Unsolicited T-1 Replacement Proposal

[matmacwc]

Asks the Cessna guy.....

[HuggyU2]

Asks the Cessna guy.....

Keep in mind I do not work for Cessna, but am rated in the Cessna 525.  I work for an independent non-profit that represents aircraft owners.

My reason for asking is that I'm in a thread on another aviation forum where this came up, and I'd like to be able to address a few points that were made.  

To my knowledge, Cessna is not involved in putting forward a Citation solution to the T-1 replacement.  No sense in competing within the Textron Aviation umbrella of companies, since Beech is part of Textron Aviation too.  

Edited October 11, 2015 by Huggyu2

[RollNPull]

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

The idea that the eclipse could replace the 38A's in the B-2 companion trainer program have made Whiteman pilots/leadership very nervous. Having a companion aircraft is essential to the B-2 mission (2 B-2 sorties a month aren't enough to keep dudes proficient) and a leased aircraft seems a slippery slope to no aircraft at all. On top of that, we'd lose the ability to fly our formation, low level and range sorties the way we can now. This would all come at the same time that AFPC has forced us into a hiring normalization which will result in an even greater need for a somewhat tactical aircraft, to help all the Lt's gain the much needed experience before IQT. This retired general needs a new hobby.

[Right Seat Driver]

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.

 

$15k seems more realistic.  But I have seen both AMC and USAFE use $6k as a pure cost per hour.  That may just be in calculating FHPs.

I don't even want to know how much AOR hours cost.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Right Seat Driver
Buffoonery.

[Clark Griswold]

$15k seems more realistic.  But I have seen both AMC and USAFE use $6k as a pure cost per hour.  That may just be in calculating FHPs.

I don't even want to know how much AOR hours cost.

Same here but I think adding 50% + would be a reasonable WAG figuring the wagon train of logistics to put that JP8 over the AOR

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

 

On top of that, we'd lose the ability to fly our formation, low level and range sorties the way we can now.

Just curious how would you loose the capability? The T-1 flies low level and formation, granted not fingertip like the T-38 but the B-2 doesn't fly fingertip. If anything I see an eclipse or T-1 more comparable to the way the B-2 flies than a T-38, although a lot less fun. 

[Duck]

Yeah, we have an old B-2 dude in the squadron who says that although having the 38 as a companion is awesome, he feels even just a T-1 would be more inline with what they need. His words not mine.

[HuggyU2]

Yeah, we have an old B-2 dude in the squadron who says that although having the 38 as a companion is awesome, he feels even just a T-1 would be more inline with what they need. His words not mine.

Burn the witch.  

[RollNPull]

Just curious how would you loose the capability? The T-1 flies low level and formation, granted not fingertip like the T-38 but the B-2 doesn't fly fingertip. If anything I see an eclipse or T-1 more comparable to the way the B-2 flies than a T-38, although a lot less fun. 

We could definitely hack the mish with a T-1 or even eclipse like aircraft. It would be a big step back though for sure. It's by no means essential, but having an aircraft that you can fly tactical formation in and fly finger tip with is valuable specifically because its so different from the B-2. Just my opinion, but I think the T-38 is about as perfect of an airmanship builder as can be- which is really the purpose of the companion trainer program- to build up the pilots in the areas they tend to get deficient in while B-2 flying. I will readily admit I'm very biased and love the 38. The real downside would be to have an aircraft that we didn't own. It seems an aircraft you don't own, will be soon cut as budgets continue to be tight.

[HU&W]

We could definitely hack the mish with a T-1 or even eclipse like aircraft. It would be a big step back though for sure. It's by no means essential, but having an aircraft that you can fly tactical formation in and fly finger tip with is valuable specifically because its so different from the B-2. Just my opinion, but I think the T-38 is about as perfect of an airmanship builder as can be- which is really the purpose of the companion trainer program- to build up the pilots in the areas they tend to get deficient in while B-2 flying. I will readily admit I'm very biased and love the 38. The real downside would be to have an aircraft that we didn't own. It seems an aircraft you don't own, will be soon cut as budgets continue to be tight.

Great argument for getting some 38's (or heck, anything) for all those atrophying pilots in RPA land.

