Leaderboard

Napoleon, I disagree with everything you stated on your last two posts. First, let me address your (and guineapigfury’s) points about “saving the T-38 fleet”: The T-38’s in the CTP that you are referring to are T-38A models. NOT T-38C models. They will NEVER be involved in UPT training. I recommend that you and guineapigfury avoid the apples-to-oranges comparisons. These jets will work as A-models outside of AETC until they are parked in the boneyard. What is done with them is irrelevant to utilization in the UPT environment. And no, you cannot operate a handful of T-1’s for the cost of a T-38A. That’s because AETC needs their T-1’s to train students, and they cannot buy more. They DON’T need the T-38A. Second- and third-order effects… Second… I don’t know if, as you state, the E-8 pilots get less time than the B-2 pilos. But as a U-2 interview pilot for many years, I can attest to the fact that I saw a lot of atrophied stick-and-rudder skills coming out of communities like yours. That is not to say you are a community of “bad pilots”. Certainly not. But your community has not been given the opportunity… such as if found in the CTP program… to keep their stick-and-rudder pilot skills sharp. We’ve hired some really fine pilots out of the E-8 community. But if you know any of them, ask them how much better they became after flying the T-38 for a few months. Whether it came easy or not for them, I guarantee they were better USAF pilots as a result. Many moons ago, there was the ACE program (Accelerated Co-pilot Enrichment), where the SAC co-piglets would fly a T-37 or T-38 to improve their skill set. I have a good friend who never flew in AETC… yet he logged over 1000 hours in the T-38 through ACE and CTP. He transitioned to a fighter late in his career, and ended up beating his entire community at their annual weapons competition. And guess what? He was the only “heavy guy” in the community. While he is a naturally gifted pilot and officer, he will tell you that the time in the T-38 made him a far, far better aircraft commander in the 4 MWS’ he flew in his 25 year career. Could he have been “adequate” without the T-38? Maybe so. But he would never have excelled to the level he did. Don’t you find it unfortunate that, as a co-pilot, you didn’t have the ACE program in the E-8? It could have been a T-38, T-37,… pick an airplane. But for pennies on the dollar to do it, don’t you agree that you and your squadron buds would be better pilots for it? Thanks to Gen Ralston for his short-sighted decision to end the ACE program in ’95. Cost Part 1: you impeach the T-38 CTP by bringing up the “budgetary realities”… and then you go on to say the T-6 is the best solution because it’s the best balance between cost and capability? Did you say “cost”?? You want to put 11-16 T-6’s at each CTP location, with each one costing upwards of $7M per copy? Is this some kind of modern math like my kid gets in school? How do you fund that nine-figure budget item? The “budget reality” of this scenario is a non-starter. Cost Part 2, the T-38A: Again, you mentioned “budgetary realities”. It’s a valid point to consider. But it costs money to have well-trained, best-in-the-world pilots. Where do you draw the line on “what’s good enough”. Granted, it has to be drawn, because there is a balancing act between cost and capability. On the cost side, I remember about 10 years ago when an F-22 at Nellis had a FOD incident. The crew chief lost control of a pin, and it was ingested into the engine. It resulted in a redesign of the pin flag that would allow the crew chief to hold on to it better. It also resulted in about $6.8M of damage to the engine. Yes,... $6.8M for FOD in one engine. I also remember that $6.8M was more than the entire annual budget for Beale’s T-38 program of around 3700 flight hours, including our TDY cross-country costs. So while I recognize that it costs money to fly the T-38’s, I subscribe to the view that “you have to spend money to make money”. What’s the point I’m making about the FOD incident? It’s that the T-38 CTP program is cheap. Dirt cheap. And the B-2’s program is cheap. Cheaper than a crew chief’s pin down an F-22 engine. A lot cheaper than a few more U-2 or B-2 sorties to make up the difference if there was not CTP. And it is a lot cheaper than hours on the E-8 or B-2. The dividends of the T-38 CTP are known, proven, and relevant. They are also somewhat intangible to those staffers on the outside that haven’t seen it first-hand, but want to gut it for $7M to spend elsewhere. But people like Gen Chilton, Lt Gen Otto, MG Polumbo, and MG Simpson (to name a few) will tell you the T-38 CTP is worth it. They saw it and they get it. Having spent a quarter of a century flying the T-38 as an instructor with guys like you that came out of heavies, bombers, fighters, and other weird shit, I guarantee you that your E-8 community (and all others, to differing degrees) would be better off if they had a CTP program.

Come on back. AETC needs more deployment fodder. But seriously I have no idea why anyone would want to return to Active Duty but if you want to I truly hope it works out for you. I would call the AFPC service desk or whatever they are calling it today. If you call multiple times you will get multiple answers too which is neat.

I believe this is covered in 11-402. Medical bit is 48-123 Ch 6. If he stays in same airframe/weapon system, he's treated as a trained asset, getting an FC IIC (rotary only) rather than an IFC I, meaning local medical processing and better chances of waiver approval (lesser standard).

Exactly. Any auto pilot heavy AC pilot community would greatly benefit from having the 38 as a companion trainer. It would make any dude in those communities a better pilot. In KSZL's case, people have tried to cut the program many times. It always survives because once you crunch the numbers you easily see that it's essential to the B-2 mission. Small fleet dynamics and associated mx issues mandate having another airplane. Cheaper is awesome. My vote is keep the 38.

You do not have to attend UPT. When you submit your paperwork to your Aeronautical Rating Board, you will have to sign paper acknowledging that you are requesting a "helicopter-only" aeronautical rating.

When I attended SOS many years ago, I had been a classroom instructor and Emceed graduation ceremonies. I wasn't nervous speaking. However, I had to present a prepared briefing prepared by someone else. It was horribly written but we had to give it as is with no changes. So, it sucks no matter what you do. Our section leader critiques my performance and says I need to do better. My response to his comments was "FedEx couldn't deliver this speech." Idiot.

This argument is short sighted and weak sauce in my opinion (no offense). By your logic we should give T-38s to E-8, E-3 and RC-135 squadrons. The kind of flying these airplanes do are probably 80% comparable to what the B-2 does. Full disclosure I'm an E-8 guy by trade, so that's my perspective. With that said, I'd be willing to bet that the preponderance of flying that the B-2 does is dominated by the following things-- takeoff, TONS of cruise time, get some gas, cruise some more, a brief moment where magic happens, cruise some more, land. In the kind of flying we are doing right now (or likely to EVER do with the B-2) you are better served with an airplane that flies (and is flown) like the B-2 is. And where I feel that this is short sighted, there's a reason that 75% or more of UPT students go through the T-1. You can operate a fleet of T-1s for what it costs to keep a handfull of T-38s in the air. Frankly I'm amazed big blue hasn't pulled your 38s already just to "save money". I think the B-2 community would be insane to pass on an opportunity for a cheaper companion trainer, even if it means trading off some of the fun of flying. ANY airplane is more fun to fly than NO airplane.