PDA

View Full Version : what does it take to be a fighter pilot in the USAF?



patch_adams
06-01-2004, 04:25 PM
Can anyone with some experience and/or knowledge share what is necesarry (training, qualifications, education) to become a fighter pilot? How long does the process take? Is anyone here a fighter pilot/ ex-fighter pilot? Please share!

patch_adams
06-01-2004, 04:25 PM
Can anyone with some experience and/or knowledge share what is necesarry (training, qualifications, education) to become a fighter pilot? How long does the process take? Is anyone here a fighter pilot/ ex-fighter pilot? Please share!

Papa_K
06-01-2004, 05:16 PM
I have to go by what it was almost 25 years ago, so some things have changed:

College degree, apply for Officer Training School (OTS); or ROTC; or Air Force Academy. (The Air Force pilot's qual exam was available in most book stores back then - probably still is.)
20/20 vision.
No (zero) health problems (you learn quickly that even if your arm's falling off, the answer is (in true Monty Python fashion) "it's only a scratch".
I went the OTS route. Three months of that, and also a Flight Screening program in a Cessna 172. You must solo and meet all flight criteria or you're out. (It's best to get as much flight time prior to joining; and if you have a Private Pilot certificate, you skip Flight Screening.)
Then Pilot Training. Eight months or so, if I remember right, starting in T-37s then T-38s. Landing and formation work in T-38 take out many. T-38's are hard to land for noobs, but a blast to fly - roll rate was incredible, and it's pretty agile. Lots of academics on the aircraft systems, flight regs, FAA stuff, weather, etc.
You can get disqualified for a number of things, e.g., health reasons, personal/outside problems, academics, flight performance (first time on any maneuver is a demonstration, then a practice...by the third time you're expected to have mastered it). Failure on a flight eval gets you one retry. Fail that and you're done.
On graduation, the top of the class gets first choice at the available aircraft slots at the time...it works its way down through the class.
If you get fighters, next is Fighter Lead-In Training. Again in T-38s. Basic BFM and bombing for about 3 months.
Then RTU (Regional Training Unit) for the aircraft type you're going into. In my case, it was F-4s at the time, and it was about 7 months (again if I remember correctly). You go through BFM, ACM, ACT, DACT, more bombing from the pattern at the range, in 30/20/10/level deliveries, other deliveries (GBU for example), strafing, etc.
By now it's been almost 2 years since you started. Throw in Survival/POW Training and Water Survival Training, etc.
Then you go to your first operational assignment. You're not "mission qualified" until you go through a training program at the squadron. Once you're mission qualified, you're now the freshest pogue (or cherry, or other choice word) in the squadron. In reality, most aren't worth a damn until about 2 years after getting operational, or about 4 years after starting the process.
That's it quick and dirty. The process, especially the early part through pilot training was compared to as "drinking out of a fire hose" -- Lots of academics/tests/flights/flight evals all at once. But then again, it's the best flight training there is.
Again, some of it has changed, but that should give you an idea. It's not as bad as it may sound, but it does keep you busy.

Papa_K

patch_adams
06-02-2004, 03:37 PM
Thats interesting, thanks for sharing.

DuxCorvan
06-02-2004, 05:09 PM
Now it comes as a prize with the corn flakes! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

CAP401
06-02-2004, 06:02 PM
Also you don't nessessarilary need 20/20 vision. The Navy and pretty soon the Air Force will allow PRK surgery. Apparently, if you let's say have private pilots license(what I'm going for soon), they write you a weaver and, get this, pay for your surgery http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif. Then you continue on with your training like Papa_K said. This is directly from Air Force and Navy active pilots who used this loophole to fly.

Slammin_
06-02-2004, 06:21 PM
I originally joined the Air Force so that I could become a fighter pilot. It was my understanding that the first thing I needed to do was get a college degree. Me, figured that would take 4 years, and THEN I could proceed to become a pilot. Is this not how it goes?

