HiFlyer

Well, I seem to recall that our A-models had an armored "tub" of some sort under the cockpit and up the sides a little that was supposed to protect you from rifle and AK-47-type rounds, but that was all. Our standard ROE was to fly at least 1500' AGL in-country and 6000' AGL over the trail. That was supposed to give you enough help (in terms of reduced bullet impact when it got to you) that small arms in-country and "machine gun rounds" out on the trail wouldn't go thru the "tub". I never got hit in the "tub" so I don't know if it was effective or not. Luckily, I left the country just before the SA-7 arrived (the first ones arrived in late 1970). They sure did change the ROE, thats for sure, although I think the Army UH-1s took the brunt of the initial SA-7 hits rather than the FACs. I'll think about another story. I think about 90% of a typical FAC's sorties were pretty routine if you were smart and followed the rules.

This has always been a tradition in AF casual bars. I can remember walking into the bar at Clark AB on my way to Vietnam. It was a Friday evening about 5:30 during happy hour. The bell immediately rang and I noticed my buddy grabbing his hat off. That cost him about $200 (big bucks in 1969). Luckily, it was dime beer and quarter drinks!! That was 40 years ago and I can still remember the huge sign over the bar: "1st Lt Fred M. Metcalf wore his hat and refused to buy the bar!" The beautifully engraved sign (on a mahogany plaque) had letters about 6" tall. I never met the guy, but I'd remember the sign if I ever did.

I believe Bill was, I can't remember if Butch was or not. John Swanson may have been one also (if not, I know he went off to do special stuff near the end of his FAC tour, but maybe not Ravens).

And the ever popular "The ravens: Pilots of the secret war of Laos" https://www.amazon.com/ravens-Pilots-secret...2902&sr=1-2 Including many stories of Ron "PF" Rinehart, ex-Raven and U-2 pilot.

Huggy, make sure you let me know when the Arlington event is. I'd like to be there if I can.

Well, this is a FAC'ing thread, not a recce thread, but I can make one compromise...FAC'ing in the U-2. In May, 1975, the U-2 was still operating regularly in SE Asia from our base in Thailand. Our normal route took us over Cambodia enroute to our mission tracks. We were aware of the Mayaguez situation and from day one had visually located the ship and been reporting its position to our contacts, although I don't know if this ever got thru the green door because they were saying at first it was unlocated, then finally "found" by F-111s. [We were told by the intel "experts" we couldn't possibly identify the ship from that high up, but when it's the only 800 foot container ship in the area, it wasn't too hard to separate it from the 75 foot fishing boats...its a matter of perspective, and we had the "global" view!!]. As things heated up and actions began to recover the ship, 7th AF was trying to run the show ("airwise", at least) from their HQ at Nakhon Phanom AB (NKP), in northeast Thailand but NKP and the boat were over 400 nm apart and the command post and the aircraft couldn't talk to each other very well. In fact, the fighters couldn't talk to Blue Chip (the 7th AF command post) at all, and HF-equipped aircraft didn't seem to be around much. One of our guys heard some of the chatter on guard and being an old FAC, came up and offered to relay a report to Blue Chip (as much to shut everyone up as to perform a service, as guard was becoming a real distraction with everyone trying to get in contact with everyone else). Blue Chip went crazy and within minutes the U-2 was essentially the FAC (or ABCCC, if you prefer) for the day. At 60K and above, we could still maintain clear UHF contact throughout almost all of SEAsia, especially to other airborne assets which extended the line-of-sight range between aircraft. From then on, when we flew (which was at least one 11 hour sortie every day, frequently two) we became the high altitude FACs, relaying strike orders, BDA, Sitreps, weather conditions, a little visual recce (with binoculars we started carrying) and all the other stuff a FAC does (except for shooting Willie Pete rounds to mark the target). As an aside, because of this, they installed a UHF repeater (actually two ARC-91 UHF tranceivers) in one of our aircraft (338) the next fall (1977) and sent it to Europe for the annual "REFORGER" exercises, to allow "line-of-sight" contact between US forces all over Germany (the pilots weren't involved this time), but without prior training to understand what is was and what it could do, the various command post controllers who deployed from the US or were already in Germany didn't use the system and it was eventually removed. It was the bad side of the "train the way you will fight" concept. They hadn't trained with such a capability so they didn't have a CONOP or doctrine for this new comm capability when it arrived without much notice. By the way, the guy flying the first day who got all this started was Capt Al Henderson, who was killed a year later when his U-2 crashed on take-off at another location.

