What's new

US Air Force Enlisted Pilots May Return

gambit

PROFESSIONAL
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
28,569
Reaction score
148
Country
United States
Location
United States
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...-is-launching-a-test-that-could-lead-to-that/

"Maj. Gen. Timothy Leahy, commander of the Second Air Force, said in a Nov. 30 email to his commanders that 15 officers and 5 enlisted airmen will be picked for the six-month pilot training program.

“Enlisted volunteers will be pioneers in innovating Air Force aviator recruitment, selection, and training processes by demonstrating the potential of non-college graduates to succeed in a rigorous pilot training environment,” Leahy wrote. “This program will provide data to [Air Education and Training Command commander Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast] on the potential for enlisted members to train to fly modern combat aircraft.”

Candidates who succeed and become students will take solo flights in T-6 trainers, Leahy wrote."


The backbone of any military is the Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO) Corps. In this increasingly 'high tech' military environment, the enlisted men and women of US air power is the best in all areas. They have proven themselves in the company of other air forces and comparably demonstrated officer level knowledge and technical proficiency.

If the enlisted pilots program returns, and I hope with everything in me that it does, this will increase the already considerable lead gap between US air power and the rest of the world, assured a steady source of talented and physically able men and women, and secure US air power as supreme for at least 50 more yrs.

Make no mistake about this, the volunteers know exactly their place in history and they will successfully complete their parts of the experiment. If the program is enacted, with the combination of excellently trained pilots and continuing progress in technology, does anyone sane still thinks he can take on US air power?
 
.
US security head John Bolton would risk military conflict with China to achieve goals, former US officials say

John Bolton would use military force to coerce compliance from China, which US President Donald Trump has painted as an adversary, the Post was told


PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 11 April, 2018, 9:12am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 11 April, 2018, 11:31pm

COMMENTS: 190


cc391df8-3c27-11e8-b6d9-57447a4b43e5_1280x720_152641.JPG




Zhenhua Lu, US correspondent

https://twitter.com/luchenhwa


UNITED STATES & CANADA
Syria first test for Trump’s hawkish new security adviser
10 Apr 2018



Jack Ma: US-China trade war will kill jobs, opportunities and hope
11 Apr 2018
The new US national security adviser is willing to risk a military conflict with China to achieve President Donald Trump’s goals for America, two former senior US officials have told the South China Morning Post.

CHINA AT A GLANCE
Get updates direct to your inbox
E-mail *

By registering you agree to our T&Cs & Privacy Policy

John Bolton, who is fond of quoting the ancient Roman battle philosophy, “If you want peace, prepare for war”, would use military force to coerce compliance from China – which an increasingly hawkish White House has painted as a competitor, if not an adversary, the former officials who worked with Bolton said in interviews.

Bolton, who began his new job on Monday, also seeks to challenge Beijing over its “one China” policy on Taiwan, a move that would certainly inflame tensions amid a looming US-China trade war.

875dc97c-3c27-11e8-b6d9-57447a4b43e5_1320x770_152641.jpg






Speculation grew over the weekend that Bolton could visit Taiwan in June when the new American Institute on the self-governed island is slated to open, The Economistreported. The institute represents US interests in the absence of formal ties.

But while Bolton is seen as a military hawk who shares the “Make America Great Again” world view that underpinned Trump’s 2016 election campaign, the president is believed to oppose the idea of hostilities with another nation.

Donald Trump’s homeland security adviser, Thomas Bossert, resigns ‘after being pushed out by new national security head John Bolton’
Those opposing views would tend to set the stage for a potentially contentious relationship between Bolton and Trump on certain US foreign policy and security matters.

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, told the Post he doubted Trump would tolerate Bolton’s disagreeing with him at any point, in light of the bad endings that have come to Trump’s relationships with White House officials who have questioned the president’s past actions on trade, foreign policy and other issues.

However, “if Trump surprises me and does warm to Bolton, we are all in trouble – from North Korea to China,” Wilkerson said.

A major witness during Bolton’s Senate UN ambassadorship hearing in 2005, Wilkerson has labelled Bolton “the most dangerous American” for US foreign security policy.

Bolton, 70, was named by Trump as H.R. McMaster’s replacement in a Twitter posting on March 22. The post did not need to be confirmed by the US Senate.

Syria provides John Bolton with first test as US President Trump’s national security adviser
Bolton’s views on ending the North Korean nuclear crisis are already well-known. He has advocated launching a pre-emptive strike on North Korea over its threat to use nuclear weapons against the US.

It is unclear what Bolton’s endgame for China would be.

Given Trump’s liking for conflict as a negotiating tool – as shown in his verbal clashes with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and his tit-for-tat trade row with Beijing – it is feasible that Bolton’s liking may be to use military action as a means to an end.

