• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Carrier Ops Korea: Something about this photo really scares me . .

Each era had trade offs of good and bad, that for all practical purposes makes it a wash. No need to argue about which era had the toughest, ballsiest, most skilled pilots....they're all high on the scale.

Just my opinion.

Agreed, anybody mad enough to do that for a living in any era are highly skilled.
 
Desert Shield/Storm.
Allied Force.
Iraqi Freedom.

All flown with "mach 1+ oil burners", all military successes.

...and all without opposing air force. In that context there were also Grenada, Panama and Bosnia.

With respect to aerial combat against an enemy with real air assets post-WWII there were only Korea and Vietnam. That's what Helldiver was refering to, I think.
 
It was generally agreed (paraphrased from AlGore...) that the early jets were probably the most demanding era of Naval Aviation from a flying point of view.

All of the eras are different. During the war (#2) the experience level was not generally high due to the demands of the fleet for more and more pilots. A loss rate was acceptable. My dads training class lost about 5% from accidents (killed), which was typical. The Korean aviators were mostly experienced WWII types, though the Carrier flight operations were still in development without a lot of "aids". More is capable today, as it true in many facets of aviation.

I fly with a lot of Marine and Naval Aviators and they are certainly skillful, but no more so than many that have made a career in aviation and perhaps have started out as someting more arcane as an Alaska Bush Pilot. What it does take is really good training and then experience. A friend of mine used to be a LSO, he said that about the only way he would give an "OK three wire" was if it was a single engine approach at night in a storm.....

The sort of thing that gets a bit more challenging on a bad day.... and always requiring your full attention.

Cheers: T
 
Falklands. Although the landing speeds there were far more sensible...
I was just discussing from a US perspective here, otherwise I'd also had to include those countless Mideast wars... and of course the Falklands. Interestingly the aircraft the ground troops were fearing the most (thus triggering the SAS missions AFAIK) was an Argentinian prop...

Of course, my bias comes from having been an infantry man and now flying props :icon_lol:
 
Back
Top