The standard 1/20 of an Air Medal. Twenty combat missions for an Air Medal in those days. It was just another mission.

OK, my son is giving me shit about war stories, so here's an actual combat story...one of the more productive FAC mission of my tour. I was out on the Ho Chi Minh Trail southwest of Danang where we had been working for a week bombing "convoys", which normally meant dropping bombs on the sides of hills to cave in the roads (Interdiction Points, or IDPs) or dumping stuff into the jungle because someone said there was something there. I never saw a thing the whole week except dirt and smoke from Mk82s. I was heading back to Chu Lai after a mission when four F-4s from Phu Cat called up looking for a place to dump their unexpended ordnance. I took them over to a jungle valley just east of the border in Vietnamese territory that was totally uninhabited and ringed with steep hills, making it hard to get into and out of, thus not much good for either side. I threw a mark down to show them the place and told them to "dump it in there", then turned and left for home. A couple of minutes later the flight lead called and suggested I come back. I turned around and the whole valley was exploding. Apparently it was a major ammo dump. It burned and blew up for two days. I bet the bad guys spent months trying to figure out who tipped us to the stash. Better to be lucky than good...

Probably about 45 minutes total. Its funny now, but I was scared shitless for most of the flight...essentially a 45 minute slow flight/approach to the stall demo! Boy, was I dumb...I just figured that if the designer put 200 cu ft of space in the back, I could put whatever I wanted there as long as it fit. Jack had been out with his Aussie buddies the night before (basically all night!) and was barely functional...I don't think he ever really grasped the problem!

Do they still spend Saturday night parading up and down main street from the old Santa Fe terminal up to the Orange Julious?? I never really understood about the concept of "drainage streets" until I arrived at Clovis (of course, that was a couple of decades ago...but it probably hasn't changed much).

I could say this is BS, but I won't because I'm too polite. Actually there are two separate issues here and you need to recognise the difference. Issue one: will being a graduate engineer be more attractive to the AF (or other employer, since you may change your mind and not go into the Service) and help you get selected for a "good job". Absolutely (assuming the job required an engineering background)! Tailwind is on the money there. But, issue two: should you pick a major because you think you will have a better chance at an AF slot? I say NO!!! I firmly believe that you have a better chance at getting a great AF job at almost anything with a 3.5 in Political Science than a 2.2 in Engineering. The problem is that college is hard enough if you enjoy what you're doing...sitting in a field you don't particularly like tends to make your performance questionable, and your attitude poor, both of which will probably be reflected in your Commander's Evaluation. Nothing like low grades and a less than enthusiastic attitude about life to make the Det Commander hammer you on the evaluation. Try getting a pilot slot with low grades, a poor attitude, and a mediocre endorsement from your commander! Now, if you are equally adept at engineering and social sciences, then I'd probably pick engineering for a multitude of reasons. But if not, pick a major that you enjoy and can excel at. I did quite well in UPT as a Poly Sci major (top 20% of my class), and my UPT T-38 instructor was a music major (hell of a sax player!!!). I did well enough to fly in some capacity for nearly all of my 30 years and retire as an O-6. The key to most jobs and in a successful career is enthusiasm and superior performance, not your college major. That's my opinion. I respect Tailwind's opinion...I simply disagree with it. EDIT: Oh, sorry, I missed this ... "I plan on attending either Texas state university or the university of Texas at San antonio...." Sorry, there's a classified AF Reg that forbids Texan's from getting any good jobs...they are reserved for Oklahoma grads.

