Napoleon_Tanerite

In the T-1 no, but remember we're training them to fly much larger, more complex airplanes where you have a crew and autopilot to delegate tasks to.

Depends on which phase of training. In Trans (first category after track) it is exclusively hand flown, even at cruise. The student hands off aircraft control to the IP in order to get ATIS, run TOLD, brief approaches, etc, but that's it. Trans sorties consist of MOA work (TP stalls, vert S, etc) and VFR patterns for the most part, so it's stick (yoke) and rudder work anyway. Nav they cruise with the A/P on, but aside from GPS approachs (where the intentional emphasis is how to use the automation to fly approaches) all instrument approaches are hand flown. Holding and procedure tracks/turns may be flown with the autopilot on, but only in heading or roll mode, so the student still needs to figure out where to point the nose. Mission Fam is a mix. Wing work is exclusively hand flown, even in cruise, but lead is about 75% A/P on, with the exception of on LLs, which is hand flown at all times.

Attitude is everything. I know it sounds like blue bullshit, but there really isn't a track or assignment that is bad (or good) top to bottom. No matter where you your attitude and approach to it is the key factor in whether you enjoy it. Every assignment has good aspects and bad aspects, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional or a liar.

Like any airspace where they can't see their home base out of the window.

Ya, as a direct replacement for the UPT and IFF T-38 only on a 3 to 5 buy ratio, hoping to cover the gap via reduced attrition. The T-1 will be around well into the 2030s. Some of the more amusing calls I fielded as a T-1 Flt/CC were from my T-38 counterparts trying to poach my gunships/C-17s/AFSOC/etc in exchange for their E-3s and such. That's all well and good if it helps my guys, but the phone was quickly set to the "go fuck yourself" position when those guys tried to imply that because their students were flying the T-38 they were inherently better than my T-1 students and would have aced the T-1 program and finished ahead of my guys anyway. The fact of the matter is it is a myth that doing well in T-6s is an automatic identifier of future performance. It is frequently a result of either prior flying experience, or being a faster learner within a given medium. I saw guys who aced T-6s, chose T-1s (to the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the people who though they should go 38s) and then finish bottom 3rd in the T-1. Conversely I saw guys finish dead last in their T-6 class, come across the street to me with an apology note pinned to their lapel, and knock T-1s out of the park. So implying that students that track T-38s are inherently better than students that track T-1s is quantifiably bullshit. There most certainly are people who bottom feed the T-6, and then bottom feed the T-1, but there are also students who kill the T-6 and are gone from the T-38 before their first checkride. I'd be willing to bet those 38 washouts would have been T-1 washouts all the same. The T-1 and T-38 [programs aren't so different in terms of difficulty, it's just the nature of what is difficult. The T-38 is fast moving and demands precise and rapid decision making. The T-1 is complex, operates in a complex environment with limited to no outside decision making help (Sup, SOF, wingman, etc), and requires a lot of dynamic task management. The product of each program is different, but I wouldn't say one is better trained than the other.

I forsee a bit more horse trading between the T-38 and T-1 side coming around. Nothing says the T-1 Flt/CC can't trade for an assignment with the T-38 Flt/CC, you just can't give a fighter to a T-1 student.

Bump. I have a DOS set for 1 Apr '18, and am now getting hit with a deployment. I have 60 days of leave carried over from last year, in addition to the leave I am accruing in FY17. This will total up to 85.5 days of leave to burn before separation. Is there a way to parlay this into a way out of the deployment? I have been looking for anything in writing that stipulates a minimum time home before separating, and if they can legally obligate me to lose leave or sell it back instead of taking it?

I know-- that's why it sucks for me! I've got my SP with his head in his ass, my jumpseat with his head in his ass, and the T-38 student with his head in his ass. That's 3-1 against me, a more advantageous paint job would be nice!

.8 and 6-9 calls to the SOF. Too lazy to get the Kermit image macro made up, but you get the picture.

But it's fast! Truly the flagship of any UPT base (just ask the T-38 guys). Anything that doesn't involve going fast (you know, things like turning within one county, landing at anything other than ludicrous speed, etc) means nothing to the T-38. And let's not forget...

