David Brooks describes the ascent of the "Alpha Geeks", calling into question my theory that John McCain is cooler than Barack Obama. In Brooksie's formulation, fighter pilots are trumped by guys with cool MySpace pages and blogs. Hmm. I've never been a fighter pilot, but maybe I can get back to you on the other bit...
WE WILL SUSPEND TESTING... I am advised that although McCain flew a very cool looking jet, it was an attack aircraft, not a fighter. There goes his machismo!
A MACHISMO RALLY! But wait - Maybe McCain was in Top Gun after all:
With renewed emphasis on Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) training brought on with the establishment of the Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) in 1968, the availability of A-4 Skyhawks in both the Instrument RAGs and Composite Squadrons at the Master Jet Bases presented a ready resource of the nimble Skyhawks that had become the TOPGUN preferred surrogate for the MiG-17. At the time, the F-4 Phantom was just being exploited to its full potential as a fighter and had not performed as well as expected against the smaller North Vietnamese MiG-17 and MiG-21 opponents. TOPGUN introduced the notion of dissimilar air combat training (DACT) using the A-4E in the striped "Mongoose" configuration with fixed slats.
The small size of the Skyhawk and superb low speed handling in the hands of a well trained aviator made it ideal to teach fleet aviators the finer points of DACT. The squadrons eventually began to display vivid threat type paint schemes signifying their transition into the primary role of Adversary training. To better perform the Adversary role, single-seat A-4E and F models were introduced into the role, but the ultimate Skyhawk was the "Super Fox," which was equipped with the uprated J52-P-408 engine similar to the configuration used by the Blue Angels.
So McCain was Viper or Jester.
A minor winge: McCain was an attack pilot, not a fighter dude. Not sure if that has any impact on the coolness index.
And looking at Brooks's picture, I suspect wishful thinking is at least partly responsible for the underlying theory.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 23, 2008 at 10:50 AM
"I suspect wishful thinking is at least partly responsible for the underlying theory."
Cecil,
Probably not more than 85-90%. I wonder how many times he watched his pants go up the flagpole? Would MO let BHO read something like this?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 23, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I haven't looked at his website, but speaking as a woman--and I hope not to offend anyone especially those here who I love beyond reason--but fighter pilots are sexier than bloggers.
Posted by: clarice | May 23, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Sign me up for P-51 duty.
Posted by: Neo | May 23, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Being an Alpha Geek is somewhat like being the tallest midget in the circus or the world's greatest Finnish Opera singer.
Nice, but not so in any useful context.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | May 23, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Can't wait for the MySpace page.
Or -- could it be true -- you already have one? If I start a page can I get on your "friends" list?
Posted by: PrestoPundit | May 23, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Here are the 'official' cool quotients.
James Dean...... 9.7
Steve McQueen. 9.5
John McCain..... 8.4
Barack Obama... 4.7
Posted by: MikeS | May 23, 2008 at 12:32 PM
I just hope McCain doesn't try to fly a plane in the course of his campaign.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 23, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Also, the A-4 found itself in fighter roles in low threat environments. US antisubmarine carriers typically carried a detachment of Skyhawks for self defense and protection of the ASW aircraft.
The Scooter was originally designed to be the smallest practical carrier based aircraft capable of delivering a single nuclear weapon. It turned out to be an extremely nimble aircraft that at fairly low speeds and altitudes outperformed many dedicated fighters.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna | May 23, 2008 at 07:25 PM
It turned out to be an extremely nimble aircraft that at fairly low speeds and altitudes outperformed many dedicated fighters.
Aerodynamically, yes, and it made a great simulator for low wing-loaded fighters. But the A-4 was not a fighter--and wasn't well suited to the mission--primarily because of its lack of radar, air-to-air missiles (except for a capacity for a couple of 'winders that were rarely/never actually loaded), and cannons that were unsuitable for air combat (rate of fire too low, feed chutes that jammed under "g", and a substandard gunsight). Other than that . . .
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 24, 2008 at 01:01 AM