Code One, Volume 1, Number 3, Summer 1986 Page: 3
35 p. : col. ill. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Photo by LTC Don Borowski, National Guard Bureau
Wn recent years, the USAF's Guard and Reserve forces
have been undergoing a transformation. Across the
country, these units are being revitalized with better
equipment and training as part of a new "total force"
concept. Tired old airplanes and outdated maintenance
support equipment are finally being put out to pasture, as is
the ill-conceived notion that the people who maintained and
flew those airplanes were somehow less than top drawer - a
misconception that military and congressional experts felt
was due solely to substandard equipment and not to any
inherent failing on the part of the forces themselves.
In the development stages of the F-16, Pentagon
planners recognized an opportunity to provide Guard and
Reserve forces with tremendously increased capability at
relatively low cost.
And so it was. In increasing numbers, the "weekend
warriors" have been getting newer equipment, better
training, and (most important of all) a viable role as part of
the USAF's total force. In South Carolina, Utah, Arizona,
Texas, and Vermont the F-16 Fighting Falcon belongs to the
Guard and Reserve. And more will follow as these men and
women continue to prove that they can attain combat
readiness levels on a par with their active-duty counterparts.
During Gunsmoke '85, the Air Force Reserve's 419th TFG
swept top honors, while the Swamp Foxes of the 169th TFG,
McEntire ANG Base, S.C., finished one slot better than their
active-duty counterparts from nearby Shaw AFB.
"We have a basic plan," said the 169th's full-time com-
mander, Lt. Col. Joe Khare. "We're going to recruit the best
and the brightest off active duty, and if we can win any kind of
competition, then by golly we're going to go for it. You
know, that's the fighter pilot's tradition. We not only want to
compete, we want to win. That's pretty much the philosophy
you'll see in the squadron, in talking to most of the guys."
The 169th's DCM, Lt. Col. George Inabinet, described
Gunsmoke as "a right unique experience. We had two
deployments back to back. We had Norway in September
and Gunsmoke in October. I think we ran around 99 percent
mission capable rate out at Gunsmoke. We didn't lose a
single sortie to an abort. We didn't use a single aircraft spare.
We got all the bombs off that we carried to the target, and we
fired all the bullets. We had no flaws whatsoever, so we were
happy with it."
Inabinet said the 169th's normal MC rate is "around 70
percent. The standard MC rate for the Air Guard or Reserve
forces is around 65 percent. We set our goal here to try to
maintain 70 percent, and with one shift we think that's right
commendable, because when that aircraft comes back in the
afternoon broken it's not worked on until the next day. You
carry it all night 'out of commission.' The same thing on
weekends. If you break one on Friday afternoon it sits broken
all weekend. That hurts your MC rate."
"MC rates really bother us," Khare said. "It would be
nice if we had an 80 or 90 percent MC rate. But we are
constantly and consistently meeting our flying commitment,
and our IFE rate is way down. If you put a guy in a piece of
equipment that operates the way it's supposed to operate,
his training is enhanced. If, on the other hand, he's got to
fight that equipment, if he's got emergencies to contend""*
169thMaintenance crewsprovided a95%MC rate during the
unit's deployment to Norway.
with, if the airplane systems and subsystems don't work quite
the way they're supposed to, then he has got to spend his
time trying to work around that system and consequently
spend less time practicing his art, which is flying a good,
full-up jet to its maximum performance capability."
"The big proof of the pudding," Inabinet said, "is when
you take the aircraft and deploy 'em somewhere and have
around-the-clock (maintenance) capability. On those, we've
run in the 90s."
Khare credits the F-16.
"It's state-of-the-art. Lots of rivets. Close fasteners.
You're not going to see signs of wear in this airplane. Yeah,
the airplane can wear out, but it's just too easy not to let it.
You take the keel. I've been to the factory and watched the
way they make that thing. Machines are doing it and they're
all built to specs. Generic. I know when we had the old
deuce (F-102) they had a canopy fitted to each airplane. If
you lost that canopy you played hell putting another one on
it. This thing (the F-16) is so well-built I just don't worry. I
don't lose sleep over that. I don't lose sleep over the
engines."
So what DOES he lose sleep over?
"I lose sleep over the way we use the airplane - getting
the max out of our aircrews. Every time we've tested the
airplane, what in fact has happened is the airplane has tested
us. We go down there and fly an ORI. We put up a 4.0 sortie
CODE ONE/3
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
General Dynamics Corporation. Fort Worth Division. Code One, Volume 1, Number 3, Summer 1986, periodical, Summer 1986; Fort Worth, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1103332/m1/5/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth.