The million dollar question

[eddie]

Answer to original question: Chuck Norris.

 

[KBayDog]

So the A-10, wonderful platform that it is, is being retired (the way of the F-111 and EF-111 beforehand) in favor of pointy-nose, sexy, air-superiority platforms with limited A/G capability such as the F/"A"-22.

Uh-oh...what happens now?

DefenseNews.com
December 12, 2005

USAF To Drop 'A' From F/A-22 Raptor

By Gopal Ratnam and Michael Fabey

Three years after the U.S. Air Force added an “A” to highlight the F/A-22 Raptor’s ability to drop bombs, the service is dropping the extra letter from the stealthy jet’s designator.

The plane, which is expected to officially enter service in the coming weeks, will henceforth be called the F-22A — with the trailing letter indicating a first variant, not an extra role.

Gen. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, who is said to have been unhappy with the F/A-22 moniker, announced the renaming in a Dec. 12 speech to a U.S. Air National Guard senior leadership conference in Baltimore, Md.

The decision was made in a recent meeting of senior service officials, said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, who was familiar with the deliberations. The decision was unanimous among Air Force and senior Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Thompson said.

An Air Force spokesman said the renaming decision will be formally announced in coming days. He also said that the service intends to continue with plans to develop the aircraft’s ability to strike ground targets. The Raptor first dropped Joint Direct Attack Munitions in tests last year.

The Air Force has traditionally labeled its fighter aircraft with the “F” prefix, even ones with some air-to-ground capabilities. The Raptor had been called the “F-22” since its first flights as the prototype YF-22A in the early 1990s.

In September 2002, Gen. John Jumper, then-Air Force chief of staff, added the “A” to emphasize the aircraft’s ground-attack capabilities. The switch came as the airplane was being assailed by critics inside and outside the Pentagon as too expensive for the post-Sept. 11 world.

“This isn’t your father’s F-22,” then-Air Force Secretary Jim Roche said in a 2002 interview.

Since then, several Air Force officials have called the aircraft even more flexible and capable than the F/A designator indicated. Classified capabilities, unknown to the American public and U.S. lawmakers alike, mean that the plane might as well have been called the FB-22 bomber, F/E-22 surveillance plane, F/EA-22 electronic attack aircraft, or even an RC-22 signals-intelligence platform, they said.

In recent months, the plane once again faced criticism as part of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and was expected to face some cuts in order to make way for the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter. But those fears have subsided and the Air Force is likely to get its expected fleet of 180 aircraft.

Thompson said Air Force officials were feeling a “little expansive” after the Raptor survived attacks during the QDR debates; they decided they didn’t need the extra “A” to persuade the administration and Congress to buy the airplane.

Laura Colarusso contributed to this report.

 

[Screamtruth]

Even if the International Court of Dumb Arguments logically proves that the Air Force must be full of selfish, enlisted person disdainful, prima donna officers, or that the Navy is a righteous, true believer, EPs in the plane-type fighting force, is anyone really going to base their leadership style, career, or anything else on what the "System" allegedly sets them up to do? No.

The only difference is that maybe some Navy kid is gonna say, "oh, HAPL for real, well, if I did this right in practice, I'd get to continue with FAMs, but now it's real, 'yawn', so I'm deciding to speed, clean, check, etc. and not only save my ass but impress that hot girl who works at Florala when I tell the story over barbecue." and the Air Force kid would say, "holy shit, um, I would maintain control of the aircraft and analyze...dude, fuck this standup verbalization shit, I'm just gonna do the memory items!"

People get into dumb arguments like this over the Academy. If someone asks me where I went to school (especially if I'm in a really sharp uniform with mirror-like shoes, which I try hard to do, and especially if it's a senior officer) and the question is obviously posed to help that individual assess my personality or potential as an officer regardless of the naturally good first impression, I politely decline to answer, since the CNO himself has said it doesn't matter where you go to school. Had I known the not-so-fun bullshit I'd run into from answering that question, I would have attended community college.

It is not an argument, just a discussion...and the topic was not meant to be the best of the best between the branches, or who's the shit and who's not...................