Zyzbot
06-02-2004, 06:38 PM
Try this link for some info:

http://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/

huggy87
06-02-2004, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patch_adams:
Can anyone with some experience and/or knowledge share what is necesarry (training, qualifications, education) to become a fighter pilot? How long does the process take? Is anyone here a fighter pilot/ ex-fighter pilot? Please share!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


If you are interested in the navy, I will fill you in. Otherwise, I will not waste our time.

JorBR
06-02-2004, 09:29 PM
How´s the pay? How long does one serve? I´ve read somewhere qualified military pilots go to private sector seeking better income.

Out of curiosity chaps, I´m to old, to bad sighted (I´m not even american!) to join the service.

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

huggy87
06-02-2004, 11:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JorBR:
How´s the pay? How long does one serve? I´ve read somewhere qualified military pilots go to private sector seeking better income.

Out of curiosity chaps, I´m to old, to bad sighted (I´m not even american!) to join the service.

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A brand new officer will make about 35,000 USD a year. That will double after about 6 years. An O-5 (about 16 years experience), should make around about 90000. This varies a little with location and the associated housing prices.

Airline pilots can certainly make more, although pilots going from the military to airlines take a huge paycut for their first couple of years.

One perk of the military is that you can earn %50 of your base pay if you retire after 20 years. After 30 years you can earn %75.

Sturmvogel66
06-03-2004, 02:03 AM
Well, all the information here seems about what I have heard too, and I am glad that you don't need 20/20 vis, because I have 20/40-50....Let me tell you, if you are planning on doing this, the best way to go would be the academy, I was accepted there and although it is a great school, I reccomend really thinking about it first, because the academy is a very different place, if you consider yourself a social and fun loving person, you will hate the academy for the first year, but if you are willing to put up with it, its the best way to go. I am at a UC now, and I am going to do AFROTC next year, I am looking forward to trying for a pilot slot.

Freefalldart
06-03-2004, 04:40 AM
Just take a look at the cockpit of a modern fighter. It's obvious that you have to be a computing engineer to manage all those controls...
In a few more years fighting in an aircraft like F22 or Eurofighter Typhoon it's going to be something like "The Windows (c) RADAR v 2.1 have detected an enemy contact. Destroy? Yes - No - Cancel". "Boom!, the poor boy in its obsolete Mirage III has been blasted. Look for another target?".
Beside roaring at Match 2 through the skies, where is the emotion?

"Cuando un loco parece totalmente sensato es hora de ponerle la camisa de fuerza"
Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)

NCGCarmen
06-03-2004, 05:26 AM
That's probably about as far from the truth of flying modern aircraft as you could possibly get Freefall.

Breeze147
06-03-2004, 06:01 AM
Does this mean C-130 drivers finished at the bottom of the class? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap16.jpg

tfu_iain1
06-03-2004, 06:28 AM
i aint played much lomac, but from what i have, combat goes like this 'use long range radar to target enemy, fire missile. missile misses due to enemy pilot knowing his ecm and radar inside out. oh, he's fired three at me. avoid one. avoid another. he fires two more. try to attack him. oh dear, i got hit. eject!' against an equal opponent modern air combat would degenerate to close in fighting, because both pilots are so good and well trained at avoiding longer range missiles! its just modern air forces tend to avoid fighting each other for this reason...

Huxley_S
06-03-2004, 06:41 AM
What enemy air force exactly do you expect to dogfight against? There isn't an air force in the world that would dare put planes in the air against NATO. You certainly aren't going to find Al Qaeda flying modern jet fighers in combat.

All that's left for military pilots to do is bomb ground targets... and with the kind of anti-terror wars we've got at the moment, that inevitably means civilian targets.

Not something that appeals to me.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

huggy87
06-03-2004, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
What enemy air force exactly do you expect to dogfight against? There isn't an air force in the world that would dare put planes in the air against NATO. You certainly aren't going to find Al Qaeda flying modern jet fighers in combat.

