Anyone not want to fly fighters?

[Guest AFwife62406]

It seems like EVERYONE that goes to UPT is going in with the hopes of flying fighters. I realize that these are pretty neat planes, but also that there are a LOT of other neat planes in the AF. So my question is this - are there people that go into UPT wanting to fly something other than fighters? I'm sure, obviously, there are a few, but I have yet to hear of any. It just seems like everyone is competing to fly fighters and no one's first choice is anything else.

[Guest Fuse]

While the -38 track would be my first choice, there's no way I'd complain, pout, or be upset if I didn't get it. I think being the one to pull a trigger and destroy a target that could be dangerous to my allied pals would be the best feeling, though I realize it means nothing if I don't have the supplies, gas, or crew to get there and back safely. On the other side of things, being able to stand up and stretch mid-flight would be damn nice too! ok, so I guess I am one of these "want to fly fighters" guys, but I'm also not locked into it.

I think most want fighters because they satisfy the hunger for action and an adrenaline rush moreso than a tanker/cargo...If this is true or not I do not know, but that is the impression of those like me pre-UPT. Also, I try not to dream too much about me in an F-16 yet. When/if I get into UPT I may hate pulling Gs and inverted flight. I think going in with a goal is a great thing, but going in with narrow expectations is a dangerous path.

I'll keep thinking a quote repeated on here quite a bit. "Whatever you get, you'll love it."

[ 14. August 2006, 14:24: Message edited by: Fuse ]

[C17Driver]

It seems like EVERYONE that goes to UPT is going in with the hopes of flying fighters. I realize that these are pretty neat planes, but also that there are a LOT of other neat planes in the AF. So my question is this - are there people that go into UPT wanting to fly something other than fighters? I'm sure, obviously, there are a few, but I have yet to hear of any. It just seems like everyone is competing to fly fighters and no one's first choice is anything else.

Yes, there are lots of people that go into UPT NOT wanting to fly fighters. I got my first choice.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by C17Driver:

Yes, there are lots of people that go into UPT NOT wanting to fly fighters. I got my first choice.

[Guest flychick]

It seems that a lot of the guys start out wanting fighters, and then a few weeks or months into it, they find out they would rather go heavies.

In my husband's class, I would say 2/3 started out wanting fighters. By the time they tracked, it was down to about 1/2 and 1/2.

[Guest JArcher00]

Originally posted by Fuse:

I think most want fighters because they satisfy the hunger for action and an adrenaline rush moreso than a tanker/cargo

Well, from a -130 view. I have never seen a fighter land on a 3000' dirt strip on NVGs. There is a "little" adrenaline rush there. Vary few fighters actually land at some of the "fields" we go into. You will see more "action" right now in a heavy than in a fighter. When the wars start, the fighters have their fun but then it is the heavys fun time. Plus in a fighter you never get to see the world like a heavy. In the past 6 months I have been to 10 different countries. You won't see that in a fighter. You can go fast and drop bombs, but that is about it. No parties in Rota, St. John's or playing with monkeys in Africa.

[ 17. August 2006, 12:17: Message edited by: RedDog ]

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by RedDog:

Well, from a -130 view. I have never seen a fighter land on a 3000' dirt strip on NVGs. There is a "little" adrenaline rush there.

I'll bet. Excellent point.

Have you seen a fighter land on a road in enemy turf or a 5000 x 70 FOL strip on NVGs? That gets done if you're in the right jet. Not as cool as a dirt strip but still pretty exciting.

Originally posted by RedDog:

Vary few fighters actually land at some of the "fields" we go into.

There were no fighters at the last two bases I flew out of in OEF or OIF. Lots of choppers, C-130s and C-17s though.

Originally posted by RedDog:

You will see more "action" right now in a heavy than in a fighter.

Depends on what you fly. The Hogs are hammering down every day in Afghanistan right now.

Plus the Eagles scrambled from Cape Cod after that United jet the other day. That's some good action...

Originally posted by RedDog:

Plus in a fighter you never get to see the world like a heavy. In the past 6 months I have been to 10 different countries. You won't see that in a fighter.

