Interservice rivalry

Ozz · 08-15-2001, 12:56 AM

Somebody hold Russ Francis down!
It's a good thing weekend warriors aren't armed! The Navy boys were not amused with these puppies but the USAF guys loved em!

AlphaSigOU · 08-15-2001, 02:08 AM

Now that's taking it over the edge!!! Guaranteed to make them 'squids' turn bright red

when they find out that the Air Farce has stolen their beloved Blue Angels right out from under their noses!

Seriously, whoever manufactured that toy obviously has no knowledge of the US military, nor of the two world-famous aerial display teams.

DeltaFlot · 08-15-2001, 12:40 PM

OK!, someone is going to die

Who the hell messed this one up. I think I am going to take my hockey stick to someone's head. The USAF pilots can't even handle a Hornet, they need an easy plane like the Eagle to fly. Scariest picture in the world, an Air Force pilot trying to land on a carrier. This almost as bad as calling it a Boeing F/A-18 (oops nevermind)

Chansen · 08-15-2001, 12:48 PM

YF-17 which was in competiton with the F-16 was the only one to fly in USAF markings.

This is

I would like to see the, US Navy, Thunderbirds.

Cadavre on a stick · 08-15-2001, 01:57 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AlphaSigOU
[B] Air Farce

Oh, I thought you were referring to that god awful airline from France.

DeltaFlot · 08-15-2001, 03:09 PM

Craig,

But they never painted the YF-17 in Blue Angels colors!

Chansen · 08-15-2001, 03:13 PM

Very True!

DeltaFlot · 08-15-2001, 03:18 PM

in Navy/USMC/Army circles the USAF is not considered actually being in the military. And before you Air Force pukes tell me I have no idea what I am talking about, this is coming from civilian supervisors of mine that were fromer Air Force.

Ozz · 08-15-2001, 03:22 PM

And after MacD got a hold of it there wasn't much left of the original YF-17.
The Hornet was built for real pilots who drink JP5 and smoke highway flares.
Hook down, wheels down, call the ball!
Flare to land, squat to pee!
GO NAVY!!

Chansen · 08-15-2001, 03:29 PM

I have had friends in both Navy and Air Force! I think the Navy ones know more of flying planes when they go to flying people Commercially! Just seems that way.

AKJetFan · 08-15-2001, 04:14 PM

Anybody can land on a 10,000 ft. fixed runway, try doing it at night, with no moon, the runway's only 1,100 ft. long, the deck's pitching up and down, and moving away from you at 35+ knots.
Fly Navy/Marines
Greg

Jalex73 · 08-15-2001, 04:19 PM

Hey, watch it Russ. Easy on the U.S. Air Force there buddy. As a former bluesuiter I shouldn't have to tell you that irrigardless of what "circle" you or your friends belong to the Air Force kicks arse.
I have known plenty of good professional pilots during my tenure and their training should not be maligned simply because they refused to land on a postage stamp in the middle of a perfectly good ocean

DeltaFlot · 08-15-2001, 04:22 PM

Jalex,

Just saying what former Air Force guys have told me, thats all.

Ozz · 08-15-2001, 07:13 PM

The last time the Air force kicked arse was late in the Vietnam war. But that was only after Top Gun showed them how, and they were flying Navy aircraft.

GO NAVY!

DeltaFlot · 08-15-2001, 07:42 PM

Amen to that, amen! Navy guys can outfly Air Force guys any day. Probably why More navy guys been on the Moon than Air Force guys.

Jalex73 · 08-16-2001, 01:51 AM

Russ and Ozz, both of you crack me up. You guys really believe that Navy vs. Air Force pilot sh*t don't ya. First off, if I remember correctly it was the USAF that established air superiority over the skies of Iraq. That fact alone post-dates the Vietnam era Ozz. Yes, the Navy also was a key player in the conflict as well. I for one am mature enough to recognize that each service has its own mission that is fundamental to its own success. Since both of you are not able to shed your ignorance of this matter then explain to me why Navy pilots have such difficulty with air to air refueling? I cannot tell you how many times I have had to repair busted fueling drones on the KC-10 cause some "Top Gun" didn't have the patience to concentrate on the task at hand. I don't go out on a limb and say Navy aviators suck because they don't practice this as often. But I digress...

