Replacement to the T-38

[guineapigfury]

Cool - flew the mighty Tone myself but everyone going thru the same program would have it's benefits. Multi-place training can happen after UPT in a sim prior to FTU for heavy dudes. If you can fly in formation you can say co when the checklist calls for it

You're right, but I'm convinced it would be cheaper to stay with the split tracks. As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay for dudes to fly ILS's in T1s instead of C17s. I think the relevant question isn't which is better training, but which training is the better buy.

[xaarman]

The more things change, the more things stay the same?

[Majestik Møøse]

You're right, but I'm convinced it would be cheaper to stay with the split tracks. As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay for dudes to fly ILS's in T1s instead of C17s. I think the relevant question isn't which is better training, but which training is the better buy.

C-17s only have 3 flights for initial qual. As far as trainers go, does it really matter if the two guys are sitting side by side or in tandem?

[guineapigfury]

C-17s only have 3 flights for initial qual. As far as trainers go, does it really matter if the two guys are sitting side by side or in tandem?

KC-135s had 3 and a check when I went through (and a multitude of sims of course). Does side by side matter? I'd argue that it does. You can't see shit out the other side of a 135. I thought the T-1 was excellent in preparing me for the 135. I can't speak for other airframes. The bigger issue is probably cultural. The last thing any squadron needs is someone who is butthurt about being there. I'm stuck in MQ-9s, so I know of what I speak. T-1s gets you excited about flying heavies, if you weren't already. My T-1 class started with several who didn't want to be there and finished with all but 1 person happy on assignment night. That's not atypical and it certainly isn't nothing.

TL;DR: Bubble Canopy mentality gets you beat in heavies, everyone hates RPAs, T-1s go.

[Azimuth]

KC-135s had 3 and a check when I went through (and a multitude of sims of course). Does side by side matter? I'd argue that it does. You can't see shit out the other side of a 135. I thought the T-1 was excellent in preparing me for the 135. I can't speak for other airframes. The bigger issue is probably cultural. The last thing any squadron needs is someone who is butthurt about being there. I'm stuck in MQ-9s, so I know of what I speak. T-1s gets you excited about flying heavies, if you weren't already. My T-1 class started with several who didn't want to be there and finished with all but 1 person happy on assignment night. That's not atypical and it certainly isn't nothing.

TL;DR: Bubble Canopy mentality gets you beat in heavies, everyone hates RPAs, T-1s go.

And the three and a check flight products sucked, couldn't land, and sucked at right seat duties. Which is why when I left teaching at the FTU last July the PIQ course was five and a check.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Azimuth

[guineapigfury]

And the three and a check flight products sucked, couldn't land, and sucked at right seat duties. Which is why when I left teaching at the FTU last July the PIQ course was five and a check.

I concur that it wasn't enough flights. Most of the folks in my class hooked a ride or two, mostly for landings. I blame the syllabus and scheduling. I averaged 9 days between flights and sucked at landings. I got to fly thrice in a week and that problem went away. We also spent a lot of our pattern time on "tactical" approaches that I literally never flew again. For every tactical we flew, we could have pulled closed 3-4 times. You could double the number of landings students get prior to their checkride if we dropped the tactical approaches from the syllabus. This was several years ago, maybe things have changed.

[Herk Driver]

Everyone flying the same aircraft in UPT allows the AF to x-flow pilots between platforms, if desired, to fix any shortages. One of the limitations of the current program.

[pcola]

Everyone flying the same aircraft in UPT allows the AF to x-flow pilots between platforms, if desired, to fix any shortages. One of the limitations of the current program.

Do you think a senior Capt that has been flying tankers/heavies up to this point could crossflow to a fighter sq just because he flew the T-38 or whatever replacement they come up with years ago in UPT? I don't think it really solves any problems in that regard. The 11F shortages are pipeline and seasoning issues that can't be fixed with a common UPT trainer.

[Danny Noonin]

The 11F shortages are pipeline and seasoning issues that can't be fixed with a common UPT trainer.

Exactly right. Crossflow to fighters would solve nothing. Crossflow guys would still need a b-course and an absorbable billet.

[Majestik Møøse]

Lots of T-38 students have been assigned heavies in the recent past, but as far as I know, none have been cross-flowed to fighters. Have any first assignment RPA guys gotten a fighter follow-on?

[RollN'Pull]

I haven't seen any RPA guys get anything but bombers for follow ons. I do have an MC-12 guy in my pit class getting spun up for IFF to eventually go F-16s.

[SurelySerious]

I haven't seen any RPA guys get anything but bombers for follow ons. I do have an MC-12 guy in my pit class getting spun up for IFF to eventually go F-16s.

The syllabus for UPT direct to RPA going fighters exists on the Spin Up end, but haven't heard of anyone using it either.

[Herk Driver]

Exactly right. Crossflow to fighters would solve nothing. Crossflow guys would still need a b-course and an absorbable billet.

The shortages in the late 90's was solved exactly this way. Heavy guys that flew T-38's x-flowed to fighters. B-course limitations not withstanding, right now and in the next couple of years, you don't have enough people to put through the b-course even if you had the capacity in the b-course.

