Hacker

LogbookPro is considered somewhat of the 'gold standard' of electronic logbooks. http://www.nc-software.com/ I don't use it, so I can't point-for-point reference if it has all of the things you are looking for, but many professional pilots use it. Personally, I use an Excel spreadsheet that does everything I need it to at this point in my career (like math!).

Who cares if she was in porn? Can she teach? When did we get to the point where anyone with a public job is required to have a completely squeaky-clean life?

Does that mostly have to do with the (lack of) flying time that most guys in the BONE are (were?) getting?

I don't understand why so many Americans like this strategy to "blend in" in Europe. Doesn't work.

That was the correct decision, without question.

Remember, that was a BRAC-mandated decision that the USAF had no option in executing.

Your humor detector is INOP.

#1 Thank God it's not being called the KC-767 #2 Hopefully Boeing learned their lesson on outsourcing with the 787 and they'll keep this more in-house (in country, at least) as the 767 was originally #3 Here's to 50 more years of USAF tanker toads getting type ratings in airplanes the airlines no longer fly.

Really? You're going to PIT and you're going to "walk the pattern"? Oooookay. You'll find out at PIT -- it's not that big of a deal.

Current or former?

He's putting in a dip. Pretty normal for GIs that I know.

Are you forgetting about the "Milkman" Martins shots of him sitting in the tub of a D model Viper in a flight suit?

He's so badassed that he served as a "Combat Controller" working with "Joint Air Traffic Control in the full combat environment" and a "special dedicated crew chief". Special Ops F-15C pilot rides again!

Did you miss page one of this thread?

What exactly do you mean here?

Is there something about having a lot of time in the T-38 that gives omniscient insight into knowing fathers/sons/grandsons who have all flown the T-38? If so, at how many hours does one achieve that higher level of awareness?

Thought provoking article, for certain.

Good to know that there is a natural weeding out process of the weak-dicks in the heavy community.

Pursuit curves and yo-yos are taught in the T-6 syllabus and T-38 syllabus all ready. A graduated SUPT T-38 student all ready knows, is comfortable with, and has demonstrated proficiency with this. I don't bother going point-for-point with you on every detail, because I think there are two larger issues with your proposal: 1. You've misidentified the problem. 2. You lack an understanding of what is currently being taught AND what the needs of the FTUs are. First off, I think you're providing an answer to an imagined or non-existent question. In fact, seems to me that the entire fundamental basis of your business proposal (that IFF is in danger of falling victim to budget cuts, and you want to provide a lower cost alternative) is a logical fallacy: I've never heard anyone, anywhere, in the last 5+ years, mention IFF going away. There are lots of discussions about how the AETC training pipeline is going to adapt to reduced budgets, and that's not something I've ever heard advocated. In fact, quite the opposite is true: I've heard and participated in lots of official NAF-level discussion about what the next generation IFF will look like, and what aircraft it will be performed in. Unless you know of some actual higher-level plans to eliminate IFF that you're not talking about, you are maneuvering in relation to a phantom bandit. Second, I don't know that you're familiar enough with either the SUPT T-38 syllabus or the IFF Syllabus to know what IS being taught currently. Without an intimate knowledge of what the status quo is, I don't see how it's possible to intelligently propose an alternative. I also don't see that you have a firm grasp of specifically what the "fundamentals" are that are being taught at IFF. The fact that you're focusing on BFM, your thoughts that large turn circles, difficult tallies, and high G are in some way negative, the idea that you want to staff this training with contractors, etc...all leads me to believe that you are way off base with your "target" that your business is designed to aim for. In all seriousness, before you even start legitimately thinking about this endeavor seriously, I think there is a lot more thought that needs to be put into the "what if..." stage. I'm happy to discuss this more with you offline (send me a PM and I'll be happy to discuss more by phone or email), but IMHO (as someone who has both been an SUPT T-38 IP and an IFF IP, AND someone with experience flying high performance pistons) this idea is a non-starter.

