Leaderboard

I was landing an A-10 in a freaking snow storm and max crosswind after air refueling 8 times over 11 hours and 22 minutes of flying time. Basic flying skills are just that, basic. Those basic skills are the foundation everything else is built on. Consistently getting air under your ass can build the airmanship that allows a pilot to use that judgement thing to do more skill based or task intensive operations later. Big jet, small jet (I've got lots of hours in both)....doesn't matter. Experienced pilots transition faster and are making better decisions sooner than the less experienced. So I think any flying is better than no flying and if we can get stick time in a T-38, T-1, or Eclipse for the young guys, we get a better product sooner.

When the PFT stops being needed as a force shaping tool

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.