F-18 AND C-130 down off Japan

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
The F-16s that are outfitted for the task conduct themselves really quite well. It's between them, the A-10, and the E model for what I would want to do if I were in the Air Force.
The problem with the CJs is one guy having to do everything. The F-4G, for guys who remember it, really task managed best with the EWO onboard, especially when mated up as hunter-killer teams with the F-16s. Really, the F-15E wouldve been a better platform than what we currently use for our Weasel force.
 

Flyinthrew

Well-Known Member
I get that EW is very important, much more so than most civilians understand. I just had close experience with the headaches that keeping those old jalopies in the air were. I always questioned how much time, money and manpower was being diverted from the core missions of the USMC Air Wing.

Just an E-4 mechs eye view of things well above my pay grade.
You're spot on here. I absolutely hate the way we just use up our Marines on the hangar deck. We spend them more readily than we spend money. HATE IT. They usually wise up to it right around the end of their first tour. The saddest part is that many of them leave and never want to touch another airplane again.
 

USMCmech

Well-Known Member
You're spot on here. I absolutely hate the way we just use up our Marines on the hangar deck. We spend them more readily than we spend money. HATE IT. They usually wise up to it right around the end of their first tour. The saddest part is that many of them leave and never want to touch another airplane again.
What I hear from some of my friends in the USAF, it's even worse over there. "Everyone canibalize aircraft C to get aircraft B up since it's been down for 60 days." 60 days later, "everyone canabalize aircraft b to get aircraft C up gain" was the story from a C-5 mech I worked with.

If I were in charge for a day, I would just find out how many aircraft a unit can actually maintain ready and start over from there. Park the hangar queens out back.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
What I hear from some of my friends in the USAF, it's even worse over there. "Everyone canibalize aircraft C to get aircraft B up since it's been down for 60 days." 60 days later, "everyone canabalize aircraft b to get aircraft C up gain" was the story from a C-5 mech I worked with.

If I were in charge for a day, I would just find out how many aircraft a unit can actually maintain ready and start over from there. Park the hangar queens out back.
More truth here than you realize. The AF wastes so much time in the whole Cann process, because Mx guys spend a ton of time working on airplanes that arent truly broken. Theyre just in for an inspection or whatnot, but because they are there and not on the line, lets take other parts off of them in order to service aircraft on the line. All because we are only allowd barely X amount of bench stock to be maintained at the unit level. Everything else has to be ordered from supply. And so a self-licking ice cream cone of inefficiency develops that can never be stopped. Even at DMA, aircraft canning is common at the unit level, even with the DoD boneyard sitting right next door to the south side of the flightline,

Ive often wondered how.....with how hard worked AF Mx people are with long days/nights, deployments, wasted work as described above........how it is that the AF manages to get any of these guys to reenlist and remain part of this revolving door of never ending wasted effort.
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
More truth here than you realize. The AF wastes so much time in the whole Cann process, because Mx guys spend a ton of time working on airplanes that arent truly broken. Theyre just in for an inspection or whatnot, but because they are there and not on the line, lets take other parts off of them in order to service aircraft on the line. All because we are only allowd barely X amount of bench stock to be maintained at the unit level. Everything else has to be ordered from supply. And so a self-licking ice cream cone of inefficiency develops that can never be stopped. Even at DMA, aircraft canning is common at the unit level, even with the DoD boneyard sitting right next door to the south side of the flightline,

Ive often wondered how.....with how hard worked AF Mx people are with long days/nights, deployments, wasted work as described above........how it is that the AF manages to get any of these guys to reenlist and remain part of this revolving door of never ending wasted effort.
The weirdly perverse logic about bench stock doesn’t stand the test of reality either.

The people that came up with it like the “streamlined effeciency” of a centralized hub like a warehouse distribution center giving what and only what you need. They didn’t want stuff up forward where the rate and speed of a fight could render those assets lost as the battlefield shakes out.... problem is a smart peer enemy is going to immediately target that fixed hub and blast the ever loving crap out of it immediately. That leaves those forward combat assets that have to be played immediately with even less on hand to prolong their already finite span of effectiveness.