The 'ole white rocket paint job would be a nice improvement-- or something along the lines of what the T-6 has. I think that paint job looks professional and military without being a hazard in a congested student training environment. Or-- say what you will about the Navy, but they know what color to paint trainers. No mention of that. Brief I got was an AETC centric one. They briefly addressed the other T-38 functions, but the scope was limited beyond that. The Thunderbirds haven't flown the T-38 in decades, and I don't think the F-16 is going anywhere any time soon (CAF or T-birds). No good reason to program what is likely to be a VERY limited number of tails to fill slots in a flying show choir.

Because it is impossible to clear for friggin T-38s. I get it "hurt durr fighter pilot" but the T-38 is not a fighter. It's a trainer flown by students who have no idea where they are, where they're going or what they're doing. When you congest the airspace with dozens of students in similar states of mental dysfunction it would be nice to at least be able to SEE the other airplanes.

Current brief (as of a few months ago) stated that this is EXCLUSIVELY a UPT/IFF T-38 replacement. There is no current plan to replace ADAIR, CPPT, or other T-38 roles. This of course may have already changed, but they're not planning a big buy on this airplane for now. And jesus tapdancing christ in a birchbark canoe.... what idiot decided to paint it camouflaged? Was it the same idiot who decided to paint the current T-38s camouflaged? They deserve to get their pecker kicked in.

Looks a lot like the Textron Scorpion.

My guess is this ILoveScotch guy is one of those true blue pickle shiners who min ran his time on the line, stepped on his bros to be an exec asap (without learning dick about his jet or mission) and moved on up through the exec/cag path to his current place in life. I further guess that he's an O4 with fewer hours than most of the copilots in his community. He's the guy who can't fathom life outside of the AF, and looks SHOCKED when you say you're getting out. He's the kind of guy who asks dumbass questions like "what are you going to do when you get out?" not out of curiosity, but because he genuinely believes that the only paycheck in the world is available from the AF. He's the kind of guy who is the exact reason I'm getting out.

Bump. I'm really interested to see the current opinion given her work holding AF leadership to the well-deserved fire regarding the A-10, manning, and most recently, bands.

I heard "GO YOU FAT BASTARD!" is the command for setting TRT... can anyone confirm?

We got the brief at our CT meeting yesterday. 70 guys in a room and DEAD FRIGGING SILENCE.

Spot on. I've had guys who had E-3 and E-8 as their number one choice and get treated as you describe above. I hate the student scuttlebutt about what is a good or bad assignment, but even worse is when that perception is fed by IPs. It's one thing for some good natured shit slinging between communities, but for an IP to genuinely put down the mission of another airframe that he/she is completely unfamiliar with is a major foul-- ESPECIALLY when it's a FAIP doing it.

This. Know your BF.OL cold, and don't study anything else. Pre-studying is a waste of time at best, and dangerous at worst. It's a lot harder to un-learn bad info gleaned from old gouge than to learn something for the first time.

Jee-sus! This idea was kicked around YEARS ago when the F-22 was on the edge of the rocks. Now that the F-35 is on the rocks, past the rocks, and up the beach they revive the same idea. It's about time! The F-15s and F-16s that are currently being produced are vastly superior to the ones we bought back in the day, and the factory integration of a lot of current technology can't be ignored. Even some of the stuff that has been grafted onto our fleet would probably function a lot better if it came factory installed. With Canada bailing out of the F-35 entirely I'm sure the Air Force is looking at the reality of the F-35 never coming to fruition, or at least never being what it was sold as. Curious-- they didn't seem to mention buying new A-10s.....

Already happening on the T-1 side, big backups on follow-on schoolhouses. Depending on MDS it's not unusual to have 6+ months from UPT grad to a class start for follow-on training. Part of the reason they've been dropping RPA to T-1s. Also not sure about other bases, but CBM is doing flights for grad students when possible just to try to keep some semblance of skill set alive.

Guys seem to forget that no matter what airplane you fly (besides UPT trainers) 96.9% of your flight time will be watching the autopilot fly in either circles (recce orbits, AR tracks, CAPs, etc) or in a straight line to/from your orbit, or to get the rubber dogshit from point A to point B.

You guys are right.... That type in a four engine Boeing heavy is terrible. Oak City is a terrible shithole to live on, and I would hate for my three MDS PCS options to be Alaska, Japan, and Germany. You got me.