User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:32:18 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the B29 in the pacific was good for two things. minelaying and nuking. the rest was a waste. And it took, literally, the president to get the AAF to do minelaying. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be fair, the B-52 has EWAR capabilities which could be handy to stage. There is more to it then just blowing up stuff on the ground. Don't confuse them. GD knows that. B-52 means carpet bombing, just like a B-24. Hell, that didn't do any good back then, it must be really irrelevant now. I was actually just reading about their minelaying capabilities. Whoever thought of the Mk62-65 QuickStrike retrofit package to turn iron bombs into shallow-water mines is a damn genius. the B29 in the pacific was good for two things. minelaying and nuking. the rest was a waste. And it took, literally, the president to get the AAF to do minelaying. WWII again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:38:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Click bait. Not much more. Take a sensational headline and throw it out there to get people to react. The author is famous for stunts like that. No research, no logic. Not even good writing. Just muck raking for the sake of it.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Vaguelly related. Some asshole really hates the AF. http://ciceromagazine.com/features/figure-out-the-air-force-airpower-nuclear-weapons-and-the-next-generation-bomber/#comment-61755 
Geez, they let just anyone publish nowadays, don't they?  Click bait. Not much more. Take a sensational headline and throw it out there to get people to react. The author is famous for stunts like that. No research, no logic. Not even good writing. Just muck raking for the sake of it. I read an article from that dude before. He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:38:24 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you explain this term for me? I know, it's probably a stupid question.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
44 hours is a heck of a month in my neck of the woods. No shit. A 44 hour month makes my back hurt thinking of it. Ive done a 9.2hr mission in the 47 so far. That was a LONG fucking day... Funny, for many threat pilots, that's a good YEAR. Can you explain this term for me? I know, it's probably a stupid question. The enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:39:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The enemy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No shit. A 44 hour month makes my back hurt thinking of it. Ive done a 9.2hr mission in the 47 so far. That was a LONG fucking day... Funny, for many threat pilots, that's a good YEAR. Can you explain this term for me? I know, it's probably a stupid question. The enemy. Gotcha. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:49:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That means you have to get close to shore in contested airspace. I can't believe many B-52 pilots (or any other pilots) would relish that mission. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be fair, the B-52 has EWAR capabilities which could be handy to stage. There is more to it then just blowing up stuff on the ground. Don't confuse them. GD knows that. B-52 means carpet bombing, just like a B-24. Hell, that didn't do any good back then, it must be really irrelevant now. I was actually just reading about their minelaying capabilities. Whoever thought of the Mk62-65 QuickStrike retrofit package to turn iron bombs into shallow-water mines is a damn genius. That means you have to get close to shore in contested airspace. I can't believe many B-52 pilots (or any other pilots) would relish that mission. Crews didn't relish the idea of penetrating Soviet air defenses either. Somehow the Air Force had no shortage of willing men for more than 3 decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:55:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crews didn't relish the idea of penetrating Soviet air defenses either. Somehow the Air Force had no shortage of willing men for more than 3 decades. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To be fair, the B-52 has EWAR capabilities which could be handy to stage. There is more to it then just blowing up stuff on the ground. Don't confuse them. GD knows that. B-52 means carpet bombing, just like a B-24. Hell, that didn't do any good back then, it must be really irrelevant now. I was actually just reading about their minelaying capabilities. Whoever thought of the Mk62-65 QuickStrike retrofit package to turn iron bombs into shallow-water mines is a damn genius. That means you have to get close to shore in contested airspace. I can't believe many B-52 pilots (or any other pilots) would relish that mission. Crews didn't relish the idea of penetrating Soviet air defenses either. Somehow the Air Force had no shortage of willing men for more than 3 decades. but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:56:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? Dude... somebody might get hurt. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 12:59:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dude... somebody might get hurt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? Dude... somebody might get hurt. troof. man get killed out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:02:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? With Sniper pods that let them see what they need to see and get a PGM dead nuts on target, why should they fly that low? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:03:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With Sniper pods that let them see what they need to see and get a PGM dead nuts on target, why should they fly that low? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? With Sniper pods that let them see what they need to see and get a PGM dead nuts on target, why should they fly that low? Arguably the larger field of view of the Mk1MOD0 eyeball would give a better situational awareness of the battlefield. But if all you are doing is grid squashing, and you are given the grid, you are correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:07:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Crews didn't relish the idea of penetrating Soviet air defenses either. Somehow the Air Force had no shortage of willing men for more than 3 decades. but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? The crews are pussies because of the decisions of their political level command? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:07:30 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? 10k looks pretty low in this video. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:07:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Arguably the larger field of view of the Mk1MOD0 eyeball would give a better situational awareness of the battlefield. But if all you are doing is grid squashing, and you are given the grid, you are correct. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? With Sniper pods that let them see what they need to see and get a PGM dead nuts on target, why should they fly that low? Arguably the larger field of view of the Mk1MOD0 eyeball would give a better situational awareness of the battlefield. But if all you are doing is grid squashing, and you are given the grid, you are correct. What are they going to see with their eyeball at 300 knots? The lower you go the more it's just a blur. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:08:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you explain this term for me? I know, it's probably a stupid question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