33f56d20-3d18-11e8-b6d9-57447a4b43e5_1320x770_152641.JPG






If the ultimate goal would be merely to push back against China in a show of American might that would placate Trump’s voter base, who have accepted the president’s claim that China is taking advantage of the US at the US’s expense, Bolton could play a significant role.

But Bolton’s critics increasingly worry that any outbreak of hostilities now would be ill-timed coming ahead of the proposed historic meeting between Trump and North Korea’s Kim and the reportedly unprecedented visit to Taiwan by a top US official, possibly Bolton himself, in June.

Donald Trump should demand denuclearisation in North Korea meeting, new security adviser John Bolton says
Bolton's extremely militaristic views, however, are subject to Trump’s final say. If the president were to reject his security adviser’s recommendations, then Bolton would be “utterly powerless”, the former officials said.

Bolton has said the US should intensify its military forces on the US island territory of Guam, in Japan and in the Yellow and East China seas.

To convince China to “crack down” on North Korea’s nuclear activities, he has argued that Washington make a case to “reunify the [Korean] peninsula” and make military threats toward Pyongyang “credible”.

China opposes an outbreak of war between the two Koreas on its doorstep, for various reasons.

On Taiwan, Bolton is equally hard-nosed.

‘Fasten your seat belts’: China hawk John Bolton replaces McMaster as Trump’s national security adviser
In an opinion essay he wrote for The Wall Street Journal in January, Bolton called on the US to “revisit the One China policy” and suggested the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972 be renegotiated 45 years after the US agreed to acknowledge that “there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China”.

“Let us see how an increasingly belligerent China responds,” Bolton wrote.

Beijing regards the self-ruled Taiwan as a wayward province, to be brought under Beijing’s rule by force if necessary.

11eec7fc-3d19-11e8-b6d9-57447a4b43e5_1320x770_152641.jpg






China has warned the US to back down from any official exchange with Taiwan.

“We urge the US to strictly abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters.

The US should “avoid having official contacts with Taiwan or trying to improve their relations in substantive ways, and stop military contacts and arms sales with Taiwan so that China-US relations and peace and stability across the Straits will not be severely damaged”, Geng said.

Diplomacy takes a back seat as hawks land top US cabinet jobs
Ruan Zongze, a former minister counsellor for political affairs at the Chinese embassy in Washington, said on Monday that China will do “whatever it can” to defend the one-China principle. “China has no interest in backing off,” he said.

While some analysts have wondered whether Trump actually needs Bolton as his inner circle takes on an increasingly hard-line tone, the consensus is that Bolton’s arrival gives the president an important official who is, in many ways, like himself.

The description of Bolton by Otto Reich, a Bolton defender and former US assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs from 2001 to 2002, sounds much like the man who hired the new national security adviser.

Bolton and Trump “both like to be around strong-willed men”, Reich said. “But I can assure you that John Bolton is smart enough to know which one of the two is the president of the United States and which one is the subordinate to the president.”

Forget US trade tariffs, Donald Trump’s real war is coming soon
“Bolton,” Reich said, “will bring realism to the White House. He hears reality, not the fantasy that doves want to hear, whether it is from China, Iran or Russia.

“Bolton is going to defend American interests wisely but strongly. Beijing, Moscow or Tehran can draw their own conclusions after that.”

In less than a week in his new post, Bolton, like Trump, has become a polarising figure on the US political landscape.

b75278c0-3ca0-11e8-b6d9-57447a4b43e5_1320x770_152641.jpg






“We have seen a pretty alarming trend in Washington that Trump himself has put up a very, very hawkish team here,” Ruan told the Post. “John Bolton may be one of them.”

“Bolton is definitely a hawk,” David Lyndon Bosco, an Indiana University associate professor who has interviewed Bolton for his work, told the Post.

“He is very willing to consider military force as a way to achieve US objectives.”

On brink of a trade war with China, did Trump really need trigger-happy Bolton and Pompeo?
Bosco, whose speciality is the United Nations, said that Bolton considers China to be a “strategic competitor” and will “push for a more assertive policy” toward it. He may be especially forceful on the South China Sea, Taiwan and other China-related issues.

A graduate of Yale Law School, Bolton worked for former Republican US presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush in several positions within the US State Department, Justice Department and US Agency for International Development.

His formidable diplomatic temperament was notable when he became an undersecretary for arms control at the State Department in 2001, and US ambassador to the United Nations four years later.

But the Senate did not reconfirm Bolton as UN envoy in April 2005 amid a lack of bipartisan support. He eventually secured the post when then-President Bush used his power as chief executive to fill administration vacancies without Senate approval.

North Korea tells US that Kim Jong-un is ready to discuss nukes with Donald Trump
Former US Vice President Joe Biden, then the top Democratic senator at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, expressed “grave concern” over Bolton’s reappointment at his confirmation hearing, comparing unleashing the hardliner on the UN to sending a “bull into a china shop”.

It remains unclear now whether an aggressive Bolton could work with his new colleagues on the president’s national security team, including incoming Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense James Mattis.

When Mattis met Bolton in late March at the Pentagon, he was captured in an off-microphone exchange saying: “I heard you’re actually the devil incarnate.”

Douglas Paal, vice-president of studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: “The quip was unmistakably a joke, not serious.

“I think General Mattis will, as always, look out for the best interests of his troops, whatever it takes.”

China warns against military action in Syria as threat of US strikes put everyone on high alert
Pompeo, 54, is also known to maintain a wary view of China. His nomination to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state was announced by Trump in a tweet on March 13. He has not yet been confirmed by the Senate.

“I think China has the capacity to present the greatest rivalry to America … over the medium and long term,” Pompeo said in July of last year. He repeated in a BBC interview in January that China could pose “as big a threat to the US” as Russia through the covert influence it wields over US life.

The US has to “do better pushing back” against China, Pompeo said.

Pompeo is believed to be leading the preparation for the Trump-Kim summit this June.

Kurt Campbell, former assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the US State Department, told the Post that Pompeo, not Bolton, is in the driving seat for the historic meeting.

But Reich said he believed Bolton and Pompeo would “get along”.

US politicians break ranks over Donald Trump’s ‘nuts’ trade moves against China
Both men are extremely intelligent and disciplined individuals and both have many years of government service, Reich said.

Mark Groombridge, a long-time adviser for Bolton at the State Department, however, was quoted by The Washington Post as saying that Bolton's style was to "run an imperial National Security Council”.

acc53fa8-3d01-11e8-b6d9-57447a4b43e5_1320x770_152641.jpg






Groombridge said that “the State and Defense departments are there to implement White House policy”.

The National Security Council traditionally serves to get bureaucracies to support the President’s agenda, said Carnegie’s Paal, who was NSC director of Asian affairs and special assistant to the president with the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations.

“There are multiple ways to accomplish that objective, ranging from gentle to harsh,” Paal said. “But the real measure will be their effectiveness, not their style.”

Donald Trump mulls extra US$100 billion punitive tariffs on China imports
Paal sensed that there is “a broad bipartisan consensus in the US that China is taking advantage of the US in many dimensions”, and that “it is time to push back”.

When Hillary Clinton appeared the front-runner in the 2016 presidential election, China feared she would pursue an “anti-China direction if elected, and she likely would,” Paal said.

“If Trump’s key advisers all were changed again tomorrow, the direction would be basically the same.”




This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Bolton ‘would risk military conflict with China’
 
.
If the program is enacted, with the combination of excellently trained pilots and continuing progress in technology, does anyone sane still thinks he can take on US air power?

I'm not here to discuss the merits of this move, if it works for the US, it's great.

But coming to this comment itself, future aircraft are moving into the unmanned domain. No matter how well trained and educated your airmen are, they are not going to pull 25Gs or stay in the air for days at a time.

And then, it's all about how much money is spent on technology itself. I see countries like India and China eventually outspending the US in every single department by a huge margin over the course of many decades.

I would actually put the American advantages today on a time limit. Take the example of converting airmen into pilots, countries with large populations will not have to do this. India and China spit out millions of engineers every year and this number will only keep going up. So the air forces of these countries can easily attract academically disciplined engineers into their folds much earlier than the Americans without college degrees, let alone non-engineers. An air force attracting well-groomed engineers will always have an advantage over a country that does not even have such a large talent pool.

For example, all the flying officers of the Indian Navy have engineering degrees. Without a minimum of an engineering degree, along with high academic scores, your application won't even be entertained. Airmen without college degrees are not going to compete against this. An airman's foundation is way too weak no matter how well you sugarcoat this.

The playing field today favours the US. Tomorrow, not so much. The day after, not at all.
 
.
I'm not here to discuss the merits of this move, if it works for the US, it's great.
It did once. Maybe you missed the word 'Return' in the title?

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...96406/1941-1945-world-war-ii-sergeant-pilots/

An airman's foundation is way too weak no matter how well you sugarcoat this.
And you said you are not here to discuss the merits of this idea. :lol:

I have seen USAF sergeants did things to their jets that their Spanish, Italian, Egyptian, or Saudi counterparts either cannot or were not authorized to do. So what 'weakness' are you talking about?

Education?

http://www.afpc.af.mil/About/Air-Force-Demographics/
ENLISTED ACADEMIC EDUCATION

58.5% completed some college

25.0% have associate's degrees

8.7% have bachelor's degrees

1.8% have master's degree

0.021% have professional degrees
Even using the low end of %5 of the enlisted force that have a Bachelor's degree, out of 257,818 Enlisted, we can pull at least 5,000 candidates for flight school.

http://theroadtoafwings.blogspot.com/p/faqs.html
What's the typical washout rate at IFS? What's the washout rate at UPT? I don't know about Air Force wide statistics, but from my experience and friends' experiences at IFS, I'd say that 1-3 people per flight of 25 ish will wash out/drop out. At UPT, classes (~30 people) will probably lose another 2-5 people due to dropping out, washing out, or some kind of medical issue.
Five out of 25 washed out. But let us indulge you and give the horrible washout rate of %50. That would still give the USAF a pool of at least 2000 trained pilots PER YR.

