Not just the driver, but the pit crew as well. The majority of E-1's - E-5's I work with do not have college degrees but are f'ing geniuses in avionics systems. So many times I've gone in to work and thought "with all these yahoos, how in the hell are we the best Air Force on the planet?". When its time to put bombs on targets, miracles are performed on outdated equipment and jets are in the air. The pilots have the easy job At least this is how it is in the F-15 world, I imagine it is the same for the other platforms as well.

 

Couldn't agree more. After all, we must be doing something right -- no F-15 has EVER been shot down in air-to-air combat.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tritium_pie
what's with the ad hominem attacks?

 

Correct again RED.

As another of those E1- E5s, it was definitely a partnership, but I give a bit more credit to the pilots. We worked our tails off, but ultimately it was their lives that were on the line, not ours.

It was a very unique situation for the military. If an E3 said a bird wasn't ready for flight, not many a colonel would question him. The pilot's lives depended on us, and as such they paid us enlisted men considerable courtesy and respect.

 

Drew, I know it's not exactly the same thing, but I know more than a few people who sacrificed their health, and possibly life, due to some of the stresses of the race. Not to take anything away from the pilots, because they are on the firing line when things heat up.

The only arrogant pilots I ever met were the ones who were new at the game. Every pilot I ever worked with was nothing short of exceptional; exceptionally bright, exceptionally modest, and a heck of a lot of fun to work with.

Not long after I got out of tech school, I had to pull a B-52 off alert. I actually had a Sr. Master Sargent and several officers telling me that I couldn't take the plane off alert status. When I pointed out that I was not going to be the one to start taking it apart while it was still on alert, they suddenly changed their tune. I think it's the same way in commercial aviation. If one person says "no," the bird is unlikely to fly. At one time, NASA worked that way too, but I'm not so sure anymore.

RED

 

That's like bragging that you can mow down retarded kids locked in a 12X12 room with an AK-47. We don't train to kill retards, but that's all we've encountered in the past 30 years.

It's a generally held belief in the private sector that the Russians are at least on par if not ahead in many areas of electronics warfare; including things like multiple target acquisition and tracking. Whether this is a reality or not I don't have a clue.

The Russian approach to all things including Aircraft is in my opinion superior - keep it simple. Then again, only an engineer could love most of their planes after seeing them up close. Dirty, full of gaps and leaks ..

 

/

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by steve c

 

Sorry, gotta drag the F-22 back into this again. There is another concept behind the f-22 that wasn't mentioned (at least, not before I skipped to the end from the top of the page )...

Interchangeability.

The F-22 is a multi-role weapon. It will defend itself on the way to the target, and in a more efficient manner than ever thought possible. It can cruise at supersonic speeds without the use of its afterburners. It will hide under the cover of stealth and will be well on it's way home before the target is even aware they are doomed. The YF-23 was a big improvement, but politics was not the main source for the decision. Boeing itself has not introduced an armed aircraft for the US government in decades. The only armed aircraft in our arsenal with Boeing's name on them are companies that Boeing has purchased or merged with. In the simplest form, Boeing needs to get it's shit on one sock. They have the technology and the resources, but they need to get it together. Their recent past (by 'recent' I mean the past half of a century) has been comprised mainly of passenger jet-aircraft. At that, they excel. The C-17 is a fine aircraft, as is the B-52, but they're really the only true Boeing aircraft that the services fly, aside from non-tactical aircraft and a few of the AWACS birds. Their entry against LM's X-35 was a joke. They act as if they don't really want to win the big contracts, rather they'd like the smaller maintenance contracts. About two years ago I was in Palmdale. I had worked late and stopped in the hotel bar on my way to the room. As I was waiting for my drink, this guy at the bar sees my badge and says " Lockheed, eh?" I said "yup". He goes on to say "heh-heh, yeah, we just stole that $50M AC-130 upgrade contract from you guys... heh-heh..." I had no choice but to respond by saying, " yeah... we had to give it up to make room for that $50B contract for the JSF that we just beat you guys out of..." He just kind of glared at me for a second before going back to his drink. What's my point? Well, if I have one, it is this: I know plenty of people who work for Papa Boeing and the only ones I care for are the ones who work in the missles and space division. Everybody I've met so far in the aircraft division is pretty much a moron. I've worked in the field with these yucksters, and they thought that their shit didn't stink, when in fact it stank plenty. They were classic cases of Union labor gone wrong and had the attitudes that go with it. Of course, I'm not saying everyone at Boeing is an asshole, just the ones I've met. If Boeing really wanted into the fighter market, they could do it. But in reality, they need to get their acts together and straighten out their commercial line before Airbus steals that away from them too.

 

Your points about Boeing are well place in my opinion; but then the ATF bidding was well over before Boeing acquired Macdonnel Douglass.

Anyone who reads the various industry rags should be worried about the sorry state of Aircraft development in the U.S., commercial and military.