Air Refueling

[backseatdriver]

I'm talking about the air-to-air "Topgun" stuff. SAMs and Flankers are a threat to everyone operating in the AOR (especially down low and slow), regardless of airframe. Yes, there is a definite need for air-to-ground fighters to destroy these, but what I was getting at was that the air-to-air dogfight is no longer there and really isn't an immediate threat.

Holy FAIL Batman.

Awesome.

[Guest midtown]

So you don't think ACM is important because we are currently not at war with a viable air threat??!!? So, all the fighter guys should just trash that mission? That is stupid, stupid, stupid thinking, man. It's probably pretty easy for you to make fun of the F-15/22 types b/c you say they don't have a mission right now. That is absolute horse shit. As a air-ground pilot, I hope those guys are training their butts off (and I know they are).

Again, nowhere did I say the training those guys do is trash, or that we should just rid ourselves of that mission. In my posts, I said it's important to have that training and to be ready for a threat should it arrive one day. I think it's important, and we need to make a statement to the rest of the world. What this all comes down to, and what I'm saying (or asking) is how someone can call a top guy in pilot training a SNAP because they decided to choose a different mission? In earlier posts I was giving reasons as to why people aren't going the -38, fighter/bomber route as much anymore, and everyone seems to have taken personal offense; as if the number 1 UPT graduate doesn't come to your airframe they've somehow failed.

And sure call me ignorant on fighter lifestyles (I very well probably am), but I think there's the same ignorance there with fighter guys in regards to airlift/tanker guys. HOSS are you so upset that the KC135 has a WIC that you had to put it in quotes to devalue it? I'm not attacking, just asking. Is a KC135 not a major "weapons" system - even if it doesn't carry any weapons? It's pretty invaluable to the fight, and without it wouldn't allow you guys to do what you on such a scale. And no, I'm not a -135 guy, I could care less if they have their own WIC or have patchwearers or what they are designated.

Is passing tail numbers dumb? Yes. Has it been brought up before? I'm sure it has - I don't know I'm not a tanker guy. But the same type of people who think it's important to always wear reflective belts probably are along the lines of those who write the regulations. Some battles just aren't worth the fight; does this make someone a SNAP? Maybe. But maybe also if they weren't gone so much, whether it be deployed or TDY, it'd be easier to do something about or they would have more time to do something about it, instead of worrying about the 5 additional duties they were handed from their squadron. Not making excuses, just saying...

Anyway I'm going into crew-rest on a Friday night... Enjoy the weekend, and next week for me... Maybe some of my AMC bubbas will come to my rescue...

Edited March 20, 2010 by midtown

[Bluto]

In earlier posts I was giving reasons as to why people aren't going the -38, fighter/bomber route as much anymore, and everyone seems to have taken personal offense; as if the number 1 UPT graduate doesn't come to your airframe they've somehow failed.

Just curious but what is your source for this? From my experience students are still putting the T-38 #1 and a majority of them are at the top of their T-6 class. I have to admit I have seen a few and I only mean like less than 5 in the last 2 years where the top student in their T-6 class put something other than a T-38. So yes the top students are still putting the T-38 as their #1 choice.

If you have other sources then please share but if not then stop the BS.

[Gas Man]

Just curious but what is your source for this? From my experience students are still putting the T-38 #1 and a majority of them are at the top of their T-6 class. I have to admit I have seen a few and I only mean like less than 5 in the last 2 years where the top student in their T-6 class put something other than a T-38. So yes the top students are still putting the T-38 as their #1 choice.

If you have other sources then please share but if not then stop the BS.

The top 2 guys in my UPT class were adamant they wanted T-1s. They were both told the night before track select they were going to the T-38. One of the guys was damn near in tears the night before track select because he didn't want to go T-38s. Don't know if things have changed but my AD brothers in UPT didn't have a choice, they could only put a request for which track they wanted. Thank god I am in the Guard. (That last comment should carry this thread at least another 5 pages.)

