Hacker

+1 You should see some of the retarded arguments that happen in IP meetings when the Weapons Officer is doing their reviews of the "playbook" (how different maneuvers and such are taught). It was not uncommon to spend two hours straight arguing about if students should jink in idle or MAX, and to leave the meeting with the issue unresolved because so many people disagreed. Eventually, one of the old-school reservists would stand up, write "INTRODUCTION TO FIGHTER FUNDAMENTALS" on the white board, underline "FUNDAMENTALS" two or three times, and tell us to just decide on something because it didn't f*cking matter. %BFL is actually a primary technique used in the F-15E and F-16. Just as BeerMan mentioned, every IFF IP comes out of their MWS thinking "that's the way it's supposed to be done". The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of different ways that things are done and many MWSs do things differently. It was always hilarious to see new IPs go high PRF during their training over how they were directed to instruct a certain topic or maneuver, only to learn that people outside their MWS do that on a daily basis. I admit it, I was that way, too. I think that having been an IFF IP helped me shed a lot of my MWS biases because of this. In fact, I even picked up some techniques that I brought back to the Strike Pig and teach currently (ITP/IAA bombing is a good example).

CH, you would have a valid point if we were discussing doing those tasks as part of the SUPT T-1 syllabus. What was suggested, and what I was replying to, was the idea that IFF was superfluous as a separate squadron and training program, and that it could be rolled into the SUPT T-38 syllabus. You're actually proving my point a bit, anyway -- if a dude can't cut the night NVG landing on the dirt strip at FTU (?), he goes to an FEB and could potentially get re-rolled into another airframe. If that were part of the SUPT syllabus, then the non-hacker (sts) would simply be a washout and not a rated anything.

Sorry, hit 'reply' too soon and failed to mention the most 'political' reason to keep the course and squadron separate from SUPT ops. Another one of the important reasons IFF is a separate training course in a separate squadron is that it needs to take place outside the SUPT construct. Students going through the program are winged, rated graduates of the program. This means that anyone who washes out of the program can potentially be used somewhere else as a rated pilot. If the sorties were part of the SUPT program, anyone who could not cut Demo Pro Defensive BFM would be out on the street with no wings at all, and a total loss on the AF's investment.

Could it be done that way? Probably. Would the quality of wingmen going to the CAF suffer? Immensely. The purpose of the IFF squadron is to have a mini CAF unit manned only by fighter pilot IPs. That, in turn, allows students to learn everything from someone who has actually been there and done that. It is intended to be a clean break from the SUPT environment. It should be obvious that there is a lot more to IFF that simply teaching a guy how to fly formation, dogfight, and bomb. The non-flying portion of "fighter pilot university" is just as important as what is taught in the air. Again, in order for that education to have any sort of credibility it needs to be taught by someone who has actually been there. Unfortunately, you have T-38 squadrons that are manned with IPs who are former fighter guys, in addition to bomber dudes, and FAIPs. Additionally, SUPT T-38 squadrons are organized differently than typical CAF units. In addition, the dynamic of the IFF syllabus is that it requires direct-support sorties that are flown by flight leads. FAIPs and other IPs who have never been CAF flight leads need not apply, since it's impossible to teach a wingman how to be a wingman if the leader has never actually been one.

There are much, much bigger issues at play. There's a reason that when the IFF program was split up to all the UPT bases, that it remained a separate squadron instead of just a flight inside the UPT T-38 squadron.

Well, nobody ever said that there isn't a performance standard for the other fighter pilot sh*t. It just isn't the main objective of the course.

In the USAF, the "O Club" has been dead for a LONG time, for precisely the reasons the author states. I was stationed at Nellis in the mid 90s, and even the mighty "Check Six" lounge had all ready been castrated by then. What's wild is that things are even worse now. Squadron bars are the natural alternative that grew out of those post Tailhook attitudes and actions. There's no reason to go to the "big house" when the alcohol is free in your squadron bar, the guys you really want to hang out and drink with are in your squadron bar, you can gamble/swear/smoke in your squadron bar, etc. In my squadron bar, I don't ever have to deal with some retarded O-6 shoe clerk walking up to me and telling me to watch my language because his wife is here. My squadron bar has DDs (LPA and non-drinkers) who are more than happy to drive you home safely, and if there are none available then I can crash on a couch or in someone's office without getting arrested or hassled. Until the base Clubs start offering a better alternative (as in, start allowing the debauchery again), they're going to wither on the vine as they have over the last decade and a half. Personally, I've got nothing for them currently.