What research, specifically, is it that you're looking to accomplish, outside of asking opinions on an internet forum? Are you polling IFF and FTU IPs -- they're going to be your best source of opinion on the matter. In terms of speeds, general handling, avionics, E-M diagram, stick-and-throttles muscle memory, when compared to a Marchetti or CJ-6 -- all of them! The T-38 "generally" performs more like the fighters than any other reasonably available aircraft currently available. Nearly every speed the T-38 flies is within 5 knots of the F-15E, FWIW. That's not the point, though. Look back at the genesis of the LIFT program to see what the real value is. In the late 60s and 70s, the Fighter RTUs were having trouble with pilots learning fighter concepts (tac form, basic fight geometry, fighter pilot wingman admin) at the same time trying to tame the fighters of the day. There's a good discussion of some of these challenges in Ed Rasimus' When Thunder Rolled relating specifically to the F-105 RTU. The solution was to have that information taught in a separate TAC program using an aircraft that students all ready understood how to fly This meant that they were able to spend all of their effort on learning the fighter concepts, rather than learning that information simultaneous to learning their first fighter. It was better for the students, and ultimately it meant that the product entering the RTUs was better prepared (which meant their training time/dollar went further as well). As was all ready mentioned, the T-38 has a steeply-pitched E-M diagram, meaning that energy management is the CORNERSTONE of being able to execute any energy gameplan in BFM. It's FAR less forgiving than any other fighter grads will go on to fly, thus it is an excellent teacher. Energy management in a small piston aircraft doesn't even begin to relate to how it will work in a big fighter. Not only that, the completely different techniques of operation for the piston engine, as well as significantly differing power and throttle responses are where there would be negative training. Going from a 400-knot afterburning jet T-38 in SUPT Phase III, to a 200-knot piston Marchetti in "Mouse IFF", then back to a 400-knot afterburning jet in their FTU would involve a huge amount of negative transfer in both of the transitions. What is the turn circle of a Marchetti at max G? The T-38's max rate turn has a 4,500' radius, which just happens to be very similar to the big gray fighters. That allows very similar G and very similar maneuvering cues (ergo, control zone size and shape) to those big gray jets. Again, a Marchetti or CJ would have neither similar G performance nor similar turn geometry to the big gray jets. As was mentioned, keeping tally is rarely a significant issue in the '38. Neither is learning under G. Both issues, by the way, are things the students HAVE to learn to cope with for their continued success in the fighter world. Don't forget that students are all ready flying tactical formation and sustaining G in the T-38 during their undergraduate course, and there is not a whole lot new to adapt to in those areas when they transition to IFF. So, given that... What, exactly, would the benefit of a Marchetti/CJ IFF course be? More importantly, you need to look into what the vision of the future of IFF is, based on the requirements of the fighter fleet for the next 20-30 years. Currently, the thinking is that the T-38 is not adequate in terms of G, energy, or avionics to teach students who will go on to fly Raptors and Lightnings. They're looking at aircraft like the KAI T-50 as potential replacements -- aircraft with better performance and avionics that can simulate the systems studs will find in Raptors and Lightnings. If the T-38C isn't sufficient, you have to ask yourself why you think stepping back to a small piston aircraft would be better. Again, this is what the AF has decided it wants in an IFF replacement...after nearly a decade of inputs from Raptor units, studies, and analysis of current IFF grad performance.