Might be a semantics issue, but I think the investigation is "current", not the clearance. The clearance is tied to your specific position, and if you're IRR, you have none, so your clearance is dead. Within the valid currency period of the investigation, you can get a clearance re-iisued without a full re-investigation.

Security Forces, no doubt.

The old guy at the Wendy's near my house salutes me when he takes my money...I return it proudly. It is a sign of courtesy and respect, and it doesn't violate any military courtesy to return it, even if it not an "official" salute.

The difference is that before, GPA had a specific scoring block on the selection criteria...an objective score (specific number of "points" in the equation) as part of the overall rater's score for the individual, and the appplication directive required a 3.0 minimum or a GPA waiver. Now the GPA block is not used (removed from the rater's score sheet) and there is no GPA minimum in most cases. However, the transcripts are still part of the application package and the board members can still review your academic record, therefore the GPA can still be a part of the rater's overall assessment of your level of effort, work ethic, etc. in the "whole person" evaluation. How each rater uses that info is unknown, and how the board managers brief the raters on that point before scoring begins is also unknown.

Sorry for the confusion. I come from a community where you have to put down all the options, even the completely unacceptable ones, so that some political staffer who doesn't know dick can't accuse you of not looking at them all and delay your effort for months. Complaining about possible options (and "all sim" is at least theoretically a possible option, even if it is a terrible one and will never fly in the real world) struck me as pointless based on a newspaper article. But, I'm sorry for not being more clear. I'm a big fan of sims, but only in their proper place...as an adjunct to a good flight training program, not a substitute for one.

Excuse me for my poor explanation, but I certainly do not support the sim-only approach. I guess my second sentence, which said "First, you don't buy either an airplane or a sim...you buy both.", wasn't clear enough. The point I was trying to make is that when you go out to buy a T-38 replacement, you ought to look at all the requirements and try to acquire a complete system, not just an aircraft. If the T-X is primarily intended to support UPT instruction, you can assume most of the flying time will not be spent doing ACM and ARs. If you buy an airframe capable of doing those things you may be "overbuying" for the UPT environment (the 8-9 "G" capability would probably be a legitimate need in the UPT environment). All I'm saying is that a lot of very basic procedureal knowledge can be taught in a reasonably equipped sim these days...and it doesn't have to be a full ACM 360 degree fighter sim. Also, if you do buy an AR equipped trainer for the UPT environment, where to you think you're going to get all those tankers? We only had a dozen or so SR-71s, of which only a few were OR on any given day, and we had to have two full squadrons of KC-135Qs to satisfy the AR requirements for those missions..maybe 3-4 sorties a day. For the UPT environment, it ain't gonna work. A sim, however, can put the student in a situation where he can learn the steps and procedures safely and inexpensively (but not free), and reduce the sortie load on other operational platforms. If you could save just one sortie for each student on all the fighter, bomber, and transport training programs, you can save a lot of money. As for the aircraft, one possibility might be to design an "A" and "B" version...one for basic UPT flying and one for operation upgrade training similar to the AT-38 program, with more complex avionics (the functional radar, for instance) and aircraft systems to teach basic procedures in the air to those people who need the training.

I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to the idea. First, you don't buy either an airplane or a sim...you buy both. The sim rides teach you procedures and switchology sitting still where you and the instructor can talk about what you did right or wrong. Later, you fly the airplane to learn how to do it in a flying environment where you have to deal with the tactical aspects of flying while operating the aircraft. It was done that way in the SR-71 for years and was very effective for training, while reducing overall cost by not having to maintain multiple training aircraft. That is a different concept than simply replacing operational flying and continuation flying with sims...I'm not suggesting that...but as a UPT training asset, a well designed sim can be a great asset for both the IP and the student. High def sims can fly AR sims so the student understands what he will be doing while he's the receiver, they can fly basic flight maneuvers...enough to introduce basic procedures, and of course, basic instrument procedures. After the stud knows the procedures, then you put him in the cockpit and learn techniques in the air.