If the USAF decide to move with this program, you can bet whatever salary you make that at least 10,000 sergeants and airmen will strain the Air Force's education fund and gyms to get ready.

Please do not compare India's Air Force with US. And I say that kindly.
 
.
It did once. Maybe you missed the word 'Return' in the title?

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...96406/1941-1945-world-war-ii-sergeant-pilots/


And you said you are not here to discuss the merits of this idea. :lol:

I have seen USAF sergeants did things to their jets that their Spanish, Italian, Egyptian, or Saudi counterparts either cannot or were not authorized to do. So what 'weakness' are you talking about?

Education?

http://www.afpc.af.mil/About/Air-Force-Demographics/

Even using the low end of %5 of the enlisted force that have a Bachelor's degree, out of 257,818 Enlisted, we can pull at least 5,000 candidates for flight school.

http://theroadtoafwings.blogspot.com/p/faqs.html

Five out of 25 washed out. But let us indulge you and give the horrible washout rate of %50. That would still give the USAF a pool of at least 2000 trained pilots PER YR.

If the USAF decide to move with this program, you can bet whatever salary you make that at least 10,000 sergeants and airmen will strain the Air Force's education fund and gyms to get ready.

Please do not compare India's Air Force with US. And I say that kindly.

Most senior NCO have degree or degree compatible education. And I think if I remember correctly, 30-50% of junior NCO are said to have University Qualification. (Most Specialist (E-4) are University Graduate who enlist in the US Army, and there are a lot of SP4 rank within the US Army)

In fact, Warrant Officer in the US Army flying Blackhawk and Apache can be seen as the extension of "Sergeant Pilot" because Warrant Officer is not required to be University Educated and can be promote directly from NCO Corp once a NCO reaches E-6 or above.

Does that mean US Army Aviation is substandard than the like of India or China lol?
 
.
It did once. Maybe you missed the word 'Return' in the title?

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Vi...96406/1941-1945-world-war-ii-sergeant-pilots/


And you said you are not here to discuss the merits of this idea. :lol:

I haven't brought up the merits or demerits of this idea. I am talking about what others don't have to do.

There are only two countries in the world that can compete with the US, that's China and India. And neither country is going to face this kind of manpower pressure when they can easily absorb science graduates in large numbers and provide much better training at a much younger age than a serving airman would get.

I have seen USAF sergeants did things to their jets that their Spanish, Italian, Egyptian, or Saudi counterparts either cannot or were not authorized to do. So what 'weakness' are you talking about?

None of them are graduating millions of engineers every year. And their air forces are too small and one dimensional.

Education?

http://www.afpc.af.mil/About/Air-Force-Demographics/

Even using the low end of %5 of the enlisted force that have a Bachelor's degree, out of 257,818 Enlisted, we can pull at least 5,000 candidates for flight school.

http://theroadtoafwings.blogspot.com/p/faqs.html

Five out of 25 washed out. But let us indulge you and give the horrible washout rate of %50. That would still give the USAF a pool of at least 2000 trained pilots PER YR.

If the USAF decide to move with this program, you can bet whatever salary you make that at least 10,000 sergeants and airmen will strain the Air Force's education fund and gyms to get ready.

That's actually a bit cute. The washout rate in India is above 98% even at the undergraduate level. The numbers involved are so big after all.

The hundreds of thousands of Indians who come to the US to study engineering use the Ivy League universities as safety schools 'cause most of them couldn't make it to the best universities in India.

Watch this video: The first minute should do.

Purely talking about talent pool, nothing else.

Please do not compare India's Air Force with US. And I say that kindly.

Again, I am not comparing air forces. I am comparing talent pools.

Your airmen are never gonna beat our engineers. It's going to take years for your non-engineer sergeant to come up to the level of an engineering recruit.

All I'm saying is this so-called advantage you have pointed out is irrelevant to India and China.
 
.
I have seen USAF sergeants did things to their jets that their Spanish, Italian, Egyptian, or Saudi counterparts either cannot or were not authorized to do. So what 'weakness' are you talking about?

Hahaha, that's for sure. Gimme some examples though. Not that I don't believe you, quite the opposite but curious as to what some of those things are.

And then, it's all about how much money is spent on technology itself. I see countries like India and China eventually outspending the US in every single department by a huge margin over the course of many decades.

Anything to back that up, by any chance? Current spending trends that might indicate anything remotely close to your prediction? And are we talking about a specific field of technology or the entire spectrum?

