The bigdogs are at Nellis.....

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

Hacker, Hoser, Toro...do you guys know the name of this exercise, and do you know the possibility of joining items like Red Flag, etc in the future?

FYI....

12/17/2003 - NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFPN) -- For the first time, the C-17 Globemaster III was included in a mission-employment exercise held here the first two weeks of December.

The C-17 adds a greater air-mobility presence to the exercise, which allows combat air forces to get a better idea of how the airlifters are used, said Lt. Col. John Sullivan, commander of the new C-17 Weapons Instructor Course.

The exercise packed the flightline here with aircraft from the Air Force, Navy and German air force. Realistic combat scenarios tested the capabilities of both the aircrews and aircraft involved.

"This is as close to combat as you can get," Sullivan said. "The Nellis range provides the most realistic training anywhere for us. There is no place else we can go to get this kind of training other than here."

"Being able to communicate, coordinate and integrate with all the different aircraft is the biggest lesson taught at the exercise," said Capt. Harmon Lewis, a student from Charleston Air Force Base, S.C.

Students of the new course joined weapons officers to test their skills in the exercise.

"The whole purpose of this exercise is the integration between all the different weapon systems," Sullivan said. "The scenarios are set up such that you can't operate them without knowing what everyone else is doing."

The C-17 joined the lineup of coalition airpower, including almost every combat and combat-support aircraft in the Air Force, along with Navy F-14 Tomcat and EA-6 Prowler aircraft, and German F-4s and Tornadoes. With all these aircraft flying missions simultaneously, the flightline can be intimidating, officials said.

"That is America's power out there," said Brig. Gen. Gregory Ihde, commander of the 57th Wing here. "When everything is running, there is nothing that can explain it, other than pure pride. If you are the enemy and you see this one time, you have to be saying, 'I'm not playing with these guys.'"

C-17 students participated in six missions during the exercise. Missions included troop insertions, aeromedical evacuations and cargo airdrops. Although actual cargo and passengers were simulated, to the aircrews that difference was transparent, Sullivan said.

Many of the missions were developed through experiences aircrews actually faced during past combat operations, he said. The first mission flown during the exercise was very similar to the first C-17 operations in Afghanistan.

"Probably the worst thing you can do in this program is put blinders on and ignore what is going on in the real world," Sullivan said.

The exercises are designed so the pilots do not lose perspective of what their counterparts are facing in the real world.

"We definitely expended all of our knowledge about every aspect of C-17 operations," said Capt. G. Blane Howell, another student from Charleston. "There were certain things that we had known about theoretically or had read in books, but here we actually got to experience and do (them) in the aircraft. Reading it on the page is a lot different than actually doing it in real life, and we actually got to do everything the C-17 does."

"Part of it is moving the airplane a little more aggressively than I had in the past," Wald said. "But a lot of it was thinking more aggressively about the plan that we were going to fly."

The mental portion of the weapons course and exercise is something that Wald said he was not prepared for.

"I thought I had a more complete picture of how this plane needed to be (flown) tactically; I wasn't even close," he said. "There (were) tons and tons of detailed information that I didn't even know existed, that I now am familiar with."

It is this tactical knowledge that will allow the students to, upon graduation, go back and teach to their fellow C-17 pilots and raise the level of training, said Capt. Jeremy Hanson, a student in the course.

"Weapons officers bring a value of experience back to their units and can train the other pilots with these skills by introducing more realistic scenarios like we faced here," said Hanson, who has flown the C-17 for more than five years.

Educating all C-17 aircrews on how to fly the aircraft in combat scenarios is becoming more important as the aircraft plays a larger role in tactical-mobility missions, officials said.

"Five years ago, I would have told you we would have never done airdrops in Iraq and Afghanistan," Wald said. "I would have told you we wouldn't have done assault landings on dirt runways. Those are great capabilities of the airplane that we were never using."

"I think this course is the future of our weapon system, especially as we continue to operate around the world as we are now," Sullivan said. "The skills we are giving our pilots when they leave here are skills that one day every C-17 pilot will have." (Courtesy of Air Mobility Command News Service)

[Toro]

I hadn't heard of it until a buddy of mine sent me the clip a couple days ago, but only because Brian Wald (in the article) was in my UPT class.

