Jump to content


Registered User
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sforron

  1. Lasik/PRK Recommendations

    I had Lasik done five years before getting picked up for a rated slot. All I can suggest is don't just use the cheapest surgeon you can find on Groupon, because there's different kind of Lasik machines and the older ones aren't quite as good (hence the discount from surgeons who spent $400k on them and don't want to upgrade). Find a surgeon who does 20 or 30 a month and you'll be fine, statistically. They can tell you beforehand how you rank on complication risks. As far as getting the FC1 goes, I had more problems convincing MEPS that I still had eyeballs than I did getting my Lasik waiver done in Dayton. Like 3-4 extra tests, tops.
  2. Lasik/PRK Recommendations

    If you need Lasik to be qualified, then you're going to have to get it on your own dime before you apply. They won't accept an application from someone medically unqualified, or put you through OTS if you still require a successful surgery to pass an FC1.
  3. UPT Chances

    I also had my LORs written generally and no one seemed to mind. I applied to like 20 units, I'm not going to bother my letter-writers a total of 60 times just to update the heading and re-sign.
  4. Published list of OTS start dates?

    For what it's worth, apparently during Reserve UPT selects' inprocessing week in San Antonio, you have an unscheduled day that you can use towards the pre-req CBTs. And I didn't think it took anywhere near 30 hours to knock them out.
  5. North Korea at it again

    Hey, Pakistan's had a whole one electoral transfer of power not get derailed, they're definitely up there with Athens and the Continental Congress in terms of democracy. Pay no attention to the fact that their intelligence agency is basically a terror organization.
  6. UPT Chances

    Get a PPL and you're solid for the heavy unit of your choice, pretty much. Fighters might be tough with the age, I usually see the cutoff at 28.5 years.
  7. North Korea at it again

    Don't blame anything but US foreign policy to explain why the North Koreans are going full-tilt in their nuclear program, consequences be damned. Gaddafi ended his nuclear program at our behest and he ended up getting stabbed in the rear with a bayonet and summarily executed, with our blessing. You think we'd have bombed Libya and let it get overrun by militias if they had nukes? Ukraine got the other end of the stick, giving up their nukes post-independence in exchange for territorial guarantees from Russia, the US, and the UK. How's that working out? The last twenty years or so have just reinforced the fact that there are two kinds of countries, those that have nukes and those that don't. The Kim regime is completely rational in pursuing them. The best way for them to ensure their continued reign is a dozen nuclear-armed ICBMs. They can't use them unless they want to be annihilated, but they take the conventional regime change option 100% off the table. No one cares enough about North Korea to risk ten million dead civilians.
  8. This is probably something that could be answered by using the site search feature, or Google, but I'll bite. OTS (basic training for officers, basically) is eight weeks. Technical school is on top of that. If you're trying to become a pilot (this is a pilot-centric website), expect ~18 months of training.
  9. Published list of OTS start dates?

    Seems like they're trying to get away from scheduling OTS classes in a way that requires a break. Which, with the program only eight weeks long versus the thirteen it was five years ago, should be a lot easier to do. People who got this September for a class date and are Guard/Reserve are getting to do SERE in early December instead.
  10. http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2205/afi36-2205.pdf Section 1.1.6.
  11. No, the age requirement is that you must start UPT by your 30th birthday. The worst cases of waiting for class dates is like 18 months, you should be fine to just apply for pilot.
  12. Can anyone give recent FC1/MFS Experience?

    Anyone know what the turnaround time is lately? I'm at six weeks and still radio silence, with nothing but a Lasik waiver to complicate things. Edit: Just got the call from my recruiter an hour ago that I've been approved. So just under 6 full weeks turnaround time.
  13. Flying in ANG - Asthma

    Yes, it's waiverable provided you don't have a history after age 13. See page 83: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/Portals/60/documents/711/usafsam/USAFSAM-Wavier-Guide-170601.pdf Don't self-disqualify yourself by assuming you're out of luck. Recruiters might try to tell you something different but keep pushing.
  14. UPT Chances

    Good lord. You probably scored literally as high as possible without any flight hours.
  15. UPT Chances

    You're probably going to need to get your PPL before you are competitive for Guard/Reserve fighters. Your PCSM is absurdly high for someone with 0 flight hours, what's your 200+ hour score look like, 99? Don't sweat your GPA if you have a good explanation of why it sucks and why you're different now. The sports participation is a good check in your box for fighters, they like that sort of thing. If you want to fly fighters in the Guard/Reserve, you are definitely young enough to spend the time to visit/apply to units you want to join multiple times. Even if you get rejected in the first few boards, keep coming back to the same units and build relationships. It's definitely doable for you (provided, of course, that you aren't a tool).
  16. KC-46A Info

