T-38 vs F-22

[Hacker]

That's exactly what was supposed to happen, but not based any Eagle dudes in IFF...it was Tyndall's input that I personally made as the C-model rep at the IFF syllabus conference in 06. The only reason that I was given as to why everyone used the funnel was so that everyone would be the same. That wasn't good enough for me, and no one could give me a better argument, so I asked for the change for C-model students and they said they would make it. Whether that ever actually happened or if it stayed that way, I don't know.

I could give a crap if the LCOS is not "accurate" at all ranges--it's a pretend gun! The only thing I give a crap about in IFF is that they learn concepts like lead fire, POM, and recognizing if they are in range. By the way, they better get used to mil sizing--we use that all the time. If they learn with a gun sight that is more representative of the aircraft they are going to, then that made sense to me.

<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.

[Danny Noonin]

<shrug>

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.

<shrug> right back at ya. You completely missed the point.

Yes, you are correct that it doesn't really matter whether the gunsight they use in IFF looks like the fighter they go to. But why on earth wouldn't you use it if you got it? It makes no sense not to.

By the way, not sure how you fly BFM in the mud pig, but offensive BFM does not change if you have all aspect weapons.

[Hacker]

By the way, not sure how you fly BFM in the mud pig, but offensive BFM does not change if you have all aspect weapons.

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.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Hacker

[Buddy Spike]

<shrug>

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.

You hear that a lot. Until some pole smoker hooks you for taking 46 aspect AIM-9P shots and running out of bullets on 3K sets (so the valid guns tracks don't count), but writes "Above average admin" on your gradesheet. Man I loved that place.

[Duster]

Is the funnel more difficult to employ than the LCOS?

[Hacker]

You hear that a lot. Until some pole smoker hooks you for taking 46 aspect AIM-9P shots and running out of bullets on 3K sets (so the valid guns tracks don't count), but writes "Above average admin" on your gradesheet. Man I loved that place.

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.

[Buddy Spike]

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.

Meh. You're right - mostly in that there's nothing tactical about anything you do in that jet. If IFF were just about basic fighter pilot admin, it could probably be consolidated into the UPT syllabus in T-38s. But what would the Air Force be without an 8 week haze program?

IFF was like college with cool airplanes to fly.

Let me guess, Academy grad?

[Hacker]

If IFF were just about basic fighter pilot admin, it could probably be consolidated into the UPT syllabus in T-38s. But what would the Air Force be without an 8 week haze program?

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.

[Buddy Spike]

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.

I'd be interested to hear them. I don't even mean making it a separate flight - the actual flights in the syllabus should just be merged into the T-38 syllabus. It's the same jet, same airspace at a lot of bases, just a different paint scheme. I think this his how the Navy does it already with T-45s, IIRC.

[Hacker]

I'd be interested to hear them. I don't even mean making it a separate flight - the actual flights in the syllabus should just be merged into the T-38 syllabus. It's the same jet, same airspace at a lot of bases, just a different paint scheme. I think this his how the Navy does it already with T-45s, IIRC.

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.

[Hacker]

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.

[ClearedHot]

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.

Same could be said for anyone who could not make it going to the assault strip, NVG dirt landings, or shooting auto-fixed 1:1.

Sorry but BFM is not the only tough thing pilots do.

[Guest Alarm Red]

Same could be said for anyone who could not make it going to the assault strip, NVG dirt landings, or shooting auto-fixed 1:1.

Sorry but BFM is not the only tough thing pilots do.

You can almost set your watch to a heavy pilot chiming in with an unsolicited 'us too' every time there is a discussion about selection processes for fighters. Is an inferiority complex something that gets issued with your David Clarks when you track T-1's? Relax, you're important too.

If we're lucky we'll get a 'nobody kicks ass without tanker gas' whine next that's equally unrelated to a discussion about IFF and how it delivers a finished product (trainable wingmen) to its customers (fighter B-courses).

[Danny Noonin]

Same could be said for anyone who could not make it going to the assault strip, NVG dirt landings, or shooting auto-fixed 1:1.

Sorry but BFM is not the only tough thing pilots do.

Oh please. No one said it was.

But since you brought it up, what is the historical washout rate for guys "going to the assault strip, NVG dirt landings, or shooting auto-fixed 1:1?" Seriously. What's the percentage?

This isn't a "my job is tougher than yours" contest. Statistically 10% of dudes wash out of IFF. The same cannot be said for any other flying program in the military. Throw on another 3 to 5% of dudes who statistically will wash out of fighter FTU depending on airframe. Do you suggest that we just cut those guys away after we just dropped a million bucks on them when we are short on pilots? Or does it maybe make sense to send them to something else if their problems were specific to fighter-type tasks?

By the way, I didn't make those numbers up...they are 19th AF numbers so you can look them up yourself.

Quit being sensitive and start being realistic.

[itsokimapilot]

You can almost set your watch to a heavy pilot chiming in with an unsolicited 'us too' every time there is a discussion about selection processes for fighters. Is an inferiority complex something that gets issued with your David Clarks when you track T-1's? Relax, you're important too.