[Fuzz]

 

We could definitely hack the mish with a T-1 or even eclipse like aircraft. It would be a big step back though for sure. It's by no means essential, but having an aircraft that you can fly tactical formation in and fly finger tip with is valuable specifically because its so different from the B-2. Just my opinion, but I think the T-38 is about as perfect of an airmanship builder as can be- which is really the purpose of the companion trainer program- to build up the pilots in the areas they tend to get deficient in while B-2 flying. I will readily admit I'm very biased and love the 38. The real downside would be to have an aircraft that we didn't own. It seems an aircraft you don't own, will be soon cut as budgets continue to be tight.

Thanks for the insight, hadn't thought about a companion trainer in that context. With that perspective, I really don't see why we would need to replace the T-38s going along the lines of "if its not broke don't fix it". But then again we are talking about the AF and more importantly AF acquisitions.

[Duck]

Burn the witch.  

Wilco!

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

 

We could definitely hack the mish with a T-1 or even eclipse like aircraft. It would be a big step back though for sure. It's by no means essential, but having an aircraft that you can fly tactical formation in and fly finger tip with is valuable specifically because its so different from the B-2. Just my opinion, but I think the T-38 is about as perfect of an airmanship builder as can be- which is really the purpose of the companion trainer program- to build up the pilots in the areas they tend to get deficient in while B-2 flying. I will readily admit I'm very biased and love the 38. The real downside would be to have an aircraft that we didn't own. It seems an aircraft you don't own, will be soon cut as budgets continue to be tight.

This argument is short sighted and weak sauce in my opinion (no offense).  By your logic we should give T-38s to E-8, E-3 and RC-135 squadrons.  The kind of flying these airplanes do are probably 80% comparable to what the B-2 does.  Full disclosure I'm an E-8 guy by trade, so that's my perspective.  With that said, I'd be willing to bet that the preponderance of flying that the B-2 does is dominated by the following things-- takeoff, TONS of cruise time, get some gas, cruise some more, a brief moment where magic happens, cruise some more, land.  In the kind of flying we are doing right now (or likely to EVER do with the B-2) you are better served with an airplane that flies (and is flown) like the B-2 is.  

And where I feel that this is short sighted, there's a reason that 75% or more of UPT students go through the T-1.  You can operate a fleet of T-1s for what it costs to keep a handfull of T-38s in the air.  Frankly I'm amazed big blue hasn't pulled your 38s already just to "save money".  I think the B-2 community would be insane to pass on an opportunity for a cheaper companion trainer, even if it means trading off some of the fun of flying.  ANY airplane is more fun to fly than NO airplane.

[guineapigfury]

I've always thought that one of the T-1's best capes is that it reduces T-38 usage.  If you send 75% percent of UPT students to T-1s, your T-38s last 4 times as long.  What's better for the B-2 dudes I have no idea.  If we do buy a new companion trainer, I hope we buy a few for us poor bastards stuck in RPAs.

[RollNPull]

This argument is short sighted and weak sauce in my opinion (no offense).  By your logic we should give T-38s to E-8, E-3 and RC-135 squadrons.  The kind of flying these airplanes do are probably 80% comparable to what the B-2 does.  Full disclosure I'm an E-8 guy by trade, so that's my perspective.  With that said, I'd be willing to bet that the preponderance of flying that the B-2 does is dominated by the following things-- takeoff, TONS of cruise time, get some gas, cruise some more, a brief moment where magic happens, cruise some more, land.  In the kind of flying we are doing right now (or likely to EVER do with the B-2) you are better served with an airplane that flies (and is flown) like the B-2 is.  

And where I feel that this is short sighted, there's a reason that 75% or more of UPT students go through the T-1.  You can operate a fleet of T-1s for what it costs to keep a handfull of T-38s in the air.  Frankly I'm amazed big blue hasn't pulled your 38s already just to "save money".  I think the B-2 community would be insane to pass on an opportunity for a cheaper companion trainer, even if it means trading off some of the fun of flying.  ANY airplane is more fun to fly than NO airplane.

Exactly. Any auto pilot heavy AC pilot community would greatly benefit from having the 38 as a companion trainer. It would make any dude in those communities a better pilot. In KSZL's case, people have tried to cut the program many times. It always survives because once you crunch the numbers you easily see that it's essential to the B-2 mission. Small fleet dynamics and associated mx issues mandate having another airplane. Cheaper is awesome. My vote is keep the 38.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Exactly. Any auto pilot heavy AC pilot community would greatly benefit from having the 38 as a companion trainer. It would make any dude in those communities a better pilot. In KSZL's case, people have tried to cut the program many times. It always survives because once you crunch the numbers you easily see that it's essential to the B-2 mission. Small fleet dynamics and associated mx issues mandate having another airplane. Cheaper is awesome. My vote is keep the 38.

