[jumpingcholla34]

I've nothing against fighter pilots -- it takes balls just to strap on one of those airplanes. But, the fact is that the fighter is the only aircraft type we have that has almost never been needed for its intended role since at least the Korean War. Bomber jocks have done plenty of bombing in recent years, tanker jocks have done plenty of refueling, transport pilots have done plenty of transporting and ground support jocks have done lots of ground support. When's the last time a U.S. fighter went up against a first-class enemy fighter?

So, with that in mind, why do some fighter pilots think they have an automatic right to run the Air Force?

[RJS1950]

This has been a longstanding issue, from way before I started my AF career. They see themselves as the point of the sword, for everything. In the 70s and 80s they saw themselves this way even in a nuclear conflict. A friend at the time was fighter jock out of Spain who had a nuclear mission. In a discussion with him he made it clear that the fighters were the heroes in any conflict, being first on the scene when the Soviets came pouring through the Fulda Gap. I pointed out to him that they were in a worse position than the front-line ground troops. They went in first, cannon fodder, and nobody expected them to return. In a tactical nuclear mission, I asked him if he ever missed any of his timing points and he said yes, sometimes by several minutes or more. I then pointed out that timing was so critical in a nuclear conflict that if he missed one or two timing points in his flight to target that he would have just enough time to pickle his nuke, turn and be taken out by one of the MIRV warheads that were also covering his target. The MIRVs would arrive on time, even when he didn’t. He went pale at the thought and never again boasted of the superiority of fighter jocks. They are but one essential cog in the overall plan of conflicts.