Hacker

No, not in the same ballpark at all. When you look at someone's service record, deployments to -- and service in -- specific combat operations are reflected by campaign medals. This is the exact reason that GWOT-E is going to be supplemented by Afghanistan and Iraq Campaign Medals. There are a lot of guys who have spent a metric sh*t-ton of time flying in circles above US cities with live missiles and intercepting general aviation pilots. It was time-consuming, draining on proficiency, and for those who did it in the days after 9/11, scary as hell because of the possibilities. This is not marked as "combat" time in the AFARMS logs, nor is it currently denoted by any kind of campaign ribbon. I know a lot of fighter pilots who missed out on Afghanistan and Iraq because their squadrons were tasked with ONE (my squadron missed out on OEF because of it, for one...). They were at least being recognized with GWOT-S, which sucked to begin with but was at least some way to make their records different than Airman Snuffy. Now there is nothing.

So, I return from my 4-ship to the range today and read on my email that the AETC/CC has authorized the GWOT-S medal for *everyone in AETC* regardless if they have or have not directly participated in the Global War On Terror. WTF??? That is a slap in the face to those of us who have spent hours and hours flying CAPs for Operation NOBLE EAGLE. As if it wasn't bad enough that the GWOT-S was the only recognition ONE flyers are going to get...now it's pretty much just being given to *everyone*.

The Aggressors are pilots who are professional bandits for Red Flag and other exercises out at Nellis. Currently they fly F-16s... https://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/200...s/22298943.html

I had a UPT journal back before they were vogue, and I caught a metric sh*t-load of stuff like this for my website, too. I never understood a couple of things; First, why were people who were *all ready* USAF pilots unwilling to help those of us who wanted to become one? Second, once I started putting up a journal website *specifically intended* to help people (wanna-bes like me) out, why did guys who were all ready USAF pilots give me a load of crap about it? For some reason, some pilots get pretty high on their horse once they're 'in the club', and it makes them feel better trying to squash the little guy. I guess these people have forgotten why we refer to each other as 'bros' in the first place. Personally, I say go for it. As always, I'll add in my public service announcement to remind people that if you put yourself out there, you have to be prepared to take what comes with the territory. Not only do you put a target on yourself for petty criticism like you saw linked, but also (in my case) an OSI/IG investigation and even attempts to be contacted by foreign intelligence agents. Be smart about whatever you do.

June 8-11th, 2006 I'll be there.

Class ranking is based on flight commander ranking (what the IPs think of you), daily flying scores, checkride scores, and academics.

That's it, really -- just a lot of firepower. I remember one particular occasion when I checked in on a FAC frequency. As I switched channels, I could hear another formation checking in (and I assume it was a Viper or Hornet). "...on station with two JDAMs, two CBU-103, 1,000 rounds of 20 mike-mike, and 20 minutes of playtime." I had to laugh when I checked in for my two ship with, "Warhawk, Gundog 55's on station with *eighteen* GBU-12s, 1,000 rounds of 20 mike-mike, and 45 minutes of playtime." It was such a contrast...although I don't think the FAC particularly cared who was delivering the iron, so long as it was there and ready to rain down on bad guys.

Oh BIGTIME. With 9 GBUs, 2 600-gallon tanks, pods, and 2 AMRAAMs, we had to have one motor in 'burner just to take on gas at 310 knots! Of course, with 33,000 pounds of gas on board the jet is freakin' heavy even without the weight of the ordnance. PIIIIIIIGS IIIIIIIIIN SPAAAAAAAAACE! Here's a shot of my favorite loadout, BTW... [ 17. March 2005, 19:39: Message edited by: Hacker ]

Iiiiiinteresting. I can't say I've ever seen that loadout, especially using 2 and 8 for 500-pounders. I've carried six '82s on one conformal, four 12s on the other, and a GBU-10 on station 5. My favorite is still the wall-to-wall 9 x GBU-12 load.

Since AD operational squadrons have a complete turn-over of personnel about every 2-3 years, you'll find the reputation/atmosphere of particular squadrons differ constantly. What's good now may suck by the time you get there, or the opposite may be true and what is considered a bunch of dirtbags may be heroes.

What jet are you flying that carries a load like that?

F-15Es are as well.

Well, I did ONW and OSW, and I thought they were a joke compared to OIF in March/April '03, where there *was* significant SAM and AAA fire. From what I hear, current OIF sorties (for fighter guys, at least) are just like ONW/OSW...or, better yet, Noble Eagle with bombs.

At Moody there are limitations on where IPs are allowed to fly on weekend CT cross-countries (thanks to the buffoonery of our T-6 bretheren who showed appalling lack of judgment last year).

That billboard was about 5 miles from my house where I grew up in Seattle. Of course, I was way too young to get the joke when it was there.

At IFF that's something IP flight leads will occasionally do...give #2 the lead on RTB, for instance, to test his SA on the profile and NAVAID setup. IFF students are actually required to lead an RTB a couple times during the course.

Strippers in the bar was also a common tradition in Vietnam...

All the Flight Commanders at Moody had a meeting yesterday with a group of AETC staffers who are "fact finding" regarding cheating for the AETC/CC and CV. I am confident, after talking with these officers (two pilots, one JAG) that AETC has the proper perspective on the difference between gouge and cheating.