Something I know you already know pretty well but just a reminder - the US' $19 trillion GDP is only followed by China's $11 trillion as the closest 2nd. Nothing to suggest that's going to change in even the distant future. That gives the US a spending capability at an unmatched level and we all know how much the US spends on R&D in every single field. No one has even come close to the US' pioneering standard.

While India is at a super respectable $2.3 trillion, you can see the disparity. Population certainly gives India an edge but there are many other issues that would tamper that.

The hundreds of thousands of Indians who come to the US to study engineering use the Ivy League universities as safety schools 'cause most of them couldn't make it to the best universities in India.

You've said some outrageous things before, but this one might take the cake, bro. And nothing against Indian universities, but there isn't a single one in the top 25 world ranking while the US has the first 4 spots which includes Harvard and in first place is MIT. Talk about technology to your other point.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2018

Can you provide any info on what these Indian universities are that make US Ivy League universities backup ones? Or one that is remotely close to MIT?
 
.
Anything to back that up, by any chance? Current spending trends that might indicate anything remotely close to your prediction? And are we talking about a specific field of technology or the entire spectrum?

Money. India and China have populations that are big enough to have economies that will be 2 to 3 times larger than the US by 2050.

Gambit was talking about a 50-year advantage, so I disputed that figure. In less than half that time both countries would have caught up or even surpassed the US.

Something I know you already know pretty well but just a reminder - the US' $19 trillion GDP is only followed by China's $11 trillion as the closest 2nd. Nothing to suggest that's going to change in even the distant future. That gives the US a spending capability at an unmatched level and we all know how much the US spends on R&D in every single field. No one has even come close to the US' pioneering standard.

While India is at a super respectable $2.3 trillion, you can see the disparity. Population certainly gives India an edge but there are many other issues that would tamper that.

This advantage won't last 50 years. At best, about 15 years. At worst, 25 years.

China's already at $13T.

You've said some outrageous things before, but this one might take the cake, bro. And nothing against Indian universities, but there isn't a single one in the top 25 world ranking while the US has the first 4 spots which includes Harvard and in first place is MIT. Talk about technology to your other point.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2018

Can you provide any info on what these Indian universities are that make US Ivy League universities backup ones? Or one that is remotely close to MIT?

Again, got nothing to do with universities either. I am purely talking about the talent pool. We have more people, simple.

An engineer, no matter where he is from, is always better than someone who is not when we are talking about an engineering field.
 
.
Does that mean US Army Aviation is substandard than the like of India or China lol?

So you are saying arts and commerce students are up to the standards of engineering graduates?

Get a whole bunch of people who are fresh out of college and put them through rigorous physical and medical tests, enough to qualify them to fly. So now you have a bunch of physically qualified people.

Then create two groups. One with the qualifications that do not allow them to become technical officers. So we are talking about all these people with arts and commerce degrees. Pick out another group of only engineers, so these are individuals who have studied physics and mathematics from the ground up right up to graduation.

Now test these two groups on their theoretical knowledge in science and engineering. Why these subjects? 'Cause no Air Marshal cares about whether his men know how many colour pigments were used in the Mona Lisa or what is stagflation. Do you have your answer?

What you do with the students later is irrelevant. The point is, the basic standards of the Indian and Chinese trainee pilots will be leagues ahead in comparison to non-science, non-engineering trainee pilots.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...most-stem-graduates-infographic/#3d79918268ae
Last year, India had the most graduates of any country worldwide with 78.0 million while China followed close behind with 77.7 million. The U.S. is now in third place with 67.4 million graduates, and the gap behind the top two countries is widening.

The World Economic Forum reported that China had 4.7 million recent STEM graduates in 2016. India, another academic powerhouse, had 2.6 million new STEM graduates last year while the U.S. had 568,000.

20170202_STEM.jpg
 
.
So you are saying arts and commerce students are up to the standards of engineering graduates?

Get a whole bunch of people who are fresh out of college and put them through rigorous physical and medical tests, enough to qualify them to fly. So now you have a bunch of physically qualified people.

Then create two groups. One with the qualifications that do not allow them to become technical officers. So we are talking about all these people with arts and commerce degrees. Pick out another group of only engineers, so these are individuals who have studied physics and mathematics from the ground up right up to graduation.

Now test these two groups on their theoretical knowledge in science and engineering. Why these subjects? 'Cause no Air Marshal cares about whether his men know how many colour pigments were used in the Mona Lisa or what is stagflation. Do you have your answer?

What you do with the students later is irrelevant. The point is, the basic standards of the Indian and Chinese trainee pilots will be leagues ahead in comparison to non-science, non-engineering trainee pilots.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...most-stem-graduates-infographic/#3d79918268ae
Last year, India had the most graduates of any country worldwide with 78.0 million while China followed close behind with 77.7 million. The U.S. is now in third place with 67.4 million graduates, and the gap behind the top two countries is widening.

