Stupid questions about Naval Aviation (Pt 2)

[xmid]

xmid, perhaps you should heed your own advice. OPNAVINST 3710.37A (I think B's on the street, but I couldn't find it online) lists standing height mins/maxs before it even gets into the antro measurements. LGPP's information provided was mostly correct in that you have to be between 62" and 77" (78" is for NFO). He also mentioned that there were Antro measurements in addition, and suggested the OP google it. So no, he was not incorrect - he merely pointed someone in the correct direction. Take a chill pill.

Roger that, and I appologize. I should have chilled. The information and intent of the original post was technically correct. The thought behind my post was that there are plenty of people that have first hand knowledge of most questions that are asked and a reply from them is far more valuable than someone that is not actually in the military.

I urge the original member with the question about their height to look at the anthro measurements. From what I've seen they are far more valuable than your standing height. After putting a couple hundred people in to the system I've never seen someone (pre-commissioning and post-commissioning) that was DQ'ed for standing height. It was all anthro measurements. Take that for what you will.

 

[Mumbles]

Probably not ... or no ... and there were various threats-counter threats and bluffs by both sides for many, many years -- but at the end of the day it was always about this w/ the Joe's and the U.S. :

And then "this" happened -- so ALOHA, CUBI Point. CLARK AFB, too ....

The Filipinos, I believe, would LOVE to have us back at our old facilities....
I'm pretty sure it would be cost prohibitive for us though. Tens of billions of $$ to get those bases back on line.

 

[NYCJetCharter]

Navy Heavy Strike Capability?

With the A-6 retired and the A-12 cancelled, it seems that the Navy has lost a substantial part of its strike capability by relying only on the F/A-18. Are there any plans to bring back a long-range, heavier strike platform, or does the Navy feel that F/A-18s and F-35s with PGMs are adequate? Seems to me that the Navy has lost a bunch of power projection capability here...

 

[Single Seat]

You want heavy strike? Call these guys.

T-LAM launch:

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Isn't the Zumwalt-class destroyer intended for that very purpose?

 

[scoober78]

Psssst.

 

[Fog]

There a few of us (self included) who see value in building a 2-seat F-35 maximized for the long-range strike mission. Many here will tell you that Tomahawks are great for that, but they don't help with mobile missile launchers & other movable things. We might do all this stuff from space in 20 years, but if I were CNO I wouldn't be giving up any missions the Navy has performed well historically.

 

[A4sForever]

There a few of us (self included) who see value in building a 2-seat F-35 maximized for the long-range strike mission ... missions the Navy has performed well historically.

It would greatly improve MY morale if they'd just go back to callin' it "ATTACK".

"Strike"?? WTF is that?? Airline pilots walkin' the picket line ???

 

[Fog]

It would greatly improve MY morale if they'd just go back to callin' it "ATTACK".

"Strike"?? WTF is that?? Airline pilots walkin' the picket line ???

"Attack" is what A-4's did (during the day) & F-18A-D's do (both day & night): carry a few bombs a couple of hundred miles & drop them on someone's head.

"Long-range strike" would be carrying a lotta bombs 500 or more miles at night/in bad weather & dropping them on someone's head. A-6's & F-14D's did it pretty well. We have become the AF in that there may (a) never again be a dedicated "attack" squadron in the Navy & (b) the F-18 & F-35 will be both fighters & attack a/c.

The difference is how much & when. Don't mean to be a S/A.

 

[A4sForever]

"Attack" is what A-4's did (during the day) & F-18A-D's do (both day & night): carry a few bombs a couple of hundred miles & drop them on someone's head..... "Long-range strike" would be carrying a lotta bombs ...A-6's...did it pretty well.

The difference is how much & when.....

Your field of vision is wa-a-a-a-a-y too narrow. Plus ... you are splitting hairs.

Tell that to medium ATTACK bubba's who went "downtown" day AND night carrying max ordnance @ 40 years ago ...

Yeah, I'd say A-6's did it "pretty well". Did "ATTACK", that is ... :icon_wink

 

[skidkid]

I know where attack is alive and well.

 

[MasterBates]

There are still VA squadrons. They just have an M in them.

 

[BlackBearHockey]

There a few of us (self included) who see value in building a 2-seat F-35 maximized for the long-range strike mission.

That statement caused my thinking to tangent a few times and turn into this question:

Where are most SNFOs heading after Primary? It seems like everything except the Growler/E2 are transitioning to a non-NFO platform. If someone wants to be an NFO in something that lands on the boat, is there still a good chance for that?

 

[FLYTPAY]

There are still VA squadrons. They just have an M in them.

The same guys who get 600 hours in type after their JO tour?

 

[UMichfly]

It seems like everything except the Growler/E2 are transitioning to a non-NFO platform.

Might want to tell that to the good folks flying Super Hornets...I think they missed that memo.