New AF aircraft in T-38 drop?
04-14-2008, 05:47 AM
#51
No one's home
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Lots of guys would enjoy the opportunity to fly military equipment again and could, with the perspectives gained in 15-20,000hrs, make significant contributions for pennies on the dollar but not going to happen.
04-14-2008, 06:58 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: I pilot
Posts: 2,049
Yes he should. He is lucky to be flying in the military. Unless your contract is different than the one I signed - when was he guaranteed a certain platform? He isn't going to be flying a T-37 forever is he? How many guys washed out of flight school or never even made it into flight school that WISH they were flying a T-37 for the USAF and eventually may get to fly something a little more zesty?
USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR
04-14-2008, 09:52 AM
#53
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: SWA Poolie
Posts: 89
Name withheld to protect the guilty...he went to the Tweet after his tour in the -15E.
BTW Hacker, I agree with you. This ain't BK, you can't always get things "your way" in the Big Blue. A few years from now maybe guys out of the -38 track will probably be a-okay with getting a Pilatus.
BTW Hacker, I agree with you. This ain't BK, you can't always get things "your way" in the Big Blue. A few years from now maybe guys out of the -38 track will probably be a-okay with getting a Pilatus.
04-14-2008, 01:11 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 248
You, tanker boy, and all the other dudes whining about the Eagles on this site are dead on right about one thing...Eagles have had nothing to do with this war. Believe me, NO ONE knows that more than than the Eagle dudes themselves. I've got a chest full of ze-f'in-ro of the highly coveted OIF/OEF Air Medals to prove it. There is a fight going on and we want to participate just like everyone else. But this ain't really my gig, now, is it? Nor is it yours! But show me one place where an Eagle driver claimed to be a war hero in OEF/OIF. You'd think, based on all the dudes on this site, that we've been running around congratulating ourselves on saving the world from terrorists this week.
So fighting falcons and everyone else can kill MiGs too. True. Was that in dispute on this site? But did I miss something about the Taliban Air Force launching some OCA sorties lately? So how is it exactly that air-to-air capability and JDAM capability blend to create "relevance" in this war?
Why don't the Eagles carry JDAM? Let's see...I'm not Chief of Staff, but maybe it's because WE AREN'T SHORT ON JDAM DROPPERS. Every other fighter/bomber platform in the US inventory can carry them. So why on earth would we drop a BUNCH of money THAT WE DON'T HAVE (due to the raptor/JSF) to upgrade another platform, then spend a bunch more money THAT WE DON'T HAVE (due to the raptor/JSF) to train dudes to a different mission, when we have MORE THAN ENOUGH dudes/jets/platforms for that mission already. Maybe that's why we don't have JDAM on the Eagle. Or maybe it's just a good idea to have dudes train to become really, really good at one mission. We might have learned that lesson before. Not sure.
You're right, I am absolutely not "relevant" to this war in my F-15C. Just as you are not relevant in your F-22. However, neither are the submarine dudes, neither are the Patriot dudes, neither are half the friggin military. And you know what...the next war that YOU are relevant for, the Eagles will be too.
Someone has to train for the "next war". Or do you think wars are all going to be like this one from now on? If so, why do you go to work every day? It would be a waste of your time, since you aren't "relevant". Maybe the next war will show us a robust air threat. Maybe it won't. But someone ought to train to fight one, don't ya think?
Or maybe we should just send all the F-16s to fight WWIII, because they train all the time for the large force, 4th gen, heavy EA air-to-air war. It's an easy problem for them, really. They just master it in their spare time between practicing CAS and SEAD. They can do it all..."as well or better" than me. Just ask 'em.
04-14-2008, 03:33 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Work
Posts: 507
My unit (5th SOS) is switching to this aircraft, among a couple of others. We only had 1 current MC-130P guy bite on this aircraft and go to it rather than one of the others. That was mostly due to other reasons than it being a cool plane to fly. I'm not sure how this is going to shake out long term, but there's a reason so many pipeline guys are going to it - a distinct lack of volunteers among AD members. The guys flying it are certainly doing great things for our country, and they're at the leading edge of the war effort. They're also at the leading edge for 6 months of the year or longer, with no end in sight. Hard to enjoy the sunny beaches of Destin and Navarre when you're never there. I guess if you're at Cannon, you'd be happy to deploy! I don't want to be a dream-killer here, but it's time for guys to think twice before picking T-38's over T-1's or T-44's. Good luck to everyone.
P.S. If you're a reservist in the unit, get prepared for plenty of beeyotching from the AD guys when you're only deploying for a fraction of the time they are.
P.S. If you're a reservist in the unit, get prepared for plenty of beeyotching from the AD guys when you're only deploying for a fraction of the time they are.
04-14-2008, 03:36 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Work
Posts: 507
dtfl:
What I mean by that is the PC-12 is fundamentally a civilian aircraft; designed to meet the European equivalent of FAR Part 23 (I think that's the certification of aircraft chapter).
It wasn't designed with damage-tolerance in mind (ie, redundant spar/stringer systems, redundant flight controls, ejection seats/manual bailout, etc).
It is essentially a civilian aircraft intended for special ops in a combat zone.
Whether or not is has a US star and "USAF" on the side is academic. I used it as a visual metaphor. You can call it a U-28---it's still a PC-12 with some special gear inside.
The O-2 was a similar issue 40+ years ago. It was fair as a FAC airplane, but not great. The OV-10 was great in Vietnam, but a deathtrap in Iraq/Kuwait. When I started flying the OV-10 in 1984, 5 guys died in the O-2 that year---in peacetime accidents, because it was being asked to do things that structurally it was never intended for.
What I mean by that is the PC-12 is fundamentally a civilian aircraft; designed to meet the European equivalent of FAR Part 23 (I think that's the certification of aircraft chapter).
It wasn't designed with damage-tolerance in mind (ie, redundant spar/stringer systems, redundant flight controls, ejection seats/manual bailout, etc).
It is essentially a civilian aircraft intended for special ops in a combat zone.
Whether or not is has a US star and "USAF" on the side is academic. I used it as a visual metaphor. You can call it a U-28---it's still a PC-12 with some special gear inside.
The O-2 was a similar issue 40+ years ago. It was fair as a FAC airplane, but not great. The OV-10 was great in Vietnam, but a deathtrap in Iraq/Kuwait. When I started flying the OV-10 in 1984, 5 guys died in the O-2 that year---in peacetime accidents, because it was being asked to do things that structurally it was never intended for.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