Not to get in a fighter/heavy pissing contest, but I don't see how a C-17 is a "Major Weapon System" - it's a cargo aircraft. I don't dispute the fact that they fly into hostile territory, but I'd be interested to see exactly how their WIC syllabus compares to that of the fighters. I can see this exercise working for a large force exercise where you've got troop and cargo drops, but I wouldn't see this incorporated into a Red Flag, which is primarily an attack/fighter/bomber weapons and tactics exercise.

[Guest hydro]

It was for the Weapons School's "Mission Employment" (ME) phase. That's the final phase (and graduation exercise) of the Weapons School where every available USAF asset plays -- to say it's a RED FLAG on steroids barely does it justice. C-17s very recently started up a Weapons School course, although it's not part of the USAF Weapons School -- AMC recently pulled out of the USAFWS and started their own (and that's all I'll say about that because that move has been an IMMENSE sore spot among most of the C-130 WOs that fought so hard to earn a deserved place in the USAFWS), but the MAF guys still play in ME. Hope that answers your question.

[Guest hydro]

Just to clarify, I meant to say that every available type of airframe (except OSA) plays as available (UAV, stealth, SOF, etc), obviously not literally every available aircraft. Toro, I can understand what you are saying, and I even agree up to a point. I do believe Herks deserve the be in the USAFWS, but not C-17s (right now). Nothing against what that plane is capable of doing (everything a Herk can do and more), but they rarely train to it -- that guy even admits to that in the article. Not true for Herks, every crewmemeber must maintain proficiency in all MDS tactical capabilities to remain in Mission Ready status. Only a small percentage of C-17 folks maintain tactical currencies due to the fact that all they primarily do is strat airlift. I don't question that a Weapons School program may be merited for the Moose sometime in the future, but right now, because they are a strat resource, AMC has definitely "cheapened" the role of the MAF Weapons Officer just to have another opportunity to show-boat Buddha.

[Guest C17Heavy]

Toro and Hydro,

You are obviously misinformed about the capabilities of the C-17 and the tactical training requirements of the aircrews that operate them. There is plenty of information out there that explains the capabilities of the C-17 "Major Weapons System", so I will not even address that. As far as aircrew requirements go, every C-17 crewmember is tactical qualified. This is a currency item that must be maintained to remain in mission ready status. So the small percentage of aircrew members required to maintain tactical currencies in the C-17 is actually 100%. The C-17, contrary to popular belief, is not a strat airlift platform. In fact, every mission I have flown in the C-17 this year had at least 1 tactical leg in a combat environment. You would be hard pressed to find one C-17 guy that would call what we do "strat airlift".

Tactical airlift does not come with all the glory of blowing stuff up, but it is a big part of combat success. It is our job to get the stuff to the fight, so the fighters and ground troops can take the fight to the enemy. The purpose of Red Flag and other Nellis exercises is to allow all aircrews involved to hone their skills in a controlled environment. There is always room for improvement, no matter how much you do it or how good you are. Red Flag also allows the fighters and airlifters to work together. The airlifters strive to perfect their tactical capabilities and we welcome the fighters perfecting their CAP skills as well. Success relies on us all being our best.

The bottom line is: it's not about showboating and nobody should have to earn the right to train.

Best of luck to you both and I hope you get your fighters.

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

Toro, the C-17 isn't a Weapon system, huh?

To my limited knowledge about the fighter community....

1.) Same argument could be made about not classifying the F-15C as a "fighter" since it hasn't "fought" since Bush War I.

2.) Same could be said to reclassify the Strike Eagle into a "bomber" (B-15E...pretty sexy) since it hasn't gone AA in a while as well.

3.) Same could be said about the Viper on the same grounds as #2.

Point is, regardless of what airframe you fly, if it's used to supply, shoot, deliver, drop, dismember, or mangle, it's a weapon used to win a war. It's not how it's employed, but the end results, which classify it as a weapon.

"Not to get in a fighter/heavy pissing contest, but I don't see how a C-17 is a "Major Weapon System" - it's a cargo aircraft."

But still in the long run, I do catch your point or ideology....you know, flying a non-MWS now.

-Cheers

[ 19 December 2003, 19:44: Message edited by: C-21 Pilot ]

[HerkDerka]

The Navy is probably gonna considering sending P-3s to TOPGUN.

PD

[ 20 December 2003, 10:38: Message edited by: PegDriver24 ]

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

Peg, WTF!!

Again, man, you shed little less than a probability. P3's to TG....that'll be the day to make a new movie "TOP DUNG".

