12xu2a3x3

Looked around and didn't see a general thread on the subject of Fire Bombers & Tankers. The demand is only going to go up and I think it's reasonable to assume job opportunities will only increase in the near term. Would love the hear from folks with experience on the mil & civ sides of aerial firefighting. A few questions to start: How much of a benefit would a TFR be given the operation environment of marginal VFR at low altitudes? What has been the evolution of the "lead plane" concept? Does the tanker simply keep sight and then drop on command?

This will be a wildly unpopular take but wide body ISR is pretty stable. You’ll have to fight to fly as a co but you can spend years a base, a career even. People often understandably hate this but it could potentially work for you. I would STRONGLY recommend talking to more than one person from this community (someone from the 38/tone side) before putting it anywhere near the top as perception and experiences vary wildly. Community has it’s problems but is nowhere near the night of the living dead it was sold to us as. Deployments every year and a half. Varies across the fleet but everything from new jets to new cockpits to boneyard are coming for us. Some 11R cross flow/UPT/PCS opportunities with special duty programs mixed in. Highly limited mechanical xfers. EDIT: sounds a lot like you should try and FAIP, my two cents

will give him a late one tuesday

"Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein also told Air Force Times in 2018 that he wanted to “set the throttle” at producing about 1,400 to 1,500 new pilots each year, and leave it there." flying around at max has been great for the T-6

UFB

here's to them

i heard a 13O say it

"they're gonna reengine the buff, doesn't that have the same engine as us?"

how about failure to reengine any aerospace vehicle powered by a TF33s twenty years into the 21st century

not with this fleet

I am not a crank!

only if i can finally prove that A & B system notionally connect in the PDU

Yeah, I'm not the most articulate person, sorry. 100% valid. i was a crew chief for an ANG fighter SQ/CC and heard pretty regularly about all those woes. he was a great guy who came from a long-ish active duty career. truly don't know if he could have been a commander in the active duty or not, but ultimately it's irrelevant because he excelled in the guard.

No, not at all, in fact I think the opposite. To clarify, the ANG/AFRC seem to have a slightly broader aperture for evaluating who they put in leadership positions.To that end, I don’t think having flown a jet outside the one the squadron does is a non-starter, which outside of Phoenix Reach or the like seems to be the case sometimes. (I came from the guard)

c/w

also fellow old dude here, went to UPT at 31!

i don't want to give you more stuff to stress about but i think you need a 2.5 GPA for a Rated commission (2.75 for non Rated), not sure if that's still a rule

nickle on the grass

my understanding is that, if you elect to do that switch, you unofficially give up any shot at command since you never have the same level of cred in the jet. i think people in the air force would take that deal, they can always punch to the guard/reserves if they truly want to command. this reminds me a bit of people i know coming out of UPT to C-17s fighting to go back to their previous base when they're told that they "need" to go to either a big or small base (whichever they weren't at previously) for career progression. i don't believe that most people who are trying to crossflow are worried about box checking sts. in the U-2/B-2 communities it seems like carefully selecting self-actualized pilots who are nicely seasoned in various airframes is a net gain to the community. this is a bit in contrast to what i've heard from some 11Fs where FAIPs show up late and have all the associated hassle and the community gets what it gets, good or bad.

someone significantly wiser than I recently said to me that there have always been paths to oddball crossflow and that; they exist as they are, amorphous and ephemeral, because it ensures only the most determined can successfully navigate the entire way. while i appreciate this deeply not cynical view of crossflow it's not really the best solution. this isn't a new take but: there's an extremely reasonable case to be made that, for reasons ranging from leveraging individual potential to simply making people happy to retain them, a well-defined and regularly held cross flow process should be established. hell, the navy has one and it works pretty damn well from what i've heard. a flag officer came and spoke to some pilots in my community not too long ago and i left with the distinct impression that there is some awareness and potentially, willingness to push for that type of program.

2, friend of mine got hired from outside the unit and mission

absolutely and long overdue

combat radius of the F-111C was almost triple the F/A-18F

This is a fantastic and regrettably out of print text on the F-111 in Straya: https://airpower.airforce.gov.au/APDC/media/PDF-Files/Historical Publications/HIST22-From-Controversy-to-Cutting-Edge-A-History-of-the-F-111-in-Australian-Service.pdf Lots of interesting takeaways, this one in particular stuck with me: "Plans to retire the USAF F-111Gs as part of the Clinton Administration military forces drawdown coincided with the Australian Government considering its options to extend the life of the F-111C fleet beyond 2010. " Does make you wonder if their doctrine will drive them to a bomber acquisition. Presumably they'd plus up the 6 Sq Growlers by converting the 1 Sq Super Hornets if they purchased a bomber. Incidentally, if anyone is on exchange in the RAAF or for that matter has joined the RAAF please shoot me a DM.

"F-16 Center of Excellence" did the Army name this?