Leaderboard

Scroll back 5 years and say that.

A companion trainer would work wonders in the heavy world, allowing them to save billions while increasing their airmanship and hand-flying skills. Heavies cost between $15-50k per hour to fly not including fuel while a smaller trainer runs on peanuts. That said, there are many heavy pilots who would kill themselves in the T-38. I say that coming from the community; some are great and some are absolutely heinous. So it would have to be some other airplane (without an autopilot available, because some would lean on it and negate the whole purpose of a CTP).

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.

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.

I am a 2014 VSP recipient and recently started flying for a Major Airline. I could not be more happy with civilian life and love the airlines, but as a former T-6 FAIP I recall a couple guys in my squadron that were AD recalls who received a substantial bonus to return to AD to fly the T-6. Considering instructing in the T-6 was by far the most rewarding and fun experience for me in the AF, my wife is from a UPT town, and the first year or two at the Airlines come with a bitch of a commute and schedule I could think of worse things than to take a nice chunk of change to go fly T-6's again for a couple years in my wife's hometown while my seniority number continues to tick up. So my question(s) is how do you find out about these programs considering you are pure civilian and have no .mil email address? Will AFPC contact you if they need you? How much say do you have in where you go? And what was the commitment the last time they offered this? I just have a feeling with the upcoming pilot shortage in the AF due to all of the dudes that got out and are continuing to get out that they will have no choice, but to implement programs like this and stop loss. History has a tendency to repeat itself especially when you're talking about the AFPC clown show. Anyways, maybe this can be an AD Recall rumor thread for pure civilians like me to find out about upcoming opportunities. Cheers.

How about academy style flying squadrons at some bases with cirrus SR-20s or diamonds.....Cheap, fun and easy. Hell even an aero club for RPA dudes.

RUCKER 15-10 HH-60G x 5 UH-1N x 2 RUCKER 15-11 HH-60G UH-1N x 2 --- PK...

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.

Based on his callsign, I'm guessing that he flew a really long sortie in a really slow single seat fighter that's capable of air refueling.

I guess I was lucky to survive an 11 hour 22 minute sortie after landing at near max crosswind in a snowstorm in my yanking and banking single seat machine. My 1200 T-38 hours in a prior assignment obviously we're irrelevant, also. Yep, just plain luck saved me.

Burn the witch.

Not one more U.S. Life to that goddamn shit hole. Please. No more. It takes healthy troops and money and only gives back heartbreak and broken families. RIP, brothers. Damn.

Since the Marines aren't hell-bent on CBTs...

Huggy it's Afghanistanimation! And the monkey has a butler.

For those of us who who had 1000 hours in one aircraft type, and 2000 hours in another before this kid was born in 1998, and who now need a nap and an Ensure to get through the day... what is "Battlefield"?

Trinity Kid, I saw from your other post to the forums that you're a 17 year old High School Senior. I'll keep that in mind as I do my best to answer what I think you're asking. Here goes. 1. This forum is mostly comprised of current, former, and aspiring military aviators (and a few other disciplines). We actually do some of the stuff you, and lots of other people, fantasize about doing while you're playing those video games. Some of it is real, but much of it is fantasy. There are some pretty big differences, mostly in the stakes associated with winning or losing for us, our coworkers, and a whole bunch of innocent people we try to defend. Note: we're normal people who play videogames too; for many of us, mostly as a way to blow off some stress while deployed. 2. You're looking at a very narrow element of our occupation if you think we just fly and have lots of free time. If you're the kind of person that only wants to think about flying while you're flying, you're not going to be very good at it. We know that, so we spend lots of our time on the ground studying (just like high school, but with explosions). We also spend much of our time on the ground performing administrative duties, everything from leading/training our young folks to recordkeeping to scheduling. The admin work takes tons of time, but it helps us develop as military officers. We also have time off work to spend with our families and our hobbies. We go to church, our kids little league games, shopping with our wives, work parties, and a few people even play video games. The way you choose to balance and prioritize those three areas, combined with your aptitude, determine how good of an aviator, an officer, and a husband/father you are. 3. There are ways to do something like what you're talking about if that's your goal. Combat pilots can do an Air Liaison Officer tour with the Army to learn to coordinate airstrikes from the ground perspective. It's usually a few years out of the cockpit, and you're not an infantryman kicking down doors, but it's kind of what you're talking about. Also, some aviation disciplines (rescue helicopters, special forces, rpa's, and close air support) integrate very closely with ground parties. You won't be the guy kicking down doors, but you'll watch or help them do it. Final advice. I tried to keep the sarcasm out, but it was tough. Remember you're talking to a group of professionals here that really do these things. We love to help where we can, but the way you phrased your questions didn't come across well. One of the first rules we teach our young aviators is to think before you speak. Our jobs are not video games, and don't work the same way. If you want to be an Army Ranger, pursue it with all your heart. If you want to be an AF pilot, pursue it with all your heart (and start that path by rocking college). Pick one.

Ouch...rough drop

I'm not sure how much a no fly zone would help the immediate situation. Seems the regime is mostly using tanks and troops with limited air assets to kill the civilians.