Are you trying to get the award for "Most Posts by a User." Word on the street is that Baseops.net will give $5.00 in free phone cards to the first user to 500 posts (joking of course).

[Guest HueyPilot]

Way I see it, Red Flag-type exercises are the best ways for airlift types to practice sneaking loads in under a CAP umbrella and through a IADS net. If you don't know what it's like to do those things real-time, and all you did was read about it, you're courting disaster if you attempt to do that for real.

"Major Weapon System" merely refers to the fact that the C-17 is an instrument of US combat power and capability. No, they don't drop real bombs, but if they don't avoid the fighters, SAMs and MANPADs, the troops on the ground (and forward-based fighters/helicopters) don't get what they need and the whole fighting machine breaks down.

Ability to shoot at something isn't a prerequisite for the title "MWS". I'd argue that a couple non-armed cargo MWS's are perhaps the key driving force behind OEF, and that's the MH-53 and the MC-130H. Neither are armed with offensive weaponry, but if we didn't have those two aircraft, al Qaeda could hole up and our Spec Ops folks would never find them....and the CAF forces flying overhead would have very few clues where to put their bombs on target.

[Toro]

Okay, I will preface this with the same statement I made before - the C-17 is not a Major WEAPON system. I do not discount it's importance, or the fact that aircrew put themselves in harms way completing their mission just as fighter aircrew do.

Originally posted by Hydro:

Not true for Herks, every crewmember must maintain proficiency in all MDS tactical capabilities to remain in Mission Ready status.

Don't get me wrong - I specified C-17s not belonging at WIC and not a broad generalization. 130s are combat proven, and I have no problem with one of those dudes wearing a Weapons School patch.

Originally posted by ChuckFlys17s:

How can the C17 not be considered a MWS? The term Major Weapon System is used for any platform flying for the Air Force that is not a white jet - T-38, T-37, T-6, C-12, C-21... etc. Everything else IS a MWS.

Wrong. It's not a MWS, it's an MDS (Mission Design Series). This redesignation is the same reason that Weapons School is now called WIC (Weapons Instructor Course) with no reference to fighters.

Originally posted by C17Heavy:

There is plenty of information out there that explains the capabilities of the C-17 "Major Weapons System", so I will not even address that.

WTF?!?!?! I obviously don't know what the "tactical capabilities" of a C-17 are, so why don't you enlighten me instead of just saying that they exist.

Originally posted by C17Heavy:

This is a currency item that must be maintained to remain in mission ready status. So the small percentage of aircrew members required to maintain tactical currencies in the C-17 is actually 100%.

That's great - straight out of 11-2C-17 Vol 1? I work in wing training, I can quote the regs, too. CMR simply means that you perform your required duties enough times in a year to be able to go to war...on paper.

Originally posted by C17Heavy:

In fact, every mission I have flown in the C-17 this year had at least 1 tactical leg in a combat environment

Doing what? Just flying into a combat environment does not qualify you as a "Weapons System".

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

Toro, the C-17 isn't a Weapon system, huh?

1) Same argument could be made about not classifying the F-15C as a "fighter" since it hasn't "fought" since Bush War I.

First off, just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Second, you want to declassify the Eagle as a fighter because it hasn’t claimed a kill in ten years? YGBSM! This has nothing to do with the capabilities of the aircraft or pilots, it’s because the enemy hasn’t been stupid enough to put up somebody willing to go face-to-face with these guys.

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

2) Same could be said to reclassify the Strike Eagle into a "bomber" (B-15E...pretty sexy) since it hasn't gone AA in a while as well.

Wouldn’t bother me one bit – then I could concentrate on putting bombs on target and not have to worry about all this silliness with pulling Gs. But you’re missing the point just like the statement above – the F-15E doesn’t have any A/A kills because we haven’t truly had the opposition. Read “Strike Eagle” by William Smallwood and you’ll see of not only the passed-up opportunity for an A/A kill, but also the only A/A kill claimed by a laser guided bomb – let’s see a C model do that!

I’ll end this with the same way I started – the C-17 is not a Weapon System. It is an asset to the military and operations we conduct, but dodging bullets does not make you a tactical aircraft. As such (until somebody chooses to enlighten me), I scoff at the idea of a C-17 pilot wearing a weapons school patch.