The World Economic Forum reported that China had 4.7 million recent STEM graduates in 2016. India, another academic powerhouse, had 2.6 million new STEM graduates last year while the U.S. had 568,000.

20170202_STEM.jpg


Let me start by asking you 3 questions

1.) Have you seen actual combat.
2.) Were you a soldier
3.) Were you a pilot.

I am assuming you are engineer of some sort. So I am not going to ask you about that.

Now, please explain to me, how being an Engineer have anything to do with being a combat pilot at the front line.

Before you answer, you need to realise that, my brother is a Mechanical Engineer and have a Master Degree in MEng from UCLA and had been served in the Air Force for 8 years, and currently being employed by Boeing (Yes Boeing) as a Engine Specialist and gain Flight Engineer status with United Airline. He could ride in the jump seat on any (YES ANY) Boeing Aircraft from any airline for free. He is the sort of person who Boeing Sent to England to train with RR with the latest TRENT engine.

I have a Bachelor Degree in International Politics, a Master Degree in International Business, an MPhil on strategic studies, now do you think who can fix a car better? Me or My brother? The answer is me, because my brother don't even know how to fix a car and I learn my skill when I was serving as a Commander in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle

Being a Combat pilot, which mean you are to good at 2 things.

1.) Flight
2.) Warfighting.

First of all, how being an Engineer have anything to do with flight in Mid-Air, air war does not win on the ground, air war are decided up in the sky, now how being an Engineer have anything to associated with flight? You keep saying as if being an Engineer is be a better pilot?

Being a pilot is about skill, most Airline and Air Force does not require pilot to be of Engineer background, in USAF case, you have to be good at Mathematics and score pretty well on the ASVAB test to be one. You are not superior just because you are an Engineer Graduate.

Now unless you can show me some physical and actual proof that being an Engineer have any superiority to be a Pilot, your point is basically, shit.

Second of all, how being an Engineer have anything to do with fighting a war. If you were in a combat situation any point at your life, you will know being a better warfighter is to be unpredictable and thinking outside the box. You try to see what the other party do, while you try to hide your own move. And statically that would require a person to have a good EQ instead of IQ. You can stay clam and think. And Traditionally, people who are artist and scientist are having more EQ than people of Engineer background. And so if you want to ask me whether or not a art and commerce student are at standard with Engineer in the field of fighting a war? THE ANSWER IS YES, many good fighter is from arts/teaching background.

SO, that come back to my 3 questions. If you neither were a soldier nor a pilot, how do you know what makes a good pilot? Just because India and China turns out Engineer like toilet paper that does not mean it is good at air war. This only mean you give your people diploma like shit (coincide with the fact that not a single Indian Institute was listed in top 20 list ANYWHERE)

I am a Private Pilot, I served in the Armed Force, I served in War and under active combat duty. I would say I know what makes a good fighter better than you.

Again, feel free to believe what you believe, I have no intention to make you think otherwise, you like to live in your dream is your business, not mine, and I am not going to reply to you anymore, as I said all I want to say
 
.
Let me start by asking you 3 questions

1.) Have you seen actual combat.
2.) Were you a soldier
3.) Were you a pilot.

I am assuming you are engineer of some sort. So I am not going to ask you about that.

Now, please explain to me, how being an Engineer have anything to do with being a combat pilot at the front line.

Before you answer, you need to realise that, my brother is a Mechanical Engineer and have a Master Degree in MEng from UCLA and had been served in the Air Force for 8 years, and currently being employed by Boeing (Yes Boeing) as a Engine Specialist and gain Flight Engineer status with United Airline. He could ride in the jump seat on any (YES ANY) Boeing Aircraft from any airline for free. He is the sort of person who Boeing Sent to England to train with RR with the latest TRENT engine.

I have a Bachelor Degree in International Politics, a Master Degree in International Business, an MPhil on strategic studies, now do you think who can fix a car better? Me or My brother? The answer is me, because my brother don't even know how to fix a car and I learn my skill when I was serving as a Commander in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle

Being a Combat pilot, which mean you are to good at 2 things.

1.) Flight
2.) Warfighting.

First of all, how being an Engineer have anything to do with flight in Mid-Air, air war does not win on the ground, air war are decided up in the sky, now how being an Engineer have anything to associated with flight? You keep saying as if being an Engineer is be a better pilot?

Being a pilot is about skill, most Airline and Air Force does not require pilot to be of Engineer background, in USAF case, you have to be good at Mathematics and score pretty well on the ASVAB test to be one. You are not superior just because you are an Engineer Graduate.

Now unless you can show me some physical and actual proof that being an Engineer have any superiority to be a Pilot, your point is basically, shit.

Second of all, how being an Engineer have anything to do with fighting a war. If you were in a combat situation any point at your life, you will know being a better warfighter is to be unpredictable and thinking outside the box. You try to see what the other party do, while you try to hide your own move. And statically that would require a person to have a good EQ instead of IQ. You can stay clam and think. And Traditionally, people who are artist and scientist are having more EQ than people of Engineer background. And so if you want to ask me whether or not a art and commerce student are at standard with Engineer in the field of fighting a war? THE ANSWER IS YES, many good fighter is from arts/teaching background.

