User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:31:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and the C17 fleets as they are now can't even come close to supporting our current needs. thats because your "needs" are irrelevent to national defense. air sea battle. no room for landpower. shut up white boy. etc etc etc |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:31:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So does that mean less capability overall? Sure sounds like it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No. They will get farmed out to other existing units as an "extra" plane above their primary aircraft authorization. So does that mean less capability overall? Sure sounds like it. A bit, although less than sending the airframes to the boneyard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:32:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is the Sherpa company an independent unit that runs their own base facilities, security, medical, personnel, communications, finance, and maintenance? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I said the airframes were different. But not that different. Is the Sherpa company an independent unit that runs their own base facilities, security, medical, personnel, communications, finance, and maintenance? no. Because they can share those requirements with other units. The 168th didn't run eilson, either. that wasn't base support. that was simply the wing. 8 tails. 6 full colonels. and, folks, here is where the AF is a different world. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:37:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A bit, although less than sending the airframes to the boneyard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No. They will get farmed out to other existing units as an "extra" plane above their primary aircraft authorization. So does that mean less capability overall? Sure sounds like it. A bit, although less than sending the airframes to the boneyard. So theoretically the constant...we can't support XYZ missions because half our aircraft are down for maintenance should decrease, right? Wish I still had the stat breakdown, we lost something like 45% of missions out of the Elmendorf guys due to maintenance one year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:41:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no. Because they can share those requirements with other units. The 168th didn't run eilson, either. that wasn't base support. that was simply the wing. 8 tails. 6 full colonels. and, folks, here is where the AF is a different world. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I said the airframes were different. But not that different. Is the Sherpa company an independent unit that runs their own base facilities, security, medical, personnel, communications, finance, and maintenance? no. Because they can share those requirements with other units. The 168th didn't run eilson, either. that wasn't base support. that was simply the wing. 8 tails. 6 full colonels. and, folks, here is where the AF is a different world. Did you miss where I won't disagree that the AF is rank heavy in the officer corps? And while in AK's case the wing while in garrison can share a lot of those resources they are still on the hook to deploy as an independent unit with the same taskings as a unit that doesn't share resources. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 2:58:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did you miss where I won't disagree that the AF is rank heavy in the officer corps? And while in AK's case the wing while in garrison can share a lot of those resources they are still on the hook to deploy as an independent unit with the same taskings as a unit that doesn't share resources. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I said the airframes were different. But not that different. Is the Sherpa company an independent unit that runs their own base facilities, security, medical, personnel, communications, finance, and maintenance? no. Because they can share those requirements with other units. The 168th didn't run eilson, either. that wasn't base support. that was simply the wing. 8 tails. 6 full colonels. and, folks, here is where the AF is a different world. Did you miss where I won't disagree that the AF is rank heavy in the officer corps? And while in AK's case the wing while in garrison can share a lot of those resources they are still on the hook to deploy as an independent unit with the same taskings as a unit that doesn't share resources. You're being trolled. Unless you attend some in-residence PME you'll just never know how the real military should work. That's what I've deduced from these threads over the years. BLUF: everyone's picking on the Army. /thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:06:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're being trolled. Unless you attend some in-residence PME you'll just never know how the real military should work. That's what I've deduced from these threads over the years. BLUF: everyone's picking on the Army. /thread lulz. butthurt quasi-military showing up. taxpayers are the ones getting trolled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:16:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So theoretically the constant...we can't support XYZ missions because half our aircraft are down for maintenance should decrease, right? Wish I still had the stat breakdown, we lost something like 45% of missions out of the Elmendorf guys due to maintenance one year. I know that's tracked I just can't for the life of me find it. And I would be more than a little shocked to hear that there was a 45% maintenance cancel rate for sorties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:27:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The