44 hours is a heck of a month in my neck of the woods. No shit. A 44 hour month makes my back hurt thinking of it. Ive done a 9.2hr mission in the 47 so far. That was a LONG fucking day... Funny, for many threat pilots, that's a good YEAR. Can you explain this term for me? I know, it's probably a stupid question. The guys we might fight = threat pilots. For instance, the NORKS probably get less than half that much time in a year, although that B-52 mission probably had more than a single crew. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:29:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are they going to see with their eyeball at 300 knots? The lower you go the more it's just a blur. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? With Sniper pods that let them see what they need to see and get a PGM dead nuts on target, why should they fly that low? Arguably the larger field of view of the Mk1MOD0 eyeball would give a better situational awareness of the battlefield. But if all you are doing is grid squashing, and you are given the grid, you are correct. What are they going to see with their eyeball at 300 knots? The lower you go the more it's just a blur. Depends on their altitude, doesn't it. they don't have to be on the deck. but 1-2000 in an orbit would give a chance for those eagle eyed knights of the sky to provide something of use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:30:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? 10k looks pretty low in this video.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OS_ALSyR3ILook kids, an airshow. When the bullets are flying is when it matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:30:52 PM EDT
[#17]
B52s dont do low level anymore. It aint the 80s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:31:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
B52s dont do low level anymore. It aint the 80s. But B1s do, at least when its safe. Loud fuckers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:31:34 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? 10k looks pretty low in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OS_ALSyR3IWeak. I didnt fly that high today....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:32:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look kids, an airshow. When the bullets are flying is when it matters. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? 10k looks pretty low in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OS_ALSyR3ILook kids, an airshow. When the bullets are flying is when it matters. 
So presumably they do these shows of force just because the FOB guys are bored and need a show? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:34:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weak. I didnt fly that high today....... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? 10k looks pretty low in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OS_ALSyR3IWeak. I didnt fly that high today....... Or nearly that fast either. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:34:51 PM EDT
[#22]
No, but that flyby was slow as fuck for a mach capable aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:35:51 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but that flyby was slow as fuck for a mach capable aircraft. It's kind of tough to judge speeds in these but they are making a decent clip.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:37:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, but that flyby was slow as fuck for a mach capable aircraft. I thought only MD-88s were Mach-capable these days
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:38:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought only MD-88s were Mach-capable these days Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, but that flyby was slow as fuck for a mach capable aircraft. I thought only MD-88s were Mach-capable these days duh duh *tiss* |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:39:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought only MD-88s were Mach-capable these days Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, but that flyby was slow as fuck for a mach capable aircraft. I thought only MD-88s were Mach-capable these days well played. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:40:43 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So presumably they do these shows of force just because the FOB guys are bored and need a show? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? 10k looks pretty low in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OS_ALSyR3ILook kids, an airshow. When the bullets are flying is when it matters.
So presumably they do these shows of force just because the FOB guys are bored and need a show? Well that's when I got mine. B1 came out. B1 flew around. B1 did a low pass. B1 flew home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:46:20 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because I believe, historically, the Australians have been as good as, or better allies, than anyone else in the world. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Why in the world are we training with Australia?  And they're really close to what may become the next hot spot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:49:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
0 cross country time. Took off from and landed at the same airport. Sorry guys, it's a 44 hour local.
TC P.S.--I worked with a guy who interviewed at the airline in the 1970's and wasn't going to get hired because all of his flights took off from and landed at the same place--Beale AFB. And he couldn't tell them what he flew or where he went. A guy in the flight office of the airline who did the same job when he was in the AF vouched for him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
44 hours is 1 hour short of my semi annual minimums in the CH47. That is a hell of a logbook entry. 0 cross country time. Took off from and landed at the same airport. Sorry guys, it's a 44 hour local.
