Unsolicited T-1 Replacement Proposal

[HuggyU2]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-10-08/saic-offering-eclipse-550s-usaf-pilot-trainer-bid

Thoughts??

[Right Seat Driver]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-10-08/saic-offering-eclipse-550s-usaf-pilot-trainer-bid

Thoughts??

Not entirely sold.  Overall, I think the Tone does a relatively good job in training guys for heavy aircraft.  Also, the "fifth-gen" avionics piece is a bit of a stretch.  A lot of guys would be regressing in avionics if going from a fifth-gen cockpit to the cockpit of most heavies in the MAF.  Going from a T-1 avionics to a GATM KC-135 was the least of my worries as a co-pilot.  Avionics are simple, employing the jet is different.  One of my first TDYs as a co-pilot was RED FLAG with 3 4-ships of F-16s looking for gas as we were in and out of IMC with my AC laughing at me.

IMHO, Big Blue needs to focus on a T-38 replacement and look at the Tone replacement after that.

[MooseAg03]

I did a lot if research on this for my SOS paper. Nextant aerospace can refurbish the fleet by overhauling everything and replacing engines and avionics. When I spoke with their VP, he talked about how the airframe life limit on a standard Beechjet is unlimited with proper maintenance and that the AF chose to place an hour limit even though the T-1 airframe is beefier than a standard Beechjet, and for good reason. But when you can get a practically new jet with double the fuel economy for about $1M per copy, why would you not do that? The fuel savings alone would pay for it after just a few years of use.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TarHeelPilot]

For 1/3 of the operating costs, what's the catch?

[spaceman]

Looks pretty cool, but it's so small (STS)!  Max T/O weight is 6,000 lbs... that's lighter than a T-6!

The T-1 with its shitty spoilers actually did a decent job, I thought, of handling like a bigger airplane (a Herk at least; I don't know about REAL big airplanes).  The Toner's crappy OEI takeoff performance in summer also provided for a good intro to TOLD planning for a big aircraft.  This 550 looks like it handles real nice and has great takeoff performance...  What kind of training is that?!

Edited October 9, 2015 by spaceman

[Dupe]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-10-08/saic-offering-eclipse-550s-usaf-pilot-trainer-bid

Thoughts??

It's dumb. The Air Force should not buy a core capability "as a service." I can see leasing out some low-ball DV airlift requirement, but we're going to have to train MAF pilots for many decades to come... which is exactly what SAIC is banking on.

 

Could we achieve training objectives with a more cost-effective platform? I think so... But we should own it.

[HU&W]

But we should own it.

This.  Also,

Other potential applications could be as an “adversary trainer” and T-38A companion trainer replacement, said Parkes.

Really?  Exactly what kind of training does this dude want to sell us with a corporate jet as an adversary?  He's just fishing. 

[Clark Griswold]

While not a lease offer, the idea of only buying a core capability as needed stinks ala the original Tanker Lease idea and that worked great for us...

The Tone did a good job and I thought it was good training for a large multi-crew jet, you could go with a refurbishment or look for something totally new (like the Eclipse) but if I were CSAF for a day, I would want to expand the advanced phase for more training (NVGs, International, Intro to Tactics/SPINs) and allow the Tone (or whatever might replace it) studs to track bomber also.  Expand the training and choices to the studs who track to the T-1, a more capable trainer is the first step.

[di1630]

From what I saw/heard the T-1 program was a months worth of education extended out to 6 months so the class could all graduate together with -38 peers.

Lots of talk about why they couldn't just learn that stuff at the FTU and as a copilot.

[Tool of The Man]

The Eclipse 550 has been studied and even flown on a typical SUPT profile.  Very underwhelming. Climb performance was a big issue, no jumpseat, lack of sortie duration(had to stop mid profile to get gas), base model lacks some instruments, side stick is not transferable to most heavies...a lot more.  Fuel savings is one thing, but if you can't execute the mission, it really doesn't matter.  As for Nextant option,  some of what Moose said is accurate.  However, I am sceptical about the $1M cost per airframe.  Also, the AF didn't place the hour limit on the airframe, that came during the initial contract.

[Right Seat Driver]

From what I saw/heard the T-1 program was a months worth of education extended out to 6 months so the class could all graduate together with -38 peers.

 

Lots of talk about why they couldn't just learn that stuff at the FTU and as a copilot.

You might be able to pull that off for some airframes like a C-21 or a MC-12 in basic stick and rudder skills.  However, guys that graduate UPT and the 135 FTU are still a long way from being safe.

Taking UPT hours away from Phase III and throwing an equivalent amount of training time would be a lot more expensive than Toner hours.  The KC-135 is around $6k per flight hour.