I'm well aware of small fleet dynamics (16 jet fleet) and the demands of ops, training, and MX on those few tails.  Not to get into an appendage assessment contest, but I'd venture to say the average E-8 pilot flies the jet less frequently than the average B-2 guy, the only exception being deployed, but in terms of stick and rudder flying not the best. 

 

I think we both want tg same thing and for the same reasons.  The most proficient and broadly skilled pilot is the best at employing his/her weapon system.  With that said, budgetary reality is what it is.  I wish I had 20 more hours to fly UPT students before graduating them, but the budget nerds say the current syllabus is enough.

Probably the best candidate would be a T-6.  It's the best balance between capability and cost, and aside from the go-fast aspect, I think the T-6 is more fun to fly.  

[RollNPull]

I'm well aware of small fleet dynamics (16 jet fleet) and the demands of ops, training, and MX on those few tails.  Not to get into an appendage assessment contest, but I'd venture to say the average E-8 pilot flies the jet less frequently than the average B-2 guy, the only exception being deployed, but in terms of stick and rudder flying not the best. 

 

I think we both want tg same thing and for the same reasons.  The most proficient and broadly skilled pilot is the best at employing his/her weapon system.  With that said, budgetary reality is what it is.  I wish I had 20 more hours to fly UPT students before graduating them, but the budget nerds say the current syllabus is enough.

Probably the best candidate would be a T-6.  It's the best balance between capability and cost, and aside from the go-fast aspect, I think the T-6 is more fun to fly.  

Amen.

[HuggyU2]

 

Napoleon,

 

I disagree with everything you stated on your last two posts.  

 

First, let me address your (and guineapigfury’s) points about “saving the T-38 fleet”:  The T-38’s in the CTP that you are referring to are T-38A models.  NOT T-38C models.  They will NEVER be involved in UPT training.  I recommend that you and guineapigfury avoid the apples-to-oranges comparisons.  These jets will work as A-models outside of AETC until they are parked in the boneyard. What is done with them is irrelevant to utilization in the UPT environment.  

 

And no, you cannot operate a handful of T-1’s for the cost of a T-38A.  That’s because AETC needs their T-1’s to train students, and they cannot buy more.  They DON’T need the T-38A.  Second- and third-order effects… 

 

Second… I don’t know if, as you state, the E-8 pilots get less time than the B-2 pilos.  But as a U-2 interview pilot for many years, I can attest to the fact that I saw a lot of atrophied stick-and-rudder skills coming out of communities like yours.  That is not to say you are a community of “bad pilots”.  Certainly not.  But your community has not been given the opportunity… such as if found in the CTP program… to keep their stick-and-rudder pilot skills sharp.   We’ve hired some really fine pilots out of the E-8 community.  But if you know any of them, ask them how much better they became after flying the T-38 for a few months.  Whether it came easy or not for them, I guarantee they were better USAF pilots as a result. 

 

Many moons ago, there was the ACE program (Accelerated Co-pilot Enrichment), where the SAC co-piglets would fly a T-37 or T-38 to improve their skill set.  I have a good friend who never flew in AETC… yet he logged over 1000 hours in the T-38 through ACE and CTP.  He transitioned to a fighter late in his career, and ended up beating his entire community at their annual weapons competition.   And guess what?  He was the only “heavy guy” in the community.  While he is a naturally gifted pilot and officer,  he will tell you that the time in the T-38 made him a far, far better aircraft commander in the 4 MWS’ he  flew in his 25 year career.   Could he have been “adequate” without the T-38?  Maybe so.  But he would never have excelled to the level he did.   Don’t you find it unfortunate that, as a co-pilot, you didn’t have the ACE program in the E-8?  It could have been a T-38, T-37,… pick an airplane.  But for pennies on the dollar to do it, don’t you agree that you and your squadron buds would be better pilots for it?  Thanks to Gen Ralston for his short-sighted decision to end the ACE program in ’95.

 

Cost Part 1:  you impeach the T-38 CTP by bringing up the “budgetary realities”… and then you go on to say the T-6 is the best solution because it’s the best balance between cost and capability?  Did you say “cost”??   You want to put 11-16 T-6’s at each CTP location, with each one costing upwards of $7M per copy?   Is this some kind of modern math like my kid gets in school?  How do you fund that nine-figure budget item?  The “budget reality” of this scenario is a non-starter.  