TC P.S.--I worked with a guy who interviewed at the airline in the 1970's and wasn't going to get hired because all of his flights took off from and landed at the same place--Beale AFB. And he couldn't tell them what he flew or where he went. A guy in the flight office of the airline who did the same job when he was in the AF vouched for him. U2s are exceedingly neat 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 1:51:18 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got offered a ride in one during the cold war. 12 hour mission in a helmet strapped to a seat...no thanks! Kind of wish I did it now, how many people can say they've been in a BUFF? Oh well, got to refuel lots of them though. Almost had a mid-air with one on a radio-silence mission, they went over the top of us, sounded like a freight train, still not sure how close they actually got as we were in heavy clouds with extremely limited visibility. When did they get rid of the Tail Gunner,I almost cross-trained into that AFSC instead of in-flight refueling (Boomer). I knew a couple of guys who were cross trained out of tail gunner back in 1991. One went to C-141 loadmaster and was looking to cross to KC-10 boomer to stay at McGuire with his wife who worked for me. The other shared a cubical with me in Operations after I was cross trained out of simulators when that career field shut down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:10:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Vaguelly related. Some asshole really hates the AF. http://ciceromagazine.com/features/figure-out-the-air-force-airpower-nuclear-weapons-and-the-next-generation-bomber/#comment-61755 Certainly has a hard on for AF pilots, and fighter pilot types in particular it would seem. Of course, they are the ones who do run the Ringknockers Flying Club |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:10:53 PM EDT
[#32]
Exercise Talisman Saber 2015. PACOM is running it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 2:16:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Certainly has a hard on for AF pilots, and fighter pilot types in particular it would seem. Of course, they are the ones who do run the Ringknockers Flying Club Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Vaguelly related. Some asshole really hates the AF. http://ciceromagazine.com/features/figure-out-the-air-force-airpower-nuclear-weapons-and-the-next-generation-bomber/#comment-61755 Certainly has a hard on for AF pilots, and fighter pilot types in particular it would seem. Of course, they are the ones who do run the Ringknockers Flying Club Are you talking about the author or Douhet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 4:18:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you talking about the author or Douhet? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Vaguelly related. Some asshole really hates the AF. http://ciceromagazine.com/features/figure-out-the-air-force-airpower-nuclear-weapons-and-the-next-generation-bomber/#comment-61755 Certainly has a hard on for AF pilots, and fighter pilot types in particular it would seem. Of course, they are the ones who do run the Ringknockers Flying Club Are you talking about the author or Douhet? The author of the article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 5:18:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The author of the article. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Vaguelly related. Some asshole really hates the AF. http://ciceromagazine.com/features/figure-out-the-air-force-airpower-nuclear-weapons-and-the-next-generation-bomber/#comment-61755 Certainly has a hard on for AF pilots, and fighter pilot types in particular it would seem. Of course, they are the ones who do run the Ringknockers Flying Club Are you talking about the author or Douhet? The author of the article. some army guard fuck talking about airpower is pretty funny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 5:29:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Well those ball-bearing plants in Chongqing aren't going to bomb themselves, are they?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 8:37:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
50+ years and still getting the job done. Amazing.  Design something right the first time, and watch what happens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 8:43:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Design something right the first time, and watch what happens. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
50+ years and still getting the job done. Amazing. Design something right the first time, and watch what happens. yeah, but they have been talking about switching engines for 40 years. but everytime they say no because of B1s or B2s. we have wasted so much money keeping those old engines on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 8:50:05 PM EDT
[#39]
Weird, Sylvan is acting grumpy in a thread about the Air Force
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:00:39 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yeah, but they have been talking about switching engines for 40 years. but everytime they say no because of B1s or B2s. we have wasted so much money keeping those old engines on them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
50+ years and still getting the job done. Amazing. Design something right the first time, and watch what happens. yeah, but they have been talking about switching engines for 40 years. but everytime they say no because of B1s or B2s. we have wasted so much money keeping those old engines on them. I was under the understanding that it was based on poor assumptions. For example they estimated the cost of JP8 at approximately $1.49/gallon last year when it was in fact $3.62/gallon. They also didn't figure any difference in cost in remote locations like Diego Garcia while also under-representing the cost of tanker gas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:09:16 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
44 hours in the air sounds brutal... Does the b-52 have bunks and a shitter at least? I was in SAC during the 1980's. There was a shitter behind the EWO seat, I thought it was funny but a hatchet type device was attached to the side for cutting out the fuselage in case of a crash landing. Could have doubled as a hard turd cutter. There was a bunk behind the Tail Gunners position but might be gone by now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:25:02 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
