Apollo and Starbuck would disagree, as would Luke!
And remember this - it took 3 DRONES to fly one fighter :D

Those in the know, know that Starbuck and Apollo prefer to fly the Colonial Mark VII when fighting the rebels.;)

40+ years ago, it was just the reverse. IPs who had flown the F-4, F-105, or A-1 in Viet Nam were the role models and all students got to fly the T-38 (if they didn't wash out earlier). Probably not surprising that just about everybody wanted a fighter. Some IPs liked to scare students with a rumor that the next assignment drop would contain lots of BUFFs. :eek:

Respect man, respect. That's gotta put you on a very short list.

Regarding AMC guys recruiting for heavies, my impression, at least in C17 world, is that they go to UPT and tell the studs how bad it is. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I get from the Lt's I talk to.

6000 hrs... Hats off to you!


I should have clarified that my experience dates back to 97-98. There was only one C-17 offered per class. It was pre 9/11 and it was a much different landscape then. The C-17 community was relatively small and were not getting abused in any way resembling the abuse they're receiving today. I remember bringing a jet to Columbus AFB back in 2005. Most of the questions were about TDY rates and not about the aircraft itself!

I was stationed at Altus at the time and I told them about my Charleston days when I was TDY 450 days over a 2 yr period. This was before the EAS concept. We suffered through the days of 60 and 45 day SRTs! That's when I learned what FSRT means. It means Family Should Realize the Truth!

No regrets though. That was when the War on Terror was new and we were bringing bombs and bullets in to kill Al Qaeda. Now we bring office equipment and school supplies. I better stop before I get on my soap box.

Sorry for the slight thread jack.

C17D

Sputnik and C-17:

Thanks. Just lucky to be at the right places at the right times.

About 3-4 years ago, T-38 assignments got way off the traditional path. One fighter per class. The others on the T-38 side would hope to FAIP or get bombers, otherwise, we were seeing C-17, C-130, Special Ops C-130s (AC, MC, HC, EC, etc), MC-12, U-28, NSA, Predators, E-3, E-8, and KC-135 assignments.

I think this is when/how the “easier” rumors/rumblings started....because, well, it was true. Unless you were certain you were Joe Goldenhands and would be the top stick of the T-38 side, you would risk a lot by going that track, as learning to land the T-38, and do tactical formation, are the items that typically either wash a kid out (landing), or make him non-recommended for fighters (either, but I think tac form is the more likely).

Recently, assignments have gone slightly towards the old standard: two to three fighters per class now, maybe a FAIP, a bomber, and maybe a Special-Op C-130, or MC-12. We haven't had a slick AMC bird in about two years. Still a far cry from the "fighters for most, and bombers for a few," in days of old.

As far as AMC-background guys in UPT squadrons: the word I get from students is just the opposite. The C-17 guys highly recommend it, as they like the airplane, the travel, seeing the world, and the amassing of hours. If I was a student today, it would probably be my top choice on the heavy side, as I like stick vs yoke, chaff and flare, and a more maneuverable than typical transport ability (or at least, reputation). I hear the Herc guys extol their airplanes too; haven't heard much about the others.

Other than some T-6 reservists, there are supposedly only two fighter-background IPs at my base flying the T-6. The Air Force tries to recruit them, but other than the Reserves, it isn't working.

On the T-38 side, the fighter-background guys all talk about how much better their airplane is than the other guy's, talk with their hands, and wear big watches, yet probably fewer than 5% end up going back to their previous cockpits. One side of that is availability...it just isn't there. Maybe another 5% get a good-deal to go to the Guard or Reserve in a fighter unit. The rest mostly get out of Active-Duty and become Reservist T-38 IPs.

The bomber guys I would say are 50% back to their previous aircraft, and 50% become T-38 reservists.

I believe every high-time F-16 guy I have ever met (meaning two tours and 600+ hours) has some kind of spinal issue. The Eagle guys don't seem to have this as much. I think the reclined seat has a lot to do with it in the Viper, but in years past (the 1990s), more F-16 guys got back-to-back tours than did the F-15 guys....it may have been cumulative exposure. I think defensive (checking six) is what does the damage, especially if your neck is tilted.

I couldn't see much checking six in the F-4, but I rarely had more than 4 gs available anyway when defensive. I lost a lot of fights....but my neck is still a winner. :p

Lib,

The NOMI waiver guide is pretty specific. If you're symptomatic chronic, its non waiverable...if you're asymptomatic, meaning you can treat it or your symptoms aren't present, its waiverable if it gets that for. I was diagnosed with DDD in my JO tour in Japan, did my set of MRIs there in a Japanese hospital...was down for 2 weeks the first time then up the rest of my career for the most part. Its well documented in my record since 2002 and I have been flying since(Hornets/Supers). Ironically my back condition was flagged in my record during mobilization screening for an IA and forced me to go back through the entire process, which concluded that essentially as long as I'm asymptomatic I can deploy and keep flying. Does it hurt now and then, yes...is it hard to run or do impact aerobics...yes. We'll see how it holds up jumping out of trucks this August in Fort Jackson in battle rattle on my way to Kabul...

Bottom line though dude is it's your health and you'll be sorry you didn't get it documented correctly or even more important, diagnosed/treated properly. As I said earlier, each case/person is different so ultimately you'll need to find what's right for you to cope or treat it and still be able to fly and tolerate it.

I'd not trade the experience even knowing what I now know. Got to do some exceptionally cool things with my buds. There are plenty of people with horrendous back problems who have never done more G than a roller coaster. Who is to say what the future holds?

As for drones - it's going to be a while before drones can do real air to air. You can put a missile truck up there, but it's simply not going to be as effective (for now) as manned. The fluidity and dynamics of the air to air arena are just not something you can program. And we still don't have sensors that can scan the immediate sky as good as the human eye. What's a Predator going to do? Slew that little camera around? It's like looking through a paper towel tube.

Just one guy's opinion. :D

Just a question from an outsider, but in "the new age" of things, will we ever see air-to-air combat again, by any platform ? I think drones have their place but should not be a replacement for a experienced human pilot who has "eyes on" things and can make decisions/judgement accordingly.

You have been brainwashed by Afghanistan. No threat limited warfare in the form of a counterinsurgency is not what the AF should be focussing on. Drones will be of no benefit against a peer nation, except as a surface to air and air to air sponge. I guess if we had more drones than the enemy had missiles it could work.

Drones don't even perform that well. Most of the misses are from drones and the safety magazine is littered with their crashes. I'm sorry your drone medal got cancelled.