Leaderboard

That’s the issue; for better or worse, we live in an age where things like this make it to people with multiple stars on their shoulders…and the result will not be good for those with any direct involvement downhill of said stars.

So can I or can I not barrel roll outside of the MOA…in a combat zone? This shit is so unclear… ~Bendy

I think the issue is the pilot was not a certified demo pilot and it was ad hoc.

Possibly unpopular take here but if the CC literally said “yeah, go have fun” after some guy said “let me go rip it around for a bit, it’ll be fine”, he’s an idiot. Those maneuvers are well within the capability of any Eagle Driver and the airplane but a demo is a very specific skill and a lot more too it than plugging the AB and going for it.

They also know nothing about flying fighters beyond the days of 45 HADBs, scary SA-6s, and MiG-29s with the venerable 10A. GOs and SESs are the fighting force’s worst nightmare more often than not. There are a few good ones, but most can’t put their ego aside to actually follow the advice of current-day experts and instead act like they’ve “still got it” (they don’t) while simul following the lead of industry hawking products (and promising future employment). That’s cool, really. But the cost and timeline (short and long term) for something like that is likely a loser compared to making the sim aspect better and going to a 50/50 fly/sim gameplan. Sims also enable a lot more integration where as scorpions doesn’t help that part. There are also security reasons for sims > live fly.

I get that. Remedial airmanship type stuff would be better spent in a single engine piston than a T-6 (primarily for cost saving and simplicity). @ClearedHot I think it’s a good idea for some MDS, but it’s not going to accomplish much for a fighter. In a fighter, altitudes/airspeeds/maneuverability capabilities are vastly important parts of tactics. They become even more important in 5th gen. Buttonology is irrelevant because that’s what the sim is for (if someone needs that practice). Flying an approach in a T-6 is very different than an F-35 in many ways (other than the rules and the plate is the same). Weather/winds affect flying and decision making way different than they do in a T-6. All of that hypothetical training is invalid from the start, and significant risk of negative transfer for a new guy. See response to Pooter above regarding pure airmanship/ADM. Now, apply this concept to MDS that spend majority of their time going A-B, in orbits, fly at similar airspeed/Alt as a T-6, aren’t very maneuverable/can’t do aerobatics, etc. and there’s a lot of merit to the T-6 concept. Using this concept for IFF to teach basics of “what is TI,” how to fly sensor formations, process data from simulated sensors, etc. is also a good concept. So I am a fan and open minded, but there is a logical end to the utility/good idea, and that shouldn’t surprise anyone.

The point is not: "what F-35 tasks can we accomplish in the T-6?" The point is: "how do we set a strong enough foundation we don't have to waste time/money doing remedial T-6 things in an F-35"

They aren’t timeline obsessed. HAF/A3 has provided an order to produce. Which AETC can’t do anyways because the s-rate for the T-6 and T-38 is in the shitter.

Looks good to me. Wholesome piece of Americana.

Maybe we're just super conservative now, but that looked like a pretty normal airshow profile from the ones I was at a decade ago.

It’s interesting to me that somewhere a T-6 sq is pinching pennies and in 5th gen land the waste is just incredible. 18 hrs in a T-6 = 1 hr in an F-35. Give me a T-6 with some displays that simulate F-35 systems and I could save the USAF millions per year guaranteed. But the dinosaurs in charge measure effectiveness by hours flown and FHP close out. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

This is why I’ve kept my own logbook, never trusted a 1C further than I could throw them! Plus the notes section of my logbook makes for nice memories and reflection .

Okay, yes, this person is clearly not working 911 part time to pay for their mensa membership. But. If you're the pilot that just ejected out of a fighter aircraft and you're sitting in some guy's house calling 911, don't you think you would maybe take a little bit more control over the conversation rather than answer stupid questions that only make the person on the other end more confused? This guy is 47 years old and in the military, so ostensibly has some sort of leadership experience under his belt. If you can't lead one moron into sending an ambulance without a 15 minute discussion about how ejections work, it might not be the 911 operator that's the problem.

I'm a huge fan of the old ACE (Accelerated Copilot Enrichment) concept and really believe we should put some companion trainers at every base to let folks fly and get air sense in a cheaper trainer. If the argument is "more is better" (I disagree with this but I'm in the minority) in terms of flight hours, get some airplanes that you can fly a bunch and get experience on the cheap. @Pooter nailed it with his T-6 example.

Reminds me of that scene from “Idiocracy”.

I'm sure the 911 operator worked in AF Finance or MPF in a previous job. Please, Lord... when the day comes that I need 911, don't let this be the operator that answers. Amen.