Waco

Among the more interesting problems Dr Gilmore has helped create is his insistence on side-by-side comparison testing....for example, requiring a flyoff of the F-35 vs. the A-10 to prove which one is better. The problem is, how do you scope such a mission? Given the vastly different capabilities of the two, it is nearly impossible to write an objective scenario which fully explores both aircraft's capabilities and yet allows for direct comparison. Additionally, given Dr Gilmore's position is an appointed, political position, it is probable there will be a new DOT&E Director

You've gotten some good partial answers above. There's lots of good reasons, starting with having nearly all the information displayed on the HUD available wherever you look. This includes things like target tags, wingman symbols, LINK-16 cues, and targeting symbology in addition to basic flight information (airspeed, heading, altitude, pitch, etc). JHMCS has proven tremendously worthwhile in air-to-ground roles, allowing pilots to synch up target descriptions, with cueing designations from ground forces (JTAC, FAC, another aircraft), and with their own eyeballs. This results in

Wait, what?

This is 100% not an accurate statement. In fact, commands and commanders are now having formal education and discussions about using social media to bolster unit information, strategic messaging, and to better connect with their troops. Locking yourself away in a closet is not going to help connect to the new, rising generation of digital natives. We have to get better. Saying stuff like the above makes us look curmudgeonly, slow, and unimaginative to those who are growing up wiht technology.

I'm like a bad penny. I always turn up.

Lots of very powerful features for sorting, tagging, and tracking posts. I like it!

The AF is totally changing its RPA operator manning module. For starters, there is going to be a major uptick in the number of enlisted RPA operators (Congressionally mandated). Step one is well underway, and the program is planned to rapidly expand beyond this after that. RQ-4 will be the threshold platform, with more platforms following. Enlisted RPA operator selection board scheduled They've also started identifying officer RPA operators earlier in the training pipeline, rather than involuntarily removing pilots from their current community to send them to RPAs. As the RPA mission has

This problem is a lot more complex than any of the public articles published to date. It is both a retention and a recruitment problem, although more so on the retention side at the moment. It's also worth noting the 700 number for shortfalls does not technically include very many actual cockpits. Those are filled before any other positions. There are over 700 positions which REQUIRE a pilot or require pilot experience, but do not actually involve flying an aircraft. Many of these are staff, acquisition, test, and research positions which the AF has coded for pilots (many with good just

Well, it was more of an observation. However, considering I had absolutely nothing to do with Nats this year, zero involvement, couldn't attend, and was nowhere near the convention, any posts I made would've consisted solely of, "Anybody hear anything about Nats this year?" Seems like a bit of waste, as I'm sure there were other folks with the same thought. I get it, this is no longer the preferred communication medium for exchanging thoughts on the hobby. However, I'm just surprised there was NO ONE at the Nats representing ARC.

Could have ended your question at, "Was there a 2016 Nats?" No pre-Nats ramp up chatter. No banter on the page. No pics posted. No vendor room score threads or pictures. No news whatsoever on the Nats. No albums posted of the event, anywhere. It's hard to know it even happened. I've been noticing this trend for a few years. I'm tempted to say it's the continual death spiral of the event. I seriously wonder how many more years they'll be able to pull off Nats.

The hell you say? Seriously?

If recently means 11 years ago, then yes. This took place in 2005, and was flown as an alternate mission after one of the F-22s had to RTB early due to a system malfunction. The remaining F-22 flew 1v5 in an unscripted, pure sweep scenario. I see this brought up every few months, but it is, comparatively speaking, ancient news. Not sure what the AEGIS system has to do with any of this...

Probably because it was a routine, mundane, non-event?

Oh yeah, this "discussion" about women combat pilots? Welcome to twenty years ago. Get over it.

Apparently, 11bee's reading comprehension doesn't extend to the panel just left of the air-quoted dog fights, which specifies, "Missions include OCA/SEAD, AI, DCA, and CAS." Since this is generally a cartoon for the general public, who cannot conceive of the ranges associated with modern air combat, yes, virtually all engagements in these kinds of events get the moniker of "dog fights." However, as noted in the 88/88 sorties flown, all of these events were full-mission scenarios, not part task BFM training.

Unless there was gross negligence, I suspect that's pretty unlikely.

Well, I mean, he is a genius, billionaire, philanthropist, playboy. Back on topic... One interested point raised in the tome above is something nobody can deny: China HAS aspirations. Right now, they're claiming them to be regional and based on historical claims. They could be global, and an attempt to establish themselves as a player on the world stage in a new, multipolar model. But the fact is, the model China is employing looks an awful lot like a desire to return to the Middle Kingdom and it's Tribute State model. Accusations from other nations aside, it is very much and imperialis

Having run an AFOTEC test as a Test Director to meet DOT&E objectives, let me declare from first hand experience, the process is very, very, very politically mired. It is often far from an objective look. Additionally, from a statistical point of view, the legions of number crushing statisticians will tell you there is very, very, very little to be gained from comparison testing. It quite literally becomes comparing apples to rocks. The system should be tested against the environment and missions for which it was designed to evaluate whether or not it can meet those missions, and what

What does this mean, exactly? I mean specifically in this context. Because I'm really struggling with this.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: that looks terrible. It's like they picked three or four different themes and ideas and decided, "why not all of them?!!?" The tails look nice. The tramp stamp looking wings on the main airframe and stabs are awful, and look even worse over the standard Eagle camouflage. The Eagle's head is ridiculous, in placement, expression, and relative to the rest of the markings. Leave the cartoon colored jets to the Navy, I say. This is not a trend setter.

Holy hell that thing is terrible looking. Maybe next time pic one idea, instead of throwing all of them on the jet. Good grief...

Flaps would be down for both takeoff and landing, up for all other flight regimes. They are approach speed flight control surfaces, not dynamic maneuvering flight control surfaces in the Eagle.

*looks thread over* *leaves*