[ 20 December 2003, 01:37: Message edited by: Toro ]

[Hacker]

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

2.) Same could be said to reclassify the Strike Eagle into a "bomber" (B-15E...pretty sexy) since it hasn't gone AA in a while as well.[/QB]

Hmmm, guess I'd better go erase from my logbook those DCA sorties I flew during OSW and the OCA I flew during Iraqi Freedom. Apparently they never happened, huh?

[Guest Hoser]

FOX III Close, Kill!

Originally posted by C17Heavy:

Toro and Hydro... Best of luck to you both and I hope you get your fighters

Toro, when do you find out if you get your fighter or not?

Hoser

[ 20 December 2003, 09:14: Message edited by: Hoser ]

[Scooter14]

Same team, fellas. Same team.

Maybe we can get a MOAB drop out of a C-17. Would that settle it?

We're all fiercely proud of what we do and how we do it. We all know that, without our aircraft, the war would be lost. If we didn't have that mindset, then no community would keep striving to be the best.

However, lots of people still forming their opinions about the military and flying read these posts, but do not post themselves (this was pointed out to me a few weeks ago, made me think before I type). I wonder what they think when they read this stuff.

I'm all for friendly ribbing. I'm guilty of it many times over. I think we've gone beyond the "friendly ribbing" stage here, though.

Just my $0.02

[HerkDerka]

C-21,

You do realize that the P-3 post was a joke don't you?

PD

[Guest KC10Boomer]

Toro,

"I specified C-17s not belonging at WIC and not a broad generalization. 130s are combat proven, and I have no problem with one of those dudes wearing a Weapons School patch........the C-17 is not a Weapon System. It is an asset to the military and operations we conduct, but dodging bullets does not make you a tactical aircraft. As such (until somebody chooses to enlighten me), I scoff at the idea of a C-17 pilot wearing a weapons school patch."

I think we'll all agree that the C-130 is a weapon system. But what criteria would you use to not designate the C-17 as a weapon system?

Minor point here, but according to the DOT&E the C-17 is a major weapon system. Looking at their website, https://www.dote.osd.mil/presentations/Coyle042099/sld008.htm they have the C-17 listed as a major weapon system along with the F-22, the seawolf sub and the B-2 and a bunch of others.

And the C-17 is an MDS just like every airplane in the US military, white jet or not. The MDS is the name, ie, C-17, F-16, SR-71, etc. From https://www.periscope.ucg.com/terms/t0000024.html "US aerospace vehicles (aircraft and missiles) are assigned designations that are referred to as Mission, Design, Series (MDS) designators."

v/r

[M2]

I dunno, PAB, the CNN cartoon only shows a Herk dropping the MOAB ( Ka-BOOM), thus it must be the only MWS for it!

Also, the C-17 isn't on their cool 3-D Weapons Models web page, so it couldn't be a real weapons system, could it?!?!

I too must be bored....

Cheers! M2

[Guest HueyPilot]

Dodging bullets isn't tactical? Tactics, by definition, is (this is coming from my dictionary, BTW) the "science and art of maneuvering on the battlefield". Tactics has nothing to do with releasing munitions. That is perhaps *part* of tactics, but avoiding the bullets is another important part of tactical operations.

The Army classified the UH-1 Huey as a "tactical" battlefield asset, yet we had no way of shooting anyone. But we were a weapon system purely because instead of putting bombs on target, we put troops on target.

The idea of having Weapons School grads for heavies is simply having experts that can employ that airframe on the battlefield with efficiency. Having a weapons school patch doesn't mean they can shoot stuff or bomb things, but instead means they are an expert at wartime employment of their airplane, period.

Flying ANY aircraft into a combat zone is a night and day difference between point-to-point airlift missions (often referred to as Airland missions). If you expect folks to go perform at 300 feet AGL with bullets and missiles flying around them, you need pilots that are tactical experts to train the rest of us.

Scoff if you like, but you're simply overlooking the overall REASON for having a weapons school for heavies in the first place. You can calm down...we're not looking to replace you on the battlefield, just trying to stay alive and get the mission done.

[Guest sunvalley]

Originally posted by PAB:

However, lots of people still forming their opinions about the military and flying read these posts, but do not post themselves (this was pointed out to me a few weeks ago, made me think before I type). I wonder what they think when they read this stuff.

Hello,

I frequently read messages on all the message forums, however I rarely post. I have my packet in for UPT & OTS for the next board, so I'm still in my opinion forming stage of the military, although I am aware of some of the common stereotypes which I will talk about later.

This seems to be a heavy vs. fighter vs. turboprop vs. rotorcraft discussion. Of course, everyone thinks the aircraft they fly is the best.

