students that wanted C-17s got hosed. Is this fair? I don't know. I will say that if you are going to play ball with the T-38s and want to compete for fighters, you must be ready to face the outcome if you don't perform well. Getting "rewarded" with C-17s (that T-1 students were competing for) is not justified after going to multiple 89s. You know what, lets just take the guy at the bottom of his T-1 class and give him a fifth gen fighter..... Sorry for the rant guys. Edited February 26, 2017 by innovator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, innovator said: Ulysses is correct. They were both non-recs. Alright, I am gonna bitch. Despite what the bigwigs say, both of those 17s were taken from the T-1 pool of assignments. The outcome: those two T-38 students were "saved" from a bomber and in return two of the T-1 students that wanted C-17s got hosed. Is this fair? I don't know. I will say that if you are going to play ball with the T-38s and want to compete for fighters, you must be ready to face the outcome if you don't perform well. Getting "rewarded" with C-17s (that T-1 students were competing for) is not justified after going to multiple 89s. Sorry for the rant guys. Is there essentially no way to fly bombers then? I was under the same impression as Ulysses - if you're non-rec'd in 38s you get a bomber. I know bombers are supposed to drop from tones now, but the DLF buff (I know the guy) is a mil-mil to a buff CSO. What do guys do who want bombers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowser36 Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 19 minutes ago, Ulysses said: Furthermore, if guys are sucking in 38s and can't get a bomber drop, is there a chance of being recycled back into Tones or something, or does that just cause too much administrative difficulty/backup in the next class? If they're gonna be stealing a heavy from a T-1 student then it only seems fair that they then compete against those T-1 students. But that's assuming "fairness." Life is not fair. In the Air Force, timing is everything. This is true well beyond UPT. Do the best you can and the rest is out of your hands. With the drops that are coming down now, if you do well in whatever track, you'll get what you want. UPT assignments were much worse even just a few years ago (see 2008-2009 timeframe). I'm sure the guys from the 90's who did tours as a non-rated officer before UPT slots opened up could tell stories of how it was even worse... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Do better in T-6's, questions? 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faipmafiaofficial Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 The worst fighter pilot is better than the best heavy pilot. Duh 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 The Air Force will disappoint you. Consistently. Get used to it now.Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HossHarris Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 2 hours ago, faipmafiaofficial said: The worst fighter pilot is better than the best heavy pilot. Duh A bit tongue-in-cheek perhaps, but there is a quality cut at track select. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 My wife and I call it "SMD," Standard Military Disappointment. Another deployment, SMD. Haven't been paid correctly, SMD. PCS to Cannon, SMD, etc. You're allowed to be disappointed, but the sooner you acknowledge that this level of disappointment is standard and doesn't exist just to piss you off specifically, the better off you'll be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 I forsee a bit more horse trading between the T-38 and T-1 side coming around. Nothing says the T-1 Flt/CC can't trade for an assignment with the T-38 Flt/CC, you just can't give a fighter to a T-1 student. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 54 minutes ago, BashiChuni said: i see this word fairness being thrown around... F'ing SNAPS. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperMan Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 7 hours ago, innovator said: Ulysses is correct. They were both non-recs. Alright, I am gonna bitch. Despite what the bigwigs say, both of those 17s were taken from the T-1 pool of assignments. The outcome: those two T-38 students were "saved" from a bomber and in return two of the T-1 students that wanted C-17s got hosed. Is this fair? I don't know. I will say that if you are going to play ball with the T-38s and want to compete for fighters, you must be ready to face the outcome if you don't perform well. Getting "rewarded" with C-17s (that T-1 students were competing for) is not justified after going to multiple 89s. You know what, lets just take the guy at the bottom of his T-1 class and give him a fifth gen fighter..... Sorry for the rant guys. Yes. People who know a lot more than you made decisions that you don't like - it doesn't mean they're wrong. 38 studs are universally assignable, and those individuals who "stole" 17s likely out-competed the ones you think they "displaced" earlier in the program when they were "head to head" - i.e. when they were in T-6s. 7 hours ago, Ulysses said: Furthermore, if guys are sucking in 38s and can't get a bomber drop, is there a chance of being recycled back into Tones or something, or does that just cause too much administrative difficulty/backup in the next class? If they're gonna be stealing a heavy from a T-1 student then it only seems fair that they then compete against those T-1 students. But that's assuming "fairness." No. They either graduate and the above happens, or they wash out. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, ViperMan said: Yes. People who know a lot more than you made decisions that you don't like - it doesn't mean they're wrong. 38 studs are universally assignable, and those individuals who "stole" 17s likely out-competed the ones you think they "displaced" earlier in the program when they were "head to head" - i.e. when they were in T-6s. No. They either graduate and the above happens, or they wash out. Maybe not wrong but inconsistent and frankly hypocritical. SUPT is meant to be Specialized not Universal UPT. I understand that needs of the AF drove the policy of 38 studs being universally assignable but that was based on an institutional need not a personal preference that was limited because of a career choice, i.e. the choice of these studs to track 38s and the likely assignments to follow from that personal choice. They ranked their track preferences and made their decisions. Now, when those chickens come home to roost, good or bad, they must live with them. Edited February 27, 2017 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperMan Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 16 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said: Maybe not wrong but inconsistent and frankly hypocritical. SUPT is meant to be Specialized not Universal UPT. I understand that needs of the AF drove the policy of 38 studs being universally assignable but that was based on an institutional need not a personal preference that was limited because of a career choice, i.e. the choice of these studs to track 38s and the likely assignments to follow from that personal choice. They ranked their track preferences and made their decisions. Now, when those chickens come home to roost, good or bad, they must live with them. Well, lets just say we disagree. 38 studs have always been universally assignable - ever since the days of UPT, when T-38 studs went on to fly C-141s, OV-10s, etc. SUPT was implemented to save the Air Force money and to prolong the life of the T-38. Not to give T-1 students "dibs" on certain platforms. T-38 studs did rack their preferences, as did I years ago, knowing that I could always go fly something "heavy" later in life if I wanted to do so. Choosing to go fly 38s doesn't close any doors - choosing to fly T-1s does. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 19 minutes ago, ViperMan said: Well, lets just say we disagree. 38 studs have always been universally assignable - ever since the days of UPT, when T-38 studs went on to fly C-141s, OV-10s, etc. SUPT was implemented to save the Air Force money and to prolong the life of the T-38. Not to give T-1 students "dibs" on certain platforms. T-38 studs did rack their preferences, as did I years ago, knowing that I could always go fly something "heavy" later in life if I wanted to do so. Choosing to go fly 38s doesn't close any doors - choosing to fly T-1s does. All consideration for Flt/CC horse trades for assignments aside, your statement that they made the cut so are better assumes that the top 7-8 of every class tracks T-6s. While the statistical likelihood is weighted heavily in that assumption it is not the 100% case (reference several pages back about having to non-vol people to 38s). Just becuase Lt Snuffy went 38s doesn't mean he was the top of his overall class since there is a still some student choice in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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