BF2S Forums Air Force or Army ROTC

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Easy for you to say ;)

Well, I've lived in 3 different countries, Canada, Germany, and this thing called "Romania", so yeah, I'm a traveler.

Of course it's easy for me to say that countries are irrelevant, because they are. Whether or not will mankind still exist when the concept will be understood, I have no idea. But when I see people enthusiastic about joining armies and taking part in killing other humans and their families for land control or economical reasons; I just tell myself that that moment will never occur, we will be extinct by ourselves by then.

Mankind is at the age where it can determine its future and achieve its true civilization, but also the age where the complete opposite could occur.

Threads like this make me lean towards the last option.

Countries prevent more wars than they start. You think one world government would stop people from fighting? No, the world would be in constant rebellion because there is no one size fits all solution to government. There are too many different ideas about what is the correct path and too many lifestyle choices that people can choose from.

On the other end of the spectrum we can all live in towns and cities with no government above but that's just one step from anarchy, world trade would collapse and there would be no one to stop one town from creating a military and conquering everyone else. Right now with the emergence of nation states we have detante and less wars than at any previous time in human history.

From wut I know and from wut I keep up the world rite now only few elite control it so sooner or later its gonna be one world government but not sure how certain people will take it since some people do hold their country pride very high so they will not be able to give it up. On the other hand also heard that the globe is controlled by only very selected number of people. So as I said people can fight about borders as such as Ioan pointed out but sooner or later its gonna merge into one world government as you can see there EU now, and they were even talking about using world currency when the U.S. economy was the shit or it still is...

Ioan92 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Hey can we keep the politics out of this thread? Interesting discussion but it doesn't answer my question.

Well, it's somehow linking. I'm trying to make you realize what you're about to do. I want you to know that supporting the army is not helping mankind at all. If you're really determined to go in the army, you will have to live with yourself when you end up killing your own by pressing the mouse of a predator drone or whatever. You have to think "to the outside" to understand this.

I'm not ignorant of the risks that military service entails. And frankly I find it a bit offensive to say something like "you end up killing your own by pressing the mouse of a predator drone."

Hurri, I do not mean to sound condescending, but please do more research, like alot more, whatever it is you choose. You need to find out as much info as possible from all angles and sources possible, not what randomns on forums think. In Air Force ROTC, you def. have to take the ASVAB or whatever the hell its spelled. How do you think they determine what you are capable of doing? Not your choice, what they think your capable of within the capabilities you portray and shit. Yes you can do whatever you want if you do well enough, but only if you consistently score in the top 1% of everything you do. Take Embry-Riddle AFROTC for example, say they are giving out 50 pilot slots to Detachment 157 this year. well, you have a couple hundred people in your class, that means only the highest 50 get pilot slots. The highest scoring individual will get first pick, and he'll likely pick fighters. So will the next dude. It goes down the list until all slots are taken. Their are not 50 fighter slots, maybe 8-10. then a number of bomber, transport, etc. If you weren't high enough in your class to get a slot, congrats you are given a desk, or maybe you can be some kinda aircrew, which isn't bad, just not what you wanted. All im trying to say is, whatever you do, give it 110%, all the way. Yes you have to take the test.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Helos or planes, or UAVs. I know that UAVs in the AF are currently a rated position... sure hear a lot of uproar from pilots about that lol.

Raimius, you're in the Academy. Any regrets? Wish you had picked a different branch? Or do you like/love it and see yourself a successful Airman?

I am pretty happy with how things are going.  I'm kind of an oddball in that I am considering trying to fly HH-60s for the Air Force (we only have 90-something of them, and helos aren't the usual idea for AF pilots).  I would have had better chances to fly helos in the Army, but their missions are different (Army UH-60s generally do air-assault, while AF HH-60s are for combat search and rescue.)  I can't predict the future, but I do enjoy where I am right now (paid to study and fly a little, then go to pilot training after graduation).

As to UAVs, pilot slots, and ROTC:
AFROTC and the academy get roughly the same amount of slots per year.  The academy has fewer cadets, so our probabilities of getting a pilot slot are a little better.  OTS doesn't get a whole lot of slots, so those odds are not very good.  I don't know the specifics of pilot slot distribution within ROTC, but some detachments wind up with the majority of wannabe pilots getting slots.  As always, GPA, fitness scores, and commander's rating play large roles in how likely you are to get your first choice (assuming you are medically qualified).  That is certainly something to ask the detachments you look at.

UAVs: currently only rated pilots fly them.  This may change.  The AF is in the process of reviewing their training requirements for UAV pilots.  Perhaps it will stay the same.  Perhaps they will make it a non-rated officer AFSC.  They may make it an enlisted AFSC.  We don't really know.  Most pilots aren't enthusiastic about flying UAVs.  Remotely piloting an aircraft from a trailer in Nevada isn't exactly what most pilots imagine themeselves doing!  That said, UAVs are doing a TON of work in Iraq and Afghanistan and making a significant difference.

mcjagdflieger wrote:

Hurri, I do not mean to sound condescending, but please do more research, like alot more, whatever it is you choose. You need to find out as much info as possible from all angles and sources possible, not what randomns on forums think. In Air Force ROTC, you def. have to take the ASVAB or whatever the hell its spelled. How do you think they determine what you are capable of doing? Not your choice, what they think your capable of within the capabilities you portray and shit. Yes you can do whatever you want if you do well enough, but only if you consistently score in the top 1% of everything you do. Take Embry-Riddle AFROTC for example, say they are giving out 50 pilot slots to Detachment 157 this year. well, you have a couple hundred people in your class, that means only the highest 50 get pilot slots. The highest scoring individual will get first pick, and he'll likely pick fighters. So will the next dude. It goes down the list until all slots are taken. Their are not 50 fighter slots, maybe 8-10. then a number of bomber, transport, etc. If you weren't high enough in your class to get a slot, congrats you are given a desk, or maybe you can be some kinda aircrew, which isn't bad, just not what you wanted. All im trying to say is, whatever you do, give it 110%, all the way. Yes you have to take the test.

Not quite...
The ASVAB is for enlisted postitions.  ROTC grads are officers.  AF officers take the AFOQT.
If you graduate from ROTC/USAFA/OTS with a pilot slot, you are not guaranteed any specific type of aircraft.  What you wind up flying is determined in pilot training.  Your performance in pilot training is what gives you options for what aircraft you get.  For example, all AF UPT (undergrad pilot training) students fly the T-6 first.  Then, they branch into fighter/bomber, heavy transport, turboprop transport, or helos.  After more training, they move to specific airframes within their category (say a C-130 from the turboprop transport branch, or a F-15 from the fighter/bomber branch).

Ioan92 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Ioan92 wrote:

Well, it's somehow linking. I'm trying to make you realize what you're about to do. I want you to know that supporting the army is not helping mankind at all. If you're really determined to go in the army, you will have to live with yourself when you end up killing your own by pressing the mouse of a predator drone or whatever. You have to think "to the outside" to understand this.

I'm not ignorant of the risks that military service entails. And frankly I find it a bit offensive to say something like "you end up killing your own by pressing the mouse of a predator drone."

That's because it is, and you're only realizing the risk to your person from what appears you're saying, I might be wrong though, I surely hope so.
If you support such an institution, you should completely feel bad, as it its normal, despite what people born with the infantile disease that is Nationalism / Patriotism might tell you, they are blinded and very ignorant of what they do. They think they serve their country, they're just helping Mankind's gradual degradation actually.

Ioan, I don't think anyone here is debating that militaries throughout history have done bad things.  To say that is ALL that any military does is extremely misleading.  Yes, militaries kill, maim, and destroy.  Sometimes they do so to innocent people.  However, they also form a huge part of international emergency response to natural disasters and humanitarian crises.

If you really want to debate the merits of military forces, may I suggest a separate thread?  This thread shouldn't be derailed quite that far, IMO.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Usmc.

No NROTC at my school

thats right. because the USMC is the NAAAAAVY

eleven bravo wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Usmc.

No NROTC at my school

thats right. because the USMC is the NAAAAAVY

I got kicked out of Ranger school because I wouldn't say "Sarge"


it was funny, 12 Marines kicked out of The Army's Ranger school at Ft Lewis.

If you go AF, DO NOT go Security Forces. That's all I'm saying. RAIMIUS has provided valuable input from the AF side otherwise.

If you want to go AF SF, then just go Army instead, tbh. You'll get all the suck with promotion opportunities to boot.

It boils down to "what do you want to do?"--both in-service and post-service.

What are your family aspirations?

What are your career aspirations vis a vis the military?

What are you planning to get a degree in? (actually less important than you would think)

All these answers play into the calculus. If family is important, you should look more strongly at the AF. If you're planning on staying single while you're in the military (ie, not necessarily making it a career), it's a wash. Just as an example.

If you want to fly, go AF. Definitely more transferable into civilian world. You'll do 12-14 years minimum payback, though (pilot training ain't cheap and they want some ROI). Syncs well with your family goals, as well...although military in general isn't the most family-friendly job, AF is the least bad of the four branches.

If you want to fly, LE isn't really compatible, unless you go helos and then it's really messed up because the AF is moving away from helos and toward CV-22 (still have some UH-60s, but not many).

Seems like you're kind of all over the place here...

RAIMIUS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If you want to fly, LE isn't really compatible, unless you go helos and then it's really messed up because the AF is moving away from helos and toward CV-22 (still have some UH-60s, but not many).

Last I heard, the AF didn't even want to consider Cv-22s as a replacement for the HH-60s.  Granted, the Osprey replaced the MH-53s, but CSAR-X completely rejected the idea of tilt-rotors.
Then there are the Hueys at missile bases and VIP transport...

Did I miss something?

CSAR-X is so far off, and it's such a small fleet. Same with the Hueys. Not even sure the Hueys are going to stick around. I think there's some debate over that one. Regardless, very, very small community...much smaller than before.

Well all I can say is that life plans change over the course of decades. Opportunities arise, etc. Priorities shift with changes in family situation and such. It's good to have long term goals, but I would make them a bit more broad that far out, more defined in the near term and refine them as you progress. Adjust fire based on your changing life situation, keeping your broader long term objectives in mind.

I guess what I'm saying is that you gather life experience, and that can dramatically change your mid and long term goals from what you "know" them to be now. Keep those goals in mind, but also keep in mind that those goals can change, and that's OK.