Let me clarify a bit…just to avoid confusion with the story JosephFinn linked to, which presents the issue as if only the Navy has women flying combat (no fault of Joseph’s, of course. Pity news reporters don’t feel a need to do quality research…).
Flynn is in the Air Force, and graduated from the University of Texas either in Fall 1990 or Spring 1991…'fraid I don’t remember exactly. She preceeded the Navy’s first female fighter jock by about 2 months…and wound up as a guest on “Larry King Live” as well as various magazine covers when she got selected to fly the F-15E Strike Eagle.
Me an’ Bluesman, we got a thang. He loves me and I love him…but I leave the real lovin’ to his lovely wife Lucretia. Who I also love very much. Not in the biblical sense, you understand. Oh, never mind. I’m just going back over to my thread where I’m trying to convince people that I do other things besides flirt.
The Air Force’s version of G-2 is called simply called Air Force Intelligence. However, you may be asking about the Air Force counterpart to the Army’s INSCOM (Intelligence and Security Command), which is AIA (Air Intelligence Agency). AIA also happens to be my parent organization.
There are also any number of AF people that work various intel jobs from the squadron and wing unit-level to the national Intelligence Community (IC) agencies. I am assigned to the National Security Agency, and I have friends and colleagues across the whole alphabet soup of the big IC outfits: CIA, DIA, FBI, DEA, and a bunch you’ve probably never heard of.
It depends on what kind of career you’re looking for in the IC. Do you have a talent for languages? Do you want to be a photo interpreter? Signals analysis? I have my own opinions, but there are so many GREAT things to get into in the IC…I’ll tell you this: I’ve never been bored in fifteen years. It oughta tell ya something, because with my security clearance and experience, I could make a big ole pile o’ money if I got out, but I’m not even considering it. This is too much fun.
Shameless personal self-advancement? Weeeellll, even though that was written facetiously, I would ask you to carefully consider your motives before you join ANY military service. One of the core values of the AF is, “Service before Self”, and to us, it ain’t just loose talk. If we wanted mercenaries, we could get 'em. What we need are patriots and people committed to a cause bigger than themselves. If that’s you, come on in.
Hey, wasn’t that a great night? Fine pizza, and I’m glad you were waaaay down there on our end o’ the table. If I knew you better back then, I’d have pinched yer butt, you hot bitch. (I’m leaving that part in, even though Lucretia is whackin’ me.)
BTW, Jess, you came dam’ close to being harrassed, too. You yummy li’l OW OW OW! STOP HITTING ME!!!
Oh, and FCM, was that your friend Mike? Seriously, AF intel is a very small family, and you tend to see the same faces again and again. (I went over to Saudia Arabia, and roomed with a guy from the office down the hall back here at NSA! Saw a buncha other guys I was in Misawa, Japan with. It happens all the time!) I really might know Mike!
You mean the colorful tail flashes on some fighters? They’re almost all gone, except in Guard and Rserve units, although you still see 'em for special events, like weapons meets, ‘show the flag’ tours, etc.
As far as the AURORA Project, I don’t know any more than you do about that, and if I did, I wouldn’t talk about it.
I am the Bluesman because I like my blue uniform more than my Battle Dress Uniform, and I LOVE the old blues masters (B.B. King, Howlin’ Wolf, Lightnin’ Hopkins…them guys). Not a reference to depression or anything like that.
Sounds like you went to a lucky high school. Seriously, the military kids, although known forevermore as ‘brats’, are probably the best-behaved kids in their mean family incomes in the country. (That’s not an authoritative statement, ya know, just my impression after years of close-range observation.) It’s fairly easy to make parents get things under control when you can threaten their careers and homes for the misdeeds of their dependents. Also, at least one parent is working, and there’s usually no substance abuse in the home. Put it all together, and a military kid has a LOT fewer behavior problems when there are fewer social pathologies in his life. (Not NONE, just fewer.)
“F-14 pilots are all NAVY! Or Iranian.” That’s not one o’ our airplanes; the US Navy and Iran are the only operators of the F-14. A little long in the tooth and with some significant disadvantages, but still a terrific fighter.
Yeah, there’s always rivalry between the different flying ‘communities’. It’s usually in good fun, and there are ‘Rules of Engagement’ for the ribbing. For instance, when you’re in the O Club and hangar-flying with the other pilots, NOBODY is gonna be puttin’ down the Jolly Green Giant crews. Those are the mental cases that fly the suicide missions into the worst places in the world at any given moment to get your shot-down, busted-leg, surrounded-by-Apaches ASS outta there, and they ALWAYS try, even against STOOPID odds. Balls to their knees, man, and the fighter community in particular (arrogant and aggressive, usually) become as protective as muthah bears around these guys. Jolly Green crews NEVER buy their own drinks: it isn’t permitted, as long as a fighter guy still has money on him, or can talk himself into a line of credit.
There is no norm for how many support people per fighter, because it’s going to depend on conditions. Also, some people have different ideas about what is ‘support’. Is the guy from the Finance Office supporting the flying mission? The Civil Engineering guy? (What’s up, Tripler?) Hard question to answer.
As far as women in combat is concerned (or my opinion of it, at least), that’s a WHOOOOOLE different thread.
The most outrageous flying? Narrow it down for me, and I’ll take a run at it.
I am a private and commercial pilot, I love flying sport aerobatics, but I don’t fly for the AF. If I did, I’d love to fly fighters, although I can’t imagine being dissatified with ANY flying job. It’s the most fun you can have with your clothes on!
I can’t answer that question: it’s too broad. I have so many favorites. I will say this, though: when I read the question, the aircraft that jumped into my head first was a J-3 Cub. I have lots of hours in one, and it’s some dam’ fun aviatin’.
Tell ya what - when this “Ask me” thread drops off, we’ll have a good ole time tearin’ the “Women in combat” subject up. Deal? (I had no idea I’d be posting this much, or in this much detail, when I started this! I can’t keep up! :))
As far as ‘blues’ are concerned, yeah, that’s part of my handle, too.
So my question is this. In the past many AF planes have been mutli- or dual-mission capable.
I was looking at the F-22 Raptor and saw that it’s only role is air superiority.
I was wondering if that is considered a disadvantage in any way? What was the philosphy behind giving it only one role?
Even if that is it’s only mission, would it be capable of others? If so, would it pick up these other roles later on, the way the F-4 Phantom seemed to do?
Lastly, even though it is Army, what do you think of the RAH-66 Comanche? I like it a lot (very sexy, though the Apache is meaner) but it seems to me to be over engineered and could be fielded in a more useful manner than merely as a recce chopper. Why wouldn’t it have a role kind of like the stealth bombers - first in.
Well I certainly asked a lot of questions there. Hehe.
I am considering going to OTC in the summer. My recruiter seems to think I am a shoe-in. He is recommending I go into acquisitions ( I will be 23years old with masters in accounting). Do you have any opinions on this field? Do you recommend any others? I cannot be a pilot due to my near-sightedness. Thanks
Having a single-role of air superiority is NOT a disadvantage if and only if air superiority is what you need. That’s not a facetious answer.
The VERY first mission of any air force is air superiority, because all other things aerial become possible. Without it, NOTHING aerial is possible.
When the F-15 was first contemplated, the design philosophy was summed up in the design team’s mantra: “Not a pound for air to ground.” The design was single-minded: make something to kill ALL other aerial targets. Well, in the fullness of time, we now have the most excellent E-model, the Strike Eagle. That’s how it goes, most of the time: fiscal realities force decisions that weren’t the best. In this case, instead of getting a dedicated strike aircraft, we got a hybrid. Thank God we got a good one.
I expect the lifespan of the Raptor project will be something like that, although today saw the award of the Joint Strike Fighter contract, so who knows. We may end up with two fine aircraft, built and employed concurrently, and our enemies have that much more to worry about.
And that’s what it’s all about. We build these things because we don’t want to be forced to fight, and the best way to make sure of that is to keep your powder dry, and have lots of powder. No nation has ever been forced into a war against a foreign power because it was well-armed and well-prepared.
Multi-role aircraft only make sense if you are a bean-counter, an accountant that uses a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis to shape strategy. Consider this: if you had an excellent airplane that could do it all, you’d be a fool to buy anything else, right? WRONG!
I’d rather have five different aircraft types fighting in a theatre of war than one, because it multiplies my enemies’ problems. Mine, too, especially logistics, but if I can hack it better than the bad guys, I’ll win. Instead of one tactic to fight a single type, he has to develop several, and pick the right one in any given engagement. Specific example: the SA-10 GRUMBLE is a truly AWESOME Russian-built SAM. They are deadly in almost every altitude band, and they can reach waaaay out there, or kill you almost directly overhead. Well, why the hell would you use anything else? Because as deadly as they are, I can fight ‘em if that’s all there is out there. BUT…throw in a couple of mediocre types, say a high altitude system, and one for down low, and I have a real hard time whippin’ THAT.
Efficiency experts have their place in industry, but sometimes it’s not as good as it looks in the realm of strategy. So it is with multi-role aircraft: good economy, poor strategy.
Sorry,kinda went off there.
As far as Army Aviation goes, I’m not much on that, but I will say this on your comment: recce IS the first in, and frequently the last out. And ‘merely’ may not have been what you meant, because recce is a vital job, and exceedingly dangerous, too.
You are right! I was thinking of a functioning AF in a time of budget cuts (hmmm has the WTC incident turned that around noticeably?) and not about battlefield tactics, ability and superiority. Point taken.
I meant the use of the word merely, though with no slight intended to the men who fly the choppers. I only meant that the platform is so awesome that I could see it being used in other roles as well.
Thanks for the answer to my post. You have made me look at things in a different light.
No. You may assume nothing of the sort. Now, stop asking questions, and go back to what you were doing. But stand a little more to the right. We can’t see your hands, and…I mean…uhhh…Oh, SHIT!
Seriously, AF intel is a very small family, and you tend to see the same faces again and again. (I went over to Saudia Arabia, and roomed with a guy from the office down the hall back here at NSA! Saw a buncha other guys I was in Misawa, Japan with. It happens all the time!) I really might know Mike!