    All of the -10s have been announced as on the list to be replaced by -46s. Only some of the -135s are.
  17. KC-46A Info

    I just don't see it realistically happening. The KC-46 might, just might, get produced in numbers large enough to replace the KC-135 (though I bet it will be more like a 3:5 basis rather than 1 for 1), but I really don't see Congress funding that, and then the development and production of two more tanker models. They like things that are all-purpose and "efficient."
  18. KC-46A Info

    Given they've spent ~10 years already turning an already mass produced cargo jet into a tanker (when a tanker version already existed), I can see that "clean sheet" development program providing job security for Boeing engineers for decades to come. At what point does someone say, "screw the KC-Y/Z, just build whatever you've got" because the -135s are getting harder and harder to maintain? Better replacement KC-46s that work (presumably) now, than KC-Zs that are 20% better but take 30 years to hit the flightline. I feel like having the KC-46s replace the -10s for an indeterminate period of time really kills the argument that there's a need for a "large" tanker versus a want for one. If we can do without a large tanker for the 20 years it's going to take to get the KC-Z, do we really need one? Obviously less effective/efficient on certain missions, but if we can work around it somehow and also streamline the fleet into one model, is there a need for a new development program?
  19. KC-46A Info

    In this situation, isn't all of the (financial) risk on Boeing at this point? The amount the gov will pay for development has a hard cap, and Boeing's delays have cost the company hundreds of millions as it exceeds that cap. Buying two models might make sense if you have enough volume (or maybe something like we did in WWII, with multiple manufacturers building a common plan and competing on production efficiency), but does anyone really think the -46 buy is going to end up being nearly enough to replace the -135 in any significant sense? I doubt it.
  20. North Korea at it again

    I wonder how different the North Korean arsenal is from what Zhukov had at the gates of Berlin. Most of heavy equipment given to the North Koreans would have been PRC surplus in the Mao years (which means it was likely Soviet surplus the Chinese gave away when they replaced it with more modern stuff). My guess is that it's something like the situation we faced vs. Iraqi T-72s in 1991, where in theory the weapon system could be extremely effective, but defects in application due to it being a crappy locally made copy / ill-prepared crews / lack of ammunition for live-fire exercises / half-charges of propellant in the shells means they aren't worth much in a real fight. Again, not arguing that the humanitarian cost of North Korea firing 10,000 artillery pieces in the direction of Seoul wouldn't be disastrous, but I am highly doubtful of the "Sea of Fire / Seoul will be leveled / millions will die" histrionics. EDIT: Here's an article that sums up what I'm trying to say: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/4/25/1656090/-North-Korean-artillery-and-the-concept-of-flattening-Seoul-a-breakdown Just judging from the NK island bombardment a few years ago, they attacked a 2 square mile island from 7.5 miles away, and only half their shells hit the island. Of those that did, a quarter were duds.
  21. North Korea at it again

    I do wonder if the conventional artillery threat is perhaps a bit overblown. Seems like since the Somme people have tended to overestimate the effect of artillery. When the Soviets took Berlin in 1945 they had 40,000+ artillery pieces, likely of comparable quality but with far better trained crews, and literally took the city apart street by street over three weeks, and civilian losses only hit ~100,000. Obviously a Best Korea bombardment of Seoul will be terrible, but most of their pieces are limited to the suburbs and presumably South Korea would be evacuating civilians rather than forcing them to stay put as happened in Berlin.
  22. North Korea at it again

    Yeah, China has no interest in taking over an impoverished dumpster fire. They had enough of that in the Mao years. The PRCs real interest is that they don't want (in their eyes) a US-backed puppet state unifying the peninsula. They saw how that fared for the Russians re: Germany. So long as the US supports South Korea, China will feel obligated to support North Korea, to some degree.
  23. Sounds like you think I was being intransigent when I was simply mistaken. OK, he flew the next day, my hypothesis was wrong (though that article doesn't clearly say he flew in combat the next day, just that he flew).
  24. Perhaps I should have said, given the minimal losses and short duration of conflict with contested airspaces. CSAF was shot down a month before we stopped bombing Yugoslavia, I highly doubt he had time to get back into the cockpit before the end.
  25. I know it was against policy to return to the same theater in WWII. The theory being that if you were shot down over France, for example, and the locals helped you escape, if you returned to the theater and were shot down again you could be pressed for information regarding the people who helped you. Given the minimal losses since Vietnam, I doubt it's happened since then at least.