I am sure this has been a topic of countless debates, but, for me it is a question that I have always had regarding the real differences between AF and Naval Aviation, besides the bullcrap like housing or training funds and other stuff. I am referring to the differences in the skills and tactics of the pilot.



:skull_125

This was the original thread starter.......

 

[highlyrandom]

Thanks, sorry I got off track, sometimes I go off of the middle 5 posts and wind up in some angry tirade

 

[airwinger]

I don't buy that. You get extra time to hit the boat. Navy pilot training, from first FAM to wings is longer then AF UPT. Don't know about the new T-45 TS approach, but you used to get lots more tactical flights prior to winging then the AF guys. Navy guys are far more tactical on the day of their winging then AF guys. From that day on there are many variables that will make Naval Aviators different from AF pilots , some good, some bad. I still give the edge to the Naval Aviation.

If you compare the DAY you get wings then obviously ACM/TACFROM multi planes make a Navy/Marine wingee more tactically able. But as a comparison, when I started in VT-3 in Feb of '03 my lone classmate was an AF guy. He's been an A-10 SQUADRON pilot for about 8 months now. I haven't flown a prowler yet. It gets even worse if you add in TBS, I keep reflecting that if I had pressed that AF recruiter, I would have winged in april of '03, hit the AF fleet in 04 and be halfway through my first flying tour by now. Of course I could have wound up a tanker guy

 

[Punk]

If you compare the DAY you get wings then obviously ACM/TACFROM multi planes make a Navy/Marine wingee more tactically able. But as a comparison, when I started in VT-3 in Feb of '03 my lone classmate was an AF guy. He's been an A-10 SQUADRON pilot for about 8 months now. I haven't flown a prowler yet. It gets even worse if you add in TBS, I keep reflecting that if I had pressed that AF recruiter, I would have winged in april of '03, hit the AF fleet in 04 and be halfway through my first flying tour by now. Of course I could have wound up a tanker guy

Like I pointed out earlier, we wing after our tactics phase. AF pilots wing, then go on and do their tactics phase in T-38's then head off onto their training squadron. So yes, Navy pilots have much more tactical experience than our AF counterparts at the time of our wings.

However, to further make airwinger's point here, by the time I fly again, I will have been out of the cockpit 8-9 months. That's not allowing us to be proficient in anything, whether it be in tactics, airmanship, or instruments. Yes yes, I know T-45 tactics don't equal fleet tactics, but we weren't doing road recce's in the -45 cause that's how we do it in the fleet. Ignoring tactics for a minute, it'll be over a year before I have shot an instrument approach in an aircraft. That's not how to make proficient pilots. That is extremely poor planning and execution on the Navy's part.

 

[nittany03]

“This isn’t your father’s F-22,” then-Air Force Secretary Jim Roche said in a 2002 interview.

I thought our fathers flew F-4s, A-4s and such . . . who knew? :icon_tong

 

[Brett327]

That's not how to make proficient pilots. That is extremely poor planning and execution on the Navy's part.

Why don't you email VADM Zortman and tell him how he's AFU? I'm sure he's interested in your input.

Brett

 

[alwyn2nd]

Air Force or Naval Air?

Why not do both. The AF, Navy, USMC have a pilot exchange program that started back in the 1950s. It involves about 30 + pilots every year. The AF fighter jocks get the opportunity to qualify on the F/A-18 and pull one workup and one sea tour. They will get their 100 or so day/night traps and earn the Navy's respect on being a hooker.

It's unfortunate the Navy has run out of funds to truely modernize their tactical fleet with stealth technogoy and supercruise performance. That being said, the Navy will make do with the Super Hornet for the next 20 + yrs
and, accomplish their mission.

Even though the AF exchange fighter pilots call their time flying off the boat as an Air Force Appreciation Tour, they can take credit in understanding the true hardship of Naval air and their aircraft.

If I had my option on flying for either services, I would work my butt off for a F-22A assignment as an Air Force pilot with one tour as an exchange pilot with the Navy. One tour on the boat will be about all the excitment I would need to experience Naval air.