C-17 is not certified by the FAA and therefore couldn't be sold for civilian use. McD looked at getting FAA certification a lot of years ago and the civilian interest in the airplane didn't justify the considerable expense. Lockheed went through the same exercise many years ago for the C5 and came to the same conclusion. The C-141s were timed out and have probably all been chopped up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. The C-17 is not certified by the FAA and therefore couldn't be sold for civilian use. McD looked at getting FAA certification a lot of years ago and the civilian interest in the airplane didn't justify the considerable expense. Lockheed went through the same exercise many years ago for the C5 and came to the same conclusion. The C-141s were timed out and have probably all been chopped up. We sell them over seas. Qatar likes c17s. The 141 is a waaaaay old airframe. They were in need of replacement. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:30:42 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We sell them over seas. Qatar likes c17s. The 141 is a waaaaay old airframe. They were in need of replacement. http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_C17_Qatar_Flyout_lg.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. The C-17 is not certified by the FAA and therefore couldn't be sold for civilian use. McD looked at getting FAA certification a lot of years ago and the civilian interest in the airplane didn't justify the considerable expense. Lockheed went through the same exercise many years ago for the C5 and came to the same conclusion. The C-141s were timed out and have probably all been chopped up. We sell them over seas. Qatar likes c17s. The 141 is a waaaaay old airframe. They were in need of replacement. http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_C17_Qatar_Flyout_lg.jpg Despite the Qatar Airways livery on that C-17 it's officially a military aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:35:55 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:The C-141s were timed out and have probably all been chopped up. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:41:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yes, I did Google it up. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So I take it that Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAI), the aircraft aren't sent to DM but stored in a viable flying state somewhere? That I do not know. And yes, I did Google it up. Perhaps one of the Air Force types can answer that question. This really isn't a big deal...the active duty manning went away with the recent downsizing, so the Squadrons are being closed and aircraft reorganized. None of these aircraft are going to be retired. Thanks for the answer.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:48:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:The C-141s were timed out and have probably all been chopped up. http://digilander.libero.it/atsg2003/C-141B%2065-0243.jpg At least one left sitting outside at the museum in Dayton, The Hanoi Taxi. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:51:26 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At least one left sitting outside at the museum in Dayton, The Hanoi Taxi. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:The C-141s were timed out and have probably all been chopped up. http://digilander.libero.it/atsg2003/C-141B%2065-0243.jpg At least one left sitting outside at the museum in Dayton, The Hanoi Taxi. There are actually several that have been turned into static displays. All of the ones at DM are gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 3:59:53 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. Most C141s are chopped up and now beer cans. I haven't seen any at DM for a while. They lift a huge blade/guillotine into the air with a crane and drop it on the plane, chopping off wings and sectioning the fuselage. Engines are removed. The Airframe is sold for scrap. I drove by this operation for months and they use a huge backhoe converted with a demolition pincher to snip up the planes into small pieces to make beer cans. There is a row of C-5s on site, but they don't look so good up close. Either their airframes are worn out, or they are stealing parts from them, or both........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:04:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are actually several that have been turned into static displays. All of the ones at DM are gone. Fifteen to be exact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-141_Starlifter#Aircraft_on_display |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:07:23 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and be despised by his men as a kiss ass rather than someone who does things Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. And just what do you expect him to say? He gets his orders and obeys them just as he swore to. Trust me he didn't end up as a wing commander kissing ass, he's got over 3000 flight hours and actually looks like the kind of officer who understands what the challenges of airlift and mobility are today. Bio |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:14:00 PM EDT
[#18]
The C-141's were originally designed for 25,000 hours on the airframe. The ones that were chopped up in the boneyard had 41,000 - 45,000 hours. Simply worn out... Vietnam put a lot of hours on those birds.. Gulf war 1 sure didn't help them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:26:12 PM EDT
[#19]
All this talk about limited budgets, we don't have money, sequestration, etc. Last year we spent 746 BILLION on 83 different welfare programs. 725 BILLION on Social Security. 480 BILLION on Medicare.