It's not about who can "outfly" whom but whether or not you can complete your sortie and get back alive. That is something I think anyone can agree on regardless of service or his or her "outflying" capabilities. Enough said..

mrne83 · 08-16-2001, 02:26 AM

Jalex is actually very correct regarding Marine/Navy pilots busting up fueling drones on KC-10's and -135's but this is because of the difference in fueling drones between them. The Navy/Marine pilots have to really attack their refueling basket because thiers is basically a long rubber hose and has no assistance from an operator as opposed to the Air Force's. Because of this, when the Marine/Navy pilot refuels, he has to come up faster or else the airflow will push the refueling basket away from their aircraft requiring another pass at it.
Also, Naval Aviators main mission is ground attack/close air support of ground troops and is something in which they excel. Because of this in Kuwait this was their main mission (low and slow) while F-15's protected they skies from enemy aircraft. The F-14's main mission has always been to protect the fleet from attacking enemy a/c.
When I called in air strikes during my tenure in the service the very best were Naval aviators along with British pilots and the A-10 Warthog pilots.
Just like verything else, practice makes perfect and this is why constant training is necessary.

Mark

AKJetFan · 08-16-2001, 02:34 AM

Jalex,
Not to start a war here, BUT the probe and drough method takes considerably more skill on the pilot's part, than the boom method that the AF uses. The boom is cotrolled by an operator and is for all purposes flown into the receptacle. All it takes on the reciever's part is to maintain constant airspeed and altitude, whereas the probe must be flown into the basket. Once you're hooked up, constant airspeed and altitude will maintain connection. It's the initial plug that causes basket collisions, bent probes etc. God forbid should you be trying to refuel in turbulent air. Aerial refueling is risky business any way you look at it. I seem to recall a story from Vietnam, about a B-52 getting the boom through the front windscreen.
Greg

Ozz · 08-16-2001, 08:42 AM

Hey Jalex 73,
In order to kick arse you need a foe of equal or similar capability, the NVAF Migs were a serious threat in a 1v1 with the American forces at the time.
Iraq was a rout, the biggest threat came from surface to air sites. The Iraqi air force all but bugged out to Iran and the remainder attacked sporadically, that plus the sheer volume of the coalition forces and their superior technology significantly reduced the Iraqi airforces involvment to lucky shots.
I never contested the air superioity issue, in that role there is no match for the USAF "might is right". The issue is with pilot skill, those who win with less in a hostile environment kick arse.
Damn near all phases of a Naval aviation sortie would be considered hostile by their USAF counterparts, in times of conflict as well as peace.

GO NAVY!

Moose · 08-16-2001, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Russ Francis
in Navy/USMC/Army circles the USAF is not considered actually being in the military. And before you Air Force pukes tell me I have no idea what I am talking about, this is coming from civilian supervisors of mine that were fromer Air Force.

Bite your tounge. I am very pround of my service in the USAF. Just because the Army and Marines do most of the grunt work doesn't mean the Air Force shouldn't be considered part of the military. We just work smarter, not harder.

Moose · 08-16-2001, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jalex73
Hey, watch it Russ. Easy on the U.S. Air Force there buddy. As a former bluesuiter I shouldn't have to tell you that irrigardless of what "circle" you or your friends belong to the Air Force kicks arse.
I have known plenty of good professional pilots during my tenure and their training should not be maligned simply because they refused to land on a postage stamp in the middle of a perfectly good ocean

I'll second that!

Moose · 08-16-2001, 09:47 AM

It's great to finally hear some people with extensive military knowledge. Please, please continue this debate.

DeltaFlot · 08-16-2001, 06:08 PM

Just a reminder, for those taking this subject seriously, its all in good fun. I know the USAF have good pilots and are proper military people. the only true grudge I have against the USAF is there wimpy bicycle Physical readniess Test.

enjoy guys!

KJC · 08-16-2001, 09:19 PM

Hey! Regardless what you say about the Air Force, the fact remains that it was the Air Force, not the Navy that operated the BADDEST A$$ aircraft ever built: The SR-71 BLACKBIRD!! (and that's gotta count for something)

ANTHONY F DUVA JR · 08-16-2001, 09:31 PM

HA! Caught cha collecting something other than a Gemini Jet!
OK, what brand cheapo toy plane is this? Not a Dyna Flite, not an Imperial, but what? I wanna know!

Ozz · 08-16-2001, 11:20 PM

KJC, You got me there! The SR-71/YF-12a was and is the baddest a$$ mother to grace the worlds skies thanks to CKJ and his boys.
But I believe you are mistaken, the Blackbird was operated by the CIA not the USAF. The Air force was responsible for the care and feeding of these birds but not the missions. They did however crew them with blue suiters, probably because they unlike Naval Aviators were willing to fly in straight lines for hours on end and right side up, a job even a nugget would find offensive.

GO NAVY!