All that's left for military pilots to do is bomb ground targets... and with the kind of anti-terror wars we've got at the moment, that inevitably means civilian targets.

Not something that appeals to me.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Iraq-1991
Yugoslavia- mid to late 90's

Do you honestly think that all we do is go around bombing civilian targets. You can't imagine the lengths we go to try and not hit civilians. Inevitably, it will occasionaly happen and the media will hype it up.

There were certainly not any civilians around the targets I saw, unless civilians like to reside by an aircraft in a revetment, troops embedded on a hillside, SA-2 site, an AFV, caves, a terrorist training camp in the middle of nowhere.

Would you call those civilian target?

Huxley_S
06-03-2004, 08:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Iraq-1991
Yugoslavia- mid to late 90's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

10 years ago dude. Things have changed a lot since then.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

jtasker
06-03-2004, 09:40 AM
"Does this mean C-130 drivers finished at the bottom of the class?"

Not at all.. sometimes the high finishers select multi engined AC because they eventually want airline jobs.. Being a C17 pilot or some other multi engined AC pilot is perfect airline experience and you'd be gobbled up by a commercial airline..

Freefalldart
06-03-2004, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NCGCarmen:
That's probably about as far from the truth of flying modern aircraft as you could possibly get Freefall.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe if you fly a relatively "old" jet fighter.
But when you see those new birds with their supercomputers managing engines, flying surfaces, identifying the most dangerous threats at every moment, activating the appropiate countermeasure against every type of weapon the enemy can shoot at it and capable of destroy a target at 200+ km avoiding being detected... it's difficult to believe that the pilot it's the most important part of the system.

I think that the modern air combat is going to be like a computer game in a few years, with remote controlled planes an LO-MAC experts behind the controls thousand miles away.

Think about it, accurate FM, DM and superb graphics!

"Cuando un loco parece totalmente sensato es hora de ponerle la camisa de fuerza"
Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)

LilHorse
06-03-2004, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Iraq-1991
Yugoslavia- mid to late 90's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

10 years ago dude. Things have changed a lot since then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But who knows what will crop up? Awful as it may be to contemplate, if Korea goes hot..... And who knows what could happen in Europe again?

And the last action in Iraq certainly made use of strike a/c against military targets. The Iraqi army still had plenty of T-72s, APCs, artillery, etc. And A-10s still provide CAS in Afganistan now. It's not about "bombing civilians". Never before has there been the level of accuracy and effort made to avoid civilian casualties in aerial combat as there is now. And it will only get more accurate with advances in technology.

Huxley_S
06-03-2004, 10:46 AM
Today's enemy does not wear a uniform. He does not have heavy weapons. He operates in populated areas and is indistinguishable from the civilians.

NATO air operations are going to become more and more like those employed by Israel, i.e. targeted assasinations and destruction of vehicles, offices, tv stations etc used by islamic militants.

Top Gun it ain't.

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

LilHorse
06-03-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
Today's enemy does not wear a uniform. He does not have heavy weapons. He operates in populated areas and is indistinguishable from the civilians.

NATO air operations are going to become more and more like those employed by Israel, i.e. targeted assasinations and destruction of vehicles, offices, tv stations etc used by islamic militants.

Top Gun it ain't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree. That is certainly the profile for TODAY's enemy. And we may well resort to that type of response where appropriate. But being prepared to do that doesn't mean that we should no longer be prepared for more conventional military operations which might arise (tomorrow's enemy). Who would have thought in, say, the mid-80s we'd be launching strike sorties in the former Yugoslavia in the mid-90s? In ten years, who knows what types of situations might develope along those lines? I really hope nothing will, but you never know.