At Seymour the 335th and 336th share the same building. There is lots of interaction between the squadrons. I was in the 336th, and flew with the 335th on many occasions when they needed a pilot, and we "hired" guys from their squadron when we needed people. We have a similar situation at Moody with the two IFF squadrons, too.

It is fiction, but it was based directly on Anderson's UPT experience. I agree--this is the best book out there about the UPT experience as a student. It is a little out of date, here in the SUPT/T-6/T-38C age, but it still is really informative.

As I was watching last night, I couldn't help but think of the SNL parody that Dana Carvey did of Bush 41's post ODS speech... The one where he only had to say, "Operation Desert Storm...." and he would get a gigantic ovation for a couple minutes.

Beaver, that is an excellent graphic of our HAGS exercise on sortie OB-1. Oh...wait...that's GOUGE! BURN THE WITCH!

Is that anything like the remote-controlled egg? My ex-girlfriend used to love that one...

Students don't really transition to IFF so much that the program itself is a transition -- a transition from White Jet student to Fighter Pilot Wingman. If you haven't flown the T-38C in SUPT, then there is a 3-flight, 3-sim conversion course prior to starting IFF. For the IFF syllabus itself, students have 4 tactical formation rides to get their admin right prior to starting BFM. We definitely teach a single-seat decisionmaking mentality, with the back seat IP's job being to teach you the tactical portions of the sortie (in other words, he's not going to instruct you on how to fly an ILS, but will definitely grade you on it, as this is a task you should be fully competent in leaving SUPT). The only time that the 'pitter is just a safety observer is if the ride is a "solo" but the weather won't allow an actual student solo flight. It's certainly not correct that grades don't count at IFF: there is still a minimum passing grade for each maneuver and flight. What is meant when students say that is it's non-competitive. In other words, at SUPT, your grades matter because you're competing with your classmates for tracks, assignments, or whatever. At IFF, all of that is all ready decided, so there is no tangible benefit to doing "great" versus just "good" (aside from picking up a DG or Top Gun trophy). That's called honest feedback. You'll be debriefed on every aspect of your flight, and the standard is "perfect". Since there hasn't been a perfect flight yet, that always leaves us something to debrief. As for "you're always wrong", it's a challenge for some pilots to understand the wingman mentality: that the flight lead is calling *all* the shots, and the wingman is there to provide support, and *not* to have an opinion or make any decisions. If you are just a "sponge" and do what we tell you to, you'll be just fine. This is especially harsh at IFF since it is the first time most wingmen-to-be have ever been exposed to this type of environment and we (as IPs) have to set the correct tone early. Attention to detail. How can I expect my wingman to remember how to execute a 3K defensive BFM gameplan if he can't even remember what the *specific* objectives were for the sortie? Is it student harassment? I thought so as a student, but as a flight lead later on in my flying career it was very clear why it was done that way at IFF.

I was in your same shoes when I was nearing Track Select about 6 years ago. I saw a lot of great aspects of both lifestyles and had a tough time deciding which to go with. For me personally, it all came down to someone pointing out to me that the negative thoughts I had about T-38s/fighters all had to do with my fear of washing out somewhere down the line. I didn't think I was good enough for it, I guess, so I was leaning toward what I thought was an easier route. So, if that's where you're coming from too, I'll say that being scared of failure is a really lousy reason not to take advantage of a great opportunity for some really exciting flying and a very satisfying career in a fighter or bomber. I'm sure that you can find some equally exciting flying out of the T-1 track, but in the end that just wasn't for me. Never! The intensity of your studying will trail off significantly when you're done with your FTU, but it will never completely go away. The thing about it is, the studying takes on a different flavor the further up the chain you go. At some point, you are studying because you're actually interested and want to get better, rather than because you have to in order to pass the next ride. For me, the pendulum went completely the other way when I was deployed for OIF: I was thinking, "I should have spent *more* time studying in the vault!" Spending lots of time in a vault studying and planning sounds pretty imposing as a Phase II stud, but the reality once you're operational is that it's not as bad as you think. Choke yourself!! "Flying" a UAV is no more actully flying than playing a PC simulation (it just costs a lot more when you crash!). Seriously, I'm sure you'll have ample opportunities to get into the UAV community during your 10-year hitch if you want to, but don't voluntarily go there before you've even tried actually flying operationally. They wouldn't think of re-tracking a T-1 student that washed out into T-38s, so why should anyone expect it the other way around? T-38, T-1, T-44, and UH-1 students are considered separate-but-equal. If you're out of SUPT in the T-38, you're out. I am 6'2" and have no problems...and know pilots significantly taller than myself that also have no issues at 9G (other than the normal pain of doing that!!). This is in *no* way a slight to the heavy drivers, but the way I've always thought about it is this: There are probably not a lot of fighter guys out there who have ever thought to themselves after their career is over, 'man, I wish I would have flown a C-5'. I agree with your assertion that it would be cool to see the world rather than just fly around the flagpole. For me, the excitement of tactical flying outweighs my desire to fly to lots of places in the world and stay overnight. I guess in the back of my mind I'm thinking that I can get that fix during a 2nd career with the airlines if that's what I choose.