KJC · 08-17-2001, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz
they unlike Naval Aviators were willing to fly in straight lines for hours on end and right side up, a job even a nugget would find offensive.

GO NAVY!

Whoa! You've insulted just about every pilot on this board! (FYI, I've flown the Extra 300 upside down in flight sim '98!)

DeltaFlot · 08-17-2001, 01:18 AM

Back when I was going to ERAU, before I joined the submarine Navy, I flew from Daytona, to Ft Lauderdale, to the West coast of Florida and Back all in a Cessna 172. Oh and by the way I had no real seat cushion to speak of. So I know what its like, without the Mach 3 speed

Ozz · 08-17-2001, 10:33 AM

KJC, you ever do it on the deck down the Las Vegas strip? YIKES!

Russ, The longest flight I've done to date was Vancouver to CFB Cold Lake, Alberta. 8 hours each way in a regular Skyhawk. I share your grief in the iron butt dept. You still fly?

DeltaFlot · 08-17-2001, 12:16 PM

Unfounatley Ozz, I haven't been able to fly since summer of 1992, Navyhas been taking up too much of my time. Even now thatI am on shore duty in Hawaii, now its too expensive to keep up my proficiency.

Ozz · 08-17-2001, 02:28 PM

Bummer! Maybe when you get out if ever.
Still your a$$ belongs to one of the greatest organizations the world has ever known, something to be proud of!

GO NAVY!

Stanman · 08-17-2001, 06:02 PM

Given the choice of:

1) Fly off. Get shot at. Complete Mission (bombing, patrolling, recon, whatever). Return home for dinner possibly with wife and kids or go to a neighborhood pub, sleep in a nice bed or...

2) Fly off. Get shot at. Complete mission (bombing, patrolling, recon, whatever). Return back to attempt landing on moving runway at peak of fatigue with chance of swimming to have dinner with bunch of other similarly fatigued, smelly people and finally to retire to cot underneath the number 2 catapult just to hear the next patrols take-off and land during your supposed rest period.

What choice does the sane rational person make?

Stanman · 08-17-2001, 06:06 PM

You know, I wonder if these comparisons about landing on carriers vs. land will continue after the Navy introduces its automatic landing systems on their jets in 2007-2008?

DeltaFlot · 08-17-2001, 06:10 PM

So Whats the problem with #2?

Stanman. I have had worst though. My first sub, the USS Groton, I slept in the Torpedo room, and the Captain loved having the Torpedomen practicing by firing waterslugs from the torpedco tubes.

Ozz · 08-17-2001, 06:31 PM

I never said navy personnel were more intelligent, just more talented, cunning and imaginative.
To survive a cruise and the a$$hole jobs that only the Navy and Marines can dream up makes those who do it regularly true Spartans and worthy of our respect. The Army and Airforce folks should think of them as they're enjoying their steaks and beers at the O club and snuggling their spouses every night.
I know I do! And I'm an Air Force brat.

GO NAVY!

Jalex73 · 08-17-2001, 11:21 PM

Ozz, your killing me man. Are you recruiting for the U.S. Navy or what? Navy folks are more...talented? cunning?? imaginative?????? Are you by any chance on controlled substances that the Navy is unaware of? A$$hole jobs are not Navy/Marine specific; any active, reserve, or vet can tell you the crap that he/she was dealt in regards to their respective service. But hey, the DAC forum is a little stale at the moment and I am willing to indulge in this type of Ford vs. Chevy debate.

First, in what way are Navy folks more talented? I just thought they were like the rest of us, people willing to give their lives for their country. The only exception being that their at sea.

Cunning? It doesn't take cunning for a guy flying F-16's to avoid getting killed and drop his payload within a given time? He's not cunning cause he doesn't land on carriers? "Just say no" to crack Ozz.

Imaginative? Imaginative?.........IMAGINATIVE! What planet are from? The armed forces are many things my friend. But it definately is not "imaginative."
"Captain, the enemy is approaching!" "Thats OK, seamen Jones. Just use your imagination!"

Ozz, I love you man, but please for future reference put down the pipe when you post.