For the Navy types that have to pull multiple tours to the boat, take a break and fly the F-22A. And, see how many aircraft you can sneek up on without being seen or detected. Even Navy pilots need a reward and a break:-D.

 

[Punk]

Why don't you email VADM Zortman and tell him how he's AFU? I'm sure he's interested in your input.

Brett

Cause VADM's don't right the syllabus. Come on Brett, even you have to agree 9 months is way too long out of the cockpit.

I understand the way the Growler syllabus is being written, this long time out of the cockpit won't happen. It will more closely shadow the rest of the Navy jet FRS's. This is coming from an IP here who also feels 9 months is too long of a gap. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. And I'm not the only who shares this sentiment (FRP's and IP's alike). Just because this is the current way things are happening, doesn't mean its the right nor best way.

PS: the snow wasn't that great today

 

[Brett327]

Cause VADM's don't right the syllabus. Come on Brett, even you have to agree 9 months is way too long out of the cockpit.

I understand the way the Growler syllabus is being written, this long time out of the cockpit won't happen. It will more closely shadow the rest of the Navy jet FRS's. This is coming from an IP here who also feels 9 months is too long of a gap. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. And I'm not the only who shares this sentiment (FRP's and IP's alike). Just because this is the current way things are happening, doesn't mean its the right nor best way.

PS: the snow wasn't that great today

You are ALWAYS going to have periods of time out of the cockpit. Certainly the Navy should take reasonable steps to minimize it when possible, so if they can wring out the syllabus to get people in the air faster, then so much the better. However, in the grand scheme of things, your 9 month hiatus, pitiful and demoralizing as it may be, doesn't amount to much. People like me on shore and disassociated tours will be out of the cockpit for years at a time. Suboptimal? Certainly, but that's just how the force is structured. I can appreciate that certain skills may deteriorate after an absence from the cockpit, but I'd be curious to know just what impact that has on an aviator at the end of the syllabus. More time to train? Perhaps, but your fleet jet is such a new environment, you have to relearn the bulk of your skills and habit patterns from scratch anyway. I think they're looking at cutting big chunks of AVEWS out and incorporating them into the tactics phase of the RAG - makes sense. I'm not against streamlining the process - just pilots whining about it.

Brett

 

[Punk]

They're talking about completely gutting AVEWS and adding that into the syllabus around the tactics phase (exactly what you said). And here's a crazy thought, we learn tactics after we learn the airplane. WOW. The plan is to cut down our time before flying to around 4 months. It'll be more how the Hornet and Rhino guys do their syllabus: learn airplane, fly airplane, become a proficient pilot again, then start working on tactics, weapons, etc.

9 months may not be that long in the grand scheme of things, but if you can avoid it, why not? Obviously, its too late now. But fortunately I'm not the only one who feels this is stupid. Somebody with more brains than me in charge of the transition is realizing this as well and putting in the appropriate changes. And Brett, I know this is crazy, even though us pilots are only using some monkey skills, the longer you don't use, the longer it takes them to come back to acceptable level of proficiency (ie more flights to get to the same level). Sounds like that extends the time to train period a tad, doesn't it?

 

[Punk]

I just find it odd that I know how to fire a HARM but don't have a clue how to start the jet up yet.

 

[HH-60H]

As I am sure you have figured out by now, starting up the aircraft is the easy part. Heck, all the aircraft basics start taking a back seat after awhile, EP's checklists, etc. Of course the basics are what end up killing more aircrew than everything else combined.

 

[Punk]

As I am sure you have figured out by now, starting up the aircraft is the easy part. Heck, all the aircraft basics start taking a back seat after awhile, EP's checklists, etc. Of course the basics are what end up killing more aircrew than everything else combined.

You kinda missed my point. I gotta learn the systems first, then I can move on to starting the jet. We learn tactics and weapons/sensors first, then the last thing is the jet. Shouldn't we learn how to fly the jet first, then learn how to employ it? That's all I'm getting at.


But on one hand its nice. We get through all this stuff in the beginning so once we start flying, all we have to concentrate on is flying, which is nice.