Clark Griswold

This I’ll bet 99% of the time my visual will be mysteriously exactly a dog leg vector to a fix about 2-3 miles prior to the FAF CDTI clearances are also annoying, me to ATC when they issue one:

I think I posted one of their renders in the concept airplane thread but their website has more on their idea of a common core and multiple variants for different training purposes + an unmanned ISTAR / AR platform… https://aeralis.com/ Zero point zero chance of being adopted and as it’s just a digital aircraft att I’d be skeptical of putting resources to it until at least one variant had been produced and flown. However new tech doesn’t happen without some bets being taken…

Dr. Clark’s orders: Drink x miller lite’s listen to the Dead and post something in the morning Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thought something similar too, but was just to keep Boeing financially stable and in the defense realm Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy that What was your preference among the 4 contenders? T-50, 7, 100 or Scaled Composites offerings? I’m guessing the T-50 but just wondering Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Something to listen to on your commute https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fighter-pilot-podcast/id1330534712?i=1000686308685 Guy (USAF test pilot) seemed like a decent dude and gave a good overview on the -7, didn’t really get into the issues with the jet mentioned here but good points covered, he didn’t get into the programmatic problems but the FPP creator did after he talked with the interviewer about the episode Interestingly the FPP creator did bring up in the review the idea of F-16T, I’d call it a T-16, but whatever, did this ever get brought up as a COA? A new order of all D models in a Trainer configuration? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur I voted for him but a firm order by his wife or other confidant to keep his pie hole closed and stowed on this topic is in order Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One more thing, maybe it’s the same thing or a difference without distinction but is it the acquisition process or the requirements definition process that’s the problem? Who is it that decides it needs x, y and z but then comes back says oh yeah add on a, b and c too. Are these requirements linked back to the bill payers so that they could potentially see a train wreck being thought up?

Yup it’s a FUBAR decision but here we are. The T-50 may yet find a US buyer just not the USAF. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/TF-50N Product Card.pdf https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/us-navy-steaming-ahead-new-trainer An interesting point Lemoine made was why not use the Viper? Yes way more expensive per flight hour but versus setting up a new program it might have made sense, at least initially.

Decent discussion on Lemoine’s channel Point brought up at the end that I thought was good, the advanced trainer for pointy nose bound studs needed to teach fast cognitive skills and airmanship by primarily being a high performance trainer versus a high performance trainer and fighter sensor trainer Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’ll bring out millions of Americans that will work just not for slave wages and in decent conditions. The corporate tech investor class has been date raping the American worker for decades while preening about nonsense to infuriate and distract the middle class and antagonize/divide. My hope is that when workplace raids happen at a job site they occur simultaneously with the serving of warrants at that company’s headquarters. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you wanted iron right now, I’d look to the Koreans, they want to build up a defense establishment. FA-50s to start, then work with them to develop and buy KF-21s. Use these to build up your own manned unmanned air warfare concepts.

Yup, I see both sides. Just my opinion but I’d buy domestic if I were them - Local industrial base, you’ll need that for the upcoming GCAP - EF is already good and getting improvements - You have F-35B in the RN and LO capabilities there if you need it - Shit is in flux with the USA & Europe, have your own stuff Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F-35 or Eurofighter? https://simpleflying.com/british-union-urges-government-pick-typhoon-over-f-35/

Winning. Colombia’s Petro Backs Down: Sending Personal Plane to Pick Up Migrants After Trump Announced Sanctions https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/01/26/colombias-petro-backs-down-sending-personal-plane-to-pick-up-migrants-after-trump-announced-sanctions/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good Lord we can’t get our shit together but still you have to hope and advocate otherwise what? It’s just criminal the inability to admit the past efforts didn’t work, we need new iron and policy changes to OTE this enterprise because of x,y and z. Adm. Tom Connolly risked his career and killed the F-111B because it was never going to work for the Navy, hence the F-14 Tomcat was born. We need that kind of leadership now with this issue.

Yup I wish the HAF would look at how that worked out for the navy when they handed their new SWOs a stack of CDs and said here’s your basic boat handling and navigation training, good luck… 2 collisions later… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dual qual has all its own issues and some advantages but I think that would be a no go, at least in two high performance aircraft as a standard paradigm of the IP cadre as a whole That’s just my opinion and worth what you paid for it To me it’s flight time in multiple aircraft on a reasonable time frame with not a lot of hurry up and wait, the way to achieve that is dispersal of training but not closure of existing training bases Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@hindsight2020 @brabus Just another of my outta left field ideas but could you / would you want to shift T-38 eventually T-7 training to existing fighter bases with their syllabus incorporating IFF? Probably converting some Wings or activating ones to a light fighter version of the T-7 for synergies? Reason I ask is that in this thread, constipation in student training pipelines is often mentioned, my thinking is that is you have 3 places where consistent repetitive training flights (basic military flying training) are not occurring you will get studs thru quicker with proximity to actual fighter / attack Wings (thinking converting A-10 Wing or two to a F-7 and them being attack focused) being an additional bonus. Training with said Wings post graduation if their follow on FTU is not ready for intake. There’s more than a few Wings losing iron that would support methinks with access to airspace and facilities to handle this. Add in liaison support aircraft for scheduled and on demand movement of IPs, you may ameliorated the remoteness issue too. Just throwing it out there.

If you mean the guys who fly to from the boat yes but even their land based aviators are getting an advanced trainer, the oft mentioned T-54. How are the f is the f*cking Air Force less interested in basic flying training than the Navy? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has the point ever been brought up the Navy is not going down this road? That is phoning in pilot training vs actually doing it? Not saying they (USN) are doing it perfectly but they don’t seem to be robbing from training as bad as we are Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point, a quantifiable reason for them to take Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

92 T-1s at AMARC https://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=274# Refurbish or replace USAF… you owe it to the future LAF Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I know they’re not going to be convinced until they can’t deny it anymore but… there’s at least a 0.69% chance someone lurks in this forum that has the ear of someone who could affect change / return to the historical norm The T-54 would be another option for the prepositioned aircraft / liaison aircraft COA, as it’s a King Air, MX and foot print at the out bases (FBO, mil fields, etc) would be feasible if the AF applied the KISS principle Add on thought: if the AF went with the ME / T-54 idea, make it like an airline schedule, you could operate/deadhead to one base, pick up another IP, operate / train for a few sorties, then operate / deadhead back to your base or another and fly more, but just be flexible, fly where the IPs are and are willing to fly out of Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even better, now there’s the justification for AF owned T-54s Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk