From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-135 pilots cross-trained to F-105 jocks?
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:44:47 GMT

Tim Benko <twb37@mcs.net> wrote:

>The Discovery Channel recently ran an updated "WINGS" show that
>was on the Republic F-105 Thunderchief.  In it there was a mention that
>due to pilot losses in the SEA with the "Thud" the big-shots in the
>upper echelon at USAF wanted to cross-train KC-135 pilots to F-105's.
>Did this ever happen, or did the "big-shots" in USAF come to their minds
>in time.

There were two principles involved here. First was the long held USAF
fiction of the "universally assignable pilot." i.e. a pilot is a pilot
so he(she) can do any job. Second was the SEA policy that no pilot
would serve an involuntary second tour until all pilots had been once.

F-105 training for a new guy out of undergrad pilot training took more
than eight months. A class of nine started every six weeks in the
cycle of UPT graduations. When losses began to mount in 105 units, the
pipeline needed to get more people through faster. The solution was to
switch to "retraining" of "experienced" pilots from all available
resources, including tankers, transports, bombers and staff positions.
This system put classes of fifteen through the 105 checkout in four
months--roughly a four fold increase in production.

The problem was that many of these pilots couldn't deal with the
speed, complexity or tactics of the mission. There is a lot of
difference between hours of autopilot with a crew of four and hands on
formation coordinated tactics in a high-threat environment. The first
class of fifteen graduates arrived in SEA in June-July of 1966. Of the
fifteen, only one survived to complete the tour!

Certainly some tanker, C-124 and B-52/47 pilots had the skills to
succeed and they did so with great distinction, courage and honor.
But, unfortunately, many more were in a situation they could not cope
with and they not only endangered themselves but also those who flew
with them.


 Ed Rasimus                 *** Peak Computing Magazine
    Fighter Pilot (ret)     ***    (http://peak-computing.com)
                            *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                            ***    (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-135 pilots cross-trained to F-105 jocks?
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 01:06:30 GMT

dnthomps@csra.net (Daniel N. Thompson) wrote:


>Out of curiosity, Why couldn't a KC-135 pilot be trained to fly a thud?

Think about it.

A tanker pilot flys a airliner type aircraft straight and level with
the help of a navigator and a copilot all by itself.

A tactical aviator flys upside down and at high G load more often than
not, usually in multiples of coordinated operations in high threat
environments. 

Why couldn't a monkey write Shakespeare.

BTW, in the nearly ten years of SEA operations, how many tankers were
shot down....think about it....


 Ed Rasimus                 *** Peak Computing Magazine
    Fighter Pilot (ret)     ***    (http://peak-computing.com)
                            *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                            ***    (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-135 pilots cross-trained to F-105 jocks?
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 16:27:32 GMT

dnthomps@csra.net (Daniel N. Thompson) wrote:

>In article <32e95be0.291226089@news.rmii.com>, thunder@rmii.com (Ed
>Rasimus) wrote:
>
>> dnthomps@csra.net (Daniel N. Thompson) wrote:
>> 
>> >Out of curiosity, Why couldn't a KC-135 pilot be trained to fly a thud?
>
>Come on Ed, read the question that I asked.  Even a fighter pilot is a
>pedetrian before he gets to undergraduate pilot training.  Are you saying
>that there are no tanker pilots capable of flying upside down and pulling
>high G loads?

During the period in question assignments out of UPT were made
competitively on the basis of class ranking determined by performance
both academically and in the air during the year long program. With
few exceptions the top performers choose high performance aircraft
leaving the crew-served aircraft for those who finished lower in the
class. SAC assignments usually went last.

Before you say "a pilot is a pilot" let me suggest that in every
profession there are under- and over-achievers, those with more talent
and skill and those with less. Just as all doctors and lawyers are not
the same, so also not all pilots are the same.

Going back to your question, could a tanker pilot be trained to fly a
fighter? Certainly. Could he be trained to takeoff and land the
aircraft, fly the requisite formations and deliver weapons within
qualification criteria? You bet. Would he be as good in combat? Maybe,
then again maybe not. 

The fact is that in the F-105 business, the retreads from KC's, BUFFs,
MAC and various staff jobs were not as good as career tactical
aviators. They died wholesale.

>> BTW, in the nearly ten years of SEA operations, how many tankers were
>> shot down....think about it....
>
>What does this have to do with with the relative skills of fighter pilots
>and tanker pilots?

It has to do with the relative complexity of the two missions and with
the intangible pressure on performance caused by the threat of death
or capture. The penalty for an incremental lack of capability is
severe.

 Ed Rasimus                 *** Peak Computing Magazine
    Fighter Pilot (ret)     ***    (http://peak-computing.com)
                            *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                            ***    (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-135 pilots cross-trained to F-105 jocks?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:32:46 GMT

egelsone@aol.com (EGELSONE) wrote:

>In article <32eb83cb.92251944@news.rmii.com>, thunder@rmii.com (Ed
>Rasimus) writes:
>
>>The fact is that in the F-105 business, the retreads from KC's, BUFFs,
>>MAC and various staff jobs were not as good as career tactical
>>aviators. They died wholesale.

>Just talked to a retired USAF COL.  he was an assignments officer during
>much of the Vietnam war.

No one could have been an "assignments officer" during much of the
Vietnam War. The war went on much too long. If, however, that
statement means that the COL was a non-rated personnel officer, then I
will respect his opinion regarding personnel management if he will
respect mine about aviation competence.

Although, I've got to confess that for two years of my AF career
between flying 100 missions N. in an F-105 and flying another 150
missions in an F-4E (50 more N.), I managed to sqeeze in two years as
an AFSC 7316 (personnel staff officer) at Major Air Command level
handling rated assignment policy.

>he told me that Ed Rasimus has overstated his
>case.  That there were a GREAT many pilots crosstrained during the war and
>that as Ed stated most of them died, is pure bullsh*t. 

I'm not given to PURE bullshit, just the regular kind. The subject was
cross training of "heavy" pilots into F-105s for the purpose of
manning the air war over North Vietnam. Yes, many pilots cross-trained
during the war. Many pilots flew entire tours in the South where the
defenses were considerably different. Many flew 105s during the period
1969-1972, when they didn't go North. Many pilots cross-trained into
other aircraft.

If the aforementioned personnel COL (why capitalize his rank? it isn't
that relevant to the discussion.) understood the statement he might
have refrained from impugning my integrity and introducing the bovine
scatology.

> He said that most
>of them did well and that perhaps Mr. Rasimus was merely showing his
>disdain for all that were not "fighter pilots".  He suggested that what Ed
>shows is pure fighter pilot ego and that the facts mean little to the very
>egotistical of the fighter pilot types.

Facts mean everything. I suggest a review of the losses in F-105 units
in 1966-68 before refuting my facts.

>Sorry Ed R.  It is what the man said.  He was there, he did that and he
>probably assigned you.

Did the personnel section suffer much in the way of losses?

BTW, he didn't assign me the first time, I earned my assignment
through strict competition in pilot training. The second time, I made
my own assignment as a direct action from my desk at Air Training
Command HQ to USAF MPC.   

 Ed Rasimus                 *** Peak Computing Magazine
    Fighter Pilot (ret)     ***    (http://peak-computing.com)
                            *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                            ***    (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-135 pilots cross-trained to F-105 jocks?
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:14:11 GMT

Bob & John McKellar <cci@sava.gulfnet.com> wrote:

>Many weekend warrior Reserve pilots fly airliners during the week and
>fighters on the weekends.  The SC and NY Air Guard units did OK in
>Desert Storm!

Which came first, chicken or egg?

Many airline pilots were previously military pilots, and many of those
who were military pilots were tactical aviators. In other words, they
were fighter pilots first.

In fact, I can't think of any instances in which a qualified airline
pilot then went to military flight training.


 Ed Rasimus                 *** Peak Computing Magazine
    Fighter Pilot (ret)     ***    (http://peak-computing.com)
                            *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                            ***    (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-135 pilots cross-trained to F-105 jocks?
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:26:40 GMT

Kristan Roberge <Kroberge@magi.com> wrote:

>Hell, the F-105 driver's weren't even that highly trained in ACM, they
>were trained to drop bombs afterall. And most of them had trained
>for the role of dropping A-bombs, not ironbombs.

The "retraining" program for 105 qualification that is being discussed
in which tanker, bomber, trainer and staff pilots were pipe-lined to
SEA didn't even address the nuclear capabilities of the aircraft. 

To provide the quickest, most economical and most timely route to
"combat capable" status all nuclear weapons qualifications sorties
were dropped as well as all employment of the low level terrain
avoidance radar capability.

In fact, time spent flying the 105 for many pilots (me included) was
not creditable for award of the Combat Readiness Medal (a USAF
decoration which recognizes three years or more service as a fully
qualified combat ready aircrew.)  The time I spent in combat in the
105, I was never officially "combat ready."

Bit of a Catch-22, don't ya think?


 Ed Rasimus                 *** Peak Computing Magazine
    Fighter Pilot (ret)     ***    (http://peak-computing.com)
                            *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                            ***    (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: David Lednicer <dave@amiwest.com>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-135 pilots cross-trained to F-105 jocks?
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 09:20:56 -0800

EGELSONE wrote:
> Just talked to a retired USAF COL.  he was an assignments officer during
> much of the Vietnam war.  he told me that Ed Rasimus has overstated his
> case.  That there were a GREAT many pilots crosstrained during the war and
> that as Ed stated most of them died, is pure bullsh*t.  He said that most
> of them did well and that perhaps Mr. Rasimus was merely showing his
> disdain for all that were not "fighter pilots".  He suggested that what Ed
> shows is pure fighter pilot ego and that the facts mean little to the very
> egotistical of the fighter pilot types.

	Wash this guy's mouth out with soap!  Ed was there, and is hence a
first person source, in historical terms.  Your posting was a second
hand tale, and is hence less believable in historical reporting.  And
watch your language - you weren't even close to being there!

-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lednicer             | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"
Analytical Methods, Inc.   |   email:   dave@amiwest.com
2133 152nd Ave NE          |   tel:     (206) 643-9090
Redmond, WA  98052  USA    |   fax:     (206) 746-1299

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Navy vs. Air Force Pilots
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 21:29:49 GMT

griffon@canit.se (Urban Fredriksson) wrote:

>In article <351e1694.79696953@news.rmi.net>,
>Ed Rasimus <thunder@rmii.com> wrote:
>
>>I was in the tactical air force. We were always very painfully aware
>>that the folks in the Military Airlift Squadrons weren't working for
>>the same company we were.
>
>Do you think there's an advantage in this, or do you think
>it would be a good idea if transport pilots generally were
>ex fighter pilots, like here for example?

I was speaking of "attitude" and "cooperation" not aviation skills. I
can't begin to recount the number of instances over my 23 years of
active duty in which the Military Airlift Command went out of their
way to inconvenience the folks they were supposed to be supporting.
Not the least of which were the dead-head trips in which the only
cargo was the new motor bike the copilot picked up at his last stop
but the flight couldn't manifest the excess baggage of the tactical
aircrews returning from a month long squadron deployment.

Throw in the four hour prior to departure show-times, the inevitable
midnight departures, the baggage show-downs, the drug dogs pissing on
your flight gear and the shitty attitude of the MAC crews....but I
digress from the charter of R.A.M.


 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Navy vs. Air Force Pilots
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:28:50 GMT

"Dick Latshaw" <latshaw@ibm.net> wrote:

>
>Ed Rasimus wrote in message <351e1694.79696953@news.rmi.net>...
>>All you had to do was try to get a ride from most of the trash-haulers
>>to know that the similarities were only superficial.
>
>
>Obviously, you never came close to my C141.  I was awakened at
> all hours at Yakota by fighter jocks wanting to bum a ride back to SEA.
>They wound up as ACM on the paperwork, in between the ACP and
>Base Ops.  I never left a Space A behind in SEA - even if we didn't
>have a comfort pallet or the loadmaster wasn't pleased to put down
>some seats.  When the pax service guy said "How many can you
>take?", I said "How many have you got?".  And I was not alone -
>that spirit typified the folks that I worked with at Charleston.
>Guess you must have run into some of those Dover guys. -)

You are right (and that kind of attitude was appreciated). I should
always be careful about painting with too broad a brush.

But your mention of Yokota caused me to flash back on a night I spent
in Tachikawa.  I had arrived out of Vietnam for a couple of days R&R
in Tokyo and showed up at the BOQ in flight suit. The clerk asked me
if I was "air crew", despite my obvious clothing. I said I certainly
was.

I registered and headed down the hall to a beautiful air-conditioned
room with private bathroom, TV and mini-bar. After dinner at the
O'club across the street I collapsed in bed.