Now the possibility of any kind of serious A2A combat is truly remote. At least it is for now. Unless, as I mentioned before, something happens in Korea or (God forbid) with China. And, again, awful things have happened in Europe and that doesn't mean that they might not happen again. Let's just hope not.

huggy87
06-03-2004, 04:02 PM
@Huxley: Your first post got me a little hot. You sounded like one of those morons who believe the US went in to Baghdad WW2 B-29 style razing everything in its path. Your qualifier later about 'civilians' looking like terrorists should have been added to your original post.

Actually, it was not too long ago that kills were being made in Bosnia and Iraq. The aircraft used them were the same ones used today.

@Freefalldart- I think unmanned vehicles will continue to play an increasinly important role on the battlefield, but will not replace manned aircraft. At least not in our lifetimes. The JSF currently undergoing testing will be used at least into the 2040's.

As far as the pilot not being important, just like the computer sitting on the desk in front of you would be worthless without you, so would a fighter be without a pilot.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freefalldart:
it's difficult to believe that the pilot it's the most important part of the system.

I think that the modern air combat is going to be like a computer game in a few years, with remote controlled planes an LO-MAC experts behind the controls thousand miles away.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DuxCorvan
06-03-2004, 04:54 PM
They ask you if you have played LO-MAC twenty hours a day, seven days a week...

And if you have... then you're rejected!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

- Dux Corvan -
http://www.uploadit.org/DuxCorvan/Altamira2.jpg
Ten thousand years of Cantabrian skinning.

Huxley_S
06-03-2004, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as the pilot not being important, just like the computer sitting on the desk in front of you would be worthless without you, so would a fighter be without a pilot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. A human brain needs to be at the heart of the machine. That doesn't mean the brain has to physically be inside the aircraft!

The pilot is in some respects the weakest link. There is a limit to the amount of G the pilot can experience without blacking out for instance. Pilots also get tired and make mistakes.

What if you could could fly that jet sitting at a computer, in exactly the same way that you fly Forgotten Battles. Except instead of a 3D engine creating the landscape, what you see is coming directly from cameras mounted on the aircraft. All the HUD and instrument data you receive is real. When you take off, complete your objectives and land, it is really happening.

When you get tired you just hand the controls over to your buddy, sitting beside you (or in another room, or country!) and get a coffee.

A pilotless aircraft would lead to new kinds of aircraft design and reduce pilot deaths to zero. It's bound to happen eventually. I'm not saying it's a good thing. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_huxli.jpg (http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap)

FB Music and Campaigns @
http://www.onemorewild.org/huxley

Blottogg
06-03-2004, 05:49 PM
Patch_adams, my data is a little old, but I'll tell you what I know from my perspective.

I graduated from ENJJPT (Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training) Class 88-05. At the time, ENJJPT was giving it's US graduates a higher percentage of fighter assignments than students from regular UPT (Undergraduate Pilot Training) bases. If you weren't a total ham-hand, you'd get a fighter/attack aircraft out of Euro-NATO. Don't know if that's still true. Euro-NATO was a benefit from a flying hour standpoint (with Specialized UPT at other bases, the hours and training are much closer to Euro-NATO now), and training from/with European instructors/students. The European influence was good, and tended to "lighten up" the AETC mentality, without compromising lesson content.

As an SUPT T-38 instructor, I can offer a little more up-to-date perspective (I was grounded in '95.) While you don't need 20/20 vision, you need to be correctable to 20/20, and you will require a vision waiver if not already 20/20. After you begin pilot training, your vision can go downhill (waivers are easier to get after they've sunk some money and effort into you.) I pretty much agree with Papa_K that the rest of your health needs to be good. I was grounded for diabetes, and any major illness like that is a show-stopper. Heart murmors were another occasional problem. Don't stay out late before your physical, and lay off the caffiene (this won't help a real heart problem much, but it will avoid having you flagged with a problem you don't really have.)