It used to be that during graduation the drop came down and they had a teleconference with AFPC. They started with the first place guy who got first pick what he wanted, then on down the line. Do you know why they stopped doing that? Because a lot of the top guys were picking heavy airframes. They were ending up with the guys at the bottom of the class getting fighters. Sometimes not a good thing. Don't fool yourself into thinking every pilot wants to fly fighters. Also don't think that all heavy guys are shitty pilots because they aren't in a fighter.

Speaking of SNAPs, Fighters have an equal percentage. As a matter of fact I would consider the dude from my class nearly in tears a very SNAPpy move. He is now an F-15C guy. Every community has them. They are taking over the Air Force.

One more thing, Midtown's point was totally missed. AMC pilots are gone 180+ days a year, every year. Not just a 6 month rotation every 2 years.

As much respect as I have for all of my pilot brethren, unless you are doing that, you have no idea. Walk a mile in another pilot's shoes, no matter what airframe, and you will gain respect for his airframe. Just like we stupid "herbivores" have no idea how much ass pain and planning goes into every 1.5 hr sortie you guys fly. We each have things we have to do for our MWS that are a pain in the balls.

I don't think Midtown was throwing darts at your community as much as he was trying to get you to understand his point of view.

So Chill Francis.

[VFR800]

Just curious but what is your source for this? From my experience students are still putting the T-38 #1 and a majority of them are at the top of their T-6 class. I have to admit I have seen a few and I only mean like less than 5 in the last 2 years where the top student in their T-6 class put something other than a T-38. So yes the top students are still putting the T-38 as their #1 choice.

If you have other sources then please share but if not then stop the BS.

It's more common than you think. The top 2 in my class put T-1, T-44...not uncommon at the time. One slot from the next class was sh*tballed b/c no one wanted it. You're right, -38 drivers all come from top-half of T-6s though...FCs would rather a slot go unfilled than to put a bottom-half stud in it. But this was all back when each -38 drop would get 1 fighter and a load (sts) of UAVs...now that you can get anything out of -38s, it might swing the other way (maybe it already has). BL, no BS about the fact that not everybody wants to fly a fighter. I know at least one guy who was non-vol'd -38s, but ended up getting barney out of it, so no harm no foul I guess.

[Bluto]

It's more common than you think. The top 2 in my class put T-1, T-44...not uncommon at the time. One slot from the next class was sh*tballed b/c no one wanted it. You're right, -38 drivers all come from top-half of T-6s though...FCs would rather a slot go unfilled than to put a bottom-half stud in it. But this was all back when each -38 drop would get 1 fighter and a load (sts) of UAVs...now that you can get anything out of -38s, it might swing the other way (maybe it already has). BL, no BS about the fact that not everybody wants to fly a fighter. I know at least one guy who was non-vol'd -38s, but ended up getting barney out of it, so no harm no foul I guess.

Like I said from my experience I haven't seen it as much but then again that's only 1 base. Also I never mentioned that all students who choose T-38s want fighters and I have seen several who go that route to try and get bombers.

[Karl Hungus]

If you have other sources then please share but if not then stop the BS.

The top guy in my class went to Rucker. 2, 3, 4 and maybe 5 went T-1s and T-44s. I think 6 was the first one to put down and get a T-38. Not that he wasn't a capable, hard working student... he did quite well in T-38s... but he was hardly the top of the class. I don't see why people are so threatened by people not wanting a T-38... it's certainly not for everyone.

[BigE]

The top guy in my class went to Rucker. 2, 3, 4 and maybe 5 went T-1s and T-44s. I think 6....

I don't know - its been a bunch of years - but have they started sharing/publizing the rack and stack at UPT? They used to - many moons ago - but had stopped that process (at least when I was there). I don't ever remember seeing a no shit list of names and rank order as a stud in UPT. Trust me - the IPs have it - but it was never shared with the students - and generally shared only above the Asst Flt CC/Flt CC level.

The crazy math that goes into the rack and stack score isn't straight forward - daily rides, etc have more weight than you think - and I remember (as an IP) being surprised at how classes would actually stack up when the numbers were crunched. 1 item Hook on a checkride being better than a 20 item downgrade Good, etc - or some shit like that. Flt CC ranking is also completley subjective - and I have seen it bump or lower guys rank in a class significantly.

