No more CQs?

[DanMa1156]

Once upon a time on the FRTC, a very confused Prowler Tactics Instructor wondered why they couldn't get good power-out checks on a certain station. Well, that's what happens when the station has a HARM on it, not an ALQ-99 pod. Facepalm.

That said . . .

Cracks me up. My second flight after making HAC was with a great DH (not sarcastic) and he was prepping me to go be the OPS on a VERTREP Det, so we did a bit of a "VERTREP Checkout" flight together with a French ship. He's watching me carefully to make sure I'm doing everything by the book... I know this, and ensure I am. I get to a checklist item and he looks at me and says "Come on bro, you just make HAC you should know this by now, you should really be doing Step X, you're repeating yourself here."

"Ah, what are you talking about?"
"You need to do electrical check X!"
"How can I possibly do that right now? Unless you're about to impart some wisdom on me about the electrical system that will absolutely make it magical to me, I don't see how that can be done right now; we don't even have engine running."
"Come on man, you're a HAC. You should know this."
"Look at the gauges! Look outside! The engines are off! The rotors aren't spinning! [I slam the rotor brake off to show him the rotors aren't spinning.]"
"....... ah shit. You're right. This doesn't leave this cockpit."

As you can imagine, it left the cockpit!

 

[DanMa1156]

Is this the "fan" you keep talking about?View attachment 28646

Roughly. In the manuals we have (had at the time, I guess I'll find out if they've been updated on my DH tour), there is no risk assessment. You're either in the fans or you aren't, and (at the time at least), being inside a wingman's safety fan was an automatic invalid shot (in my case in the debrief, I got all the validation I needed when my XO whispered in my ear "no friggin way that HELLFIRE would have hit them [our wingman]." The software in the 60 has the fans programed in and you link them with your wingman and select who is shooting and who is designating to give the fans. There are workarounds around the software of course, but they ensure safety in the errant (and I have to assume rare) case the missile goes to the other end of the laser and hits the designating platform/person as the seeker can't tell which end of the laser is the one it should be looking at, so you effectively force it to only be able to hit the desired end. In the scenario I wrote about, the geometry was opposite of what your example shows - my wingman was behind me outside of the threat WEZ and was designating for me inside the WEZ. In theory, being inside each other's safety fans meant my missile could have come off the rail and done a U-turn into my wingman. I call BS, but the standard is/was the standard and the shot was invalid, but coming back to the squadron, it was clear to me that flight was considered a victory for me that day with an XO passing me on the flight and some good-natured ribbing over beers at the O-club of my wing-woman regailing my "break right - they're coming!" call to all who would listen.

 

[wlawr005]

I mean, I understand the tactic I'm just baffled you guys call them fans.

We have several buddy lase scenarios but in that particular one we'd probably deviate in altitude (employing aircraft higher) and be directly in front of the lasing platform if you needed lead/trail for some reason. Easiest way would just to be real close together, like tac wing, if you had to do it this way.

 

[DanMa1156]

I mean, I understand the tactic I'm just baffled you guys call them fans.

We have several buddy lase scenarios but in that particular one we'd probably deviate in altitude (employing aircraft higher) and be directly in front of the lasing platform if you needed lead/trail for some reason. Easiest way would just to be real close together, like tac wing, if you had to do it this way.

Yeah, in this case, we were separated by altitude and several km. Laser-designator was outside the WEZ. We were welllllll inside it and attempting a pop-off shot Army style, basically, accept you're in the WEZ, but not long enough for the system to shoot back at you. That part worked and the radar data of the threat system backed it up. However, regardless of the altitude deconfliction and distance, the safety fans are the safety fans and it was considered invalid.

I will say, I appreciate that it seems like the forums here seem to also think it was ridiculous!

A current R/S pilot will be able to chime in to tell us how sacrosanct those fans are nowadays. My AWF was in 2014.

 

[Gatordev]

I mean, I understand the tactic I'm just baffled you guys call them fans.

They look like fans, like the collapsible type a Geisha uses. It's not anything more than that and when you see them on the screen, it makes sense.

 

[insanebikerboy]

The only reason the designator fan exists is because of the infinitesimally small likelihood that a missile sees backscatter right at the designator and identifies and hits that as the target.

An actual method of employment is to not even put it in remote mode, snuggle up next to the designator, and shoot. Physically no way for the missile to hit the designator.

@wlawr005 I think the JFIRE shows a diagram of what you were talking about.

 

[IwannabeaPHROGdvr69]

The only reason the designator fan exists is because of the infinitesimally small likelihood that a missile sees backscatter right at the designator and identifies and hits that as the target.

An actual method of employment is to not even put it in remote mode, snuggle up next to the designator, and shoot. Physically no way for the missile to hit the designator.

@wlawr005 I think the JFIRE shows a diagram of what you were talking about.

Heard a story (anecdotally) of a hornet getting shot by a hellfire from a helo across the circle during a buddy lase scenario. Apparently they didn't even realize what had happened until the hornet landed and a chunk of the stab was missing. Think this was a while ago

 

[Wareal]

Slight threadjack... who the hell calls them CHICOMS anymore? What is this, 1951?

FWIW, Rush Limbaugh calls them Chicoms....

 

[jollygreen07]

It’s a contraction of CHINESE and COMMUNIST. Are they not Chinese or communist anymore? Did I miss the news?

 

[Brett327]

FWIW, Rush Limbaugh calls them Chicoms....

I think you're making Dan's point... FWIW.

 

[wink]

I think you're making Dan's point... FWIW.

That people of a certain generation use different jargon and slang? Well duh.

 

[Brett327]

That people of a certain generation use different jargon and slang? Well duh.

I was highlighting that both the term, and the Limbaugh are anachronisms.

 

[Griz882]

I don’t know....CHICOM (CHIense COMmunist) rolls off the tongue easier than NEPEAD (NEar PEer ADversary).

 

[jollygreen07]

I’m glad I had such an impact on this thread.

I’m disappointed that the use of an anachronistic term for our most dangerous adversary caused some of you to clutch your pearls.

 

[DanMa1156]

I’m glad I had such an impact on this thread.

I’m disappointed that the use of an anachronistic term for our most dangerous adversary caused some of you to clutch your pearls.

I was mostly mocking its usage, not actually offended. I honestly hadn't heard that in years. China, PRC, PLA(N), etc., but haven't seen or heard CHICOMs for years and had assumed it has derogatory connotations with it which is why it's not used in the workplace. I guess that, and we aren't trying to defeat communism in the way we have in the past, so using specific terms creates needed specificity in the workplace.