I saw 17 countries in the 20 months after 9/11. That seemed like a lot to me. Of course, I had to hop rides on C-130s and C-17s to get to most of those countries.

Originally posted by RedDog:

No parties in Rota, St. John's or playing with monkeys in Africa.

We partied our ass off in Rota on the way home from OIF. The Spanish were still on our side and we ate/drank like kings for free.

We sent a couple jets into St Johns on the way to the Desert. They were stuck there for 3 weeks. Not such a party place unless you have some airlift guys around to show you where to go, I guess.

Big picture, it is all good. I've said this before and I'll say it again...Pick the MISSION, not the aircraft. Some aircraft do really cool things in combat. Some do really cool things in peacetime. Some do cool things all the time. And don't forget about helicopters, they do some really cool stuff all the time (depending on your perspective) but it is not a job for pussies.

BL: We're all on the same team.

[Guest talondriver]

Originally posted by Fuse:

While the -38 track would be my first choice, there's no way I'd complain, pout, or be upset if I didn't get it...I'll keep thinking a quote repeated on here quite a bit. "Whatever you get, you'll love it."

This is what a student's mindset should be like going through SUPT.

I've seen my share of students who decide to commit to the "heavy" before starting or prior to track select and often wonder what it would have been like flying a T-38. What you need to realize is a student can still opt for a heavy in the '38 track in the form of a bomber if they feel that a fighter isn't for them. Remember also, flying a fighter doesn't preclude you from someday flying a heavy. Just ask most of the T-38 reservists who flew fighters and now fly with the airlines. But it seldom goes the other way.

[ 23. August 2006, 19:26: Message edited by: talondriver ]

[Herk Driver]

I went into UPT knowing that I wanted to fly Herks. I was a prior C-130 Nav so I had some experience with which to base my decision. The other guys in my class in VT-3 wanted fighters. They all got fighters and I got T-44's. I finished #2 at VT-3 and #1 at Corpus.

IMHO, the bottom line is that most guys should go into UPT with an open mind and ask a lot of questions. Figure out what the difference in the fighter/bomber and heavy world are and figure out where you think you would fit best. Of course, finishing in the top of your class will typically allow you to pick what you want vs getting what is left in the drop.

There are many folks that have done the heavy to fighter thing in my experience. However, that has changed over the years because most people back in the day all did T-38s. That isn't the case anymore and, IIRC, most of the cross-flow boards still require T-38s as a pre-req.

If you really think fighters is your thing then best to do it now like Talon Driver said. The opportunities to do it later are few and far between if not impossible without -38s.

[ 25. August 2006, 09:22: Message edited by: Herk Driver ]

[Guest talondriver]

Originally posted by Herk Driver:

I went into UPT knowing that I wanted to fly Herks. I was a prior C-130 Nav so I had some experience with which to base my decision.

I flew BUFFs before being a T-38 IP and prior to that I was a BUFF nav. I'm old school so I had the opportunity to fly the '38 regardless of what I wanted. Unfortunately, that's not an option nowadays so the "decision" has to be made earlier (track select).

So to answer AFwife's question...no, not everyone going through SUPT wants a fighter.

[Guest PilotKD]

Unfortunately, most of the IP's in primary (Phase II) are heavy drivers or FAIP's. There aren't many fighter pilots teaching in Tweets or Texans, so a lot of the advice you'll get in Phase II is biased. I went to Moody and spent quite a bit of time there as a casual LT. I got to work on a few things over in the IFF squadron before starting UPT and was able to pick some brains over there about the fighter lifestyle. I did come into the AF wanting to fly Vipers, but wound up getting waivered into the T-1 track and didn't have much of a choice. I was disappointed for a little while, but by the end of Phase II, I had gotten over it. The whole G pull'n, helmet/mask/G-suit wear'n, strapping myself onto a seat with a rocket motor under my ass was pretty cool for a few months, but started to lose it's novelty after a while. If there is one thing I miss, it is formation flying. Real formation flying. Not this non-standard, 1 mile stuff we do in the tanker. It was probably the most fun I've had in an airplane thus far, but I'd enjoy flying anything really. Every airframe/community has it's perks.