While I obviously can't comment on your proposal specifically, I have spent the last 17 years at Air Staff and National Agency-level positions and can testify that you don't need a fancy presentation to sell a good product! If there is a significant problem that needs solving, and you have an innovative solution that does so at a reasonable resource cost without crossing political red-lines (contravening major administration policies), Powerpoint is plenty good enough. I've seen people sell proposals off the back of napkins because the underlying logic was that powerful. Focus on the problem and the solution, not the theatrics. In fact, some of my collegues have the opinion that the flashier the presentation, the less substance to the proposal! As to avoiding the "...months, possibly years of SSS and paperwork if we can get people with authority to champion the idea at the HQ level...." good luck. It probably won't happen because even with the heavies on your side, integrating a new idea into the POM is a long term effort involving many people at the Majcom and Air Staff. In this case, if you really are trying to introduce a "culture shift and integration of commercially available technology", then you're really fighting an uphill battle. Its "easy" to buy a new box, but changing cultures frightens people and is a very long and complex effort. For example, the introduction of Predator and motion imagery was fought tooth and nail by the Air Force from the early 90s until about 2003...almost a decade. I can't remember how many times we were "thrown out" of Air Force offices over discussions about UAVs and the concept of the Air Force directly providing imagery to users without the product first being brought behind the "green door". Add to that the fact that you're possibly proposing to alter the carefully constructed future of the Air Force (i.e., changing the almighty POM that has been signed off by the Chief of Staff and briefed to Congress) and the administrative process alone is very complex even if people agree.. Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't make your pitch..you absolutely should. But make the pitch based on the problem and the solution, not Hollywood-style graphics. If you can incorporate them, fine, but the message should carry itself, not require audio-visual magic to mesmerize the audience.

Personally, I think this idea is dangerous...it sounds good in theory but usually doesn't work! In almost every bad acquisition example I can think of, one of the biggest problems was that somebody had a good idea, then 20 other people who didn't have that mission requirement started adding extra stuff onto it until the original hardware couldn't possibly do any of it worth a damn. Almost all acquisition disasters can be traced to either a lack of a firm requirements document (new Presidential helicopter is a good example), or failure to execute a good program R&D effort for any number of reasons, including lack of funding, poor assumptions about the project's baseline technology, or "concurrent development" schemes (FIA comes to mind). Design by committe is how horse racers wind up with camels!

Not exactly an airshow, but an incentive flight story. Two good friends of mine were HC-130 guys back in the 70s (AC and copilot) They were hauling a bunch of zoomies on a ride out over the Atlantic, with three or four up in the cockpit. After a while the AC very ceremoniously hands his dark glasses to the Co, "you have the glasses". A ten minutes later the process is repeated the other way. Pretty soon one of the cadet bites and asks what they're doing. Well, says the AC, "Its kinda classified, but these are special glasses coated to be able to detect clear air turbulence during the day." The cadets are curious but don't say anything for a moment. About that time, the AC says, "Look out, here comes some CAT", and sure enough, a few seconds later the Herc bounces a little. A couple of minutes later the scene is repeated. By now the cadets are really excited and amazed by this classified technology. They wander back to the cargo compartment suitably impressed, while my friends are laughing at the dumb zoomies. They explain to me that they were on the intercom with the Load in the back, and when they announced the upcoming CAT, he would take a broom and bang on the control cables that run down the top of the cargo deck, producing the "CAT". Epilog: We're telling this story a few years later and an old CMSgt looks at us and says, "Let me get this right...you're 500 miles over the Atlantic at low altitude and you have the Load hitting the cables that work your control surfaces hard enough to bounce a C-130 in flight, and you're calling the Cadets dumb???"