[matmacwc]

Do you think a senior Capt that has been flying tankers/heavies up to this point could crossflow to a fighter sq just because he flew the T-38 or whatever replacement they come up with years ago in UPT?

I don't think so.

[BFM this]

T38 to heavies is helping to pay the phase-3 UPT bill, thereby indirectly helping the current 11F problem.

[MooseAg03]

If the AF was smart, they'd seriously pursue upgrading the T-1 via Nextant Aerospace. Right now they sell a completely overhauled B400 for under $3mil including the donor airframe. I imagine using current T-1s would cost less than $2mil per copy since we already have the jets and don't need fancy interiors. This would include new engines and avionics.

The fuel savings alone with more efficient FADEC engines would pay for this after about a decade of use. The airframe life on a B400 is unlimited when properly maintained, I'm sure some of the T-1s have been beat to hell and may not last much longer, but it's worth looking in to.

[Robo]

I haven't seen any RPA guys get anything but bombers for follow ons. I do have an MC-12 guy in my pit class getting spun up for IFF to eventually go F-16s.

I've met several that have ended up flying Herks. Some were corpus trained, some tone and a few from the 38s

[HuggyU2]

I don't think so.

I've known a few guys that successfully did the crossflow. But I'm guessing I'm missing your point.

I applied to the crossflow but lost out to a B-52 guy. He went to Strike Eagles, and did quite well.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Huggyu2

[matmacwc]

I've known a few guys that successfully did the crossflow. But I'm guessing I'm missing your point.

I applied to the crossflow but lost out to a B-52 guy. He went to Strike Eagles, and did quite well.

Generally rank versus qualification, a senior Capt wingman would be in a hurt locker for promotion/staff/school, if you are into that thing. Don't throw FAIPs back at me, they are JR Capts.

[Learjetter]

I don't think so.

Disagree. Ten years after implementation of universal assignability post a common trainer, this wouldn't be a big deal at all.

[Clark Griswold]

You're right, but I'm convinced it would be cheaper to stay with the split tracks. As a taxpayer, I'd rather pay for dudes to fly ILS's in T1s instead of C17s. I think the relevant question isn't which is better training, but which training is the better buy.

True. Did the old school program for the 135 out of UPT, looking back and having gone thru several quals since then, much was done in the aircraft that could have been done WAY cheaper and effectively in the sim. Don't get me wrong, I like the flight time and there is something to be said for the x factor in flying the real thing but instead of beating the hell out of the pattern in M10 after M10 at who knows how much, you could give your crews training that increases airmanship overall and not just in the nuances of rolling flaps at one dot above.

ACE was a great idea from back in the day that could serve very well but I give 0.0000069% chance of ever happening again. You could fly a leased Extra 300 for about $400 per hour wet, get more out of it as a pilot than mind numbing instrument approach after approach and probably boost morale and airmanship about 1000%.

But let's face it, make that argument to a dude whose ambition is to not fly except when the mission is a simple trainer with field grade wx and see how far that gets. Rant complete.

On the subject of fighter cross-flow, couldn't the gaining and losing commands make it a one for one swap to fill the empty billets so it's a wash?

Follow on question for the 11F types:

Could you incorporate the syllabus of IFF into a longer syllabus for Phase 3 with the new replacement for the 38 and at least have seeded the crew force? Going old school again but when everyone went 38 they were Fighter-Bomber-Recce certified at UPT based on class rankings, couldn't you do that with a last block of tactical instruction in a new Block 3 program to UPT? Just guessing it would add 6 weeks to UPT overall.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[matmacwc]

Disagree. Ten years after implementation of universal assignability post a common trainer, this wouldn't be a big deal at all.

10 years after what?

[scoobs]

Didn't Rainman go from helos to fighters?

[di1630]

The split track has also helped with attrition. Nobody likes to officially admit it but you can put people into a T-1 that would have not made it to solo in a -38.

Possibly tweaking performance expectations, tracking into heavy/fighter earlier. There is no reason a guy on his way to AWACS needs tac form etc.

[Learjetter]

10 years after what?

10 years after the AF implements universal assignability due to use of a common training platform and program, crossflowing between MDSs won't be a big deal...especially for promotions, staff tours, etc

I see it like this: the AF wants you to be a combat-ready pilot for about 5 years, after 4 years of tng (regardless of MDS).

Of the next 11 years, It wants you to spend 2 in school, and 10 on staff/ALFA and in the schoolhouse, then retire you as a Maj or Lt Col at 20-22 yrs. if they can get 100 to do that, about 20 of those 100 will also get command tours and/or early promotions.

Point being: the AF believes there will ALWAYS be just enough "old heads" around in every MDS to take the young uns to war...and your proficiency/capability in the jet is assumed A-OK--which is why your OPR must be filled with non-flying achievement.

The AF doesn't have a problem filling cockpits, it has a problem filling the insatiable staffs and exec billets and CAGs with pilots. So, let's go back to a standard program for all, 60-70 student class sizes, a 40% washout rate, and budget for the increased flying hours and maintenance, plump up the transition courses, and man every squadron and staff to 95%.

Oh yeah, at the same time, reduce pilot initial ADSC back to six years, and eliminate the bonus and advanced flight training ADSCs.