-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
USAF or Naval Aviation?
- Thread starter Son of a Grunt
- Start date
Not this U-2 guy
Not an everyday occurence for sure but it was done (not a photoshop image)
How the fvck did he pull that off? That's enough of a bitch trying to set that plane down on land.
T37Driver
Lone Warrior
You are on a Naval Aviation Forum....Don't expect to hear any praises for the USAF. Go to an Air Force forum and get their opinion. In the end, you won't go wrong flying for either one of the services.
Son of Grunt -- just so you know -- the deployments might be short, but there are more of them. RQS guys (CSAR helos) are on a 4 month on, 4 month off rotation for pretty much eternity. Those guys don't have a sea-shore rotation, so you could actually spend more time deployed. I don't know about the pointy nose types, but the AFSOC guys are also on a similar beat.
Son of a Grunt
Member
I don't know. I am trying to give them all a fair look. Both of my grandfathers were in the Navy during Nom, but they aren't the beat help in this respect(they are both anti-war liberal dems and one of them was in flight school but was kicked out and served time in the brig). My dad and two of my uncles were in the Marines. One of them was in AF ROTC but refused his commission and transferred to the Marines. He made it all the way through flight school but refused his wings over a drunk grunt incident. A friend of mine, who was all for the Marines, went Navy because the Marines couldn't guarantee his MOS and the Navy did(he is now in training for the SEALs). All of the other mil people that I know are Army and most of them say that they wish that they had gone AF.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Not to discredit anything that your father did, but I would say that a Sergeant who was a Machine Gunner probably doesn't know a whole lot about the "big picture" of the Navy/Marine Corps. Let's dissect his arguments:
Easy Life - Not neccessarily. As mentioned before, the Air Force is on an indefinite deployment cycle of x months on/x months off... Hardly easy.
Quick Promotions - The promotion rate for Air Force Officers is almost identical to that of other services.
The Planes - Like Heavies? Better chance of flying those in the AF, and I wouldn't wish helos on my worst enemy in the AF, since they're treated like second class citizens.
The Quality of People - I'm actually offended by this. A Sergeant with maybe 1, 2 Battalions TOPS in his career can speak to the 180,000+ people in the Marine Corps? Throw this one out. Great guys in the USN/USMC all around that I've seen. There's the occasional shitbag, but they're everywhere in life.
Short Deployments - True, but more of them.
Better Living Quarters - Can't really argue there, most people will agree that the AF values creature comforts over everything else.
Better Food - Again, he's a grunt and knows nothing of Marine Aviation. The food is pretty much the same all around. The DFAC that you will eat at in theatre is also where the AF, Army, and Navy eats... MREs, yes - they suck, but not as bad as when he was in.
Relative Safety - They still fly in a combat zone. Don't rule out that Marine and Navy F/A-18's are flying off the deck of a ship, which is actually probably safer living quarters than Kuwait, where the AF is flying out of.
Pound Dirt - Outside of TBS (6 months) and a FAC tour (1 year), as a Marine Pilot, you don't pound that much dirt.
Again, not trying to be disrespectful of your elders, but I'd say that you don't have the best role models/advice providers in your family. Talk to recruiters, spend alot of time researching on AirWarriors, talk to anyone you can find that is on active duty. Then make your decision.
And no tricked out Mustang or Camaro to chase him down LA to help. It wasn't without its moments as one landing did result in dragging a wingtip. For more details, see story that appeared in Air Force Magazine.
Interesting. However, I'm sure that is only the airframe/engine itself. The "stuff" we carry now accounts for a great deal of money. In this day and age, if you don't include the sensors to the cost for any recon asset, you've basically purchased a cool trainer that doesn't do much other than convert jet fuel to noise and fun.
Our Class A mishap 2 years ago cost us a full sensor suite. That takes time and lots of $$$ to overcome.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
How is the U-2 to fly?
I know a then LCDR, now MAJ that "tried out" for them, but I believe he flies C-17s now.
I know a then LCDR, now MAJ that "tried out" for them, but I believe he flies C-17s now.
Not having flight hours yet I couldn't personally tell you, but when I shadowed the U-2 fliers at Beale a few years ago they explained the nickname "Dragonlady" is in reference to the plane handling like a dragon on takeoff and landing and a lady at high altitude.
