Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Elite American Air Force

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by rogue1
You do realize Fritz that all A-10 squadrons are part of the Air National Guard not the US Air Force. They are part time pilots not full time.


You do realize that you are wrong. The Air Force still has mulitple active duty A-10/OA-10 squadrons in the ranks. According to the AF website they have the following:

Inventory: Active force, A-10, 143 and OA-10, 70; Reserve, A-10, 46 and OA-10, 6; ANG, A-10, 84 and OA-10, 18




Maybe... but the pilot who attacked the British was ANG.




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
So how come Brit aircraft never shot up any yanks in GW1? Simple - RECOGNITION TRAINING! How many hours a week would you say you fighter jocks spent on recognition training?


Wrong. Do you have any idea what British aircraft were tasked with during the Gulf War, or where they operated? You might want to look into that before you go shooting off your mouth like that.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Coolhand,

I know the answer to both what the RAF was tasked with and where they operated in GW1 and 2. So what is your point?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
The British air force cannot be compared to the US Air Force in terms of statistics. THe USAF has spent far more time in combat than the BRits therefore incidents are bound to occur. Not to mention if the RAF was the size of the USAF then I have no doubt there would ne friendly fire incidents. It is far easier to train and control a vastly smaller air force.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Coolhand,

I know the answer to both what the RAF was tasked with and where they operated in GW1 and 2. So what is your point?

Cheers

BHR


If you really knew that you would not be asking that question.

If you review the tasking that they were given and the areas that they operated in and compare that information to who was operating in the area, you should come to the conclusion by yourself.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Cool Hand, whenever someone reads a peice of information they take different views from it - same as any story.

It'd be better for you to quote/link whatever you're talking about and then give your interpritation instead of telling him to go make his own - which he might have done and which migth conflict with yours.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Odium,

Thanks for that. Despite CHL posting twice on this I still do not understand what point he trying to make.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Odium,

Thanks for that. Despite CHL posting twice on this I still do not understand what point he trying to make.

Cheers

BHR


Look at the sortie rates and the missions for the RAF in theater for DS I. Compare those to the US aircraft engaged in the same missions. If the conclusion does not make itself readily apparent to you then U2U me and I will lay it out for you.



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Oxford English Dictionary; Fiasco "A complete failure." It wasn't 'A complete failure' as the British won. So it wasn't a fiasco.

Next time, don't throw words like 'ignorant' around without even knowing what a simple word like 'fiasco', actually means.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Are you trying to tell us that the United States went to war in Iraq with 'part time' pilots? Don't you have enough fully qualified 'full time' pilots?

Or is this just another cynical attempt to deflect the reader from my original whinge?

US pilots, flying arguably the best ground attack aircraft in the world, albeit with WW2 style technology, attacked a British armoured column without correctly identifying the target. THIS WAS DESPITE THE VEHICLES IN QUESTION BEING DRAPED WITH ORANGE RECOGNITION PANELS AND THE UNION JACK!

Please explain how this was an accident.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
It probably wasn't an accident. The pilots knew they'd never get 'in trouble' for it. -shrugs-

It's about time, pilots get held responsible for what they do and America works on its RoE.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Gentlemen,

Being a USAF pilot myself (although I am brand new at it), the daughter of an AF pilot, the grand daughter of an AF pilot, and the great-grand daughter of an AF general, I am saddened by most of the comments I have read in this forum, which have degraded into emotion-filled rantings rather than informed discussion, on both sides. Please do not sterotype Air Force officers. We are not all lying businessmen or baby killers, or even people who ignore the rules when it suits us. There are some among our ranks who may be that way, I cannot deny that, but I can guarantee you that they are few and far between. I know this because I grew up in the AF and have been in myself for the last five years. My comrades are men and women who do not lie, put others before themselves, and serve their country to make the lives of people better throughout the world. I joined the service fully prepared to give my life at any moment for, simply, a hope of a better, safer world. I put in 12 hours a day toward my dream of being a fighter pilot, as I know most AF officers work that hard also, if not more so. I do not like war or killing. I am a pilot because I hate war. I would rather stop those who would kill innocent people and die myself, in their place.

