EvilEagle

Has anyone flown it with all the external stores? I know that the basic airframe is very capable, but I still wonder what the survivability is of a low, slow (relatively) single engine aircraft carrying all that stuff that you need to get fairly close to your work. Again, I hope it's the right airframe for it, the mission sounds like a blast and something I'd be interested in since I'm on my last tour in the Eagle. I just hope that we actually test the combat version (in it's final form) in an area that is similar to what we are buying it for. (current AORs) Anyone know of any plans to do that?

For the guys who've flown a T-6/AT-6: What will the performance be when rolling in for a straffe run on an 14k' Afghani mountain? I haven't flown the T-6, but it seems like that would be more suited to the COIN mission in the low-lands only??? Take the normal T-6, add X thousand pounds of bullets, rockets, armor, defensive suite, seat kit & what have you.... increase the drag index exponentially with all the stuff hanging from it, then take it to Colorado and pull your safe escape maneuver on a 14k' mountain... Again, I'm just asking, but it seems like a tall order. For those of you who've flown it: are there any plans to hop up the turbine? I know a guy who just came through TY that worked on the AT-6 requirements program, he told me about the armor deal. Sounds like a fun mission, as long as the tactics can evolve to make it survivable vs the more advanced AAA/Manpad threat.

While I appreciate the good witty put-down that every non-Eagle driving person in the world has already used 6-9 million times..... I'm hosed on Eagle flying anyway, so me worrying about loosing my job is a non-issue. I'm on my last Eagle tour even if they opened more Eagle squadrons - 3 tours in a row with no alpha, no remote and no wic means I'm on the short list for bad deals. I know that's just the business, I've had a good run, but big blue is going to make me do something different now. Having said that - UAV's can't replace manned fighters. I'm all for taking people out of harm's way, but until every person that OCA is protecting is in a cubicle somewhere (also flying UAS's), I won't believe that a UAS is the right call for the A/A mission. I'll admit I'm not the smartest guy on the planet, but believe it or not, I know that people thought the world was flat, that we'd never break the sound barrier and all of the other very enlightening information that you shared with me. I'm not saying that we don't need new technology, but I think that the a/a mission is the last one that should be replaced with it.

Spoken like someone who has no idea how a/a works. From a distance, I can see what you mean, in actuality it is very different. The leaps and bounds that information travel would have to gain before the same SA could be had from a UAS system as a manned fighter is beyond us. I imagine it will be for quite some time. Additionally, the argument that we can develop a fighter than can automatically fight and be in a perfect position until we tell it to kill is interesting, but I can't imagine it ever happening. There are way too many ways to skin a cat in that environment.

Yep, def two different squadrons.

Does a BMW motorcycle count?

I had USAA on all my bikes for several years. I recently went to update and address and they moved me over to Progressive. Not too bad so far I guess, but USAA didn't want to keep my business.

The 69th didn't combine with the 70th. When I was there, the 68th & 69th were F-16's and the 70th was flying A-10's when they closed. (although they did fly F-16's at Moody at some point). The patch I posted was a Friday patch. (that we weren't supposed to wear) I'll post some regular patch pics when I get back home.

Well, Mexico beach is about 15... Depends on what you consider "nice".

I would say that would cost much more. Primarily because the Raptor wasn't designed to do the a/g role other than as a secondary role. Could they do it? Yes. Would they consider it? Probably not - primarily because they didn't take anything other than 1k# JDAMs into consideration when building it. On another side of the argument - it's cheaper to run a 1 engine squadron than a 2 engine. They are having this argument right now at TY. If we really do close the Eagles, will they bring in an F-16 squadron to do the RDS mission or keep the Eagles that they already have? I'd say Vipers are the smart choice. Sure, you may loose 1 or 2 to an engine problem over the life of the squadron, but it's cheaper in the long run to have them vs an Eagle RDS unit. **edit: spelin'

It all depends on where you want to live. A lot of the class we just graduated stayed in Mexico Beach. There are ups and downs for both, depends on what you are looking for. I live in Callaway - i hate long drives to work.