There were quite a few guys in my class who started UPT wanting fighters who changed their minds later in the program. Whether it was because they knew they weren't going to make the cut for a -38 or legitimately changed their minds, who knows? There were a few who wanted heavies from the beginning, but yes, most UPT studs go in riding the fighter pilot bandwagon. Despite what many heavy drivers may say about the fighter world, I think we all have a little bit of fighter pilot in us (sts).

[ 26. August 2006, 00:56: Message edited by: PilotKD ]

[SCRIMP]

I want to fly helos. I can't think of a better mission than bringing men and women back from the brink to be with their families. If I end up actually liking pulling G's and inverted flight I hope to track A-10s. Same reasons.

Pretty much AFSOC or A-10s. (AC-130, Helos, A-10s)

[The Kayla]

Originally posted by Herk Driver:

IMHO, the bottom line is that most guys should go into UPT with an open mind and ask a lot of questions. Figure out what the difference in the fighter/bomber and heavy world are and figure out where you think you would fit best. Of course, finishing in the top of your class will typically allow you to pick what you want vs getting what is left in the drop.

Thats what my husband is now doing... Keeping an open mind. He wouldn't mind flying fighters.. he wouldn't ming flying heavies.

[Guest Mrs Hog]

How does the T-37/T-6 to T-38 to FTU track work current day? I could swear that just a few years ago, if you made it through UPT AND T-38s, and then onto an FTU and washed out there, there is no turning back to go fly heavies or bombers, no wings for you pal…sorry to pop your dream bubble, wish we would have known so you could still have a career in aviation, but you need to choose another career field now. Have a nice life.

Has that process changed?

[Guest T38driver]

Mrs Hog,

Once a student completes UPT and earns wings, they usually are not kicked to the street if they wash out of IFF or FTU. They are reassigned based on Air Force needs. If a students washes out of T-38s, then yes, they are eliminated, ie, time to find a new career. (But that doesn't happen to often) Thus the key is, get your wings.

Regards,

[Guest rotorhead]

When you wash from any track in UPT, (AD at least) you wash from USAF flying altogether. You don't "retrack". [ante winging]

Ante winging, there is no Flight Evaluation Board (FEB). Post winging, there is FEB. The FEB can recommend no USAF, no fly/no wings, no fly/keep wings, retry the training, or return to the previous airframe (in the case of a transition course, e.g., H-1 to H-60, etc).

When you wash from IFF or fighter FTU, you are reassigned to a non-fighter, fixed wing asset. It is most usual to go to a bomber...risk of Minot is moderate. [post winging]

When you wash from helicopter FTU, you are usually out of the flying business. [post winging]

I have not heard of any heavy FTU washes. Very unusual. [post winging]

[Riddller]

I don't want fighters. I don't want bombers. Like Herk Driver said, though, I'm a prior -130 Nav, so have some experience to talk from. I have nothing against those airframes or the people who fly them. I've just been-there done-that when it comes to military flying, and I think PilotKD summed it up:

Originally posted by PilotKD:

The whole G pull'n, helmet/mask/G-suit wear'n, strapping myself onto a seat with a rocket motor under my ass was pretty cool for a few months, but started to lose it's novelty after a while.

For me, I KNOW this would happen (lose its novelty). But, living out of a suitcase, in a different country every night, flying for weeks at a time accross numerous time zones, THAT's what I did, what I love, and what I want to get back to.

I won't kick and scream if given -38's, I'll fly whatever the AF tells me to. I just know what my first choice is.

My 2 cents...

[Guest talondriver]

The key word to one's decision is "Regret". If there's any doubt that one will regret one's decision to not take a fighter or a T-38, then maybe one should take the opportunity while it's presented.

You don't want to be the one telling your grandkids "You know, grandpa/grandma could have gone T-38s". Or worse, come up to me and my T-38 at an airshow and tell me "You know, I could have gone T-38s".

And, when one's ready, FedEx or Southwest will have plenty of heavies to fly. :D

[ 10. October 2006, 20:22: Message edited by: talondriver ]

[Guest Mrs Hog]

Hopefully Toro won’t get trigger happy and delete this ‘chatter’ …

I’ve heard over and over from crusty ol’ fighter dudes like Rainman that the deterioration began back when Fighter/Attack/Reconnaissance (FAR) and Tanker/Transport/Bomber (TTB) delineation was done away with. What are your thoughts, Rainman?