SO, that come back to my 3 questions. If you neither were a soldier nor a pilot, how do you know what makes a good pilot? Just because India and China turns out Engineer like toilet paper that does not mean it is good at air war. This only mean you give your people diploma like shit (coincide with the fact that not a single Indian Institute was listed in top 20 list ANYWHERE)

I am a Private Pilot, I served in the Armed Force, I served in War and under active combat duty. I would say I know what makes a good fighter better than you.

Again, feel free to believe what you believe, I have no intention to make you think otherwise, you like to live in your dream is your business, not mine, and I am not going to reply to you anymore, as I said all I want to say

This is ridiculous, your own air force disagrees with you. Look at bold.

https://www.thebalance.com/age-requirements-to-become-a-military-pilot-4054190
Must meet a selection board before age 28 1/2. Must enter Undergraduate Flying Training (UPT) before age 30.

Age waivers up to the age of 35 are considered. To qualify as an air force pilot, you will need at least a bachelor’s degree, earned at either a civilian college or university, or at the Air Force Academy, located outside Colorado Springs, CO.

The Air Force uses the Air Force Officer Qualifying Aptitude Test (AFOQT).


Similar to the ASVAB, this Air Force Test consists of 12 sub-tests to include: Verbal analogies, math, science, reading, table reading, and of course aviation information.

The Air Force prefers science. math, and engineering degrees, such as aerospace engineering, physics, computer science, and chemistry. You will also need to have a high college grade point average, generally 3.4 or above, to be competitive. Candidates with civilian flight training, such as a private pilot's license, also tend to fare better with the selection board than those with no flying experience.


The USAF will happily stop taking in enlisted if they have the talent pool to absorb higher quality students.

What's with the ridiculous cut off age of 28.5 to 35? The IAF's cut off age is 24, 26 if you already have civilian flying experience. This explains why the USAF is willing to absorb the enlisted into their flying branch. It's all because of the inferior talent pool.

How is a guy at 35 gonna compete with a guy who's started flying when he's 22? The 22-year-old is gonna have anywhere between 2000 and 3500 hours in the hot seat at 35 with many good years left in him compared to the 35-year-old doing his first hour a few years away from being "too old to fly".

You are trying to sugarcoat something that has no relevance to countries that have access to superior talent pools. And you are using anecdotal evidence to build your opinion, which is nowhere near actual truth. Do you know what's the difference between you and your brother? If you teach your brother car maintenance, in a week's time he will be able to pull a car apart and put it back together again. I have seen children in India do it. But you will take half a decade just to understand what he's talking about if he tries to teach you about jet engines. Stop using anecdotal evidence when talking about the military.

And your attempt to insinuate engineers have low EQ and arts students have high EQs is hilarious at best. You do realize that IQ/EQ etc have nothing to do with your undergraduate education right? It only has to do with how well you were brought up in your growing years.

Fact: All air forces prefer an engineer sitting in their plane. The next best thing would be a science degree. You want high EQ in your candidate, then you simply separate the wheat from the chaff during recruitment, which is easier when the talent pool is bigger. But if you are making excuses in order to stick an arts student in the cockpit, then that has everything to do with the lack of science students applying for the job and nothing else.

All I see is a desperate attempt by the USAF to make up for their shortage of pilots, nothing else.
 
.
Fact: All air forces prefer an engineer sitting in their plane. The next best thing would be a science degree. You want high EQ in your candidate, then you simply separate the wheat from the chaff during recruitment, which is easier when the talent pool is bigger. But if you are making excuses in order to stick an arts student in the cockpit, then that has everything to do with the lack of science students applying for the job and nothing else.

All I see is a desperate attempt by the USAF to make up for their shortage of pilots, nothing else.

First of all, all your words are "Preferred". I preferred to married to a rich woman, does that mean all I will married is a rich woman. It's like any Medical School in the US would "Prefer" graduate who are excel in Chemistry and Physics, does that mean if I was not a Physics and Chemistry Major, I can never take GMAT and get into Medical School? LOL. You are funny.

Also, what you are quoting is a "undergraduate flight officer training" which is one of the pathway to fly for USAF. Me and my brother PERSONALLY knows a lot of pilot that was not in the field of Engineer.

And again, just because you said does not mean they become facts. The reason why Air force lower the requirement to Enlist (Not just engineer) is because of an ACLU lawsuit of "EQUAL OPPORTUNTIES" same as the age and sex requirement before. Not because of USAF "Lacking" Pilots. As if the 25 spearhead enlist pilot (who serve in remote pilot role) would have any different within the USAF recruitment rate. USAF have the best recruitment rate of all branch, and if the US armed force does not have enough applicant or new influx, the method the US Military will use is either Stop-Lossing Active Service, or use of Selective Service and draft civilian pilot direct entry officer into the rank, both of which were already in place within the US. It is stupid to start something new or something that small for it.