PAB was wondering what newcomer type folk think when reading threads such as this.

Well, I find it strange that the C-17 is classified as a Major Weapons System. In fact, from what I've read, anything other than training aircraft are Major Weapon Systems. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't see what weapons any C-17s, C-5s, etc., deploy. I suppose, the USAF must have its reasons for classifying it as a MWS though. So, I would agree with the heavy folks that by the USAF definition, a C-17 is a major weapon system. However, I agree with Toro though, that in reality, the aircraft is not a weapons system by virtue of the fact that it simply does not deploy weapons.

Let me speak on the fighters vs. heavies issue...When I first started pursuing a pilot slot last year, I had the stereotype in my mind that fighter pilots were arrogant, egotistical, swore all the time, spent their free time in bars, and thought fighters are the ONLY way to go. I really did not want to be a part of that mentality and lifestyle, so my plan was to pursue heavies or helicopters.

However, I have found that my stereotype was completely off the mark. I've talked to many military pilots at airshows, and guard guys who fly for the airlines, and I've found that fighter pilots are usually genuinely nice people. They typically have nothing but good things to say about people that fly heavies. Several of the them gave me good advice about UPT, and to be open to everything and not get too tied down in trying to get a specific airframe. Now, when I've talked to some of the heavy aircraft pilots, I'd say about 50% of them have told me to stay away from fighters and fly cargo. I won't go into the specifics, but I was very surprised at the contempt for fighter pilots that some of these people have. Now, I'm not saying that all heavy guys I talked to were like this, many were really nice individuals, but it definitely was a turn-off to me to see so much bad blood on the heavy side.

Personally, I do not know what I want to fly now - I want to fly whatever it is that I will be best at, and the only place I will learn that is at UPT. All I can say is lifestyle is more important to me than being a specific "type" of pilot (e.g. "fighter", "heavy", etc.)

Like I said, I'm an outsider, so there is still a LOT for me to learn. I'm sure everyone has had their own personal experiences, but I just wanted to relate what I have experienced so far.

Happy Holidays!

[Guest flingwingwarrior]

All I can say that if the missile geeks get to wear weapon school patches why not a c-17 driver? Oh, not to burst anyones bubble but I think they consider Titans and Minutemans MWS....

[ 20 December 2003, 18:39: Message edited by: flingwingwarrior ]

[Guest Hoser]

Since we are looking up words in the dictionary, I will throw this one out:

Weapon: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy

So I would assume a 'weapon system' would be something that would employ the above defined weapons, not simply carry them.

I am getting all verklempt! Talk amongst yourselves...I'll give you a topic: Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island. Discuss.

Check 6,

Hoser

[Rocker]

Originally posted by MajorMadMax:

Also, the C-17 isn't on their cool 3-D Weapons Models web page

I'm just sitting here enjoying the ping pong match with nothing constructive to add, but I thought I'd say that an A-10 with afterburners would be sweet (as depicted on that site). That is all.

[Guest HueyPilot]

I would say using the C-17 to drop in the 173rd over Iraq was pretty much a move to "defeat"...

Sunvalley, to comment on your post...

The resentment you see on the heavy side isn't from a "gee, I wish I was flying fighters, but since I'm not I'll just rag on them" perspective. The majority of the pilots in the heavy community fly heavies because they want to. That being said, due to the reality that most newbies view fighters as fast, sleek and sexy, many enter UPT with a desire to do that first, and while some change their minds somewhere along the way while flying the Tweet or T-6, many don't.

Some of those fighter hopefulls get their wish and wind up headed down the fighter pipeline. A handful of others wind up in the heavy community. So yes, there are some fast-mover "rejects" in the heavy community. But again, the majority of us WANTED to fly heavies, but since we're also the reject depository, we get crapped on sometimes by those who have no self-esteem.

Let's just say that the heavy community is pretty defensive of what they do. And it's for good reason in many cases. While I was deployed, we wore a patch that said "Combat Learjet" on it. A few 15E and 16 guys were discussing our patch at the bar, and of course they all thought the patch was bullshit and a total joke.

But to me it wasn't, because I flew an airplane that had no way of defending itself, had no defensive capability whatsoever, and zero armor except the little chest plate I wore. We flew into airfields that reported numerous MANPAD firings, and C-130s were flying out of those places with holes shot in them. A Herk can manage a few rounds, but a Learjet 35 can't.

