ClearedHot

Mild, There is always a chance. There were a lot of guys going through a few years ago that were banked for three years early on. A big factor in determining who gets picked is the recommendations you take to the selection board. If it is something you are really interested in, sit down with your the DO and your squadron Weapons Officer and see if you guys can build a road map to get you there. As with everything in the USAF, there are waivers for everything. Good Luck.

Typically, graduates will go back to a squadron for at least a year. After that many will follow a normal progression up to wing level jobs. The flesh peddlers will normally nominate potential instructors to the school 2-3 years after graduation. Instructing at the Weapons School was second only to flying in combat. I worked harder and played harder that at any other point in my career.

Not all of the players at the Weapons School put iron on target, but all are a vital part of that effort. CCO has Weapons School courses for the several support frames like JSTARS and AWACS that are vital to the fight. The tanker and transport folks are not part of the USAF Weapons School. They left in 2002 after differences over control of syllabus. As a result, they have aseperate course that is managaed by AMC. Different patch, different course, same concept, produce the best instructors possible.

Actually the AFSOC AC-130, MH-53, and MC-130 courses, syllabus and instructors fall under the 57th Wing at Nellis. Collectively they are called the SOF division, and are offically known as the 14th Weapons Squadron, a tenant unit at Hurlburt. The KC-135 and C-17 courses, syllabus, and instrcutors are not a part of the USAF Weapons School. They belong to AMC and thier students interact with the USAF Weapons School WUGs only during CORE academics and the Mission Employment exercise at the end of the course.

https://www.columbus0510.com/ https://www.columbus0507.com/ https://www.geocities.com/halfmilefinal/ https://home.earthlink.net/%7Ekschlappi/kyle.htm https://www.geocities.com/pilotusairforce/brooks.html https://www.pilotcrossing.com/ https://www.geocities.com/lancer145/Homepage.html

Engineering degrees are highly desired but not required. Math or science degrees qualify you to apply.

Try Royal Bag ( https://www.royal-bag.com/ ), they are located out the back gate at Osan AFB, but they ship to the U.S. If the “name tapes” or “luggage tags” are not on the website drop them a line and tell them what you want. They have almost any color, aircraft, badge you want to embroider. Hope that helps.

Airguardian, I am in DC for another year of school (SAW), the Marine Corps version of SAASS. Looks like I will go to the Air Staff afterwards. You still in training?

Polys are not for basic clearances. Usually related to special jobs.

Yes

The approved work-around, don't tell anyone. It is a BS rule. Spend a few minutes on Saturday morning watching the parking lot and you will see how closely it is followed.

I watched a few guys get hurt doing stupid things in UPT, most simply washed back, but one was medically disqualified for a stupid accident. Just my opinion, but I wanted to become a pilot ever since I watched my old man fly an F-4 up intial on his way back from Vietnam. You may be an expert on the bike, but if it were me I would focus on UPT for a year and hit the race track once I had my wings.

You will have time to ride on the weekends, a good way to blow off steam. However, you will have to make time to attend a motorcycle safety course and take a road test. They will attempt to discourage you at every point because the Air Force loses a lot of people each year to motorcycle accidents. Bottom-line, you can ride, but they will make it difficult for you.

Huey, "Context matters", you mentioned the clueless and referenced my post (#2) specifically so I assumed you were rolling in. Either way no hard feelings, I am glad people are debating the issue, because there are many unaswered questions. I have a very unique vantage point of the CV-22 program from my last job. While I don't think it is the answer for AFSOC, they have waited so long there is almost no other choice. The PAVELOW is one of the most capable systems in the world, but they are very tired and in need of another SLEP if they are going to remain viable. There is a certain faction that would rather see AFSOC get the 53E from the Marines and retro-fit the PAVE equipment to give AFSOC a three engine helo that can takeoff at 100,000lbs. I agree about the CSAR capability. We need something that can dash across the FEBA at relative high speed and retrieve downed crews. About my Dad, he's a retired F-4 / F-15 Pilot, he'd rather just roll in with a MK-82. Cheers

I am all for a cease fire, but before you tell me to act like an adult you might want to go back to the top and read the posts...for the record you rolled in on me first... Per the ROE, I rolled in out of self defense. My comments on the CV-22 are based on the last few years working with guys who have flown it. As well as sitting on tactics review boards, where the facts showed the airframe comes up short. I worked in an office with four PAVELOW pilots in the community, all had flown the sim and while they were impressed, not one thought it was the answer. The community is very torn, with many feeling like this thing is being forced down their throats (STS). Sometimes change is good and my initial opinion was that the Osprey was going to be a good thing for SOF. Three years later and I have come to realize it is not. Ultimately, barring another crash, the USMC and SOF will get the Osprey and no doubt the great military folks that are out there will find a way to make it work. I just hope we don't lose too many of them in the process.

