Air Force OA-1K Skyraider II Down, OK City, 10/23/25

These acronym laced threads are an interesting read for those of us who didn't serve. I do enjoy reading them, even if it's like reading a language I don't speak

BTW massive respect for those who did serve,
 
Hang 4 said:
These acronym laced threads are an interesting read for those of us who didn't serve. I do enjoy reading them, even if it's like reading a language I don't speak

BTW massive respect for those who did serve,
Click to expand...
I’d like to believe we’ve gotten better at reducing the acronyms in recent years but maybe not. It’s actually PR 101 (not personnel recovery) when dealing with a civilian audience. Do not use acronyms!

Strange thing is, a lot of military aviation acronyms aren’t universal. I sat in an air space brief in some bunker at Rhein Main Germany prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Air Force Captain running it was a like a C3 battle management guy. He was throwing out airspace acronyms that us Army guys had no idea what he was talking about. We just smiled and shook our heads in agreement. I remember leaving there thinking, I sure hope I don’t get shot down by our own guys because we flew through the wrong type of airspace! :p
 
I work ar an MRO and we overhaul military and civilian engines. The TLA's are OOC.
 
nauga said:
I suspect they've had armed cropdusters for a while, just non-TSO :cool:

Nauga,
concealing the deal
Click to expand...

I used to joke that in the SAR Hueys, we got shot at more by pot farmers in California than by the (derogatory for persons of middle eastern descent who wished us harm) in the Persian Gulf. Never ran into any armed crop dusters though.
 
As a liaison to the Navy to fly Army Aircraft off Navy ships for awhile, the commonalities in language are miles apart and a real issue…think Head vs Latrine when it comes to bathrooms and the same is true for flight operations.
 
Warlock said:
As a liaison to the Navy to fly Army Aircraft off Navy ships for awhile, the commonalities in language are miles apart and a real issue…think Head vs Latrine when it comes to bathrooms and the same is true for flight operations.
Click to expand...
Did Navy guys have bidets?
 
Well… do exploding toilettes count? NASTY. We called it CHT, can’t remember what that stands for. Contaminated human thit?
 
Velocity173 said:
I’d like to believe we’ve gotten better at reducing the acronyms in recent years but maybe not. It’s actually PR 101 (not personnel recovery) when dealing with a civilian audience. Do not use acronyms!

Strange thing is, a lot of military aviation acronyms aren’t universal. I sat in an air space brief in some bunker at Rhein Main Germany prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Air Force Captain running it was a like a C3 battle management guy. He was throwing out airspace acronyms that us Army guys had no idea what he was talking about. We just smiled and shook our heads in agreement. I remember leaving there thinking, I sure hope I don’t get shot down by our own guys because we flew through the wrong type of airspace! :p
Click to expand...

"C3"???

The irony is hilarious.
 
Tools said:
I had NO IDEA until this Navy guy showed up to an Air Force base just HOW true that is!!
Click to expand...
My first joint services experience was a Red Flag exercise at Nellis in 1990. The USAF language made me wonder if we were even from the same country let alone the same military.
 
donjohnston said:
"C3"???

The irony is hilarious.
Click to expand...
Command Control Communications. @TCABM would know their speciality ID or MOS. Army has their own A2C2 people….thats Army Airspace Command & Control. However, the Air Force is the primary driver in setting up air space in the AO…area of operations.
 
Velocity173 said:
Command Control Communications. @TCABM would know their speciality ID or MOS. Army has their own A2C2 people….thats Army Airspace Command & Control. However, the Air Force is the primary driver in setting up air space in the AO…area of operations.
Click to expand...
Kind of depends, the airspace management cell is a hodgepodge of ATC, pilots (11xx), and Air Battle Managers. If the dude liked acronyms more than liked chicks, he was probably an ABM (13B).
 
Hang 4 said:
These acronym laced threads are an interesting read for those of us who didn't serve. I do enjoy reading them, even if it's like reading a language I don't speak
Click to expand...