You need a four-year degree, but it can be in anything. There are fighter pilots with aero engineering degrees (like me), and those with history or business degrees. The three routes are Academy, ROTC and OTC (Officer Training Course.) All three have pilot slots for you to compete for, and I don't think one is more of a cakewalk than the other. I applied to the Academy, got turned down, and was picked up in ROTC. The Academy's application procedure is probably the most involved (you'll need to be nominated by one of your state's Senators or Congressmen, for example.) In ROTC you'll compete for a pilot slot in either the technical (engineering, comp. sci., etc.) or non-technical (liberal arts, business etc.) categories. Men and women can now compete for any aircraft assignment in SUPT (not sure about special ops choppers, but you won't get one of those out of SUPT anyway.)

As far as "washing out" of pilot training, I'll tell you from an instructor's perspective we tried to keep students in the program. There is no quota for washing out or passing a certain percentage of the class. Kid's usually wash out for failure to progress. We'd say that given enough time, we could teach monkeys to fly. Time is the hitch. Students have to keep up with the rate of learning in the syllabus, which can be intense at times. You may be scheduled to fly a formation sortie, but weather dictates a last minute change to an instrument simulator. Kid's who took it seriously and kept up with their studies usually didn't have a problem. Occasionally we'd have someone who just couldn't "keep up with the jet". By that I mean they couldn't consistantly think ahead far enough to anticipate what they needed to do two or three steps down the road. I'd tell my students "always be doing something in the cockpit. Fly the plane, look around you to avoid obstacles, and keep up with the navigation. Never get stuck on one task for more than about five seconds. Even if you can't solve the problem, keep your attention scanning and come back to it, or you'll become fixated on one thing. That's when you'll get bit in the *** by something you missed."

The biggest piece of advice I've got for you is DON'T PANIC. You'll be exposed to a lot of new things (altitude chambers, burnt JP-8, oxygen masks, instrument procedures, emergency procedures, etc.) Some kids would get so wrapped around the axle about something that they stopped learning and progressing. "Will I get airsick?" was a big hangup. Maybe you will, maybe you won't. If you do, puke in the bag and get back to the lesson. If you concentrate on learning what you're supposed to, you'll find that airsickness becomes a non-factor.

Finally, remember amid all the confusion, quizzes, simulators and studying, that flying is actually fun. Whenever we had a spare moment during a lesson, I'd tell my student "Hey, look around for a second. We're at the pointy end of a supersonic jet, at 30,000 feet, and we're getting PAID for this!!! Pretty cool, huh?"

Good luck, I envy you.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Papa_K
06-03-2004, 06:04 PM
Recent test to prequalify UAV "pilots" listed kids in thier early 20s who played computer flight sims all day as the best. (Side note: The term "full real" could apply to a UAV sim.)

As for the comment I saw about modern aircraft being harder to fly than earlier ones -- it's probably just about the opposite. The workload has shifted to being more mission-oriented, which is good. Instead of worrying about trimming the aircraft, for example, many/most have autotrim - it trims itself; instead of worrying about navigation, even later F-4s had a nav system that could bring you back to within a few feet of your parking spot (one side effect was that newer pilots never developed dead reckoning/pilotage skills of the past and became more dependant on nav systems). Instead of trying to manually calculate wind into mils (sight setting) and then offsetting for crosswind on a manual bombing delivery... even with dumb bombs, since the 80s, deliveries are made with CCIP (or similar) systems, which has the sight giving a "Constantly Computed Impact Point"; GBUs have been around since Vietnam (before my time)-- they're better now and easier to use.

Systems do take a while to learn, getting back to the original theme of the thread, but that's why training isn't just an weekend seminar.

Desert Storm to now, the weapons have gotten a bit more accurate and reliable, with some newer addtions like AMRAAM and then JDAMs, but for the most part we're still using the same airframes we had in the 80s. The 90's were a complete dead time for bringing in new airframes -- the entire fleet of US military aircraft is now old enough to be your father's.

Papa_K

Papa_K
06-03-2004, 06:07 PM
Blotto--you telling me you were a FAIP?

