Although I don’t know much about the military, it was my understanding that no one at a rank higher than colonel flew in combat (presumably because the risk of capture and subsequent divulging of important, secret information would be too great).
Which one of my beliefs is wrong - that generals don’t fly in combat or that despite his name being on the pictured plane, it’s actually not Lt. Gen. Seip at the controls?
Well, per his bio he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier General on Sept. 1, 2000. And he flew in Operation Iraqi Freedom which was the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Certainly looks like he flew in a war zone as a general.
A U.S. Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft returns to the fight after receiving fuel from a KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft during a mission over Iraq June 10, 2008. F-16 is assigned to Balad Air Base, Iraq and is deploy
He may have been up to get his hours and maintain his flight status. 2008 was not that dangerous a time to be flying at 15,000 feet, as I recall.
But even there wasn’t a big risk (however that’s defined), I thought that on principle, danger or not, general officers aren’t permitted to directly engage the enemy.
In fact, the idea that once you’ve made General you can no longer fight with your troops, has led more than a few to decline the promotion. Maybe it’s different with the Air Force?
I don’t see anything in his bio to indicate that he flew in Iraq or that he ever flew F-16s. Of course, the photo doesn’t lie. I’d buy the “just getting some fight hours” theory.
"General Seip is a command pilot with more than 4,500 flying hours, primarily in fighter aircraft. He flew the F-15E in support of operations Southern Watch, Northern Watch and Iraqi Freedom. As the Deputy Combined Forces Air Component Commander for U.S. Central Command, General Seip had a direct impact in supporting combat operations in operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom and Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa.
…
July 2002 - May 2004, Deputy Director of Operations and Training, Deputy Chief of Staff for Air and Space Operations, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.
May 2004 - June 2005, Deputy Combined Force Air Component Commander, U.S. Central Command, Deputy Commander Air Force Forces, and Deputy Commander 9th Air and Space Expeditionary Task Force, Air Combat Command, Southwest Asia
June 2005 - June 2006, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Air, Space and Information Operations, Plans and Requirements (A3/5), Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. 2
July 2006 - present, Commander, 12th Air Force (Air Forces Southern), Davis-Monthan AFB, Ariz.
SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 1. May 2001 - July 2002, Deputy Director for Operations, National Military Command Center, Joint Staff, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., as a brigadier general 2. May 2004 - June 2005, Deputy Combined Force Air Component Commander, U.S. Central Command, Deputy Commander Air Force Forces, and Deputy Commander 9th Air and Space Expeditionary Task Force, Air Combat Command, Southwest Asia, as a major general
FLIGHT INFORMATION Rating: Command pilot Flight hours: More than 4,500 Aircraft flown: RF-4C, F-4D/E, F-14A and F-15A/E"
I recall in Chuck Yeager’s book that he talked about being restricted from flying when he became a General. A rather strange situation for such a skilled pilot.
It’s been years since I read that book. I’m pretty sure that he still flew enough to keep his flight rating.
The name on the cockpit has nothing to do with the aircrew flying the airplane on a particular mission. When I was in the Air Force, all of the aircrew in the squadron their name on an airplane, including me. We flew in whatever airplane was available/assigned to a particular mission, regardless of which name happened to be on the cockpits.
The base commander was a general, and a pilot. He was allowed to fly single seater airplanes, but if he flew a dual-cockpit model he was required to have an instructor pilot in the back seat. He hated that, and instructed the scheduling people to always assign him to a single-seater.
These were not combat missions…they were test or training missions, done stateside. The general did not fly high risk test missions. Mostly he just did training missions or travel to meetings…really low impact/easy stuff to maintain currency.
In military parlance, any flight is a “mission”, with some objective to accomplish. It might be training, a photo op, a fly-by, search/rescue, intercept, combat, test, etc.
General Patreaus walking on the ground in sector was at a much greater danger than this guy. Who is going to shoot at him way up there, anyway? If he survives an accident, I bet the PJs would be there before his parachute landed.
Just looked at the pictures. That configuration looks odd to me. He’s got what I think are AMRAAM missiles on the wingtips, the left wing has a pair of “smart bombs” and a wing tank, while the right wing has only a pod of some type…possibly a targeting pod.
I remember reading, but have no cite, something about the chief of the Israeli Air Force taking a jet out for a spin after a law was passed about top brass flying combat.
Don’t tell that to Patton. In todays mobile warfare a Division Staff has to be mobile as well. Sometimes you overrun the enemy and end up in situations. Believe me a General will fight if his command makes contact. That said a Generals place is not on the line. But as close to it as possible is optimum.
I noticed the AMRAAMs, too (you are definitely correct.) That’s a weird loadout; a plane equipped for a strike mission would normally carry Sidewinders for self defense. And as you point out, the wings aren’t loaded the same.
Yeah and his Dad would have gone into combat as President if given half a chance. He was once shot in the side while giving a speech. He went on to talk for over an hour before he left for the hospital. Not to mention that he was a very vigorous speaker. They raise 'em tough in that Family.