Ozz · 08-18-2001, 01:35 AM

Hey Jalex 73,

I would never seriously take anything away from those who hang it out for their country, in any branch of the services! My admiration for these people and the job they do runs very deep.
I agree with everything you say as all the warriors out there are truly professional in the way they train for and execute their specific missions.
I truly love all things relating to the mighty U.S. armed forces from the USCG to the Arkansas National guard.
However as with any passion involving many outlets, favorites are bound to occur, with it's associated brand loyalty.
My passion with the USN was formed long ago and like a school cheer GO NAVY! became my mantra of sorts, much to the regret of my friends and associates who are, I'm sure, tired of hearing it.
Which makes it all the more fun for me. I even joined the Tailhook Assn. and ANA.
The Navy, when in blue water ops, ask that little bit more from everyone aboard. The fact that more murders don't occur at sea is amazing. Try to imagine six months of hot bunking and intense work in cramped spaces (there are more jobs and less people to do them compared to an air base) some rarely if ever seeing daylight and you'll understand my "cunning and imaginative" statement. They have to be to stay sane!
As for the talent/ flying, the jobs are similar and excluding the associated dangers of launch and recovery at sea the risks are the same. The Naval aviators and Air Force pilots do a brilliant job of dispatching their objectives with as they say "extreme prejudice!" My hats off to them for a job well done!
It's just that Navy does it better!

GO NAVY!

Sentinel Chicken · 08-18-2001, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozz
But I believe you are mistaken, the Blackbird was operated by the CIA not the USAF. The Air force was responsible for the care and feeding of these birds but not the missions. They did however crew them with blue suiters

No, I don't think that's right, Ozz. The CIA was responsible for only the A-12s, which were single-seat aircraft operated by the Agency under the program name "Oxcart" at Groom Lake, Nevada. The base had a USAF commander but the squadron was staffed by both USAF, CIA, and even Skunk Works staff. Pilots came from both the USAF and the CIA. Oxcart was operational with the A-12s from 1965 to 1968.

The SR-71 was a two-seater and went straight to the USAF at Beale AFB, California under the 9th Strategic Reconaissance Wing which reported to the Strategic Air Command. The 9th SRW got its first Blackbirds in 1966 and was declared operational in 1968 several months after the last A-12s from the Oxcart program were retired. (As an aside, it wasn't until 1976 that SAC consolidated all of its strat recon assets at Beale, including the U-2)

Oh, and for those wondering where I sit on this, USAF all the way! That ought to get Russ' blood boiling. It should be noted that not long ago we were short a carrier in the western Pacific (I think the reason was overhaul/SLEP schedules), CINCPAC put one of the Air Force's composite wings on call for the region, the 366th Wing from Mountain Home AFB, Idaho. I think some of the 366th's assets even deployed to the area until a carrier could arrive on scene. Not that I actually think a composite wing like the 366th could do a better job than a carrier, but that's a helluva lot of firepower to be delivered by some bluesuiters- F-15Cs, F-15Es, F-16Cs (late Block numbers, too), and B-1Bs along with their own KC-135s.

Ozz · 08-18-2001, 02:48 AM

Hey Chicken,

I stand corrected, thanks. The whole U2 and SR71 thing is still kinda spooky. Read five documentaries and get five versions.
One thing though, I'll bet landing a U2 in a crosswind is every bit as frightening as a carrier approach!
Those guys would have been fondly toasted at the Cubi Pt. O Club.

You've been quiet lately, too much Shine?

Sentinel Chicken · 08-18-2001, 11:55 AM

Ozz, the whole U-2/SR-71 story is one of the most fascinating in military history. Did y'all know that in 1969 the U-2R was carrier-qualified? Even the CIA maintained a cadre of car-qual'd U-2 pilots. CIA U-2Rs made proving flights off the USS America in 1969- it would seem that not only was the Dragon Lady easy to take off from a carrier deck, but not so hard on landing, either- a simple tailhook was used ahead of the tailwheel- apparently the Agency's pilots liked the fact you never have a crosswind on a carrier deck.

The Navy even explored using a modified U-2 as a long-range ocean survelliance aircraft- the EPX program (Electronics Patrol Experimental) and Lockheed at one point even offered to arm them with anti-shipping missiles to increase the versatility.

Offically the Navy never adopted the U-2 for carrier ops and officially no U-2s ever operated off any carriers except during the proving flights off the USS America in 1969. Officially.

And the rumors of me in alcohol rehab for 'shine abuse are much exaggerated......

Ozz · 08-18-2001, 01:18 PM

If they could car-qual a C-130, why not a U-2! That is facinating!
Where do you dig this stuff up? Are you related to Tom Clancy?
On another note, glad to hear you're drying out. I trust Mrs Ford treated you well.

Sentinel Chicken · 08-18-2001, 08:57 PM

Ozz, my interests in military aviation/history is a helluva lot bigger than my interest in civil aviation. I think I have more aviation books than medical books, actually....