Continuing to cut away at the military, without reducing mission requirements and capabilities, is criminally poor mismanagement. On January 1st, military members are getting a housing pay cut. Retirees had their pay cut last year. But Congress most certainly got their pay raise this year... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:30:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone is trying to line up a career in politics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. Someone is trying to line up a career in politics. He's a Wing Commander. He's already in politics. And, going with the program is essential for the pinning on of stars. Doing ANYTHING you are told is essential for pinning on more than two stars. Looks like more Guard slots opening in SC and WA. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:33:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They may stay right where they are or get farmed out to Reserve or air National Guard units before being sent to Davis Monthan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I take it that Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAI), the aircraft aren't sent to DM but stored in a viable flying state somewhere? They may stay right where they are or get farmed out to Reserve or air National Guard units before being sent to Davis Monthan. This. Guard units do the same job as AD (specifically in the aviation world) and they do it cheaper and have higher rates of availability (not necessarily the fault of the AD troops. Different budget, different procurement, etc. These airplanes won't go to DM, they'll move across the ramp to the Guard/Reserve and probably fly more. TC |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:38:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lulz. butthurt quasi-military showing up. taxpayers are the ones getting trolled. By all means carry on though- it is amusing at times.. But thats about it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:44:00 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. I get the feeling FedEx and UPS are just fine with their twins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:45:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of course, the USAF got more C-17s a few years back than they wanted. Arguing the whole time that we had more airlift than we really needed and those big Russian cargo planes would always be available for rent. So they finally got their way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 4:54:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are these associate units? The 17th is an active duty squadron. I was in it when it stood up around 1987/88. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 5:42:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I won't disagree the taxpayers are being trolled. The difference here is I don't profess to be an expert on things I have no direct experience with or knowledge of..ya know like other than that one time I saw an airplane fly over from my desk..or *gasp* that time I actually got to touch one other than being happily dumped out the back by the aircrew. But then it just wouldn't be any fun throwing out my biases to others in GD even less informed than me if there was cred in any of it. By all means carry on though- it is amusing at times.. But thats about it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lulz. butthurt quasi-military showing up. taxpayers are the ones getting trolled. By all means carry on though- it is amusing at times.. But thats about it. Its almost as if some people study their profession beyond their narrow band of requirements. And some people don't. we could limit the discussion to people who have been published in Air and Space Power Journal on joint aviation doctrine. But it would be a lonely thread, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 5:43:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
its insanity to rely on renting russian services for our military operations. 'we dont need no new cargo planes... ' ..has to use russian services to make up for lack of logistics capacity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Of course, the USAF got more C-17s a few years back than they wanted. Arguing the whole time that we had more airlift than we really needed and those big Russian cargo planes would always be available for rent. So they finally got their way. remember, the AF is sooooooooooooooo good, that even after we pay for the planes, pilots, maintainers and facilities its still cheaper to outsource. only ones professunal enough or some such thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 6:03:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps one of the Air Force types can answer that question. Yes. Aircraft in BAI are dispersed around to other wings and maintained and flown there. In the future these aircraft will be used to convert ANG and AFRC units that are currently operating other aircraft. This really isn't a big deal...the active duty manning went away with the recent downsizing, so the Squadrons are being closed and aircraft reorganized. None of these aircraft are going to be retired. Thanks for the answer.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So I take it that Backup Aircraft Inventory (BAI), the aircraft aren't sent to DM but stored in a viable flying state somewhere? That I do not know. Yes. Aircraft in BAI are dispersed around to other wings and maintained and flown there. In the future these aircraft will be used to convert ANG and AFRC units that are currently operating other aircraft. This really isn't a big deal...the active duty manning went away with the recent downsizing, so the Squadrons are being closed and aircraft reorganized. None of these aircraft are going to be retired. Thanks for the answer.
Agree! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 6:49:53 PM EDT
[#29]
OP, the hell with strategic airlift capability.