Exactly my point. There's nothing in Article 90 of the UCMJ that says it has to be a "valid reason" -- it just has to impact the military mission or good order and discipline. There are a million different ways that can be interpreted by a Commander which makes a ban of GA flying a perfectly legal order. There's a reason the SJA works for the Commander.

What I actually had in mind was HABFM -- which the A track (bound for the light gray) dudes do the most rides of. If you can remember, 2-circle HABFM differs significantly from what is done in the gray jet world -- lots of focus on assessing when to extend to align turn circles, driven by tail-aspect weapons.

Not buying that. There is no "valid reason" filter to a Commander's orders that make them lawful or unlawful.

Other than the fact that the guy on G-series orders higher than you in the chain of command told you not to?

Change we can believe in.

<shrug> Whatever floats your boat. Never mattered to me, except how some of the IPs handled things like this. I was always amused when IPs from the varied MWSs would get their panties all in a bunch about a minor point (like this) and say "that's not how my MWS does it!". Well, whoop de do. IFF is there to teach basics. IFF really teaches admin and the "tactics" are just something to do in between the admin. The fact of the matter is that there's nothing tactically in the T-38 that applies to anything done in any of the MWSs anyway! They're going to have to solve the BFM problem differently when they have a multitude of all-aspect weapons anyway. I couldn't care less if a kid is getting training on what his future MWS gunsight is going to look like if he can't have SA on where the floor is or where his bingo bug is set. The latter, unfortunately, (and other basic stuff) was the major source of problems with blue jet studs.

Airline, Airline, Airline,Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline, Airline.

It changes depending on how the wind blows. With the initial software suite in the T-38C, there wasn't a funnel so they taught LCOS pipper in IFF. With the software change circa '04, they added the funnel and that became the standard because it was easier to teach kids to assess range and it was accurate at any range without doing any math. Circa '06, there was an influx of new IPs at Moody (most of whom came from light grays, interestingly) who had a hardon about the LCOS pipper, saying "that's what they'll use in the gray jet!" and scoffing the funnel. They wanted to have Eagle students use the pipper instead of the funnel. I left the jet before they had enough experience as IPs to fight that battle so I don't know how it turned out. Wouldn't surprise me if they use a different pipper depending on what jet the student is going to.

None, it's just different. The point is that the blue air needs to be exposed to different types of aircraft which look different and perform different.

Recommend hopping RyanAir out of Treviso (about 20 minutes from Venice) to London, then picking up a return flight to the US from London. If you buy in advance, the flight from Treviso to London can be purchased really cheap.

Get the ASA guide to the Private Pilot Oral Exam. https://www.asa2fly.com/Oral-Exam-Guide-Pri...1_product1.aspx

The real question is, is the "heritage" still proud of the unit??

I urge all of us who fly military airplanes into the state of NY to absolutely inundate Chuck Schumer's and Mike Bloomberg's office with calls notifying them that we are going to fly in their state. Make it part of the standard WANTS check.

Wow, this has got to be a BaseOps first....quoting from the USAF change of command script. Anyone for quoting 36-2903, just to push this thread into "classic" status?

https://www.globenewswire.com/news.html?d=162962 The 50th anniversary of the first flight of the T-38 occurred earlier this month. Before any of you non-fighter dudes jump on this little statistic from the article, I'll go ugly early on it: Obviously this factoid neglects training under SUPT and everyone who has tracked to a TONE, UH-1, or T-44 since 1993.

Yes, that's correct to the best of my understanding. I've used the "K" word off a no-lock gun track as a Smurf bandit plenty o' times and never had to pay $5 because the shot couldn't be validated. I just wasn't sure if there had been some change to shot/kill that I wasn't aware of and that you were referencing.

Since when was MIL sizing not a valid way to validate a gun track? When you don't have any method of active ranging, that's the ONLY way you CAN do it.