It's mostly IBB for JO's to speak code to each other so they FBAT while communicating poorly to NFU's, reducing PUX, after flying from KSMD to KFU2 and witnessing a crash at KEAD.
 
Try working a joint services contract. It’s not just acronyms; it’s also definitions of words, and it’s processes and procedures.

If you tell the USAF to secure a building, they’ll go buy one. If you tell the USMC to secure a building, they’ll start kicking in doors and tossing grenades.
 
Half Fast said:
Try working a joint services contract. It’s not just acronyms; it’s also definitions of words, and it’s processes and procedures.

If you tell the USAF to secure a building, they’ll go buy one. If you tell the USMC to secure a building, they’ll start kicking in doors and tossing grenades.
Click to expand...
You left out the Army and Navy methods
:)
 
farmrjohn said:
You left out the Army and Navy methods
:)
Click to expand...
Army secures a building by sending a platoon to convert it into a defensive position. Navy secures a building by sending a yeoman around to turn off the lights.

Space Force secures a building by installing explosive bolts to all the exit doors.

Ron Wanttaja
 
fasteddie said:
I agree with those saying the OA-1K is the wrong platform, and the mission set is dubious as currently defined. Related, the idea of something like the OA-1K needing "reduced infrastructure" always seemed a little questionable to me.

People paint a picture of a 4-ship of these "fighting the good flight" out of a dirt airstrip in the jungle/desert somewhere. But the reality is different. You start hanging munitions off of it, you need some level of ground support for that. Sophisticated sensor balls, more support needed. Not to mention the care and feeding of a turboprop-equipped aircraft. You're talking about a lot of people to support all of that, and a lot of infrastructure to support those people.
Click to expand...

I've read so many viewpoints on this that I don't know where to start. First, thanks for the insight.

One of the things I've read in multiple outlets is the fuel flexibility of the PT6A and parts availability across the world. Under this argument, the PT6A is more tolerant to lower grade or consumer/industrial fuels and therefore acquisition of fuel in austere environments is easier -- if you can't get it in, you can find it locally. The same is true for the PT6A; it has a well established global supply chain and you can (more readily) raid parts to bolster forward operating capabilities.

Another argument I've heard is that the training pipeline could be faster vs. jet powered platforms -- you can convert early pilots into the platform faster; in the case of large scale conflict, you can more develop crews faster and from a broader health profile. I even read an argument that you could relax training standards as the g-load, airspeed, and maneuverability is such that you don't need pilots who fit the typical standards of military health. I remember watching an interview with an ex tier-1 guy who claimed that you could cross-train operators to fly a turboprop, but not a jet or helicopter.

The arguments seem interesting on the surface, but I can see them being a thin justification for a pet project that does not offer broader operational value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MFE
astanley said:
I've read so many viewpoints on this that I don't know where to start. First, thanks for the insight.

One of the things I've read in multiple outlets is the fuel flexibility of the PT6A and parts availability across the world. Under this argument, the PT6A is more tolerant to lower grade or consumer/industrial fuels and therefore acquisition of fuel in austere environments is easier -- if you can't get it in, you can find it locally. The same is true for the PT6A; it has a well established global supply chain and you can (more readily) raid parts to bolster forward operating capabilities.

Another argument I've heard is that the training pipeline could be faster vs. jet powered platforms -- you can convert early pilots into the platform faster; in the case of large scale conflict, you can more develop crews faster and from a broader health profile. I even read an argument that you could relax training standards as the g-load, airspeed, and maneuverability is such that you don't need pilots who fit the typical standards of military health. I remember watching an interview with an ex tier-1 guy who claimed that you could cross-train operators to fly a turboprop, but not a jet or helicopter.

The arguments seem interesting on the surface, but I can see them being a thin justification for a pet project that does not offer broader operational value.
Click to expand...
I think those are valid observations. However, the mission seems quite narrow and constrained by performance limitations. Effectiveness of the platform in conflicts remains to be seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top