Who needs that? Let's just deactivate all of those squadrons. After all, we need the money to feed, educate, clothe and give medical care to Obama's millions of illegals he is bringing in. Every day, I thank goodness that I am retired from active duty. I would not want to serve in Obama's military as it is now. And I do not say that lightly either. Enlisted AND officers have no idea if they will be continued for twenty years of service to retire now. They are running the military now like a corporation constantly downsizing. And their people are their most expendable item. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 6:52:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looks like the AMARC will have some new tenants.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Given that Congress has been forcing extra airplanes on the Air Force for the past few years, and that Boeing is currently finishing up a dozen or so white-tails, it's not surprising that someone has figured out that we have too many even though it's a fine airplane. Looks like the AMARC will have some new tenants. No. BAI aircraft are still going to fly every damn day we need them to, they just aren't funded like PAA aircraft are. The flying squadrons are closing, but there will be the same number of tails on the ramp. It's actually great news for the maintenance units that will now have more tails to fly the same number of missions, with a lower training burden for crews. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 7:00:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He'll be a Four Star General, because he's got the ass kissing down pat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. He'll be a Four Star General, because he's got the ass kissing down pat. Hell, future mayor of New York City |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 7:15:34 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its almost as if some people study their profession beyond their narrow band of requirements. And some people don't. we could limit the discussion to people who have been published in Air and Space Power Journal on joint aviation doctrine. But it would be a lonely thread, wouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 7:39:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I won't disagree the taxpayers are being trolled. The difference here is I don't profess to be an expert on things I have no direct experience with or knowledge of..ya know like other than that one time I saw an airplane fly over from my desk..or *gasp* that time I actually got to touch one other than being happily dumped out the back by the aircrew. But then it just wouldn't be any fun throwing out my biases to others in GD even less informed than me if there was cred in any of it. By all means carry on though- it is amusing at times.. But thats about it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lulz. butthurt quasi-military showing up. taxpayers are the ones getting trolled. By all means carry on though- it is amusing at times.. But thats about it. This one time...lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 7:50:12 PM EDT
[#34]
So we buy C17'S new just to mothball them, stupid airforce
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 7:55:51 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This guy will go far. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. Only if he understands the differance between a kiss ass and a brown nose is depth perception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 7:56:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nah. I've read those publications and they'll publish pretty much anything a few IDE or SDE hacks come up with. It does't even have to be practical as its done under the guise of academic freedom, they just want to fill pages. I've authored a few threads here in GD on joinder doctrine of lonely housewives and they were well received. Sometimes I put on a blue shirt and go back and re-read them and then stand there flexing in front of the mirror. Makes me giggly too. So I see what you mean.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Its almost as if some people study their profession beyond their narrow band of requirements. And some people don't. we could limit the discussion to people who have been published in Air and Space Power Journal on joint aviation doctrine. But it would be a lonely thread, wouldn't it? thats about the level of intellectualism I expect. actually a bit higher than most. though I suspect you are lying about reading anything out of maxwell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 8:22:47 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So we buy C17'S new just to mothball them, stupid airforce You have no idea what you're talking about. And it shows. The USAF has more C-17's that it ever wanted. CONGRESS forced the USAF to accept the C-17's they didn't want. Google up US Army M1A1 tanks not wanted. You might learn something. Or not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 8:44:14 PM EDT
[#38]
The sad part is my son is coming up on assignment night. He was one of 2 selected in his class of 18 to be assigned the T-38C track vs T1 track. Basically he is guaranteed a fighter.....3rd gen fighter pilot
 . I normally would be ecstatic but the future of the .mil looks kinda grim with the asspipes running the show. I pray to God everyday our country recovers.......He is home for the break and I have a couple of WSTs ($10 million dollar full 360 deg simulators) set up to link together to fly some advanced formation. He will finally get some decent instruction on how to properly fly formation like a fighter pilot. He is at Vance and i am an IP at ENJJPT