Here's four...keep in mind this is all on one day at one airshow. In 1968 I took my IP and trusty Tweet X-C to Mather AFB for their airshow (and my student X-C). We were parked across from a B-58, one row over from a BUFF, and just down from the VIP slot in front of base ops. I was standing my post in front of my Tweet. In the space of 40 minutes: one big strapping guy proceeds to impress his girl friend by doing pull-ups on the B-58's Pitot boom...it does go boom (actually a very loud "crack") as it snaps off. Twenty minutes later a crowd of viewers rush up a big maintenence stand that has just been pulled up to the nose of the aircraft so visitors could view inside the B-52's cockpit...another loud snap as about 25 people and a broken stand cascade down from cockpit level onto the ramp. About 20 were hauled off to the hospital with moderate to severe injuries. Shortly thereafter, a T-39 pulls up to the VIP slot with the commander of MAC (now AMC) onboard. As the General is stepping off the aircraft, a young airman driving a blue breadtruck up the flightline comes past with his eyes on all the activity, and drives straight into the T-39, missing the General by about five feet but, unfortunately, not missing the left wing. Finally, as we're cleaning up that afternoon, one of the trash collection trucks backs up to turn around, and doesn't see the mint condition "Jenny" on display behind him. By the time he got turned around, the trash truck was about all the Jenny was good for. It was a hell of a day!

Ha...par for the course. When I was at Osan several years ago, they carried some really nice athletic socks (the rest being cheap, thin stuff) but after a while they disappeared. I asked the manager when they were getting more and his response was..." its too hard to keep them in stock [no shit, they sold like hotcakes] so we don't carry them anymore". I was too dumbfounded to give him an intelligent response and simply walked away shaking my head.

Many moons ago I was a T-38 IP. I had a stud who was the least likely candidate to fly an airplane I had ever seen. We were in one of those "you can't wash him out, give him two extra rides" periods, and I was stuck with him. One day in the area we were doing a few unusual attitude drills. Beautiful, clear day in west Texas. I take it at the top of the area (22K), he closes his eyes, I keep the power about 90% and slowly roll and pull until we are pointed almost straight down. "You have it"....slight pause, nothing happens..."I SAID, YOU HAVE IT!" Nothing. Passing about 13K with the airspeed approaching mach 1, I take it and recover. There is a slightly frustrated verbal exchange and the answer to the question "why didn't you recover?" was..."I thought I might over-G the aircraft, Sir". I tried to point out that the impact with the ground at 700kts would probably over-G it too, but the logic was lost on they guy. About three weeks later the same student and I are approaching extended initial to 13L, power up, coming out of the area at about 330 kts, and I'm thinking "...slow down...call initial...", but nothing from the front seat. "Lt. X", says I, "don't you think you ought to be doing something about now?" "Yes Sir," says he, and promptly slams the gear handle down. I got the handle back up and we only had to deal with two slightly mangled main gear doors after landing. I have to hand it to the kid, he was usually the master of not making an incorrect choice (the gear incident being one of the few exceptions). When confronted with options, he simply wouldn't make ANY choice. The worst part of this story is that we never could wash him out. He graduated and went to tankers someplace. I felt really bad for the poor AC who got him (who is probably still cursing me to this day for not washing him out)!

As I recall, the one example I saw (for one individual with a PCSM of 70, what his PCSM would be with flying hours added) was 1-5hrs, 1 pt; 6-10 hrs, 3 pts; 11-20 hrs, 5 pts; 21-40 hrs, 10 pts; 41-60 hrs, 13 pts, 61-80 (or maybe 61-100...I'm not sure), 15 pts. In his case, considering the cost of flying, 21 hours seemed to be the break point. I don't know if the points are the same for everyone, or somehow pro-rated by where your PCSM starts. I suspect you could work backwards with these numbers and be in the ballpark.