I was awakened at 3:00 AM (breaking my crew-rest) by an irritated desk
clerk and a Security Policeman. I was informed by the clerk that I was
"NOT aircrew. I wasn't MAC. I was "other" pilot." And, I couldn't stay
here.

I was bundled up and moved across the base to the "transient"
quarters--no airconditioning, four beds to a room, shower/toilet down
the hall and a twenty-minute bus ride to the club for meals.

Similar occurences at Clark where 120 air-conditioned aircrew trailers
were "reserved" for MAC crews in the event of a typhoon.

You might have done a supportive job, and I thank you. But, as a
command, MAC sucks.



 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The superior USAF
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:22:42 GMT

urinoy@ibm.net (Uri Noy) wrote:

>In article <35e960d0.87925408@news.rmi.net>, thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)

>>McPeake is a pilot who happened to fly
>>fighters. The distinction is important.
>
>WOW!! , with all respect to your personal record sir,
>i don't know Gen. McPeake personally, so i'll just quote his very brief resume
>from the IAF magazine and let other readers judge if he was a fighter pilot or
>just a pilot who happened to fly fighters.
>
>quote...
>
>..served as a member of the USAF's aerobatic team, flew hundreds of missions
>in vietnam, commanded a NATO fighter wing...

I knew "Tony" McPeake when he was a Captain on the T-Birds at Nellis.
Guys like Jack Dickey, Stan Musser, Mike McCloud, Chris Pakerakis were
passing through the team at that time. F-100s.

There were "missions" and "missions" in Vietnam. You could fly
hundreds of missions in the South and never see anything but small
arms fire. When you count missions in that dismal war you must always
make distinctions regarding where and when they were flown.

Commanding a wing, unfortunately in the USAF is much more a political
job than an aeronautical one. Would that it were not so.

>[snip]
>(as he told the IAF magazine reporter...)
>now flies his private aerobatic aircraft at weekends...admits he misses combat
>flying and more than all he misses flying the F-16..."you don't get into it,
>you 'wear' it. if the F-16 was a woman it would have been my lover"

Flying an aerobatic airplane is (as you most certainly know) a task
involving piloting skills. Flying combat requires something
different--mindset, cojones, attitude, mutual trust....whatever.

The quote  regarding "wear" of an airplane often is attributed to
Chappie James (and that would be at least 20 years before Merrill said
it.) And, if you poll those who know that remarkable gentleman you
will once again find that most categorize him as "a pilot who flew
fighters."

As for likening the Viper to his lover, I don't really want to enter
that Freudian jungle of symbology.

>end quote.
>
>sounds like a fighter pilot to me.

A few beers shared with some of the tactical aviators who were on duty
during the McPeak years discussing the politically correct attitudes,
the sycophancy to higher level mismanagement and the self-serving
legacy of mis-directed reorganizations of the AF typified by the
uniform redesign debacle might give you a different impression.



 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The superior USAF
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:35:39 GMT

waltbj@oneimage.com wrote:

>thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus) wrote:

>>IMO, Horner is a fighter pilot. McPeake is a pilot who happened to fly
>>fighters. The distinction is important.
>>Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret)
>
>Ed, it's more than important, it's crucial. It was my experince that no
>more than 3 to 5 pilots in any one squadron were really good fighter
>pilots - how did you find that?
>   Walt Bj ftr plt ret

First, to answer Cecil's question. A pilot (someone who is rated, i.e.
wears wings) can be assigned to fly tactical aircraft--fighters. They
fill a billet. A fighter pilot is someone with a "state of mind", an
attitude which coupled with the skills necessary to maximize
performance of the weapon system, leads to mission accomplishment.

I've probably been more fortunate than you have, Walt. (Or maybe my
standards are lower?) I've been in some organizations that had
extremely high percentages.

When I arrived at Korat in '66, the 105 unit was populated with folks
who had stayed home while the aggressive guys had volunteered for the
first TDYs. When the PCS units were established, the folks with 0
missions were tabbed for the permanent change of station. These guys
were minimum capable, more concerned with survival than mission.

Fairly soon after I arrived, however, we got the influx of high time
105 drivers from Europe and the school house at Nellis. These guys
were almost all fighter pilots. Ditto for the first increments of
Weasels. I owe my life to their leadership and tutelage.