This is not the civil war. The battle won’t wait for us to train load a bunch of crap forward and send it to where it needs to be processed. If you don’t have it in hand when the balloon goes up, don’t expect to have it for weeks/months after. We are still thinking supply logic like it’s 1918 and geographic separation makes us immune. Scavenging (the real word for what we do though we call it BS like line item transfer) of parts is supposed to be a way of life after it all goes to hell not when it’s ops normal.
 

///AMG

Well-Known Member
What I hear from some of my friends in the USAF, it's even worse over there. "Everyone canibalize aircraft C to get aircraft B up since it's been down for 60 days." 60 days later, "everyone canabalize aircraft b to get aircraft C up gain" was the story from a C-5 mech I worked with.

If I were in charge for a day, I would just find out how many aircraft a unit can actually maintain ready and start over from there. Park the hangar queens out back.
Interesting fact (maybe not), when I was @ a previous command in a previous duty station, our flight line was not only dying, but gangrenous and in its last throes of life. We had around 40 jets on the books, and at any given time, maybe 5 were flyable. It got really bad, and some of that bad was the result of a mishap and people refusing to fly airplanes after that and some other pretty ridiculous maintenance malpractice events that were similar in potential severity. Leadership brought in one of my coworkers to be the "pilot liaison" to the mx department. In very short order, they had a new plan, that involved cherry picking the best airplanes, and then "pickling" the others that had no hope. Instantly there were about 30 phase and infinite periodic inspections that no longer had to suck up mx man hours. Also, there were a bunch of organic parts available, not requiring external support, which was an issue at the time. Our aircraft availability skyrocketed after that. Said pilot got picked up for squadron command, and he is doing well today. I have a lot of really choice words to say about the people who didn't contribute to that solution. I'll just leave it at that.....my blood is already starting to boil.
 

USMCmech

Well-Known Member
In very short order, they had a new plan, that involved cherry picking the best airplanes, and then "pickling" the others that had no hope. Instantly there were about 30 phase and infinite periodic inspections that no longer had to suck up mx man hours. Also, there were a bunch of organic parts available, not requiring external support, which was an issue at the time. Our aircraft availability skyrocketed after that.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this idea came from a mustang. It's too simple and common sense to have come from the mind of an ROTC or Annapolis graduate.

Of course it also takes a CO with the intestinal fortitude to tell his boss why there are 20 lawn ornaments covered in shrink wrap that were once airplanes.



In chapter 2 of my ideas that will never happen, a four year term of enlistment should be a requirement for OCS.
 
Last edited:

///AMG

Well-Known Member
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this idea came from a mustang. It's too simple and common sense to have come from the mind of an ROTC or Annapolis graduate.

Of course it also takes a CO with the intestinal fortitude to tell his boss why there are 20 lawn ornaments covered in shrink wrap that were once airplanes.



In chapter 2 of my ideas that will never happen, a four year term of enlistment should be a requirement for OCS.
While my younger self would have agreed with you, my older self thinks the exact opposite. I've known a few great mustangs, a few terrible ones, and most of the rest were in between. I've also known a couple great Chiefs, plenty of useless E-7s-E-9's, and plenty in between. I'd say the same thing about traditional O's, regardless of commissioning source/background. The idea I mentioned did not come from a mustang......in fact, in this instance, it was the senior enlisted folks who were really the problem. I've found that to be the case more and more as I progress in my career. That isn't an affront on the E7+ ranks as a whole, just a commentary on the fact that people are just people, and their background doesn't make them anything special. Some are good, some aren't, and I don't think any amount of specific experience makes the good ones the way they are.
 

Flyinthrew

Well-Known Member
While my younger self would have agreed with you, my older self thinks the exact opposite. I've known a few great mustangs, a few terrible ones, and most of the rest were in between. I've also known a couple great Chiefs, plenty of useless E-7s-E-9's, and plenty in between. I'd say the same thing about traditional O's, regardless of commissioning source/background. The idea I mentioned did not come from a mustang......in fact, in this instance, it was the senior enlisted folks who were really the problem. I've found that to be the case more and more as I progress in my career. That isn't an affront on the E7+ ranks as a whole, just a commentary on the fact that people are just people, and their background doesn't make them anything special. Some are good, some aren't, and I don't think any amount of specific experience makes the good ones the way they are.
I am prior enlisted (8 years) and I share exactly this viewpoint, especially concerning aviation maintenance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Lawman