[Clark Griswold]

You might be able to pull that off for some airframes like a C-21 or a MC-12 in basic stick and rudder skills.  However, guys that graduate UPT and the 135 FTU are still a long way from being safe.

Taking UPT hours away from Phase III and throwing an equivalent amount of training time would be a lot more expensive than Toner hours.  The KC-135 is around $6k per flight hour.

I agree with not shortening Phase III, I would actually add more time but only 6k an hour for the mighty 135?  Seems low.

Did some Google-Fu and there was no clear perfect answer but Wiki (which is always a trustworthy source /s) gives a figure in 2002 of 11k per hour, inflation would take that to about 15k per hour, seems more likely.  In the AOR, who the hell knows what it is.

 

Edited October 9, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[TnkrToad]

You might be able to pull that off for some airframes like a C-21 or a MC-12 in basic stick and rudder skills.  However, guys that graduate UPT and the 135 FTU are still a long way from being safe.

Taking UPT hours away from Phase III and throwing an equivalent amount of training time would be a lot more expensive than Toner hours.  The KC-135 is around $6k per flight hour.

I fully agree that reducing Phase III flying hours for the T-1 would be a bad idea. Like Griswold, I agree your per flying hour cost for the tanker seems awfully low. Please explain, though; how is it that dudes who graduate from both UPT and 135 FTU are unsafe? Have standards slipped that significantly? Not a trick question; it's been quite a while since I flew the might tanker so things might have changed from my day, but I never considered folks fresh out of Altus "a long way from being safe." Sure, there were were some who slipped through the cracks, but for the most part they seemed to do just fine. If Altus is consistently producing unsafe tanker copilots (which is what I gather from what you wrote above), that's a pretty damning accusation.

[zmoney]

Buy enough T-X's to cover both the present T-38 track and T-1 track.

Benefits:

• Eliminates an entire fleet--the CSAF has repeatedly stated this is how we save money
• Enables the AF to delay the Heavy / Fighter decision until later in a student's timeline

Some might say that the T-1 is necessary to train our heavy pilots... I'm not so sure.  My community has a bunch of T-38 trained folks and they seem to be doing fine.  

Bottom line, the AF could eliminate the T-1 while retaining elements of the T-1 syllabus--trained in the T-X.

[Vito]

Never flew the T-1, but as a C-17 guy it seemed like the newbies we were getting were prepared and well trained.  The idea of replacing the T-1 with an Eclipse Jet seems odd for a lot of reasons.  Kinda like saying the AF can replace the T-38 or T-6 with an RV-6 because it's cheaper to operate.  BTW, I highly doubt a KC-135 only costs $6,000/hour......that's probably the cost of one engine so you'd have to multiply that number by 4!

Zmoney,  I like your idea.  Sort of like going back to the old school of everyone flying the -38 in order to earn your wings

Edited October 9, 2015 by Vito

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

From what I saw/heard the T-1 program was a months worth of education extended out to 6 months so the class could all graduate together with -38 peers.

 

Lots of talk about why they couldn't just learn that stuff at the FTU and as a copilot.

Yup, you nailed it.... T-1 students certainly don't learn a doctorate worth of instrument and mission planning knowledge, or at least not what they could otherwise learn in a month of academics.

In other related news I heard the T-38 program was a months worth of education extended out to 6 months so the class could all graduate together with the -1 peers... it only takes about a week or so to learn to fly a 1.1 around the flag pole.

As for the discussion at hand, I think there are certainly more cost effective ways to do what we do with the T-1 right now; however, it would be tough to do it for such a substantial cost savings as to overcome the sunk cost already invested in the paid-for T-1 fleet.  There's a pretty major avionics upgrade coming to the T-1 by ~2020 or so (rumor has it) and that may bring up the economics of upgrading the existing T-1s or buying new off the shelf.  The problem with OTS is that the T-1 really isn't.  The UPT models have a LOT of armor up front to mitigate the higher risk of bird strikes for the LL flying the T-1 does, and on top of that the nav school ones are pretty substantially re-fit to do the training they do down there.  It's not as simple as painting CB on the tail of an Eclipse and calling it a new T-1

[hispeed7721]

on top of that the nav school ones are pretty substantially re-fit to do the training they do down there.  It's not as simple as painting CB on the tail of an Eclipse and calling it a new T-1

It took long enough to figure out how to wire up the T-1 for CSO training, I don't think it would be a simple plug and play with the same equipment in a different airframe. The time/$ cost of changing airframes just from that aspect is a huge obstacle to overcome

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xaarman]

People need to remember that the T-1 sends people to a bunch of MWSs, not just their own. NVGs/more LL/affected SPINS are aircraft specific. Furthermore, the T-1 syllabus has been gutted since when the majority of this board went through. With every syllabus revision, flight hours are cut. The -135 is notoriously difficult to land. C-130s are giant Cessnas, etc. We could push the training onto the MWSs, certainly T-38 studs have done it, but it's going to take a lot more time, money and energy to do so. But in the long run, with a paid for fleet, keeping basic Nav/AR/LL principles in a simple multi engine jet (with proper CRM) is a lot cheaper than training it in a C-17.