So I did take offense that these guys thought my risking my life in a Learjet flying into Iraq was a joke and worthy of only a few laughs. I don't joke about them risking theirs, at least they could have tried to respect the fact I risked mine.

And I took offense when the Air Force tried to prohibit C-21 crews from logging combat time despite the fact we were operating in and out of hostile airspace...and not at 20,000 feet either. Fighters flew sorties well out of range of most of the light AAA and MANPADs that were out their, but they could log combat time and points towards an Air Medal. For a moment, C-21s weren't allowed to log combat time or gain combat points even though we were flying into airfields with known threats. We were finally given the official nod to log combat time, but only after a protracted discussion with leadership.

Maybe I'm just bitter, but I remember those things. And I remember being told by my UPT class leader that the T-1 students shouldn't be eligible for DG awards because if we were *that* good, we would have been in the T-38 track like him. What an ass.

[Guest C-21 Pilot]

Toro,

I still don't see your point.

You stated: "Just flying into a combat environment does not qualify you as a "Weapons System"."

Does dropping live *practice* ammo on the range, but never employing your a/c in the OEF still classify you as a MWS. I mean, heck, you said it yourself that no one is stupid enough to come out and play, and I'll agree. But you still are JUST flying in a combat environment

Since the whole discussion as everyone sees it is that heavies don't carry live ordance and fighters do; therefore, fighters are Major WEAPON Systems, and heavies are just....well, heavy. Horseshit. You carrying a AIM-120 AMRAAM is no different than me carrying 54 members of the 4th Infantry Division. The difference is how and when you decide to emloy that measure. In fact, when deployed, I'll bet Vegas odds that my load stated above will cause more ground kills than your full armament. I'm not saying that the C-17 captured the Ace of Spades, but it played a more valuable role by far than the mighty Eagle. No argument there.

Yeah, it's unfortunately turning into a pissing war again. It's evident that you know horseshit about the C-17 mission as I know nothing about that of the Eagle. I think that we all can agree that we need to do our research on both parties and find all of the capabliities of each before we make future determinations.

Hacker,

My post: Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

2.) Same could be said to reclassify the Strike Eagle into a "bomber" (B-15E...pretty sexy) since it hasn't gone AA in a while as well.

Your post: "Hmmm, guess I'd better go erase from my logbook those DCA sorties I flew during OSW and the OCA I flew during Iraqi Freedom. Apparently they never happened, huh?"

For those about to rock, we salute you. Did you kill any bogeys? If not, then by Toro's definition, "Just flying into a combat environment does not qualify you as a "Weapons System".

[Toro]

This is exactly what I figured would happen. I think most of you are missing the point I made and we’re arguing over semantics. Nowhere did I make any reference to the C-17s (or any heavy) capabilities or value as a combat asset. I am simply saying that it does not employ weapons and therefore is not a weapons system. Semantics.

Originally posted by KC10Boomer:

I think we'll all agree that the C-130 is a weapon system. But what criteria would you use to not designate the C-17 as a weapon system?

The fact that it does not employ weapons.

Originally posted by KC10Boomer:

Minor point here, but according to the DOT&E the C-17 is a major weapon system.

Yes, and according to that slide, "Battlefield Digitization" is a weapon system.

Originally posted by HueyPilot:

Dodging bullets isn't tactical? Tactics has nothing to do with releasing munitions. That is perhaps *part* of tactics, but avoiding the bullets is another important part of tactical operations.

I never said C-17 missions aren't tactical, and I don't discount it's importance - I said it's not a weapon system. I agree wholeheartedly with your spite at those who discount C-21 combat time and the fact that the AF had to be forced to allow you to log it. I don’t brag about my combat time because it was all spent in ONW and OIF drilling holes in the sky - you were surely at greater risk than I was while flying your missions. But like the C-17, a C-21 is not a weapon system – put a Gatling gun on that bad Johnny, then we’ll talk.

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

Does dropping live *practice* ammo on the range, but never employing your a/c in the OEF still classify you as a MWS. I mean, heck, you said it yourself that no one is stupid enough to come out and play, and I'll agree. But you still are JUST flying in a combat environment.

You bet. Not employing in one theater doesn’t mean the jet isn’t capable (though the Strike Eagles have dropped on every theater they’ve been in as far as I know). Because we have the potential to employ our WEAPONS and are therefore a WEAPONS system.