 At the end i have a BFM profile set up for him.....he will start on offense but will be defensive after 135 degrees of turn Baby seal........club...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 8:53:58 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fucking idiots This Txl |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 9:17:08 PM EDT
[#40]
The 167th in Martinsburg is swapping out their C-5s for C-17s. They got two so far. One came from the TN ANG. Everything is getting shuffled around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 9:24:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
remember, the AF is sooooooooooooooo good, that even after we pay for the planes, pilots, maintainers and facilities its still cheaper to outsource. only ones professunal enough or some such thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, the USAF got more C-17s a few years back than they wanted. Arguing the whole time that we had more airlift than we really needed and those big Russian cargo planes would always be available for rent. So they finally got their way. remember, the AF is sooooooooooooooo good, that even after we pay for the planes, pilots, maintainers and facilities its still cheaper to outsource. only ones professunal enough or some such thing. You really have a burr under your saddle. I think you are trying too hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 9:24:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone is trying to line up a career in politics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"We understand the difficult choices our leaders have had to make in this fiscal environment and we support those choices," said Col. John Lamontagne, 437th Airlift Wing commander. This guy will go far. Someone is trying to line up a career in politics. What the fuck do you expect an O6 to say ??? Its SOP in making comments to the media to complement the grainy texture of the nuts lodged in the feces of a shit sandwich. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 9:30:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. Quoted for "Dumbest Thing I've Read Today" award. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 9:34:01 PM EDT
[#44]
What budget? There has not been a fucking budget in 7 years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 9:34:31 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted for "Dumbest Thing I've Read Today" award. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
WTF? Can't we make up a reason to invade somebody and give these planes a purpose? In all seriousness, sell the C17s to Fedex and UPS and reactivate the C141's at DM for Air Force use. Or just have ANG make flights for the USPS to keep their hours up. Quoted for "Dumbest Thing I've Read Today" award. Yeah, that's pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 9:36:45 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really have a burr under your saddle. I think you are trying too hard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, the USAF got more C-17s a few years back than they wanted. Arguing the whole time that we had more airlift than we really needed and those big Russian cargo planes would always be available for rent. So they finally got their way. remember, the AF is sooooooooooooooo good, that even after we pay for the planes, pilots, maintainers and facilities its still cheaper to outsource. only ones professunal enough or some such thing. You really have a burr under your saddle. I think you are trying too hard. I think he was born that way. More on a C5 realm, I wonder how much money we've given Volga-Dnepr over the years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 10:58:24 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The sad part is my son is coming up on assignment night. He was one of 2 selected in his class of 18 to be assigned the T-38C track vs T1 track. Basically he is guaranteed a fighter.....3rd gen fighter pilot . I normally would be ecstatic but the future of the .mil looks kinda grim with the asspipes running the show. I pray to God everyday our country recovers.......
He is home for the break and I have a couple of WSTs ($10 million dollar full 360 deg simulators) set up to link together to fly some advanced formation. He will finally get some decent instruction on how to properly fly formation like a fighter pilot. He is at Vance and i am an IP at ENJJPT At the end i have a BFM profile set up for him.....he will start on offense but will be defensive after 135 degrees of turn Baby seal........club......
I thought you retired from that? Did you go back in? Dude, beating up your kid in a BFM fight, when he has never seen one before is counter productive. Set up some BFM setups so he can see the picture of some basic maneuvers, you know, tape a beer can to the top of the canopy. and show him what it should look like. That picture is the hardest thing to recognize when you are all by yourself looking at something you have never seen before. while trying to stay awake for it. You have the ability to show it to him so he understands rate and radius and canopy bow pictures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 11:07:53 AM EDT
[#48]
We need more money for the welfare recipients.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 11:59:38 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yes Your govt at work Never should have bought them |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2014 12:03:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes Your govt at work Never should have bought them Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So does this mean they are going to mothball perfectly new aircraft? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yes Your govt at work Never should have bought them No. Poor reading comprehension at work. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