And about ages, the 35 years of age (or 30 if you are going to be a flying officer candidate, cost it need 4.5 years) is set due to a Federal Ages Requirement for US Military Service, one cannot be apply to the military if you are over 35 years of age unless you served prior according to US Federal Guideline. That rules applies to EVERY BRANCH OF SERVICE AND FOR EVERY POSITION. Not just for Pilots and not just for Air Force. However, Each branch can also set their limits and waive the Federal Ages limits

And for all, you still yet to explain how and why Engineer have any superior advantage over other. The same question I ask my brother why he got to sit on the jump seat for free. He aint gonna do jack shit if the plane start having problem anyway, are the pilot going dangle my brother out and try to fix the aircraft in flight lol? So do tell which advantage for a Engineer Sitting on the pilot seat?

Again, just because you give your engineer diploma like toilet paper, that does not mean it was important.

About EQ/IQ, since when did I said EQ and IQ have anything to do with your education? I said Warfighting require a better EQ than IQ, and I know FOR A FACT, that this is true. Please learn to read.

All I see is you, quite obliviously, unfamiliarised with the US Military recruitment requirement and talking shit out of your arse by looking ups bits and pieces online, which is, to be honest, laughable

You've said some outrageous things before, but this one might take the cake, bro. And nothing against Indian universities, but there isn't a single one in the top 25 world ranking while the US has the first 4 spots which includes Harvard and in first place is MIT. Talk about technology to your other point.

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2018

Can you provide any info on what these Indian universities are that make US Ivy League universities backup ones? Or one that is remotely close to MIT?

He did said things that's outrages......and funny and most of the time, he just direct your concern of his point rather than talking about it, and it leads you going round and round without ever explaining his point, just because he said it, it must be so...

Should not discuss these serious issue with face palm folk like this...IT just a waste of time.
 
.
Again, I am not comparing air forces. I am comparing talent pools.

Your airmen are never gonna beat our engineers. It's going to take years for your non-engineer sergeant to come up to the level of an engineering recruit.

All I'm saying is this so-called advantage you have pointed out is irrelevant to India and China.
Buddy, I learned how to fly when I was in high school. So do tell me which part of flying, not flight theories, that an engineer has that a non-engineer do not.

In fact, Warrant Officer in the US Army flying Blackhawk and Apache can be seen as the extension of "Sergeant Pilot" because Warrant Officer is not required to be University Educated and can be promote directly from NCO Corp once a NCO reaches E-6 or above.

Does that mean US Army Aviation is substandard than the like of India or China lol?
That is what our man is saying...
 
.
Money. India and China have populations that are big enough to have economies that will be 2 to 3 times larger than the US by 2050.

That's a flawed prediction, my friend. Population size is merely a single factor that helps economic growth and they don't dictate a guaranteed result of economic growth. We've also seen the opposite happen with countries of small populations exceed in incredible ways. You need much more than that factor.

Gambit was talking about a 50-year advantage, so I disputed that figure. In less than half that time both countries would have caught up or even surpassed the US.

But they didn't and haven't. What you're suggesting is that the growth will only happen on one side of the coin while the other side falls asleep. In reality, the other side is growing at a much more rapid rate. That's why your point is a bit flawed.

This advantage won't last 50 years. At best, about 15 years. At worst, 25 years.

China's already at $13T.

You're still assuming the US will be sitting idle while India and China are moving up. Nothing in the current trends indicate that either will catch up in even 100 years. The only way that happens is if something catastrophic happens to the US and the likelihood of that happening is next to 0.

Again, got nothing to do with universities either. I am purely talking about the talent pool. We have more people, simple.

An engineer, no matter where he is from, is always better than someone who is not when we are talking about an engineering field.

That, agree with you, but you still didn't answer the question regarding your claim that US Ivy League universities are only "back-ups" for Indian students because they couldn't get into the "better" Indian universities.
 
.
I have seen USAF sergeants did things to their jets that their Spanish, Italian, Egyptian, or Saudi counterparts either cannot or were not authorized to do. So what 'weakness' are you talking about?

Come on, man! Gimme something you saw. Surely there's something you can discuss publicly. I'm just curious because it's a fascinating subject.

I'll give you one that the Egyptians did. While it's not a huge boombaloogatza, it's still fun and interesting and they did it way back in 1978. After leaving the Russian block and joining the US, they couldn't get their hands on any more R-3S Atoll A2A missiles and so one of the Egyptian flight engineers found a way to fire the AIM-9P off the MiG-21. They ended up using the AIM-9 in a border skirmish against Libya and used them on the MiGs up to their recent retirement.

mig21-2.jpg
 
.
Back
Top Bottom