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

You carrying a AIM-120 AMRAAM is no different than me carrying 54 members of the 4th Infantry Division. The difference is how and when you decide to employ that measure.

It’s completely different. As a C-17 pilot, you do not employ those troops, you drop them off. When I employ my weapons, I mission plan. I study target imagery. I check weather to factor in winds and visibility for laser guided bombs. I check terrain to factor in potential for targeting pod masking. Airborne, my WSO hunts for the target in the radar and pod and when we’re sure we’ve got it, I release. The mission planning, weaponeering and radar scope interpretation are just some of the skills that are perfected at weapons school. This makes us a weapons system – WE employ the weapons.

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

In fact, when deployed, I'll bet Vegas odds that my load stated above will cause more ground kills than your full armament. I'm not saying that the C-17 captured the Ace of Spades, but it played a more valuable role by far than the mighty Eagle.

Okay, I’ll take a step back while you beat your chest. Then I’ll stroke your ego and tell you that you’re correct – the war wouldn’t happen without airlift. But you were a means to an end – you had no direct connection with death and destruction, you dropped off the killing machines.

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

It's evident that you know horseshit about the C-17 mission as I know nothing about that of the Eagle.

Shack. That’s why I was pissed when C17Heavy told me that “There is plenty of information out there that explains the capabilities of the C-17 "Major Weapons System", so I will not even address that”

I don’t want to hear guys stomping around in a huff saying that their airframe is a tactical monster, I want examples. Tell me what the C-17 guys do at their weapons school. Tell me what type of training they do to prepare for combat sorties. I flat out admitted that I don’t know the tactical capabilities of a C-17…enlighten me.

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

Did you kill any bogeys? If not, then by Toro's definition, "Just flying into a combat environment does not qualify you as a "Weapons System".

Out of context. Flying into a combat environment in and of itself does not qualify your MDS as a Weapons system – the fact that your MDS employs weapons does.

That aside, I’d lay good money that Hacker released some metal when he was over Iraq in the opening days of the war, so your point is null anyway.

[Hacker]

Originally posted by C-21 Pilot:

Did you kill any bogeys? If not, then by Toro's definition, "Just flying into a combat environment does not qualify you as a "Weapons System".

By your logic, then, all the F-15Cs need to be re-designated T-15Cs or something because they never fired a shot in anger during OEF or OIF, either.

As for killing "bogeys," I did not shoot down any MiGs using air-to-air ordnance. I did, however, destroy some MiGs and Sukhois on the ground at Al Taqqadum airfield. In fact, my squadron destroyed upwards of 60 MiGs on the ground between the two bases at Al Taq and Balad SE. That mission was called OCA-INT, or Offensive Counter Air -- Interdiction, on the ATO. So, by the letter of the law, during an OCA sortie we employed ordnance to destroy MiGs. Of course, whenever I tell this to a Light Gray, he scoffs, but so be it (I just ask him to show me the tape of him destroying a MiG!). Back in WWII, ground kills were credited just as much as air kills were (but were not eligible to create your first 5 victories).

As far as "just flying into a combat zone" during OIF, I chucked plenty of metal at the Iraqi dirt and took some armor, artillery, and buildings out with it. I wasn't just going from point A to point B looking out for SAMs and AAA.

You know, I do have to say that in reading Huey Pilot's discussions here and on the other board about flying into Iraq in the Lear are pretty interesting. While I do think the concept "Combat Learjet" is pretty funny (and sorry, Chris, but I would laugh at that patch in the bar too), I have to admit that if I were tooling around without an RWR or any kind of countermeasures it would make me a little nervous. I'll stop short of saying "you guys have got guts...", though.

Why? Well, I'm pretty sure the C-21 pilots probably don't think about it too much...they don't contemplate turning their airplane around and going home because it's too hostile of an environment; they just go do their job like they're supposed to, the same as a fighter guy or a airlift guy does in similar circumstances. Flying in an airplane more suited for combat doesn't make your stomach turn any less the minute you cross the fence (of course, do lifters and OSA guys FENCE in? heh heh), it just makes you more able to deal with something if it does happen.

Look, guys...nobody LIKES flying into combat. While there is a certain excitement and adrenaline high associated with it that many people really like (and is impossible to replicate in training or peacetime), the actual act of getting shot at is HIGHLY over-rated. I love my job immensely, but if you tankers, lifters, HVAAs, and OSA guys wanna go get shot at that bad, more power to you. The difference is that I get to shoot back!