I am not going to get into the discussion about which is a better AF than another. What is more important in that all have a job to do, and they should focus on doing it to the best of the abilities of the pilot and the airframe. I will say that Guard and Reserve units are mostly made up of former active duty pilots who, in many cases, have more experience than some AD. My father flew F-16s for over 10 years before he went into the reserves, with over 2,500 hours, a lot for a fighter pilot. Also, dogfighting is an important skill, but if you can knock someone out of the sky before you even show up on their radar, will it matter how good they were? They are still the one who lost...

I think we need to all remember that war is ugly. People die in war, that is its nature, and as military members, we have chosen to take up the task of protecting the innocent knowing full well it could mean our lives. Men are fallable, they make mistakes. If we would put ourselves in their shoes, or think about the small, insignificant mistakes we make daily that do not really affect anyone but ourselves. All American, British, and Australian troops are faced with tough decisions everyday that might result in friendly-fire deaths or killing civilians. Tomorrow roles might be reversed, with American soldiers dead because of a mistake. I myself will thank and be proud of all of them, and go on being the best pilot, and officer, I can be.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by chicpilot11
Gentlemen,

Being a USAF pilot myself (although I am brand new at it), the daughter of an AF pilot, the grand daughter of an AF pilot, and the great-grand daughter of an AF general, I am saddened by most of the comments I have read in this forum, which have degraded into emotion-filled rantings rather than informed discussion, on both sides. Please do not sterotype Air Force officers. We are not all lying businessmen or baby killers, or even people who ignore the rules when it suits us. There are some among our ranks who may be that way, I cannot deny that, but I can guarantee you that they are few and far between. I know this because I grew up in the AF and have been in myself for the last five years. My comrades are men and women who do not lie, put others before themselves, and serve their country to make the lives of people better throughout the world. I joined the service fully prepared to give my life at any moment for, simply, a hope of a better, safer world. I put in 12 hours a day toward my dream of being a fighter pilot, as I know most AF officers work that hard also, if not more so. I do not like war or killing. I am a pilot because I hate war. I would rather stop those who would kill innocent people and die myself, in their place.

I am not going to get into the discussion about which is a better AF than another. What is more important in that all have a job to do, and they should focus on doing it to the best of the abilities of the pilot and the airframe. I will say that Guard and Reserve units are mostly made up of former active duty pilots who, in many cases, have more experience than some AD. My father flew F-16s for over 10 years before he went into the reserves, with over 2,500 hours, a lot for a fighter pilot. Also, dogfighting is an important skill, but if you can knock someone out of the sky before you even show up on their radar, will it matter how good they were? They are still the one who lost...

I think we need to all remember that war is ugly. People die in war, that is its nature, and as military members, we have chosen to take up the task of protecting the innocent knowing full well it could mean our lives. Men are fallable, they make mistakes. If we would put ourselves in their shoes, or think about the small, insignificant mistakes we make daily that do not really affect anyone but ourselves. All American, British, and Australian troops are faced with tough decisions everyday that might result in friendly-fire deaths or killing civilians. Tomorrow roles might be reversed, with American soldiers dead because of a mistake. I myself will thank and be proud of all of them, and go on being the best pilot, and officer, I can be.




Thank you! That should put this thread to bed!




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Great post chicpilot!!

One other thing about U.S. pilots "getting away" with bombing a wrong target; a pilot has to ask for permission to attack a target usually, and if the permission is denied, they usually can't do so without repercussions. That U.S. pilot who attacked the Canadians while being told not to got into some serious trouble.

Hey chicpilot, just wondering, but what aircraft do you fly??

[edit on 8-3-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Broadsword,

Do you actually bother to read what you post?

"if the permission is denied, they usually can't do so without repercussions. That U.S. pilot who attacked the Canadians while being told not to got into some serious trouble."