Papa_K

DaBallz
06-03-2004, 06:51 PM
If you are over 6' tall you are a multi engine driver.
At least that's the way it used to be.
Also you can wear glasses and drive a Herk (C-130).

Fighter jocks have to have better than 20-20 vision
and short men are preffered for high "G" fighters.


da...

Blottogg
06-03-2004, 07:27 PM
Papa_K, perish the thought! I did two tours in Vipers, then got packed off to AETC as part of the general drawdown in '93 (that and my DO and I had a difference of opinion... He thought I was a slacker and I thought he was an idiot. Turns out we were both right.) It was like being in a fighter squadron, except the jets were painted white. A bunch of crusty fighter pilots, with a couple of FAIP's to keep us out of jail. I think we tended to scare the studs, at least until they realized we always cursed like that, not just when we were mad at them.

I agree with your comments on the technology too. I was a "HUD baby", addicted to the green stuff, while the old F-4 hands who switched to Vipers were more traditionally skilled. They always took the money on the range when we went manual delivery. I think a version of this will be true with the next generation of pilots too. My group would probably do much better than the new kids when the GPS fails, since my coal-fired Vipers never had it installed. The current buzzphrase is "data fusion", and doing this without overwhelming the pilot will be the next major challenge. Absorbing information from the radar, FLIR, two (or more) radios, datalink, GPS, INS, RWR, etc., is a recipe for task saturation if not designed and managed properly.

I don't know much about the UAV pilots. When I left the AF in '01, they were pilots who resented being taken from a cockpit, though that attitude may have changed a bit with the recent successes of the UAV community. I'm afraid they are the "wave of the future" though. Even though going unmanned solves some problems, it raises others. If the UAV isn't autonomous, it has some type of datalink, which can be vulnerable. If autonomous, the gamble is that the software engineers have programmed in robust enough code to handle changes as well as a human. I don't think we're there yet. As the technology gets better though, missions involving the 3D's (Dull, Dirty, Dangerous) will increasingly go to UAV's. I think the F-35 will be the last of the inhabited fighters, at least in the west.

DaBallz, there is a height limit for ejection seat aircraft (it's actually torso height while sitting, but I don't remember what it was. I'm only 5'9", so it was never one of my worries.) You can wear glasses as a fighter pilot too (or contact lenses), again provided you have a waiver and can be corrected to 20/20. Short pilots have a little better time with the g's, but physical condition matters most. That being said, I remember watching one of the guys at Ramstein in his run at the centerfuge in the 'States. "Sea Lion" was built like a fireplug, and was making bandit calls on the tape while he was at 9 g's! The guys running the 'fuge were curious to see what he could take, and got him up to 11 or 12 before it dawned on him that this was stupid, and cried "Uncle".

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Edit - changed "Dumb" to "Dull" (the correct "D")

[This message was edited by Blottogg on Fri June 04 2004 at 02:24 AM.]

Freefalldart
06-04-2004, 12:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Huxley_S:
Agreed. A human brain needs to be at the heart of the machine. That doesn't mean the brain has to physically be inside the aircraft!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the point.
Actually a fighter is somewhat "limited" by the amount of G's its pilot can experience (+10G -3G?).
I think that a remotely manned aircraft capable of surpassing those limits would be a great advantage in combat. Imagine trying to follow a plane capable of +20G with your F22, JSF, Typhoon... Simply impossible without some kind of anti-gravitatory device not yet invented.

"Cuando un loco parece totalmente sensato es hora de ponerle la camisa de fuerza"
Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)

flyn2001
10-16-2004, 01:22 AM
I'm a C-17 Pilot. 1yr for SUPT. don't get eye surgery until... 1) you have your wings 2)you have applied and been accepted for the Aviation PRK program. I have the link to the PRK website for those interested. once @ SUPT, they will work with you to the max extent possible to make sure you graduate. any other questions let me know. by the way, fighters are not always first choice anymore. C17 has a hud, stick, and no centerline thrust restrictions on my ticket.