Typhoid

just to add to that a little bit, one of my tasks is working the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) of the US and Canada. See and avoid is a BIG problem!! one that does not appear to be solveable in the near term (although we have been looking at some interesting technologies) the control and responsiveness of the different UAS is also problematic. Taking the 737 sized Global Hawk as an example; (FC - let me know if I goon this one) the GH responds to commands in a way that the FAA does not particularly like. Most airplanes and even UAS, when the controller says to do something, the pilot reacts and the device responds. If voice contact is lost - the pilot will proceed to the limits of his last clearance. Most UAS with a loss of radio command link will continue to the last inputed command or in the absense of one stay straight and level (the latter part which the FAA does not care for either but can understand and comprehend). The GH has to have the operator type in the command and if it looses the command link will return to its previous command. That has resulted in at least one flight violation and a temporary grounding by the FAA of GH ops within the NAS. so this stuff still has a loooooooooooonng way to go. just imagine the thrill of boarding your 7XX7 Fantasy Liner someday with R2D2 and C3PO up front.............

once in awhile, yes.

I seem to be one of the few voices in the wilderness on the UCAV's who think that will never happen. UCAV's can do a lot and the ability to put something on station that is not limited by crew endurance has a lot of benefits. the downside is the command and control of the UCAV, in particular the control link for the pilot flying it. That is pretty important and the achilles heel of UAS. See and Avoid is another key part. The UCAV's can take a load off of manned aircraft, but will never replace them entirely.

for once. We agree!!

I thought some of that net stuff was also linked into the security firewalls and such that protects you when you go online to places like - here!! that really isn't a lot of stuff. Don't know why you would be real concerned with deleting it unless you were going to stay in an isolated mode away from the internet.

Here's a neat email for those who didn't believe that the F-16 is actually a pretty decent glider! A very good job by the pilot, and by his number 3. Click on the link below. http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/

that will be next week together with an add for a Carribean vacation.....

I think you are absolutely right. Its also now a different equation in target sets. Before it was how many sorties in the strike package did we need to take out the target, to how many targets can one sortie take out. so far as squadrons missing - yes. We went from 14 airwings with 10 squadrons each to 11 plus one reserve with 6 squadrons each and 2/3 the previous deck load in strike aircraft.

there are definitely some babes out there!!

and now that is what we have. In the absense of content and context, we have personality and "perkiness".........

what does that do?

"Anyway, we had fallen asleep on her couches and her fire alarm went off at about 4 am. We both jumped up and burst through her bedroom door, breaking it off of the door jamb. Scared the crap out of her. Upshot was no fire, she said the thing goes off all of the time and if there had been a fire she would have called 911 and we should have gone outside. Told her it was reaction to training. Still do it today, certain things happen and you go into autopilot and react or prevent the situation. It does not go away. Well, we spent the day installing a new door jamb/door and fire alarm." I can picture that entire event! Especially the installing a new door jamb/door and fire alarm!!

when the wingman tells him to punch the tanks of "now" it is probably over an open field. If he had time to look....... looks like a cool challenge to try out in WOE too. 9k ft at 7 miles from the runway. Wonder how many can make it....... should make this a poll to report back on!

looking way cool. just a minor comment; I think the canopy is too big. It should come forward even with the fuselauge and not angle up quite so much. here a couple of photos from the archives for ref;

and maybe a MF F-14B!!!

"Came aboard her in Nov. 77 when she was in portsmoth Naval shipyard for 9 month ROH. " we probably passed on the brow...... actually I flew off as the ship limped home from her deployment that year. That ship was in baaaaaad shape when I flew off. The potable water tanks were contaminated and we were all, quite literally, getting sick from that !#@$!#@^%^!! We had so much fuel distalate in the drinking water that you could, quite literally, light it off. That started when the fuel smell and taste was so bad in the bug juice one day that some funny guy in the wardroom while we were all sitting around put his lighter to his glass. Quite an uproar when it "lit off". Quickly followed by one of the messcooks tossing a match into the sink full of dirty dishes which were all promptly "cauterized". Followed by guys lighting their sinks off, "no smoking" signs outside of the heads and showers, etc. Followed by the CO getting "slightly" ticked off and telling everyone to "knock that s**t off"! But all of our fire fighting and damage control gear worked at 100%!!!!!!!!! "In the Navy, every sailor is a firefighter/damagecontrolman no matter what your NEC is." AMEN!!!! Absolutely right on C2aircrew. (your name is awfully darn familiar. Do I know you from somewhere?) which is why ashore at these pale blue suit locales, when the fire alarm goes off all those gents and ladies run outside and wait for the profesional firefighters to come put out the blazing popcorn in the microwave. Among us dark blue suit Sailors, when the fire alarm goes off we all run TO the blazing conflagration, put the d@mn thing out, and wait for the profesional firefighters to show up and finish the paperwork..... "I will admit that I am not impressed when a out-of-place cigarette can do this much damage to the ship. What would happen with a hostile weapon hit. " a reasonable question in view of $70mil of damage. But the problem here was flamable stuff stored where it should not have been. So some lively firefighting for a couple of hours, but contained with no serious structural damage nor threat to weapons magazines. As a frame of reference - the Indy had a major fire when I was aboard (related above) and a collision at sea, aircraft crash on deck, there were the three major carrier fires that rejuvanated our firefighting training, procedures and equipment, and many other minor and major events. In no case in those examples was the ability of the carrier to conduct flight operations within a few hours compromised. Even the Enterprise and (ahem) Forest Fire events with major ordanance detonations on the flight deck were able, if needed, to launch and recover aircraft within a few hours. In another example that I recall from a few years ago, an EA-6B crashed on recovery into the pack of aircraft parked forward and turned into a major fire on deck which was very quickly put out and the remaining aircraft recovered. Fast hot work, but still in action. so we can still go into the teeth of the opposition and turn infrastructure into rubble when called. "Promotion is not a reward, it is an acknowledgement of the ability to achieve higher expectations. " absolutely true and clearly a "joint standard" that we share.

during the '77 cruise?!! Hi shipmate?!! it is absolutely normal to hold the CO responsible for what happens because he sets the command climate. What he does or fails to do sets the standards throughout, if things go well, he gets the credit and a star. If not...... For the XO to get canned too there was something that reflected on what he did as well. The XO is the guy who, as we referred to it, was in charge of "heads and beds" meaning he is responsible for the health, welfare and efficient running of the departments. Buried in the article is the tidbit that while smoking illegally in an off-limits space (which would just get the sailors fried at courts-martial) was that the smoking lit off "improperly stored flamable materials". Guess what that means........ A lot more than the CO and XO got fried on this one. That is just what made the papers. Not likely that the fire would have spread much. The confined spaces would have limited the spread depending on just what the "improperly stored materials" were. Highly unlikely that it would have reached ordanance spaces - wrong place on the ship - and even if it had there is always the magazine flooding system to control that. Fire aboard ship is no joke. Our training was top notch to be able to control that - absolutely one of the best schools that I ever went to. Indy early in '77 during workups. "The smoking lamp is out during venting of the aviation fuel system" (that means avgas - gasoline!! The venting was to prevent pressure buildup in the fuel tanks used to refuel the C-1 COD) Sailor on one of the aft sponsons says to himself - "I'm not smoking" and continues his assigned work - arc welding........!! You all can deduce the result...... One of those times that General Quarters was not a drill!!!!

just remember to chill the fish and warm the wine!

'cuz its freezin's the reason

New at-sea refueling method for CVN's. carbon-free!

how did I miss that point............? (smacks forhead in AFR salute...)

I think they also did the "tank plinking" where they went out with an IR pod to locate the tanks dug into the sand, then dropped a guided bomb "down the hatch."

I throw myself on the mercy of the court :tomato2:

thanks but, I read the detailed tactics manuals and after-action reports from the Navy Fighter Weapons School. I'll stick with that.

the AIM-54C block7 was a souped up, very capable missile that was lightyears ahead of the original AIM-54A (the A also having been sold to Iran where it apparently racked up a 50% kill rate against Iraqi aircraft - which is actually quite good for a missile!) The C block7 had a lot of very advanced guidance and ECCM built into it and in testing handled multiple, maneuvering, fighter sized targets in an ECM environment very well. without going into details, we considered it a very credible threat against the Flanker and Fulcrum and the "no escape zone" for a Phoenix shot exceeded the range anything they could throw at us at the time. The only combat shot that I know of was against an Iraqi Foxbat which was trying to lure the Tomcats over a missile trap. The Tomcats declined to take that bait and heaved a pair of Phoenix at the "rapidly retreating" Foxbat, which in a tail chase at Mach2+ the Phoenix couldn't catch. Beyond that, the ROE generally prohibited employment of the Phoenix which was particularly the case in the Gulf War when Gen Horner very explicitly prohibited the USN from using it and forced the Tomcats to be stationed out of the fight. so I wouldn't denigrate the Phoenix so much.