Fighter/Bomber vs Tanker/Cargo Track

[oldgrad]

Originally Posted by Bullet

Easy answer. Your numbers a WAY off. According to the March 23rd data from the AF's Manpower Center, their are a little over 14.1 thousand pilots on active duty right now, 2600 of which are rated in fighters. Comes out to about 18% of the active duty pilot strength.

Seems like a huge change in just over two years since this article was written indicating a primarily fighter pilot shortage and the ratio still at 30%. I don't remember any major realignments (but I am gray haired and half senile):

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...6shortage.aspx

What would account for the decrease of 1700 fighter pilots during the same period when at the beginnning of the period AF Magazine was describing a shortage?

Could you give a link to your 2600 numbers? Or maybe give a definition of 'rated'?

Or maybe Air Force Magazine is simply publishing bad gouge?

[13ryan13]

I, a mere appointee to the AFA, hate to intrude on this heated debate, but I figure this would be the perfect place to interject a question. In a best-case scenario in my head, I will be faced with a choice of which airplane I'd like to fly in the Air Force. I have it narrowed down to the B-2, F-22, F-35, or C-17. They all have their perks, as stated many different times in this thread, but can anybody give me a clear cut answer and reason for which plane I should choose, should that opportunity arise?

[AFAMOM08]

Thank you all for your responses. I forwarded the link to my son--I spoke to him this afternoon and he said he was looking forward to reading all of the comments when he returns from a well earned weekend pass.

[Christcorp]

Ryan; keep in mind, that "Some" aircraft are a progression. Not sure if it is still the case, but I believe that the few F-22 pilots came from the existing F-15 pool. (Yo Bullet, help me out bud, you retired after me). Same with the F-35. Initially, it will probably come from the F-16 pool. (Depending on the model). As time goes on, this progression will change. So, by the time you've graduated from the academy and gotten through the point of UPT to start choosing, you might be able to go straight to a 22 or 35. But, worst case on the best case (Sort of like "Military Intelligence"); I would say to link your choices into categories first, then aircraft second. And because you went to a combination of Fighters, Bombers, and transport; you've sort of made it very difficult. You have picked obviously the best of all 3 categories. I would simply add a 2nd aircraft to each category and then wait till you get closer to finishing the academy and getting a UPT slot before worrying which one.

But like I said; for the F-22, add the F-15. For the F-35, add the F-16. For the C-17, add the C-5. And for the B-2, add the B1. Do your best at the academy; get your UPT slot; and graduate in the top 10% of UPT and pick what you want. best of luck to you. mike.....

[oldgrad]

Originally Posted by Bullet

LOTS, and I mean LOTS, of bad information and speculation being passed here. Done with good intentions perhaps, but just plain WRONG never the less.

Very interesting article concerning the personality types for both successful and unsuccessful aviators with an impressive list of references.

http://medind.nic.in/iab/t05/i1/iabt05i1p54.pdf

It is evident that the personality of the
aviator plays an important role especially in certain
situations like the pilot selection process,
interpersonal ability of relevance to CRM and
gender differences in aviators. Personality may
be one of a multitude of factors, which contribute
to aircraft incidents or accidents. However it is
difficult to comment on which personality profile
is more suitable for aviation as measured by
select-in tests. There are certainly some
incompatible traits, such as the dependent and
avoidant personality traits, which are not
aeronautically adaptable. These assume
importance in pilots who may choose flying for
the wrong reasons and in those who exhibit the
failing aviator syndrome. Such aircrew should be
recognised in advance and taken out of risky flying
if required, as they are likely to pose a threat to
flight safety. In conclusion, personality is a
pertinent issue as and when related to flying
performance.

It is hard to believe that someone who has flown for a living would both not recognize but also attempt to discredit this very critical issue.

I continue to feel that this is a very important issue which definitely bears consideration especially when one is considering the various available platforms. In certain communities, it is easier to compensate for less than desirable mindsets than others.

I think we have a budding Navy Flight Surgeon on this board whose input might certainly be valid:

US Navy uses the concept of
‘Aeronautical Adaptability’ (AA) for assessing the
psychological fitness of aviation personnel. In early
1920’s and 30’s the assessment of AA was simply
what the flight surgeon felt about the candidates
personality.

[Bullet]

Oldgrad,

Everyone here has been asked by the moderators, politely, to keep this forum on track and focused on the original question of differences between the fighter/bomber communities and the heavy communities. Yet you seem to continue to want to pull the thread away from it's original intent on some crusade to prove your worthiness and validity. I refuse to participate in that discussion. Suffice it to say that you have your opinion about what makes a good fighter pilot or someone better suited to the heavy community. Yes, the factors you mention are a part of the overall picture, but only a part. I will leave the judgement on the WHOLE story of where a student pilot would fit best to the instructors at UPT whose job it has been for over 70 years to make these calls, based mostly on ability, aptitude, and attitude.

The OP wanted a list of pros and cons for each career field. CC answered that nicely, and some here can add more. I recommend we leave it at that level...

[Bombtrack]

Bullet,

Reading your post reminded me that getting into the Academy is no fun and games. I will try to keep this in mind throughout my career to make sure that I end up belonging in that top 10% of the class. It will be tough, but worth it none the less. I also think the F-15E is an awesome plane. I pretty much worship it, and just being chosen to be on the path of getting to compete with others for a minimal shot at flying one is too great.

Thank you for your insight.

Bt

[Bullet]

Originally Posted by 13ryan13

can anybody give me a clear cut answer and reason for which plane I should choose, should that opportunity arise?