The best sources I've found were the quartely publications World Air Power Journal and Wings of Fame- I've subscribed to both since the beginning of both of them (43 volumes of WAPJ and 20 volumes of WoF) and their successor publication, International World Airpower.

And if you want to get funny on the carqual issue, back in the 60s the US Navy was considering a carrier-capable Baby Nine to serve in the role of COD and tanker. It even had folding wings. Later, in the early 80s, the idea got resurrected again, only this time it was a carrier-capable Fokker F28. Both proposals had underwing refuelling pods, large side cargo doors, and beefed up undercarriage with the nose gear moved further aft and extendable to increase the AoA on cat-launch.

One thing's for sure, the Navy's gonna have to do something soon to replace the C-2 Greyhound in the COD role. I read somewhere they were thinking of slinging jets under the wings like the Dornier 329JET as a way of extending the Greyhound's service life. Now THAT would be one uglyass jet.

ptolbert · 08-18-2001, 09:00 PM

I've seen the baby 9!

Ozz · 08-18-2001, 11:38 PM

You're right that would be an ugly aircraft, but next to that new joint strike blowfish it would look good!
Maybe they should ask Lockheed to stretch the S3.
A baby 9 with folding wings would be something to see, I wonder if we could pursuade DW to make us one?

Sentinel Chicken · 08-19-2001, 11:15 AM

Lockheed did initially offer a stretched version of the S-3 Viking as a COD bird, but the Navy ended up only taking a minimal change version (and only a small handful) called the US-3A which didn't have the fuselage stretch. Most of the time the US-3As carried large streamlined cargo pods under the wings as well. Someone correct me here if I'm wrong, but I think the first US-3A was named "Miss Piggy" and that none of the US-3As are still in service?

Pity the ASW mission has been taken from the S-3 Viking. I always thought it was one of the most under-rated planes in the carrier air wing. At least those guys now are getting some attention again in the current littoral warfare doctrines instead of just being flying gascans.

There's been an off-again on-again proposal to replace the S-3, C-2, and E-2 and even the EA-6B with a common airframe which the Navy has been calling the CSA (Common Support Aircraft). I always figured the S-3 was a pretty robust airframe and they could just use it as the basis for the CSA.

And personally, the Lockheed JSF candidate is a lot more sexy looking than the Boeing version. But I guess looks don't win battles otherwise we would've boneyarded the A-10s a long time ago!

Ozz · 08-19-2001, 01:13 PM

Yeah, but did you see what the A-10a beat out? If ugly was the rule then the Fairchild A-9a would've won hands down!
I did not know that the Viking lost the ASW role, who picked it up?
I think the Bae 146 would make a superb CSA platform, licence built and modified over here of course, ala AV8. It's tough, fat, fast, and they could work on the range.
I think it's time to renew some of my old subscriptions, my archives seem to be 10 years out of date!
But my 1:400 collection is current.

You should have been a flight surgeon at that flying Arco station you live near!

chicago727 · 08-19-2001, 08:04 PM

Both services produce some awesome pilots.

But from a passenger point of view, I can generally bet when we're landing with someone who was trained on a carrier.

FYI - if you remember the story of Billy Mitchell, who pushed for military aircraft, it was the Navy who was against it.

DeltaFlot · 08-19-2001, 10:02 PM

Minor details. That was when the Battleship would remain the queen of the sea. WW2 pretty much convinced the Navy that teh airplane was the future. Now the US Navy produces the best pilots in the world.

Ozz · 08-19-2001, 11:44 PM

When a pilot greases one on, it gets praise from the folks in back but such a landing is usually the result of a lucky flare where the descent is checked the moment the wheels meet pavement or the pilot flying held her off bleeding speed and altitude slowly for that perfect touchdown.
A 100,000 plus pound aircraft floating in ground effect with reduced rudder authority and as yet no directional control from the undercart is really in limbo and could be blown off track by a significant wind gust, or if the runway is contaminated with water, snow, ice etc. a light landing could contribute to hydroplaning and loss of autobraking as the mains need to spin up to a preset speed (60kts?) for the autobraking system to activate.
In a large aircraft a safer procedure would be to plant the mains firmly assuring contact with pavement through any contamination and immediate purchase for directional control in case of crosswinds.
After the next hard landing you experience, you may want to thank the crew for putting safety above ego.

I believe Navy pilots are taught that.

Rick R · 08-19-2001, 11:52 PM

Not for nothing but, anyone can land an aircarft on a dirt strip or a cement runway, but it takes Ba##'s to land one on a rolling deck..... HAY REMEMBER FLY NAVY......

F L Y N A V Y ! ! ! ! !