This was ours from the 69th FS:

Agreed! I think it has a lot to do with what you are flying. The Eagle is the biggest thing I've ever flown, so having said that I'm on the take-it-airborne side of the fence. In the fighter world, the brakes (and all the other safety stuff for that matter) are an afterthought to the rest of the killing bad guys stuff - at least it seems that way. The "anti-skid" braking is a joke, the system is known for catching on fire and blowing tires. I've had a brake stack catch on fire during a long taxi-back & I wasn't riding the brakes excessively. For non-catastrophic emergencies (basically anything other than dual engine problems or pitch ratio and pitch cas), I will take the jet airborne instead of high-speed abort. Our -1 requires 8k' of runway. Many many times it's easy to land with much less runway available than that if you are light-weight. The ROT most of the contract guys at TY brief is 1k# of gas for every 1k' of runway. I know lots of IPs that won't brief that to students though - they don't think it's conservative enough. On a normal training configuration, we'll be taking off with around 20k# of gas. Rotation (assuming AB takeoff) will be no further down the runway than 2300'. Lets assume rotation is close to final approach speed (it's actually a little slower for AB takeoffs) - you have just used up 2300'-2500' of runway, you are accelerating extremely fast, the aircraft is in an unstable position for applying wheel brakes (aerobraking is your best bet above 100k) and you have about 15k# more gas than you normally have during landing. 15k doesn't sound like much to most of the heavy drivers, but when your airplane only weighs 50k or so full & normally around 35-40k# when you are landing, 15k# makes a big difference. Obviously that decision is easier for non-thrust limited airframes. Unless it's 130 degrees, and we're in Denver the refusal speed (I think it's called that) is 0 for us. We can shut a motor off before taking the runway and get airborne. Not bragging here, just relaying state of mind that thrust (other than previously mentioned situations) is not usually a problem worried about. I've done both: high speed abort and take a bad jet airborne. Different jets, different days, different decisions but I stand by both of them. Neither was fun. The high speed abort ended in a departure end cable engagement (if it hadn't been for the cable, I would've been in the grass I'm guessing) and taking a bad jet airborne is always fun. LockheedFix - not trying to scoff what you are saying, just throwing my unsolicited .02 in there.

Jet issue that the engineers say is "impossible". Nice.

Because riding a non-sport bike requires less protective gear??? WTFO?

2! Exact same situation. I wore one in ROTC. And I was a badass! Seriously though i wouldn't waste your money.

Sorry bro, leaving for Red Flag Alaska tomorrow... Huggy, Yes, the CC sent out an email saying what he is expecting. Then we all got another email that was an "oops, that wasn't supposed to be release, please stop any rumors of this spreading - there IS NO OFFICIAL WORD." So, while we've all seen what the DoD is proposing and we've heard Gates weigh-in - noone will know anything for sure till Congress signs the budget. So bottom line: there is NOTHING that has been implemented about closing Tyndall (yet). EVERYTHING (yes E V E R Y T H I N G) is rumor/speculation at this point. Of course, the rumor mill will continue - when real words drop, i'll let you know. Boise rocks. When I left Mtn Home (Nov) - the plan was to bring K-Falls to MUO. Boise might have gotten them though. The guard ramp at Boise is plenty big enough for one squadron. We diverted an entire go up there when the Germans and the Indians were in town. Support would be better at MUO, but Boise has more hotels, lots more to do (and 2 runways). I'll see if i can get confirmation.

Everybody just slow your roll. I'm an RTU IP here at Tyndall. There is no official timeline, there has been no announcement of when our last class will get here. POM 10 will probably affect us, but we don't know anything yet. Cease rumor mill.

I flew against them in their Red Flag prep. It's a good jet, the pilots are learning fast and there is a lot more capability they can get from that airframe. I will take my Eagle against any of their SU-30's anytime. I'd say that's enough said in an open forum.

Yeah, I lost "Vader" when some Coltishaw guys decided they wanted it. London mil called the squadron and said that it was no longer ours. Awesome.... but I ended up with Hitman after that. Hey, it's better than some....

I don't know the reg, but FY99 was 8 years, I was FY00 and we are 10.

We sing... a lot.

Again, there is plenty of footage of the Raptor getting gunned out there. I've seen footage of 422 Eagles and Vipers gunning it. It's all about circumstance, right place, right time... hell, I had a broken watch once -- it was right twice a day! **Edit -- normally Eagles/Vipers/Hornets don't gun those things -- I've fought it and it's DAMN impressive, but one frame on one day does not a Raptor-slayer make.

Zumo 550 for the bike. I use it in the truck too, but primarily on the bike.

Yep