I will tell you from personal experience that it can't be done given the current overall leadership mentality and manning in an SUPT T-38 squadron. I have been in a T-38 SUPT squadron that had an ex-IFF IP for a CC, a DO, and several of the ADOs. They were desperately trying to bring such a mentality to the SUPT Phase III pipeline. Despite some very extensive efforts to change the way things were taught and executed (lots of academics for the IPs, etc), it wasn't possible to make the change -- it was trying to change the direction of a cargo ship with swim flippers. All of that with a relatively supportive Deputy OG and OG who saw validity in such a push. With a cadre of reservists who have taught the 'SUPT way' for a long time...with FAIPs....with bomber dudes....it just wast WAY too much effort to even move things in the direction of running like an IFF squadron. It was really a failing enterprise. How can you teach an IP to instruct the fighter way if he's never been in a fighter before? How can you enforce fighter-style briefing and debriefing standards/etiquette with a flight lead who has never led such a sortie in real life? If you can't even get the IPs to operate using that standard, it's impossible to get those guys to teach the STUDENTS to do it. I was the one teaching many of the academics at the squadron in question, and it was very defeating to stand in front of a room teaching guys how to teach something as simple as a G Ex, and then face 30 minutes of "questions" afterward of dudes (all the non-fighter guys or reservists who'd been doing it a particular way forever) telling me why that method wouldn't work...even though that's precisely the way it is done across the way in the IFF squadron quite successfully. If someone was really serious about making such a change permanently, they'd have to flush the current cadre of IPs, ensure there was a complete buy-in at PIT (which, oh my God, is a completely different conversation all together), and train up IPs from the start to foster that fighter squadron attitude, operations standards, and instructional techniques. The bottom line is this: the fighter squadron mentality of an IFF squadron is something that is fostered and cultivated intentionally. If it weren't, it would atrophy into any other "ain't even thinkin' combat" squadron very easily. It's just about fucking impossible to push the SUPT squadrons the other direction, ESPECIALLY in the time when T-38 students are getting assigned to all different airframes. Not to mention that there are OG/CCs and CDs who may not see value in bringing such a mentality to Phase III (believe it or not, it actually happened). That separate squadron, with it's separate fighter-only attitude and mentality, is key to the process.

Terrible idea, IMHO. Based on aircraft that IFF grads are going on to in the future, there would be absolutely nothing gained by doing that. Remember that the whole benefit of IFF is teaching in an aircraft that students are all ready familiar with, so they can go right to the tactical portion without having to waste time/fuel/money learning a new aircraft. Plus, the turn circles, energy, overall performance, etc, would actually be negative training. This was an object of significant discussion when Moody was broken up and BRAC mandated that IFF moved to the SUPT bases. There was at least one OG and Wing CC who DEMANDED that IFF simply become a flight attached to the T-38 squadron on his base...that it was not going to be a separate squadron. The problem with that line of thinking is that a significant portion of IFF also has to do with how to function in a fighter squadron VS a SUPT squadron -- organization, mentality, etc. The IFF squadrons are also ONLY populated by fighter dudes, who all have at least one tour of real world experience to back up what they're teaching. I've personally been involved with trying to make an SUPT T-38 squadron resemble an IFF squadron in what they're teaching and how they're teaching it, and unfortunately that is just a bridge too far. The whole makeup of the SUPT squadron would have to change, less a major portion of what's taught at IFF be lost. There are also issues with teaching the SUPT IPs how to do all of the stuff that is taught in IFF. Don't forget that the IFF UIP program is just as long as PIT, and more difficult. Think about having to maintain currency and competency in all of the different IFF tasks ON TOP OF all of the different SUPT tasks. Just not realistic. I don't know of a single IFF IP who would ever advocate that.

It doesn't apply to *any* of the aircraft beyond fundamentals. Sorta why the course is titled that, ya know. Every aircraft has a different way of skinning the BFM cat. Jet performance and weapon capability is the cornerstone of development of BFM tactics.Unless you're out shooting AIM-9Ps and gun only in a T-38, OF COURSE your BFM tactic is going to be different. It was funny to see new upgrading IPs come to Moody, with each thinking that their MWS' way to fly BFM was the way to do it, and whatever "we" were teaching was wrong. The same thing applied to bombing, too. Regardless, if you think that IFF is about learning BFM or bombing, then you've completely missed the point.

Yes, all the B and C track studs do both conventional and tactical range patterns. When I was an IFF IP, most guys only taught ITP bombing to the Hog students, with DIL/BFL % being taught to the F-15E and F-16 students. My understanding is that ITP/IAA bombing is now the prevailing technique taught to all students.

Where is it? SPS, RND, END, DLF, and CBM. Vance and Laughlin may close up shop in the next 2 years. How Long? About 6 weeks, depending on track, student load, WX How many BFM rides? A Track (going to F-15C): 4 OBFM, 4 DBFM, 4 HABFM, 4 ACM B Track (F-15E or F-16): 4 OB, 4 DB, 2 HA C Track (A-10): 2 OB, 4 DB