You are saying that US pilots regularly disobey orders. Furthermore sometimes they get in to trouble but not always.

All this and you wonder why a dim view is held of the relative differences between US military personnel and those of your partners in Iraq, those from the UK.

"We do not shoot first and ask questions later. We ask first, get told not to shoot and then do it anyway".

Cheers

BHR



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Broadsword,

Do you actually bother to read what you post?

"if the permission is denied, they usually can't do so without repercussions. That U.S. pilot who attacked the Canadians while being told not to got into some serious trouble."

You are saying that US pilots regularly disobey orders. Furthermore sometimes they get in to trouble but not always.

All this and you wonder why a dim view is held of the relative differences between US military personnel and those of your partners in Iraq, those from the UK.

"We do not shoot first and ask questions later. We ask first, get told not to shoot and then do it anyway".

Cheers

BHR


I couldn't stop laughing after reading this.

I -hearts- you. =P



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
What chic pilot said was oh so true..in a war every side has fighter pilots and all of them "do what they're told to do"..irrespective of their opinion of their country's stance..
However you must understand chicpilot that today the USAF pilots (some, not all) have a sense of bravado corcerning their capabilities over other AFs...
That is not in good taste..Respect is one of the greatest virtues of a warrior
and sadly off late the USMC and USAF have (again some not all) come up short on that...
Mostly the younger gen is responsible for this new reputation..shown in movies like F911 where young rednecks play heavy metal while enging i n active combat..
very unbecoming of respectful warriors..



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Broadsword,

Do you actually bother to read what you post?

"if the permission is denied, they usually can't do so without repercussions. That U.S. pilot who attacked the Canadians while being told not to got into some serious trouble."

You are saying that US pilots regularly disobey orders. Furthermore sometimes they get in to trouble but not always.

All this and you wonder why a dim view is held of the relative differences between US military personnel and those of your partners in Iraq, those from the UK.

"We do not shoot first and ask questions later. We ask first, get told not to shoot and then do it anyway".

Cheers

BHR


Uhhh, yes, I read it, and I thought it made perfect sense. If a pilot is denied the order to attack someone, I believe (though I am not certain) that if the pilot themself is being fired upon (heavy fire) and in order to be able to survive, must attack, I believe they can disobey and fire.

That is what I meant by saying "usually there will be repercussions but not always." I should have made that clearer. In general, if a pilot is told not to attack, they'd better not, but in some instances, I believe they are allowed to fire back regardless of the order.

And no I do not wonder why a dim view is held of the U.S. forces in Iraq. It's part jealousy and part ignorance pretty much on most people's part.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadarlocoth
every armed forces has friendly fire issues...


as for the A-10 at the time it had next to no computer help it was like flying a airplain the in the 50's..... now with the new upgrades they have friend and fow ID hardwear on board to help provent it.


Yeah, just not quite as many as the US. In GW2 I wonder who killed more British, the Iraquis or the US. The figures must be pretty close surely. Well at least hen the US does it it is an accicent unlike other countries I could mention. (France, Russia Germany) You know who you are you scoundrels.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
What chic pilot said was oh so true..in a war every side has fighter pilots and all of them "do what they're told to do"..irrespective of their opinion of their country's stance..
However you must understand chicpilot that today the USAF pilots (some, not all) have a sense of bravado corcerning their capabilities over other AFs...
That is not in good taste..Respect is one of the greatest virtues of a warrior
and sadly off late the USMC and USAF have (again some not all) come up short on that...
Mostly the younger gen is responsible for this new reputation..shown in movies like F911 where young rednecks play heavy metal while enging i n active combat..
very unbecoming of respectful warriors..


I disagree. U.S. Marine Corps pilots and Air Force pilots are amongst the most professional people in the world. They do not have any sense of "bravado." These aren't 18 year-olds in aircraft, they're grown men and women with families usually.

It is a very, very few that have come off as bad folk, but the majority have nothing to do with being cowboys in their aircraft.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join