Waco
-
Content Count
1,278 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Waco
-
-
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 much faster target acquisition, particularly if relying on "eyes-on" target. It can also help with quickly ascertaining Collateral Damage, and min-separation distances, if you've got symbology for both the target and the good guys available through the JHMCS. Finally, some latter versions allow for selectable display of additional sensor information, such as targeting pods, etc.
Air-to-air wise, even in a non-HOB missile equipped aircraft, they are immeasurably useful in picking up targets when closing to WVR, and can also help in breaking out multiple aircraft from a single track file, determining safe separation from wingman for shots into a turning fight, and for not having to turn your own aircraft to look through the HUD in order to pick up a target. You can also use the helmet to slave sensors (RADAR, IRST, Targeting pod....whatever you're carrying) to your LOS, ensuring that if you've got a visual pickup, you can put your fire control systems onto the target as well.
In short, there's lots of applications for helmet mounted cueing, not just for HOBS missiles.
-
Quote
You mean Moai Vincent isn't a real entity?
Wait, what?
-
Quote
When I had my DoD security clearance I was told participating on facebook (or any social media) was the easiest way to lose your clearance. All it would take is a friend of a friend of a friend posting about their travels to or opinions about certain geographical regions or religions and the MIB would be knocking on your door.
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.
-
Quote
It's good to see you here Waco.
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 become more mainstreamed, there is also a significant uptick in volunteers to crossover into the community as well. All combined, these efforts are beginning to fix some of the manning shortfalls in the RPA community. Creation of a separate AFSC just for RPA operators (18X) is another effort to develop a separate personnel pipeline for the RPA community. It's going to take time, but the exponentially increasing demand for RPA operators means we've got to do a better job meeting those requirements. The AF has recognized and is aggressively working on that issue. Unfortunately, it's probably not fast enough to meet the actual demand signal yet.
*break*
F-22 pilot retention is a complex issue as well, but it has nothing to do with the aircraft being, "uncomfortable to fly." Not sure where that would've even come from, unless it was a rumor related to the oxygen system issues a few years ago. I've also never met a pilot who, "disliked" flying the F-22, which is another reason why the AF is having such a hard time answering the question, "why do we keep losing our F-22 pilots?" So far, they've not come up with a satisfactory answer.
-
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 justification, some not).
So it's not like there are 700 cockpits unfilled or RPA consoles unmanned.
Warrant officers is not going to happen. "Technical Expert Track" vs. "Leadership Track" career path options gets discussed all the time. It's unlikely to ever be completely settled in those fashions, but it is entirely possible they will allow folks to opt out of 1 or 2 promotion boards and stay as a captain a bit longer. Opting out entirely of promotion and leadership competition becomes problematic unto itself. However, the RAAF use this model with some success, even allowing folks to step away from the service for a few years and return at their previous rank/position to resume their career. Looking at developing some of those more flexible career opportunities is definitely on the table, and almost all of these efforts are targeted at increasing the current retention rates. Changes/increases to compensation are also being considered, to include more and higher bonuses (although seldom does more money seem to solve the retention problem....typically we find we're throwing cash at people who would've stayed anyway, and not retaining the ones who want to get out regardless, so I question the wisdom here).
Frankly, I think there are lots of other reasons. The F-22 is currently the platform with the lowest retention rate in the AF for pilots. I have plenty of theories as to why that is so. None of them have anything to do with money or career opportunity.
-
Please don't take this the wrong way, but could you not have started a thread about it as much as anyone? Unless your observation wasn't a complaint per-se, in that case no harm no foul. But trends (or lack of trends) are started (or not started) by one person. Just sayin'
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.
-
Tamiya is launching a 1/48 F-14A, it looks like they will be releasing a 1/48 F-16D. AMK are luanching a 1/48 F-14D.... All is good in the world!
The hell you say? Seriously?
-
Recently, the USAF sent up an F-22 against 5 F-15C's(flown by F-22 pilots) in a real time scenario.
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.
-
I don't believe I'm speculating to any extent. The graphic TT graciously provided stated that the F-35 had zero losses in "dogfights" against the F-15E. That would seem to imply that these engagements were within visual range, BFM type of fight, no? Or has the definition of dogfighting been expanded to include BVR fights?
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.
-
but I suspect someone's gonna loose their wings.
Unless there was gross negligence, I suspect that's pretty unlikely.
-
I do enjoy Tony Starks posts whether copied or his own xplanations
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 imperialist/colonial model, and not at all in line with the modern state context.
The US pivot to the Pacific was intended to serve as a counter balance to China rising aggression, particularly in ensuring continued access to the global air and maritime commons in a region which supports more 30-40% of the world's commerce (depending on whose estimate you use). That's a big deal, and if China unilaterally controlled that commerce lane, it would definitely alter the economic balance on a global scale. Unfortunately, the Pivot to the Pacific was supposed to be a strategic rebalancing to the region in anticipation of a predicted Asia-Pacific century, predicated on two major assumptions: 1st, that things would wrap up in the Middle East, and US commitments in the region would decline post 2011. 2nd, that Europe would maintain status-quo, and Russia would continue to develop more peaceful economic engagement with the West. Neither of those assumptions are valid any more; the US has effectively stated there are no more forces being flowed to the Pacific for the foreseeable future; and there are few realistic, reasonable strategic actions to counter China's Pacific expansion/maritime fortress building.
It's a serious strategic challenge.
However, some opinions claim we are nearing the apex of China's ability to sustain this strategic push. "The Accidental Superpower" posits China has effectively peaked, and a lopsided economic model with a frail structure is ripe for collapse. Couple that with an impending demographic problem, limited access to sustainable resource bases, and the growing unification of it's neighboring nations, and China could be on the brink of pushing too far.
Either way, it is a very complex scenario, as Mr Stark's cyclic points out.
-
You on the other hand [are] willing to trade "everyone is happy and getting along" for a knowledgeable user base.
-
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 the limitations are in doing so. Comparing another aircraft (which likely was NOT built to the same environment/mission challenges) is a fruitless, wasteful endeavor.
I had the experience of briefing Dr Gilmore several times in person. It was a learning experience. It was not pleasant.
I will add, everybody involved in the process believes very strongly they are doing "the right thing" with their whole heart and soul. They are all coming at the problem from very different points of view, however. I'll also say this much: if you can get a brief past Dr Gilmore, you've done a lot of homework, and very likely have examined the problem from every possible angle, plus a few thousand other viewpoints most folks would never have considered.
-
Here are some tentative details I can share.
It will have a Pilot and RIO crew figure.
Positional wing sweep.
Detachable wing sweep seals and bladder bags.
Movable canopy.
Boarding ladder and steps.
Decal sheets VF-84 and VF-2.
Officially licensed.
Officially licensedWhat 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*
F-35 news roundup
in General Discussion
Posted
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 shortly, which could see a significant change in the direction of the program's review process.