UAV's for UPT Grads

[SIG600]

He/She must be active duty - whole different animal in the reserves.

Correct statement.

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

This reminds me of the early 90s when UPT grads were getting the "third seat". Many of the UPT grads back then were old farts (27.5 + year olds), pinning on Captain as we graduated. You can imagine the heartache of one of these dudes/dudettes having to choose the "third seat" as there were no airplanes to choose from. A "third seat" was the idea of our beloved Gen. McPeak and it was a navigator position on a KC-135. The deal was that one would occupy the nav seat in a KC-135 until a flying slot became available, which would occur in 1-3 years. We all felt their pain as they stood up during assignment night and "chose" their assignment.
Regarding the fighter vs. targets, I'll go with the fighter or a target theory. However, not everyone wants to be a fighter pilot. I think alot of people would love to fly a fighter but alot of 'em don't want to be a "fighter pilot" (ie. many hours of mission planning and briefings to fly a 1.2, $hit loads of additional duty, numerous sand box deployments, remote tours, etc.). Some of the best sticks in my class and other classes did not choose fighters; fyi, we were in one of the last "traditional" classes who got to fly the T-38.
I have alot of respect for the fighter bros but some of you need an attitude adjusment. Not everyone want to be you when they grow up.

 

[K-Mart]

The whole fighter vs the heavy argument is pretty funny. Historically fighters have gone before the heavies but like anything else there are the exceptions to every graduating class.

However, I can remember a time between the years 95-98ish when an alarming number of students track selected the T-1/T-44 over the T-38. It got attention all the way up to the Chief of Staff of the AF who was bewildered as to why folks were choosing the T-1/T-44 over the 38. Several Full Bird Colonels (no joke here) were tasked with interviewing every student who picked the T-1/T-44 over the T-38 asking them why and kinda grilling them a bit. In a nutshell it was embarrasing to fighter brass watching students stand up and pick the heavies over the fighter track. Wanna guess solution was??? The AF decided it was better to not give students their choice of tracks and let the Flight Commanders choose instead. Students would fill out a dream sheet but the leadership got the ultimate say. True story.

 

[AlbieF15]

The real reason for the heavy choice was the ridiculous idea that washing out of a T-38 meant no wings. A guy "on the fence" on fighters verses heavy did a quick risk/reward analysis. If they had a "no risk" flow back to heavies IF the student found out single seat wasn't for them, THEN I think you'd have seen a higher T38/fighter track selection.

I flew 2300+ hours in the F-15 and over 500 in the OV-10. I loved it. If faced with an SUPT choice, however, I might have leaned "pragmatic" and gone T-1, however. Why? I wanted to be a PILOT more than I wanted to be a FIGHTER PILOT. The SUPT track made the fighter option an "all or nothing" risk that some of our young pilots decided not to take.

And hey...flying jets is cool....even if you aren't in a single seat. Having done both, however, I'm glad I got to do both. I encourage young dudes (and dudettes) to chase their dreams, but if a guy "slightly above average" decided to take a lower risk option and chase a C-17 from the T-1 track I couldnt' look him in the eye and say he was wrong. He's got a 95% chance of getting those coveted wings in the T-1 track...and those are worth a lot of money down the road. Maybe he won't be a Viper driver, but in 7-10 years he can have a job at Delta, FDX, or SWA and a Guard job...and that's a darn good life. Wash out of T-38s and life gets a little tougher.

Fix the SUPT process and the problem will fix itself.

 

[SIG600]

The real reason for the heavy choice was the ridiculous idea that washing out of a T-38 meant no wings. A guy "on the fence" on fighters verses heavy did a quick risk/reward analysis. If they had a "no risk" flow back to heavies IF the student found out single seat wasn't for them, THEN I think you'd have seen a higher T38/fighter track selection.

I flew 2300+ hours in the F-15 and over 500 in the OV-10. I loved it. If faced with an SUPT choice, however, I might have leaned "pragmatic" and gone T-1, however. Why? I wanted to be a PILOT more than I wanted to be a FIGHTER PILOT. The SUPT track made the fighter option an "all or nothing" risk that some of our young pilots decided not to take.

And hey...flying jets is cool....even if you aren't in a single seat. Having done both, however, I'm glad I got to do both. I encourage young dudes (and dudettes) to chase their dreams, but if a guy "slightly above average" decided to take a lower risk option and chase a C-17 from the T-1 track I couldnt' look him in the eye and say he was wrong. He's got a 95% chance of getting those coveted wings in the T-1 track...and those are worth a lot of money down the road. Maybe he won't be a Viper driver, but in 7-10 years he can have a job at Delta, FDX, or SWA and a Guard job...and that's a darn good life. Wash out of T-38s and life gets a little tougher.

Fix the SUPT process and the problem will fix itself.

Agree. When I went through a few years ago, guys that didn't finish the T-45 track could (based on recommendations) redesignate and go to another community. If someone had told me "you fail, you're done flying" I would have seriously reconsidered.

That said though, the personality types that tend to be attracted by the fighter community don't see themselves as never being able to succeed. Not a bag on other communities, I just think the fighter community is chock full of a lot more Type A's.

 

[hoover]

I would think that military officers would welcome this. As many of you have said, you're a solider first, a pilot second. If the Constitution and this country can be can be accomplished without risking American lives, isn't that what we should be striving for?

 

[K-Mart]

Albie,

You are spot on with kids taking a T-1/44 because they didn't want to wash out and not get their wings. Our primary program (T-37), too kinda pushed guys to think.."Man I can put up with this crap, stand ups, uptight FAIPS or maybe go fly a T-1 or T-44.

I don't know the complete answer but it is f@cked up when 22-24 year olds pissing fire and vinegar are turning down a good chance to fly a fighter. Weird times.

 

[FlyingHigh262]

I would think that military officers would welcome this. As many of you have said, you're a solider first, a pilot second. If the Constitution and this country can be can be accomplished without risking American lives, isn't that what we should be striving for?

not a pilot eh?

 

[Be 23]

I would think that military officers would welcome this. As many of you have said, you're a solider first, a pilot second. If the Constitution and this country can be can be accomplished without risking American lives, isn't that what we should be striving for?

People don't go through the rigors of UPT and accept a 10 year commitment with a goal of sitting at a console in Nevada. This isn't a group of people putting their own personal comfort and safety as their top priority.

If they get their assignment to UAV before finishing pilot training, the washout (dropout) rate could get interesting. It would be hard to blame a guy for not accepting a 10 year pilot training commitment if the AF isn't going to let him fly.

 

[JungleJett]

Speaking of traveling...I think we left the county today on the Pave Hawk...I am not positive though.