I just spoke with my airframe's AFPC assignments guy yesterday who said, "there is no shortage of guys who have all ready volunteered for the T-6 COIN airplane".
__________________
Do ordinary things extraordinarily well
Back to the RC-12--Rumor has it that Fairchild just sent out some info on distance/flight time to MOAs in the area to some "C-12 guys". Anyone have any more rumors on possible basing locations?
Back to the RC-12--Rumor has it that Fairchild just sent out some info on distance/flight time to MOAs in the area to some "C-12 guys". Anyone have any more rumors on possible basing locations?
I keep on hearing Beale, CA and some place else on the East coast. Let me talk to some contacts at Fairchild that fly the RC-26. They might have some insight.
UPTme, like the flyby over Aggieland! Gig 'em '96.
Turned my app in today for an interservice transfer to fly the RC-12 b/c my MWS is going away. Anyone else out there going the interservice transfer route?
UPTme, like the flyby over Aggieland! Gig 'em '96.
Turned my app in today for an interservice transfer to fly the RC-12 b/c my MWS is going away. Anyone else out there going the interservice transfer route?
Holy smokes, that's serious masochism. Volunteering to switch services for a 6-deployed/6-home schedule for the next several years? Wow.
__________________
Do ordinary things extraordinarily well
You only have half the picture. Currently on a 1yr downrange eating sand for breakfast. Pulled out of an AF squadron b/c the Army was crying for help. So in the infinite wisdom of our leadership, you now have in lieu of tasking, leaving the cockpit to hump over mountains and desert. Masochistic to you, but for bottom feeders like myself, this offers flying over that sand rather than suck starting that 9mm on my hip.
By the way, I can't find anything but RUMINT about the T-6 COIN plane? You say people are volunteering? Can you please elaborate?
Last edited by seadragon : 10-24-2008 at 02:44 PM.
I can't find anything but RUMINT about the T-6 COIN plane? You say people are volunteering? Can you please elaborate?
Correct, there is no official info right now, because there is no program yet.
The way it was explained to me by the AFPC guy is that people have been calling up volunteering for the program -- even though nothing has been officially announced -- just so they can get their name in the running.
This AF times article from earlier this month seems to have touched off the firestorm:
Quote:
PROPELLER-DRIVEN LIGHT-ATTACK AIRCRAFT AT ‘FOREFRONT’ OF ACC PLANS
FT. WALTON BEACH, FL -- The Air Force is considering acquiring a propeller-driven light-attack aircraft to meet current surveillance and firepower needs on the battlefield, according to the general in charge of Air Combat Command’s requirements division.
This marks yet another service initiative that combines low-tech aircraft with high-tech intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensors -- and in this case munitions -- in an attempt to address current issues on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a shift in the Air Force’s future plans.
“It points us in a different direction than we had been in terms of our long-term planning,” Maj. Gen. Mark Matthews said of the possible infusion of a light-attack aircraft during an Oct. 7 speech at a weapons conference here.
If the service does buy a light-attack plane, like the Hawker-Beechcraft AT-6, U.S. Aircraft A-67 or Embraer Super Tucano, it would join RC-12 Project Liberty, a signals intelligence and video gathering-equipped King Air 350 and the U-28 special operations prop.
“No one a year ago was talking to me, at least not seriously, about a light-attack aircraft for the United States Air Force,” Matthews said. “Yet it’s at the forefront of our planning and integration today.”
That idea for the Air Force operation of a light-attack plane was floated by Col. Gary Crowder, former commander of the theater-based Combined Air and Space Operations Center, back in March. He claimed the aircraft could provide vital intelligence and firepower, while saving billions of dollars associated with flying fighter jets in the relatively uncontested skies over Iraq.
Many Air Force officials frowned on that idea at the time. But Matthews’ acknowledgment that ACC is considering the aircraft shows a shift in position.
At the time, ACC and other officials told Inside the Air Force that the command -- which is responsible for training and equipping the force -- had no plans to incorporate a light-attack aircraft into the fleet.
Current programming and modernization strategies also “must take into consideration DOD fiscal constraints which favor acquiring multimission aircraft, and, as such, ‘single mission’ type aircraft may not be in our best long-term interest,” a spokesman said in an April 14 e-mail.
Currently, ACC officials are exploring how they would develop pilots to fly these planes.
“The question becomes now, ‘If I’m going to put U.S. Air Force aircrews in an aircraft like that, where do I get them from?’ I hadn’t planned on that,” Matthews said this week. “And then ‘What type of capabilities do you put on this aircraft?’
“Is it possible . . . that I can take an aircraft like this and integrate it into an existing unit as a companion aircraft and train for dual qualifications on both? So, based on the phase of conflict, they could shift from one aircraft, say an F-35 in the future, to an AT-X-type platform and execute that to help not only stabilize a country, but to build up the capacity within that country to execute their old self defense and transfer this system over to that particular nation state,” the two-star asked. “Is that a feasible way of operating, given the complexity of the systems that we’re going to bring to bear?”
Another possible way of developing pilots could be dual qualifying unmanned aerial system pilots to fly the smaller light-attack aircraft, Matthews said.
At the same time, the Air Force is increasing its number of UAS operators to meet high demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and will -- for the first time -- qualify non-rated pilots to fly the drones. -- Marcus Weisgerber
__________________
Do ordinary things extraordinarily well
Position: E-3 "AWACS" - Alcohol Women and Casual Sex
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by asupilot
I aggressively pursued the RC-12 and I found out yesterday I got it. I'm not in the initial few classes (not an MWS IP) of guys who will comprise initial cadre, but have been told to expect training early summer.
Questions/comments?
if you read this, can you send me a PM? i just registered and i'm not making another 25 posts just to gain the ability to send PMs to other users per this sites rules. i am a 1A4 senior surveillance tech stationed at tinker flying on the AWACS who is going to RC12s as well. i'd like to have another source of info on whats going on with this thing besides what i get from here. thanks!
[quote=Hacker15e;484585]Another possible way of developing pilots could be dual qualifying unmanned aerial system pilots to fly the smaller light-attack aircraft, Matthews said.[quote]
Sweet!!!!!! I'd go for that, sounds like a good way to sweeten up a bad UAV deal and keep some air beneath the pilots. But, then those non-rated dudes would feel slighted.
LinkBacks (?)
Linear Mode
