Eye In The Sky
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,781
- Points
- 1,160
I didn’t see the announcement; was there any mention of max # of concurrent LOEs?
Your also late to the party for items many want…
Common theme
My guess is that it would be its own community, so it’s not like they’ll draw folks (aside from the initial crews) from an established fleet.I mentioned a few times; my overall reaction after a briefing - “underwhelmed”.
I don’t know anyone who is asking to jump to RPAS now, back a handful of years ago people talked about it. NCR posting and stovepipe fleet created some disinterest.
Not to sound flippant but I thought it would be a good role for those pilots no longer considered medically fit for a cockpit. I'm sure that there are a few of those around.My guess is that it would be its own community, so it’s not like they’ll draw folks (aside from the initial crews) from an established fleet.
Some of the Comox and Victoria folks may be more receptive since they can sell and buy a place in Ottawa. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was heavily former 443 and 407 folks in the first years as they stand 4XX sqn up.
The advantage for NCR is that spousal employment chances are higher, and Ottawa is actually a pretty nice spot if you can afford it…which is better as the spousal employment chances are higher.
Sure, but most of them became AOOs.Not to sound flippant but I thought it would be a good role for those pilots no longer considered medically fit for a cockpit. I'm sure that there are a few of those around.
There's got to be more than that.Sure, but most of them became AOOs.
I didn’t see the announcement; was there any mention of max # of concurrent LOEs?
I would suggest that it’s the number of crews that would be the limiting factor, not the aircraft.I would like to think a minimum of 6 concurrent LOE is what we are building out. Anything less is unacceptable with 11 airframes.
I would not be surprised to hear it’s 2.
No idea how two would make sense but hey.
I would suggest that it’s the number of crews that would be the limiting factor, not the aircraft.
Aircrews, even ones that aren’t in the aircraft, have legal limits on how many hours they fly. Those limits are due to the various global regulators.
416 and 441 Tactical Fighter Squadrons were stood down quite recently, in 2006, as the CF-18 fleet reorganized, but I’d put good odds that at least one will be among the first F-35 Squadrons to stood up.Anyone know which squadron is next up to be reformed?
Ack on that but I would be willing to bet that the satellite bandwidth available for both sensor feeds and flight control are going to be the limiting factor even above aircrew.
420 and 880 Squadrons were the last to operate the Tracker when they were stood down in 1990 — either one might be a good fit for RPAS.
I was thinking it would be very CAF though.I think "420" would be false advertising.