On 9/1/04 8:27 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" wrote:

Doug- No question that serving in the ANG was a better deal than going to
Viet Nam
in an active duty unit-- BRBR

Sorry, don't get this. Altho nobody in the military wants to go to combat, I
would have liked to experience it. The people I have read about, including Ed
R., view SEA combat operations as the best times of their military careers.

Doug Frankly, if I had a child that wanted to go USN
active duty aviation, I'd advise them against it, and suggest trying for an
ANG unit too. Viet Nam or not. It's still a better deal. BRBR


Surprised at you. Why?

Two reasons:

1. Naval Aviation is dying on the vine. The USN's soon going from 12
airplanes in F/A-18 squadrons to 10. From 17 pilots to 15. That reduces
the number of pointy nosed aircraft on the ship from 48 to about 40 while
increasing pilot admin workload. A carrier that used to deploy with over 90
aircraft when I started now goes to sea with about 70. Reduce that by 8
more soon. It's harder, and there's less tooth to tail.

2. Conversely, you can get into the ANG as a guard-baby, fly tactical
aircraft (for longer than you can in the USN/USNR), never move, and live the
good life for 8-10 years as a full-timer and then slide into a part time
position, still fly the same tactical aircraft, and make that move young
enough to pursue the career you'll hang your hat on for the rest of your
life.

e.g. the most successful airline pilots I know (IMHO) are the guard-babies
that left their full time ANG jobs at 26-30 years of age and snagged airline
jobs while sliding into their part-time positions. They're check-airmen and
chief pilots. I also know of at least two ANG F-16 pilots who are
physicians. Not to mention ANG units (despite having MORE bureaucracy than
USN/USNR) still have less than the active duty USAF. All in all, it's a
better life.

Still, none of them have any CV landings...

--Woody