 

 

 

[Clark Griswold]

People need to remember that the T-1 sends people to a bunch of MWSs, not just their own. NVGs/more LL/affected SPINS are aircraft specific. 

Yeah, but you there are fundamentals that are transferable also the experience is universal.  Granted it's not that hard and it's not an absolute requirement (NVGs, SPINs, etc...) but I think it would enhance the product delivered to the Heavies, just an idea irrespective of money, planning or logistics so it'd be highly disruptive but that's how evolution happens sometimes.  

No argument on returning to a single Advanced Phase Trainer - got to see the T-50 and T-100 displays at AFA Convention this year - only VIPs got to see the Boeing presentation and Clark Griswold was not on that list.  Awesome jets and a huge leap from where we are at now, once again if I were CSAF for a day we'd all track to the new Phase III trainer and incorporate IFF, NVGs, LL, etc into an extended syllabus... and based on that final score, dudes would be deemed Fighter qual'd and select whatever they wanted based on merit. 

[zmoney]

...if I were CSAF for a day we'd all track to the new Phase III trainer and incorporate IFF, NVGs, LL, etc into an extended syllabus... and based on that final score, dudes would be deemed Fighter qual'd and select whatever they wanted based on merit. 

Shack.

[Tool of The Man]

The decision to merge the streams is going to be based on $$$.  Training someone in a T-38 to go to heavies is not the issue, but trying to absorb that cost for another 700 studs that the T-1 currently trains is a huge bill.  Buying enough T-Xs to cover that is even more.  At some point, even Congress will have to ask "Is there a way to do this cheaper?"  As we enter the era of bringing F-35, KC-46, and a new bomber on line, AETC is going to be at the back of the money line.

[Seriously]

This discussion reminded me of an old ESPN commercial.

[Clark Griswold]

The decision to merge the streams is going to be based on $$$.  Training someone in a T-38 to go to heavies is not the issue, but trying to absorb that cost for another 700 studs that the T-1 currently trains is a huge bill.  Buying enough T-Xs to cover that is even more.  At some point, even Congress will have to ask "Is there a way to do this cheaper?"  As we enter the era of bringing F-35, KC-46, and a new bomber on line, AETC is going to be at the back of the money line.

No doubt that T-X is or will be on the back burner but I don't think there is really a choice, the Tones, 38s are at a point where they either need recapitalization or replacement and the future of the AF (unfortunately) will probably consist of fewer total number of cockpits and types of cockpits, "de-specialization" is better for this future AF and in reflection of my time in the AF and flying, specialization in UPT created yet another barrier / stovepiping in the AF, 

Kina touchy feely comment I realize but we bitch about the lack of a unifying experience or identity in the AF, there are no obvious practical solutions to this but in this corner of the AF that tends to produce the senior leaders, we can start them with a common experience to provide amongst this small but important population in the AF the common identity we strive for.  

[HiFlyer]

I'll put my two cents worth into this discussion because it's a subject I deal with every day in my job.  I think you're attacking this discussion from the wrong end.  Rather than discussing airframes at this point, the best approach would be to start with what you want to do. There are already different ideas in this thread about what you're looking for. I'd be getting all the players together (the MAJCOMs that use the finished product (pilots), the training commands, other Services that might want to piggy-back on the new system, the loggies that have to maintain the system, etc.) and spend some time investigating what they need in the future as a training system...train for what, train how, train how much, etc.  How much has to be in the air, how much via sims, how much via classroom academics.  Once you have the requirements figured out (absolutely must have, important to have, good to have, nice if I could get it but not a driver, etc.) then you can start looking at training systems (airframes and other training capabilities) to see what fits your needs best.  Then it becomes a tradeoff for capabilities vs. maintainability vs. cost..  Of course, mixed up in that are political realities and other non-technical games (corporate PR, etc.).  When all that gets done, you get to the selection decision.  What do I need to train with in the future, not what current airframe option will do the best job in my old training scenario.

Sounds simple, but it isn't

[HuggyU2]

The Eclipse 550 has been studied and even flown on a typical SUPT profile. 

Can you elaborate on this, if you know more?  When it was done... how "formal" of an evaluation it was... any other specifics.

Thanks.