zeitgeist57 Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 WHERE'S JONO??? http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fighter-pilot-wanted-20130722,0,2152468.story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyM3rC Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 I don't believe it. Time for TOP GUN: THE SEQUEL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaddyBuiltRacing Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Un-manned aircraft is the future anyways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unfunnyryan Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Un-manned aircraft is the future anyways... Yep. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/first-drone-landing-aircraft-carrier/2507061/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 When I was looking into the Air Force 5+ years ago, they were trying to cut back on officers because they apparently had too many. Funny how quick things turn around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaddyBuiltRacing Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 I painted the Springfield ANG 4-5 years ago and the pilots back then told us how it was heading that way. They said they was trying to eliminate 200k soldiers from the airforce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted July 22, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Sounds like .gov management works the same as .biz management: "Work with the budget you have, not the budget you want." If the budget provides for xxxx pilots - regardless of whether that number is viable 1, 2, or 10 years down the road - you'll hire to that standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 I haven't heard about this, but the problem isn't that people don't want to be pilots, it's that people don't want to be in the military. They just want to fly planes and shit, and at about the 11 year mark, the Air Force says, "OK, thanks for blowing all those people up for us, but now it's time to go train new pilots. And manage other pilots. And make policy decisions. Do you like paperwork? I hope you like paperwork." An experienced pilot can go make bank at Delta and not have to put up with all of the bullshit that comes along with being in the military, but the military can't hire Lt Colonels from Delta. It's an interesting problem. No pilot wants to be managed by a non-pilot, but very few pilots ever want to move up into management. In short, this is less an issue of empty cockpits and "Oh noes who will blow up the enemy now!" but rather a retention issue and the loss of experience and potential leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Apex Posted July 22, 2013 Report Share Posted July 22, 2013 Not surprising as they had just announced they will be adding an F-35 wing to Luke Air Force base down here and possibly replace the entire F-16 wing and they said they were looking for pilots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got-Boost? Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 I'd do it if I could just fly and not deal with all the military BS. I was trying to do a Guard gig down here in Houston after I got out but they said I'd have to go back active for 2-years to get my IP time. Said no thanks,...and glad I didn't because they BRAC'd the F-16's at Ellington soon after I moved back to Houston. I'm living the dream now on the civilian side with my other job so no reason to go back and take a pay cut..lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigOxley Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Military is fucked. My guess is politicians and defense contractors pulling the strings is a big problem. New fighter jets? To dog fight with who? And at what cost to taxpayers? B-52 will have a 90 year run when it is done. There is no reason to get rid of the f16/18. The amount of waste I see from the inside is staggering, and I only see 0.00000000000000000000001% of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 Military is fucked. My guess is politicians and defense contractors pulling the strings is a big problem. New fighter jets? To dog fight with who? And at what cost to taxpayers? B-52 will have a 90 year run when it is done. There is no reason to get rid of the f16/18. The amount of waste I see from the inside is staggering, and I only see 0.00000000000000000000001% of it. Nothing wrong with the F16s or the F18s. The JSF program is suppose to reduce maintenance cost of these fighters and eventually the federal government will save money in the long run... in theory. Wasteful spending is a big problem in the DOD, until the DOD can be aduditable, it will continue. And furloughing a department that is largely incharge of achieving that goal who is getting paid through working capital funds makes no freaking sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelliganx1 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 I agree, the B-52 and Kc-135 are still doing there jobs just fine and will continue to do so as long as they keep paying for upkeep but dont pull this crap where you stop giving units money to maintain their planes and then cry that we need new planes because the old ones arent in good shape. As for fighters I've yet to see a F-35 fly in person and the F-22 impresses the hell out of me but like was stated above, who are we going to fight with this thing? When was the last time we had a worthy adversary in the air? We havent in my life time or in my time in the air force. Also with this coming out: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123339926 why dont we just have Boeing (Thats who owns McDonnell Douglas now which is who originally made the F-15) make a few more for us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey2721 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 I agree, the B-52 and Kc-135 are still doing there jobs just fine and will continue to do so as long as they keep paying for upkeep but dont pull this crap where you stop giving units money to maintain their planes and then cry that we need new planes because the old ones arent in good shape. As for fighters I've yet to see a F-35 fly in person and the F-22 impresses the hell out of me but like was stated above, who are we going to fight with this thing? When was the last time we had a worthy adversary in the air? We havent in my life time or in my time in the air force. Also with this coming out: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123339926 why dont we just have Boeing (Thats who owns McDonnell Douglas now which is who originally made the F-15) make a few more for us? just cause we don't have anyone right now in the air thats a threat to the f-22 and f-35, doesn't mean its not needed. much better to have and not need then need and not have. if we have to meet another nation in the air i would be glad to give our boys up there the sharpest sword we can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owndjoo Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 i agree with the pilots being yanked out of plans after 10 years... it's just ridiculous. Bring back the Warrant Officers so you can just fly and be done with it. Pilots don't want to hang up their wings to command... most of them at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey2721 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 is there alot of drop off in ability after ten years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buelliganx1 Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 just cause we don't have anyone right now in the air thats a threat to the f-22 and f-35, doesn't mean its not needed. much better to have and not need then need and not have. if we have to meet another nation in the air i would be glad to give our boys up there the sharpest sword we can. What good is the sharpest tool in the box if the person using it doesn't know what to do with it. We have had the upper hand for years in not only equipment but tactics. The equipment and training our folks receive is 2nd to none. But you can also spend yourself into oblivion much like Russia did trying to keep up with us in the cold war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owndjoo Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 is there alot of drop off in ability after ten years? the rank structure. once you make Lt. Col it's time to transition to commanding troops over being a pilot in the AF. Whereas with Warrant Officers, they can keep flying for their career. Like the Army Helo pilots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted July 23, 2013 Report Share Posted July 23, 2013 As for fighters I've yet to see a F-35 fly in person and the F-22 impresses the hell out of me but like was stated above, who are we going to fight with this thing? When was the last time we had a worthy adversary in the air? We havent in my life time or in my time in the air force. The Su-35 comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamgh81 Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 The Su-35 comes to mind. +1 ...China and Russia will always be in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 +1 ...China and Russia will always be in the game. Well, the requirement for the F-22 was conceived in 1981, and the requirement was awarded in 1991. Since then, advances in missile tracking and drone technology may have made air to air combat between manned aircraft obsolete. I say may, because we'll likely never get into a full scale war where we find out, at least in my lifetime. We've yet to actually use the F-22 in combat, after all. Whereas the F-16 has a combat role as a fighter/bomber and was used (especially initially) in Iraq and Afghanistan, that role is being replaced by drones while the F-22 remains a show pony. A show pony that occasionally suffocates its pilots. I'm not one to say that we shouldn't build new aircraft because "the old ones are just fine" or because "there's no competition out there." After all, nobody wants to be flying around in beaters when shit does hit the fan. However, the F-22 is very much a product of the cold war. It's almost an anachronism. It's like continuing to train knights at the same time you're training musketeers. You know your knights are worthless against musketeers, but the other guy might be training knights, and something something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.