Also - a little insight for you - the Squadron Commander and OG can do whatever they want with assignments/track selects (seen it happen)...there is only one thing you can do at UPT to increase your chances of getting what you want - do well, be a good dude, have the right attitude, and drink beer - cause in the end it doesn't matter - what you put down for a track/assignment if definetly NOT the deciding factor where you go.

So is the stack of '#1 guy went to Rucker, 6 thru 9 went T-1s, etc' a percieved order of merit from your bros talking about how they did on checkrides, etc - or a no shit official list of the class? I don't know - like I said - its been a bunch of years since I was there - so maybe it has changed. And not calling BS that guys that are doing well don't always want to go T-38s - but as a stereotype - having seen many a class go thru as an IP - not just a snip from my own class - the majority of the time - dudes want T-38s - and it was more the exception to the norm for guys who were kicking ass to put something other than T-38 first - I hear the same from my bros teaching at UPT now.

e

[cmdro]

I can't speak for Karl and how he might have known the ranks of those in his class, but any student that goes T-44 and I assume Helos, gets a few training reports before they leave for a new base. Part of one report states your rank, so if you get a lot of T-44/Helo guys in a class it isn't too hard to figure out the general order, especially if those guys are near the top. We also had a student in our class that due to his casual job at the wing was on an email list that received the track/assignment lists ahead of time and those had rank on them as well. And before anyone complains, he was removed from the list before our track and he never shared the lists, but just proves the list isn't as guarded as you might think. And for more token evidence, we had a few guys go T-44 who would have been in the mix for a T-38 spot if they put it first.

[tac airlifter]

Who gives a fuck about pilot training ranking? Sometimes it's indicative of further performance, often not. Yea I know some exceptions too, but the fact is most dudes near the top of UPT want -38's. The mistake is in thinking that because you're near the top of a UPT class there is any correlation to being the best operational pilot. UPT judges how fast you learn a concept, not how well you internalize the concept. At the end of UPT, even the top guy starts over as the worst pilot at his Ops squadron. At that point, I know a larger amount of tier 1 UPT performers who burned out and settled in as another mediocre pilot than guys who went on to prove they really were awesome pilots. Only two of the best pilots at any of the operational squadrons I've been in were UPT superstars. And what does any of this have to do with the tanker vs. fighter bitch fest I was enjoying?

[Guest Crew Report]

Yeah, back to Air Refueling.

I refueled an O-6 Strike Eagle guy from a deployed base, the Wing Commander/one star (in a Hawg) from a deployed base, and the F-16 Sq/CC from a deployed base in OEF this past month. All passed their tail numbers in the clear and didn't lose their tactical focus. I guess Hacker and Rainman are in the minority.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Crew Report

[Hacker]

Yeah, back to Air Refueling.

I refueled an O-6 Strike Eagle guy from a deployed base, the Wing Commander/one star (in a Hawg) from a deployed base, and the F-16 Sq/CC from a deployed base in OEF this past month. All passed their tail numbers in the clear and didn't lose their tactical focus. I guess Hacker and Rainman are in the minority.

YAAFM

Pretty amazing that you were able to be inside their minds and know how their 'tactical focus' was.

Nowhere in this thread did anyone say that it was impossible. It was bitching about something we believed to be inconvenient and not worth the inconvenience.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Hacker

[Guest Crew Report]

YAAFM

Pretty amazing that you were able to be inside their minds and know how their 'tactical focus' was.

Nowhere in this thread did anyone say that it was impossible. It was bitching about something we believed to be inconvenient and not worth the inconvenience.

[MCO]

This thread gets more and more entertaining.

[Murph]

Awesome stuff in this last page.

To the guys in OEF who get scared about refueling a few feet below 5A, punch me off the boom when I ask for a toboggan when I'm just trying to get the gas and get the f to the tgt area: You suck.

To the dudes who are at the track on-time/headed the right way, fly slower than published, and toboggan down to pretty gnarly alts all so I can get the gas and get the f to the tgt area: You rock.

That's all.

[Guest]

As far as your ten lines of preaching, thanks. Its good stuff, but not necessary for me.

Copy, not your job.

[Guest]

Speaking of SNAPs, Fighters have an equal percentage. As a matter of fact I would consider the dude from my class nearly in tears a very SNAPpy move. He is now an F-15C guy. Every community has them. They are taking over the Air Force.

Perfect match.

[Guest whatever]

Copy, not your job.

Not at all what I was implying.

[Guest]

Not at all what I was implying.

Copy, fading.

[Guest whatever]

Copy, fading.

You win!

[Bergman]

This brings up a good point. I'm not talking about this specific instance, but a common dilemma. On one hand, "it's a war" and we have to do our best to get bombs on target, even if it means bending or breaking the rules sometimes. On the other hand, if the tanker pilot gets caught breaking rules and gets in trouble, it's his ass, and his alone.

The receiver just wants his gas; he doesn't give a shit about what happens with the tanker or its crew after the offload is complete. Since the tanker is the only one looking out for the tanker, he'll do what he has to do. I guess the best thing a receiver can do is to impress upon his tanker that it's a life and death or urgent situation that requires continuing below 5k. This puts the tanker pilot a much better position to make a more favorable decision.

Criticize the situation I've outlined here all you want, but I'm more interested in providing useful solutions, rather than bitching.

In my experience, an extra 1000'-2000' lower doesn't mean nearly as much as being near the engagement. An A-10 can lose 2000' in a matter of seconds, vs. having to drone for 4-5 minutes if the tanker clowns drop them off 20 miles from the TIC.

Murph - Good points. I would like to point out that if the -135s aren't slowing below 190, it's due to boom controlability more than anything else. I agree that if the tanker won't slow to 190, they either have no talent or no balls.

[JarheadBoom]

Earlier this morning, one of our newer booms was asking why we have to repeatedly enter the same tailnumber into the system, to account for each individual offload during the Coronet he just returned from. During the ensuing bitch-fest from some other booms in the office, my Chief Boom related that he PERSONALLY has been fighting the giving-of-tailnumbers issue for over 15 years now, since the fuel is billed to the wing that owns the receiver aircraft, and not the receiver aircraft itself (for anyone keeping score, this means I was wrong earlier).

For those of you ACC types who don't like ATP-56B procedures, you submit the changes you want to see - AMC is tired of hearing about it from us, unless it's a flying-safety issue. Straight from AMC Stan/Eval to OG Stan/Eval.

Rainman: If knowing the regulations that govern my career field makes me a reg Nazi, then so be it. As for the rest... noted.

[Guest Crew Report]

I've talked to the head British RAF guy who helped write ATP-56B. He doesn't give a shit if people like the reg or not and it's hear to stay. Sorta like when it came out and the -3 (135) and -33 (-10) went away and we were using "astern" instead of "precontact."

[Guest]

You win!

Copy kill. Roll your squawk, RTB and do a straight in.

[Guest]

Earlier this morning, one of our newer booms was asking why we have to repeatedly enter the same tailnumber into the system, to account for each individual offload during the Coronet he just returned from. During the ensuing bitch-fest from some other booms in the office, my Chief Boom related that he PERSONALLY has been fighting the giving-of-tailnumbers issue for over 15 years now, since the fuel is billed to the wing that owns the receiver aircraft, and not the receiver aircraft itself (for anyone keeping score, this means I was wrong earlier).

For those of you ACC types who don't like ATP-56B procedures, you submit the changes you want to see - AMC is tired of hearing about it from us, unless it's a flying-safety issue. Straight from AMC Stan/Eval to OG Stan/Eval.

Rainman: If knowing the regulations that govern my career field makes me a reg Nazi, then so be it. As for the rest... noted.

I love it.

This sounds like a job for someone on the staff.

BTW, knowing the regs is absolutely a requirement of the job, any job. Calling out what you see as non-value added steps in the process is your duty. Look for this line in the reg...

Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) using the AF IMT 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication; route AF IMT 847s from the field through the appropriate functional chain of command.