archer

Pretty sure the US has Russia beat when it comes to willingness to hemorrhage treasure for decades in the Middle East. USA USA USA 🇺🇸

Don’t think we should really get into the why here. I will say that you have to anticipate change due to Lockheed/Boeing taking years to deliver upgrades.

They have utility. Personally I’d choose going to combat in a B20 raptor over a viper 10 times out of 10. But as to upgrading, no. That would cost too much money from big Lockheed.

Nope. September 11, 2001.

I’ll post the alternative thoughts here, because, while I’d like to believe that, I’m starting to think that mentality is actually doing more harm than good. That’s like saying my family could be rich if my mid-30s wife, who was an EMT for one year when she was 21, would only get her MD and complete her residency. Yup, it could happen. But it would take a ridiculous amount of work, it would be super hard, it would cost us both money, require sacrifices in time and quality of life from everyone, and if she only half asses it and doesn’t finish we’re gonna be in a worse spot than when we started. First, you can create a list entirely from unclassified sources of shortfalls in our military: The NDS, Kill Chain by Brose, The Long Game by Doshi, etc. In a conflict, the tyranny of distance combined with ineffective and, frankly, outdated platforms and concepts aren’t going to help… we have to fundamentally reshape our military if we actually want to compete. China is well into fundamentally reshaping their’s literally to defeat the US in a home game. I agree with Chailen and Roper - we are currently in a bad spot that’s only looking worse. Further, I think the chances you get the general public to realize the magnitude of change required, when you still have folks in the military that think we would smoke China in a conflict, is pretty damn close to 0. Yeah, we’ll get serious when we start losing a war. But cutting edge tech nowadays is no longer a bomb gunsight like it was back in WWII. Science and Technology timelines take longer, and our current strategy and messaging commits us to starting at a disadvantage.

Thanks all for the advice, appreciate that there is a forum of experienced aviators that will dole out words of wisdom.

Thanks! I had no idea that the turnaround could be 6 months. Every regional I've checked out (although I have barely started looking) seems like they want you to sign for 2+ years, which sounds like a drag. The 1300 hours includes UPT time and ~100 hours of civilian time. I wish we got to fly more... Yeah, I very rapidly am starting to come to the conclusion that the ANG is something I need to look into more. From the limited reaching out I've done, it seem hard to get hired back to a CAF guard/reserve position after going into the test world for a few years.

Hello, long time lurker here, and I'd love to pick your guys' brains if you have a second. My background is a fighter test guy with approximately 1300 hours TT approaching my commitment in about a year. Almost all of my hours are single-seat, PIC. I got IDE this year, but am leaning towards turning that down and going part time guard/reserve (most likely non-flying) and transitioning to the airlines. The task of actually making the majors, though, sounds hard, as I don't have an ATP. 1) Should I just pony up 20k over the next year to blow through the 150-200 hours I need to hit 1500? That would get me my ATP mins, which is basically the only thing that I don't have for the majors. I don't know of many airlines that do a military conversion other than FedEx, and it doesn't seem like I have the personal recs to make that a high Pk thing. 2) Should I consider the regionals? This seems like such a step backwards, but it would get me my hours I guess 3) Should I just try to stay active duty and fly for another year? Test guys don't get as many hours as they should, and my family is tired of living out in the desert I've got 7 days to make a decision to stay in the AF or turn down school, and I'd love to hear what your thoughts are.