If we're lucky we'll get a 'nobody kicks ass without tanker gas' whine next that's equally unrelated to a discussion about IFF and how it delivers a finished product (trainable wingmen) to its customers (fighter B-courses).

F-16's with FEs: 0.

Viper gear up landings: 0.

You can also hack a watch to when some DB points out how awesome he is.

[Guest Alarm Red]

The argument was made that the C-17 gear-up wouldn't have happened with an FE on board. What you pasted above was my counter to that argument. Neither are relevant to this thread.

You can also hack a watch to when some DB points out how awesome he is.

If you wish to continue name-calling please move it to PM so we can keep this thread on track.

[Hacker]

Same could be said for anyone who could not make it going to the assault strip, NVG dirt landings, or shooting auto-fixed 1:1.

Sorry but BFM is not the only tough thing pilots do.

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.

Edited May 10, 2009 by Hacker

[ClearedHot]

You can almost set your watch to a heavy pilot chiming in with an unsolicited 'us too' every time there is a discussion about selection processes for fighters. Is an inferiority complex something that gets issued with your David Clarks when you track T-1's? Relax, you're important too.

If we're lucky we'll get a 'nobody kicks ass without tanker gas' whine next that's equally unrelated to a discussion about IFF and how it delivers a finished product (trainable wingmen) to its customers (fighter B-courses).

How about you go eat a bowl of dick...

And when setting your watch, how about you flash back and read who started this thread that you have since hijacked into the BFM is the toughest thing we do in the USAF thread. My "inferiority complex" pales in comparison to your ego.

But since you brought it up, what is the historical washout rate for guys "going to the assault strip, NVG dirt landings, or shooting auto-fixed 1:1?" Seriously. What's the percentage?

This isn't a "my job is tougher than yours" contest. Statistically 10% of dudes wash out of IFF. The same cannot be said for any other flying program in the military. Throw on another 3 to 5% of dudes who statistically will wash out of fighter FTU depending on airframe. Do you suggest that we just cut those guys away after we just dropped a million bucks on them when we are short on pilots? Or does it maybe make sense to send them to something else if their problems were specific to fighter-type tasks?

Quit being sensitive and start being realistic.

I don't track the actual numbers, it is not my job to do so. However, it has been my experience after a long time int he gunship that well over 10% never make it to shooter let alone master auto fixed 1:1.

If you wish to continue name-calling please move it to PM so we can keep this thread on track.

Please read your own advice when posting condescending remarks...maybe if you had a set of Dave Clark Headsets you could hear that better.

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.

Hacker, I was trying to support your statement before the egomaniacs rolled in with their bigger schlong non-sense argument. In the AFSOC community we see a fairly high washout rate and it applies to multiple crew positions. On the officer side, when a dude can't make it through Co-pilot school but never master the Aircraft Commander job...that does not always generate a FEB, in most cases it buys a white jet assignment or another airframe.

It still amazes me the friction between Fighter Pilots and what they consider the "you're important too guys". It is nonsense...complete nonsense.

Edited May 10, 2009 by ClearedHot

[brickhistory]

Obviously, the T-38 had superior GCI to achieve his position of dominance over the F-22.

The "fifth wingman" rules!*

*just trying to get the thread to lighten up, Francis, and turn it toward the 'real' enemy,' ABMs...

[Buddy Spike]

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.

I'll buy that argument. The rest I still don't quite get. I don't see why those BS "Advanced formation rides" where we pretended to do perch sets but called it "Advanced Extended Trail" or whatever couldn't be morphed into an IFFish UPT phase. It's not like the BFM translates all that well into other airframes (maybe the Eagle, I don't know..) But even still, who cares? BFM is the sport of kings, but it's still just a sport in today's arena - much like BSA. It's a great building block to other things, but I don't think any airframe requires it as the primary mission. And no squadron expects a young dude to show up and be good at it, just be able to set up the perch sets and not do anything dangerous. So yeah, maybe it is a little stupid that a rated guy would wash out for not being able to demo prof at defensive BFM in a T-38C.

With as few T-38 tracks as there are now, why couldn't those rides be direct supported by qualified (previous fighter guys) dudes in the UPT squadrons?

[Guest Blu4]

Dear God, did someone really just say Vipers don't have FEs so they don't land gear up? If we started a thread entitled "Dumb things Viper pilots do" it would be very entertaining and probably last 69 pages. I just might do that. But again I digress.

Or "Dumb Things Eagle/Ego Drivers Do." Be an equal opportunity harrasser, there's plenty of crap in every community that, when you hold it up to the light of the big-picture, is really pretty friggin' stupid.

[Hacker]

The gunsight you use at IFF makes no difference. I would argue that when you have a bunch of different fighter pilots from different communities everyone wants to do the things the way they used to to do it in their MWS. When you fly an airplane that is literally a toy in comparison to your previous jet its easy to argue about trivial things.

+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.

they have dudes who have never dropped a single bomb in their life teaching (bogus, IMO) techniques like % BFL.

%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).