Well-Known Member
While my younger self would have agreed with you, my older self thinks the exact opposite. I've known a few great mustangs, a few terrible ones, and most of the rest were in between. I've also known a couple great Chiefs, plenty of useless E-7s-E-9's, and plenty in between. I'd say the same thing about traditional O's, regardless of commissioning source/background. The idea I mentioned did not come from a mustang......in fact, in this instance, it was the senior enlisted folks who were really the problem. I've found that to be the case more and more as I progress in my career. That isn't an affront on the E7+ ranks as a whole, just a commentary on the fact that people are just people, and their background doesn't make them anything special. Some are good, some aren't, and I don't think any amount of specific experience makes the good ones the way they are.
The other problem is the program is impossible to scale. How many people want to be officers under the current flow lines? How many put up with the crap that it takes under normal circumstance, then once in get a few years and realize they aren’t about it so they punch at 6-8 years. Ok great so now we don’t even try to build that population from the general clueless that only have a guess as to whether or not this is the life for them but will serve their capacity until they can leave. Now we can only recruit from the “die hard” community of enlisted.

Congrats you just hobbled any chance of getting the sheer number of bodies needed and more importantly cut yourself off from a huge population of people that don’t need to spend 3-4 years doing the dumb stuff we waste Joe’s time on like emptying a conex to inventory it again this week or cut the grass in front of battalion while standing duty for them to find themselves. They already possessed the qualities needed to be a leader. The experience they will get, especially if they have the sense to absorb and learn from those around them. That will generate far more numbers of useful officers and not just a small scale group of presumed rock stars because they spent 4 years and made it all the way to Lcpl in a supply shop, let’s give that guy a chance to be an officer.

I’m in a community where the aggregate of population is about 80% prior service amongst Warrant Officer.... they are all dumb asses when they show up to their first unit. Some guys just know the game of shut up and learn and get a 3-4 month advantage on their bros. By the time you’re up for CW3, nobody cares what you used to do before this job.
 

USMCmech

Well-Known Member
While my younger self would have agreed with you, my older self thinks the exact opposite.
My post was (mostly) sarcasm.

Most of the "brilliant" ideas that made my E-4 life hell, came from between the ranks of E-6 and O-3. Senior enlisted that were more concerned about their career progression vs getting the job done and junior officers who didn't know when to get out of the way and let us do our jobs.

I'm still not convinced that a 4 year degree in psychology is the best way to screen for qualified military leaders considering it's harder to enlist than it is to get into college these days, but the system is what it is.
 

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Be interesting to see the factors of this one. Generally speaking, the vast majority...nearly all....unintended contacts and/or midairs that occur during AR are the result of the receivers action or failure to act. Moreso in probe AR than in boom AR, as in probe AR, the receiver is doing 100% of the work; whereas in boom AR, the receiver works to attain and maintain a position in contact, and the boom operator in the tanker does the rest of the work. The tanker is mostly a steady, non-maneuvering platform just chugging along.

I believe the last KC-130 lost during AR, was in 1969, when a USMC KC-130F was in the process of refueling two F-4B Phantoms (both hooked to the tanker), when a third unrelated F-4B Phantom coming the opposite direction ran head-on into the KC-130. KC-130 went down, the head-on F-4 went down, and one of the two F-4s that were taking on fuel at the time went down. Only one F-4 survived and landed.
 

Crop Duster

E pluribus unum
My post was (mostly) sarcasm.

Most of the "brilliant" ideas that made my E-4 life hell, came from between the ranks of E-6 and O-3. Senior enlisted that were more concerned about their career progression vs getting the job done and junior officers who didn't know when to get out of the way and let us do our jobs.

I'm still not convinced that a 4 year degree in psychology is the best way to screen for qualified military leaders considering it's harder to enlist than it is to get into college these days, but the system is what it is.
Sadly, most of the time, REMFs gonna REMF.
 

Bob Ridpath

Pit Bull love
One of the NYS Troopers with whom I work and socialize lost a family member in this event. It’s remarkable how the grief travels across miles to touch the heart of a stranger.

Requiscat im pace, one and all. May good memories of days gone by assuage the hurt of this moment in time, as much as possible.
 
Top