My second tour at Korat, in the F-4E, we had a few pilots who had
successfully avoided combat for more than 7 years of the war, despite
being in tactical aircraft billets. We also had a high percentage,
like myself, who were back for a second tour against NVN. And we had
some exceptional lieutenants, both front and back seat. (Yes, it's
possible for a WSO to be called a "fighter pilot" although
fightergator is equally complimentary.)

While in Spain, I worked with some good guys, but the proportion
starts to approach your numbers. We had FAIPs and cross-trains and
staff pukes. But we also had a few leaders and mentors with aviation
skills and proven courage.

One of the best groups of FPs I worked with was at Fighter Lead-In
Training in the 435th TFS. Since we were the IP training squadron as
well as the only FAC training unit and we also did the full gamut of
lead-in syllabi, we were able to see most of the input to the IP force
and we got first choice of the graduates before the other three
squadrons. In that unit we ran about 3/4 of the bunch as true fighter
pilots.


 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The superior USAF
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 13:42:52 GMT

urinoy@ibm.net (Uri Noy) wrote:

>In article <35e9f952.0@206.168.123.253>, waltbj@oneimage.com wrote:
>>It was my experince that no more than 3 to 5 pilots in any one squadron
>>were really good fighter pilots
>
>>   Walt Bj ftr plt ret
>
>Er... forgive my IAF oriented point of view, maybe we ARE different here, but,
>how could they remain in their fighter squadrons if they were'nt good ?

---SNIP---
>
>i though it was the same at your air force. was i wrong ?
>
>just one more point for thought in this who-is-best debate.

Now you've gone and done it.

You will probably find it strange, maybe unbelievable but in the USAF
it is specifically prohibited to comment on a pilot's aeronautical
abilities in his/her Officer Effectiveness Report.

In fact, pilot may be the only career field that has that limitation.

The result is that we wind up with staff officers and careerists
gaining promotion and eventually leadership positions while warriors
languish and are often "passed over". It can eventually lead to the
ludicrous situation in which an Amway salesman and chronic
tail-dragger is recommended for Sec AF.

Seriously it is a problem, and it certainly supports your arguments
that, as a war-fighting entity, the IAF has marked superiorities over
the USAF.



 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)

From: thunder@rmii.com (Ed Rasimus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: In a dogfight..........
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:34:18 GMT

wcsys@usa.net (Dweezil Dwarftosser) wrote:

>However, it seems to me that the three services approach things much
>differently:
>
>USAF fighter jocks: broadly-trained and employed in all roles of their
>     aircraft, A/A, A/G, and Strike, with different systems/techniques
>     used for each.

Ahhh, if only it were still so. The USAF fell victim to the
"specialization is better" syndrome when the F-15 came into the
inventory. We also got F-4 pilots then who could only do Mavericks or
Loran or LGB, and some who could only do intercepts but not A/G.

It seemed strange to me that we could have aviators (that remarkably
flexible component of the weapon system) that had less capability than
the hardware they operated.

>USN fighter jocks: specialists in one of those areas, with far less-
>     intensive "keep-current qualification" in the others.  This spec-
>     ialization may lead to excellence in one field - but less stellar
>     performance on the others.

When I had a week aboard Forrestal with VF-11 (IIRC), I was amazed
that the only "currency" board the F-4 crews kept was landings.
Everything was secondary to a "green-3". No intercepts, no night, no
AAR, no approaches, no weapons events of any kind. Just landings.

>USMC fighter jocks: down-in-the-dirt CAS specialists, even when other
>     tactics may be more effective or prudent.  HUD tapes from Bosnian
>     bombing sorties show very low, close-range DIRECT attacks - when
>     the F/A-18 might have been better used by letting the computer
>     drop the bombs.  The aircraft has the capability; it wasn't used.
>     Perhaps it's the need to "see the whites of their eyes"...

The quote used to be "if there are a thousand ways to attack any given
enemy position, why do the Marines always choose frontal assault?"

Typically, the deployed USMC I've encountered have been well ahead of
the critical supply links with a resulting low FMC rate. Direct mode
always works, and if the crews are trained in it, you get weapons on
target.

Unfortunately, USAF seems to have abandoned most operational
qualification in manual, depressed reticle weapons delivery.


 Ed Rasimus                   *** Peak Computing Magazine
  Fighter Pilot (ret)         ***   (http://peak-computing.com)
                              *** Ziff-Davis Interactive
                              ***   (http://www.zdnet.com)