How many young pilots under today’s rules are willing to gamble their wings and go for fighters that early on in the game? More importantly, at least for the purposes of this “discussion,” how many of our top-of-the-class pilots that are so badly needed in fighters never roll that dice?

My guy has relayed to me that his goal as a T-38 FAIP (many moons ago) was to ensure every one of his students achieved a FAR (fighter qualified) rating. He took it upon himself that his ultimate responsibility to the AF was to produce a universally assignable pilot, period. If he could instruct a student to a level of competence that led to a FAR delineation but that student chose to go down the tanker/transport/bomber route, more power to them….he had done his job. I think this type of thinking AND training ought to be the standard, and not the exception. If it were, I doubt we’d be having this “conversation” in the first place!

[Guest Hydro130]

Originally posted by Mrs Hog:

I’ve heard over and over from crusty ol’ fighter dudes like Rainman that the deterioration began back when Fighter/Attack/Reconnaissance (FAR) and Tanker/Transport/Bomber (TTB) delineation was done away with.

What kind of "deterioration" are you asking about? :confused:

How many young pilots under today’s rules are willing to gamble their wings and go for fighters that early on in the game?

Although FAR/TTB was before my time, are you asking if young pups today are skittish about the possibility of washing out of fighters, so they lean towards heavies thinking they'll be safer to get their wings? That happens occaisionally, but I don't think there are any adverse large-scale trends as a result. If folks know ahead of time that they really want fighters that bad, they compete for ENJJPT. I think the present pilot-training system works pretty well to match people to an appropriate airframe/mission (availability depending, but that's a constant regardless of the system).

More importantly, at least for the purposes of this “discussion,” how many of our top-of-the-class pilots that are so badly needed in fighters never roll that dice?

I know quite a few. But that was their choice; they graduated #1, but had zero interest in flying fighters. None of them have had any regrets about turning down the 38. They worked hard, and were fortunate enough to get their top choice.

My guy has relayed to me that his goal as a T-38 FAIP (many moons ago) was to ensure every one of his students achieved a FAR (fighter qualified) rating. He took it upon himself that his ultimate responsibility to the AF was to produce a universally assignable pilot, period. If he could instruct a student to a level of competence that led to a FAR delineation but that student chose to go down the tanker/transport/bomber route, more power to them….he had done his job. I think this type of thinking AND training ought to be the standard, and not the exception. If it were, I doubt we’d be having this “conversation” in the first place!

I would say that what you described is the general goal of PHASE I of JSUPT these days. Sincerely not trying to be a smart-ass here, but I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying that Big Blue doesn't seem to push/instill "rah rah fighters" these days as much as in the past (is that what you meant by "deteriorization")? Dunno, I put in 10+ years, but Rainman and you hubby have 10 more than me, so they would have better experience to compare. Again, I would say that I think the present system works works well to reward folks with at least their top genre (heavy or fighter/bomber) choice - when available! - if they have put in the work to deserve it, and have the necessary talent.

I was in the USAF's last straight-up UPT class ever (CBM 97-06), and as a bennie for being in that class, we were all promised that everyone would get a fighter on graduation night (and it worked out that way, as far as I know). The #1 guy took a Herk at Tweet-complete. So did 4 other guys (including me) who were in the top half of the class. There were guys fighting over the 2 helo slots. The 5 Herk guys and 2 helo guys (out of a class of 30, IIRC) each got a personal phone call from some 1-star at AFPC asking why on earth we turned down a fighter slot; but, in the end, I'm all for a system that allows people to get their first choice if they are so deserving.

Cheers, Hydro

[Guest talondriver]

Originally posted by Hydro130:

Hmmm...I was a T-38 IP in the last UPT class at CBM. Eagle Flt? "Last class to all go fast"?

I remember a time when students were "concerned" about taking a fighter (eagles specifically) because of the RTU attrition rate at the time.