So lets throw a bad aircraft into combat to validate your hunch...brilliant. And yet not one bit of time in SOF, but you want to tell me what is the best aircraft to use based on comments from a friend who flew the test bird. I don't care how much time you have in Dust-off and Lear jets, when it comes to SOF, you have no clue. I am clicking past 14 years as a military pilot with a few thousand hours of my own, and most of it in SOF, and I do understand the mission. I find it absolutely fascinating when someone with ZERO experience in the community wants to tell us what is best. You might not be a Lt Co-pilot but you sure act like one.

You missed the point, I said the V-22 is the wrong aircraft for SOF, not the tilt rotor concept. How many good people have to die in the process of developing a V-23. That approach might have made sense in WW II, but it is absolutely absurd to take that approach in 2004. We "might" need it someday? Does your C-21 squadron have access to 3-1, if so you might want to take a look. I am always in favor of thinking outside the container and trying new things. In fact, I spent three years at the WIC encouraging the SOF community to do just that. However, when one service brings a new system that makes all of the other services change their tactics, training, and equipment, then maybe it is not the answer. It is not just fast rope that everyone will have to change. Most of the current SOF equipment does not fit inside. I tell you what. I am at maxwell too, I'll meet you at the club Friday afternoon and I'll put my 7+ years in AFSOC against your time in little white jets any day and we will see who is uniformed.

Back flying, more problems....surprise. I have heard the aero/flight control engineers are extremely confident they have solved the vortex ring state problem. Many problems/issues remain; 1. Severe brownout problem, up to three times the downwash of current rotary wing systems. 2. Fastrope operations restricted due to downwash problems. 3. Can't hold most current SOF team vehicles. 4. Can't hold SOF team boats. 5. SOF is having problems with avionics because the USMC is controlling the development and they see much of the USAF gear as gold plating. 6. Can't pressurize...although supporters say it would have made a huge difference during Operation Anaconda. 7. No weapons....another stink-bomb waiting to happen. Will they add aerial gunners like current rotary wing assets or go with a pilot controlled chin gun. Still very political...stay away.

AirGuardian, why all the no-caffine stuff in the middle of this stupid exercise? A thankless job, but we were cursing you late yesterday afternoon when our only source of caffine was Lipton Iced Tea. Remind me again why I stopped flying to come to ACSC?

Glad to see the AETC IPs are teaching what the guys in the field will need. Embracing technology has nothing to do with it. GPS is a great tool, but it is not the end all be all. The foundation built in UPT might save someone in combat. There are times GPS isn't there or is not accurate enough to put weapons on target with, especially on the fly. Get the most out of technology but be able to fall back on basic skills when the computer goes tango uniform. Does NAS Whiting have an ILS?

Wow, how things and attitudes have changed. I remember a mission over Afghanistan when my GPS went figure merit 9, my recovery base was 500-2 with blowing sand and all they had to get back in was a portable TACAN. Are we raising a generation of GPS aviators? It is a great tool, but you still need to know how to find your way from point A to point B without a gods-eye view and a computer. By the way not all mil fields have an ILS, especially in combat.

Make sure the theology degree is accredited. I had a friend in my old squadron who got a masters degree in theology and it turns out it was not recognized by the Air Force. He ended up getting passed over to LtCol. Good Luck!

The SOF community is a bit more active. AC-130's shoot live ammo on nearly every training mission, as do MH-53's. The only real limitation is usually getting range time. Aerial gunnery is viewed as a perishable skill so AFSOC and SOCOM place considerable effort and money on maintaining the capability. On the fighter side, I can't imagine there being a big difference for strafe between TP and HEI, other than what it looks like at impact. Perhaps some minor ballistics that can be compensated for by the mission computer. In the old days you were limited to 100 rounds per training sortie. There was a switch you could bribe the crew chief to reset for you. I am guessing the big difference is with MKs and GBUs. The jet must feel different when you pitch a few thousand pounds of Tritonal and steel off your wing. If you want to have the best chance outside combat to drop live bombs, apply to the Weapons School. Fighter and bomber guys going through the Weapons School usually get to drop several types of live rounds while going through the course.

The offical boarded program ended a few years ago. Still happens from time to time.

When you get to your squadron, shut your pie hole, just listen. Stay in the books and if you know your poop, you will be far better off in the end.