some army guard fuck talking about airpower is pretty funny. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Vaguelly related. Some asshole really hates the AF. http://ciceromagazine.com/features/figure-out-the-air-force-airpower-nuclear-weapons-and-the-next-generation-bomber/#comment-61755 Certainly has a hard on for AF pilots, and fighter pilot types in particular it would seem. Of course, they are the ones who do run the Ringknockers Flying Club Are you talking about the author or Douhet? The author of the article. some army guard fuck talking about airpower is pretty funny. Have to give him credit that he knows AF doctrine better than most of them do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:29:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have to give him credit that he knows AF doctrine better than most of them do. He has a few published pieces and while I often disagree on some of his points, the AF would be better off if more of us used him to drive introspection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:39:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
44 hours in the air sounds brutal... Does the b-52 have bunks and a shitter at least? No kidding. That's a hell of a stretch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 9:53:09 PM EDT
[#45]
interesting
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:01:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryExactly what I thought. MMmNphetamines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2015 10:16:15 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends on their altitude, doesn't it. they don't have to be on the deck. but 1-2000 in an orbit would give a chance for those eagle eyed knights of the sky to provide something of use. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
but won't fly below 10K AGL in Afghanistan or ACs during the day now. Interesting dichotomy, isn't it? With Sniper pods that let them see what they need to see and get a PGM dead nuts on target, why should they fly that low? Arguably the larger field of view of the Mk1MOD0 eyeball would give a better situational awareness of the battlefield. But if all you are doing is grid squashing, and you are given the grid, you are correct. What are they going to see with their eyeball at 300 knots? The lower you go the more it's just a blur. Depends on their altitude, doesn't it. they don't have to be on the deck. but 1-2000 in an orbit would give a chance for those eagle eyed knights of the sky to provide something of use. I've only got a couple thousand hours in BUFFs so my information may be limited... Visibility SUCKS out of it. When the nuke mission was the real deal, flash curtains were installed and closed after takeoff. They were not opened until AR and landing. Low level was done with EVS/STV (FLIR forerunners and a poor substitute for modern technology). When we were flying missions in the first desert war, we were doing low level penetration and bombing. When the prevalent threat became small arms and golden BB's, the altitude went up. Twenty years later flying MH-53's in Iraq and AFG, we were doing low level insertions as was expected. When we started taking hits by RPG's and small arms, the altitudes increased again. Take off, climb to above small arms range, drop down well prior to the IP for infil/exfil, climb back up again to head home. The crews did NOT like flying higher but adapted. Anything much higher than 200 feet gave me nosebleeds but was better than the RPG to the face a buddy got. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 2:24:13 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they don't have to be on the deck. but 1-2000 in an orbit would give a chance for those eagle eyed knights of the sky to provide something of use. Not from a B-52. The pilot sees well enough to refuel and land the plane. The guy looking at the ground is the radar navigator and he doesn't have a window. He sits in the airplane equivalent of a basement. The is a lot I don't know about the current state of the radar nav. station, but they are way better off than the Desert Storm era Talking about Desert Storm, Gen. Chuck Horner is quoted as saying "They always ask for B-52 first. The guys on the ground always want a B-52." The good General is fighter mafia to the bone, but he is a straight shooter. I imagine it hurt him a little inside that his collection of tactical fighters took a back seat to a SAC relic, even back then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 2:39:06 AM EDT
[#49]
This reminds me of a story from my first OIF deployment. We had 2 Hornets and 2 Tomcats and were coming back from an OIF flight when a B-52 also on the way home wanted to join up for a flyby of the ship. We ended up putting the Tomcats on each wing and the Hornets as the outriggers. Got to within 10nm of the ship when CAG got a listen to our plan in his stateroom(CAG has all the freqs up in his stateroom). He ended up having the tower cancel it so we had to kick the B-52 off our wing to go home. What a badass pic that would have been. That's same Tomcat squadron had recently had a midair during a non-authorized photo op (involving a canopy roll) so I think that's why he cancelled it. I know, CSB. Looked bad ass though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/8/2015 2:49:12 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
0 cross country time. Took off from and landed at the same airport. Sorry guys, it's a 44 hour local.
TC P.S.--I worked with a guy who interviewed at the airline in the 1970's and wasn't going to get hired because all of his flights took off from and landed at the same place--Beale AFB. And he couldn't tell them what he flew or where he went. A guy in the flight office of the airline who did the same job when he was in the AF vouched for him. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
44 hours is 1 hour short of my semi annual minimums in the CH47. That is a hell of a logbook entry. 0 cross country time. Took off from and landed at the same airport. Sorry guys, it's a 44 hour local.
TC P.S.--I worked with a guy who interviewed at the airline in the 1970's and wasn't going to get hired because all of his flights took off from and landed at the same place--Beale AFB. And he couldn't tell them what he flew or where he went. A guy in the flight office of the airline who did the same job when he was in the AF vouched for him. The FARs let you log xc time if the operating area you're going to and from is >= 50 miles away, even if you're landing at the same place you took off and didn't land at anywhere in between. I always make sure I include the MOA or restricted area I go to. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