[ 13. October 2006, 17:04: Message edited by: talondriver ]

[Guest Hydro130]

talondriver,

Yep, that was our class. The guys who went 38s were psyched, I don't remember any of them being very worried about the RTU horror stories (I realize your comment about that wasn't directed at our class specifically), but I do know that you IPs in the 5-0 made guys pretty nervous; y'all had quite a hard-ass rep among the studs at the time!

Cheers, Hydro

[Guest talondriver]

Originally posted by Hydro130:

talondriver,

Yep, that was our class. The guys who went 38s were psyched, I don't remember any of them being very worried about the RTU horror stories (I realize your comment about that wasn't directed at our class specifically), but I do know that you IPs in the 5-0 made guys pretty nervous; y'all had quite a hard-ass rep among the studs at the time!

Cheers, Hydro

Did you go T-44s?

The leadership in the 50th was going through some changes. They were to turn the 50th into a "fighter squadron" in prep for the SUPT program. It didn't settle well with a lot of the IPs since (at the time) many were heavy drivers with airlift and tanker backgrounds. When we finally went specialized, more fighter and bomber guys showed up and things started settling down. Ask Toro and Hoser...they were in the middle of it as a T-38 FAIPs. The biggest gripe we (T-38 IPs) had was the lack of fighter/bomber representation in the tweet world. When new students show up in phase two, thing's tended to be one-sided when it came to MWS bias. It's not a conspiracy theory...this was from the students that came to the fast side.

[ 13. October 2006, 22:01: Message edited by: talondriver ]

[Guest Hydro130]

I did go 44s (just have always wanted to fly Herks), and I definitely agree about the lop-sidedness of heavy-background IPs in Tweets. That was (is still?) a problem as far as daily flight-room exposure to learning about different communities from the IPs. Between that and the fact some people felt intimidated by the 50th, I suspect a couple of the 5 T-44 guys went for reasons like that.

It would have been nice to have some fighter-background line IPs in the 37th. Seems like what few there were all leadership or rarely-seen guest help.

That was definitely a turbulent time at CBM with the SUPT transition going on. I don't envy what hoops you guys at the 50th were jumping through trying to keep things smooth.

Cheers, Hydro

[Toro]

I’ve heard over and over from crusty ol’ fighter dudes like Rainman that the deterioration began back when Fighter/Attack/Reconnaissance (FAR) and Tanker/Transport/Bomber (TTB) delineation was done away with.

Not sure what sort of 'deterioration' you're talking about. The separation of tracks was done specifically to tailor the training for the follow-on track. Guys were coming out of the T-38 with a very ingrained single seat mentality which obviously doesn't work well in multi-crew heavy.

What are your thoughts, Rainman?

If you specifically want only Rainman's thoughts, send him a PM.

How many young pilots under today’s rules are willing to gamble their wings and go for fighters that early on in the game?

Seriously, where do you get this mentality? Going for fighters in no way is a 'gamble' for your wings. These days (and at least through the last decade) you are just as likely to wash out of the heavy track as you are in the fighter track.

More importantly, at least for the purposes of this “discussion,” how many of our top-of-the-class pilots that are so badly needed in fighters never roll that dice?

F*** them, good riddance. If some dude had the hands and brains to fly fighters, but didn't have the balls because he didn't want to take the chance - I'd rather not have him flying with me. That being said, plenty of top finishers don't want fast jets. Two of the top five finishers in my T-37 class wanted T-1s and the number six guy took the only helo.

My guy has relayed to me that his goal as a T-38 FAIP (many moons ago) was to ensure every one of his students achieved a FAR (fighter qualified) rating....

Okay, I'm a little confused. He was a T-38 FAIP when there was only one (T-38) track, and he took grade pride in ensuring that guys were qualified to go fighters or heavies? Seeing as both of those options were available then it sounds like he was just....doing his job as an instructor. I have no idea what the point of that statement was.

Originally posted by Mrs Hog:

Hopefully Toro won’t get trigger happy and delete this ‘chatter’ …

Great attitude. By the way, all Mrs Hog's general disrespect for the moderators of this site has resulted in a unaninimous decision by all of his to ban her from this site - accomplished by Baseops.net himself. Good riddance.