Ryan, IMO the primary reason you would want to select a particular platform would be because you feel you would most enjoy the MISSION that particular airframe does. Want to focus on air-to-air dominace? Then your best bet would be an F-22 or an F-15C. Want to go for a strike mission (attacking enemy targets on the ground, either in a tactical role against fixed targets, or in a Close Air Support role against enemy troops)? Then the F-16, A-10, F-15E or F-35 would be good choices. Want to go on LONG RANGE strike missions, deep into enemy territory? Look at the B-2, B-1, or B-52. Want to airdrop paratroops or heavy equipment, or provide invaluable strategic lift capability to the combat forces? Then C-130s or C-17s are the planes of choice.

You can easily see that ALL of these platforms have a key role in the AF and the defense of America. And there are so many more platforms in other roles that we haven't even scratched.

I hope you have the opportunity when it comes time to pin on your wings that you will be in that enviable position to select from among all your choices. I think your timing may be a little early for the F-35, which doesn't become operational in the AF until 2013, and most likely will have experienced pilots transfer from other platforms like the F-16, A-10 and F-15E for the first few years as their "initial cadre". Perhaps they'll open the pipeline to brand new pilots fresh out of UPT several years later as the experienced guys get to learn the new system and develop the tactics required to succeed in its primary role. In the F-22's case, they just started opening up slots for brand new Lts fresh out of UPT, so you may get a shot there (and CC was correct, most of the first pilots were transfers from the F-15C because of their background with air-to-air as the primary mission).

You can always start with one of the legacy fighters and transfer over after a tour or two. It happened to me.

[oldgrad]

Originally Posted by Bullet

The OP wanted a list of pros and cons for each career field.

Yep, and the second part of her request:

Originally Posted by AFAMOM08

What should he take into consideration?

As you so accurately stated, personality traits are a part. No crusade, no agenda, just the facts. Just helping the OP's son to examine the alternatives to the best of his ability. For one to examine why he 'enjoys' something or has a 'gut feeling' is a critical consideration in the military flying business.

Twice in my flying career, I had to personally choose between 'fighter/bombers' and another platform. Once I chose 'yes' and once I chose 'no'. I have flown jets. I have flown transports. I have flown helicopters. My observations are valid. I have no need to prove them to anyone.

[Bullet]

Gnashing my teeth as I post this because I promised not to get dragged down into this, but....

Oldgrad, re-reading the entire thread, I feel we are in agreement that matching one's personality to the type of airframe should be a consideration, and we are now just talking over each other at this point.

I get the impression you believe personality traits are of much higher importance than the level I put it on, but we both believe it should be taken into consideration. I have known ALL personalities in the fighter community, form the introvert to the extrovert and everywhere in between. Some personality traits ARE shared to an extent (the desire to always win at everything is one that quickly comes to mind), but flying squadron personnel come in all shapes and sizes. To say one-size fits all just doesn't cut it for me.

I was also confused by your use of the term "physiological" in the early parts of this thread. The AF flying community defines the "Physiological" aspects to be how one's body handles the stresses of flying, such as pressure differences due to altitude and the impacts of g-forces. In fact, our required Physiological training deals specifically with those issues. Now, "psychological" issues such as temperment, personality, and attitude are completely different, and are usually addressed during Cockpit Resource Management training. The mix up of these terms and the level of importance they were given towards making a decision that would impact a life-long dream threw me for a loop. Maybe that is what drove the discussion off track for me.

From discussions I've had with former UPT instructors (to include squadron commanders of these units), the basic equation prior to an assignment night comes down to this: Step 1: Where does the student want to go? Step 2: Does the student have the skill-set required? Step 3: Does the AF have an available slot for him/her in that platform? A CONSIDERATION they might discuss is: Will he be a good fit in his future squadron? The first three steps are the key. The additional considerations? Well, they ARE considered, but it has to be a REAL issue to be a gamebreaker (i.e. this kid is such a anti-social nit-wit that my buds back in the XXX community will KILL us for sending him there). Again, rarely an issue, but it does happen.

I'll stand by my response to ryan above, which fits nicely into this overall discussion: the OP's son needs to look at the mission each type of aircraft performs and decide for himself if that is where he would like to be. Given a choice, personality plays a part in that, as do lifestyle, culture, and attitudes of the community you are considering (which CC listed in his pros and cons list). But most importantly, if you have the opportunity to choose (i.e. the instructors have evaluated you and rank you high enough in your class to be given the opportunity) the MISSION you want to be a part of should be your number one factor. I guess you can say that is part of personality; I'll give you that. BUt ultimately, would you give up a life long dream of flying fighters becuase the community has a "fraternity boy" reputation? I hope the OP's son can see past that if this is an issue for him, and go for his dream.

BTW, we used to have another person regularly posting on here with a nearly identical background in the military, exactly the same writing style, and a similar "stated mission" (believing he was here to postulate and expound on what he beleived to be the only answers to multi-layered questions). Unfortunately, his tendency to antagonize most of the other posters here with a condescending, "holier-than-thou" attitude of being the ultimate and only authority on this forum, and the subsequent flame wars he would generate on almost every thread he posted on, lead to his permanent banning from this site. I appreciate your words, and hope we can keep this on the friendly side. I realize that my opinion on many matters may be slightly off in some regards, or more likely different than others. I'm also glad you are here to replace him, as I need someone to keep me in check sometimes...

Bottom Line: I think we are in agreement in about 95% of the Big Picture here, and I don't want the other 5% to drag this thread off any further...