How is it to fly? Quite a handful, at first. But no matter how many hours you have in it, you better not get too comfortable with her.
It's not a "mil spec" aircraft, which is the problem. All of us (USAF, Navy, Marines) are trained as "mil spec" aviators in "mil spec" aircraft that have been developed through Edwards/Pax River, and had many of the bad characteristics bred out. The U-2 didn't have that luxury. It fails every category that the TPS guys test (Cooper-Harper scale, I think?) That said, it's not cosmic. It's just different than what most have flown. Pointy-nosed guys traditionally do the worst when it comes to stick-and-rudder skills: they just don't know how to use their feet to counter adverse yaw. T-37/T-6/C-130 guys to pretty well. Some folks find this odd, but helo pilots that have fixed wing time in the T-34 or T-6 to very well. I've hired a number of helo pilots over the years. In fact, the FTU Commander ("RAG boss", in Navy speak, right??) was a T-38 FAIP, who then went and flew UH-1's, before coming over to the U-2.
We have a guy that interviewed with a fair amount of tailwheel time in Giles 202, Pitts, et. al... plus owns a Stinson. He adapted very quickly to flying the jet. However, he was just an exceptional pilot, irrespective of these aircraft he's flown, and was "the total package". His "headwork" was exceptional.
So, we do need pilots that can adapt to the non-mil spec characteristics of the jet. But we also need pilots that know how to aggressively employ the jet: that's a challenge when you consider that for years, our job was to STFU and quietly fly the black line. Now, we're trying to let the combatant commanders know that we can do much more than that. Real time support of Marines and Soldiers that are getting shot at is something we are trying to develop more.
But, back to the flying question, yes, I really enjoy flying it around the flag pole too, i.e. pattern only sorties/hops. That said, about 5-10% of the pilots that interview will quit before the end. Almost all do it because they do not like flying the aircraft. It's very physical, and some of the control movements are not "finesse" movements. Add to that a crappy air conditioner, poor visibility, terrible ergonomics, and you've got an aircraft that only a mother could love.
It's not a "mil spec" aircraft, which is the problem. All of us (USAF, Navy, Marines) are trained as "mil spec" aviators in "mil spec" aircraft that have been developed through Edwards/Pax River, and had many of the bad characteristics bred out. The U-2 didn't have that luxury. It fails every category that the TPS guys test (Cooper-Harper scale, I think?) That said, it's not cosmic. It's just different than what most have flown. Pointy-nosed guys traditionally do the worst when it comes to stick-and-rudder skills: they just don't know how to use their feet to counter adverse yaw. T-37/T-6/C-130 guys to pretty well. Some folks find this odd, but helo pilots that have fixed wing time in the T-34 or T-6 to very well. I've hired a number of helo pilots over the years. In fact, the FTU Commander ("RAG boss", in Navy speak, right??) was a T-38 FAIP, who then went and flew UH-1's, before coming over to the U-2.
We have a guy that interviewed with a fair amount of tailwheel time in Giles 202, Pitts, et. al... plus owns a Stinson. He adapted very quickly to flying the jet. However, he was just an exceptional pilot, irrespective of these aircraft he's flown, and was "the total package". His "headwork" was exceptional.
So, we do need pilots that can adapt to the non-mil spec characteristics of the jet. But we also need pilots that know how to aggressively employ the jet: that's a challenge when you consider that for years, our job was to STFU and quietly fly the black line. Now, we're trying to let the combatant commanders know that we can do much more than that. Real time support of Marines and Soldiers that are getting shot at is something we are trying to develop more.
But, back to the flying question, yes, I really enjoy flying it around the flag pole too, i.e. pattern only sorties/hops. That said, about 5-10% of the pilots that interview will quit before the end. Almost all do it because they do not like flying the aircraft. It's very physical, and some of the control movements are not "finesse" movements. Add to that a crappy air conditioner, poor visibility, terrible ergonomics, and you've got an aircraft that only a mother could love.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
Makes sense that helo guys tend to do well in it...
Well, there's your problem...
Other than inspecific pronouns, what is grammatically wrong with that sentence?
Makes sense that helo guys tend to do well in it...
yeah, sounds like my complaints about my helo.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Pags, you fly the new one. Leave the complaining to the Phrog/Legacy Seahawk guys.