 

Cost Part 2, the T-38A:  Again, you mentioned “budgetary realities”.  It’s a valid point to consider.  But it costs money to have well-trained, best-in-the-world pilots.  Where do you draw the line on “what’s good enough”.  Granted, it has to be drawn, because there is a balancing act between cost and capability.  On the cost side, I remember about 10 years ago when an F-22 at Nellis had a FOD incident.  The crew chief lost control of a pin, and it was ingested into the engine.   It resulted in a redesign of the pin flag that would allow the crew chief to hold on to it better.  It also resulted in about $6.8M of damage to the engine. 

 

Yes,... $6.8M for FOD in one engine.

 

I also remember that $6.8M was more than the entire annual budget for Beale’s T-38 program of around 3700 flight hours, including our TDY cross-country costs.  So while I recognize that it costs money to fly the T-38’s, I subscribe to the view that “you have to spend money to make money”.  What’s the point I’m making about the FOD incident?  It’s that the T-38 CTP program is cheap.  Dirt cheap.  And the B-2’s program is cheap.  Cheaper than a crew chief’s pin down an F-22 engine.  A lot cheaper than a few more U-2 or B-2 sorties to make up the difference if there was not CTP.  And it is a lot cheaper than hours on the E-8 or B-2.  The dividends of the T-38 CTP are known, proven, and relevant.   They are also somewhat intangible to those staffers on the outside that haven’t seen it first-hand, but want to gut it for $7M to spend elsewhere.  But people like Gen Chilton, Lt Gen Otto, MG Polumbo, and MG Simpson (to name a few) will tell you the T-38 CTP is worth it.  They saw it and they get it. 

 

Having spent a quarter of a century flying the T-38 as an instructor with guys like you that came out of heavies, bombers, fighters, and other weird shit,  I guarantee you that your E-8 community (and all others, to differing degrees) would be better off if they had a CTP program. 

 

 

 

Edited October 14, 2015 by Huggyu2

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Huggy I think you missed my point, or I failed to communicate it well.  I'm not saying to pull the plug on the CPT program, far from it.  I'm saying that if there is a serious look at replacing the T-38A with something else the B-2 and U-2 communities probably would be unwise to put up much of a fight, as it could result in the loss of the whole program.  

Personally I think the program should be expanded to include RPAs and all ACC heavies, if not all heavy aircraft in general, but the money simply isn't there.  As much as you scoff at the "what is good enough" argument, it comes down to just that.  You will always be fighting against people who look at line items on spreadsheets and make arguments like "if this airplane just does XYZ, why do they need a CPT program to do the whole alphabet".  These people don't get the idea of broad airmanship.  

I WISH we had a CPT program when I was flying the E-8.  I don't care if it was a T-38A, T-6, Eclipse, or a Cessna 172, any time is better than no time.  You get no argument from me regarding skill atrophy.  After being a UPT instructor for a few years my stick and rudder skills are VASTLY superior to what they would have ever been had I stayed in the E-8 community for a lifetime.  I don't mean that to brag, I mean that the kind of flying that is done in the UPT environment builds airmanship that you don't get elsewhere, and rightly so.

[HuggyU2]

I'm saying that if there is a serious look at replacing the T-38A with something else the B-2 and U-2 communities probably would be unwise to put up much of a fight, as it could result in the loss of the whole program.  

Unwise to put up a fight?  

ACC has tried over and over and over to look at replacing or killing the T-38 at Beale.  And each time they do, we rewrite the bullet background papers and executive memos to... once again... explain why CTP is there, why it is beneficial, why it is cost effective, and why swapping out to another airframe type will cost more.  

I suppose we were unwise.  But we were unwilling to roll over on what we knew was the right answer.  

[Blue]

The T-38 is great at making pilots better at skills that are completely irrelevant to a heavy MWS's mission.

Huh.  Well that's a pretty strong statement......

[TreeA10]

I guess I was lucky to survive an 11 hour 22 minute sortie after landing at near max crosswind in a snowstorm in my yanking and banking single seat machine. My 1200 T-38 hours in a prior assignment obviously we're irrelevant, also. Yep, just plain luck saved me.   

[Muscle2002]

The T-38 would be a terrible companion trainer for the ISR community, IMO. The most important pilot skills a heavy aircraft pilot has are A/R, enroute navigation, and landing in any possible weather condition that nature can throw at you after a long day. While yanking and banking and flying fingertip looks great for the recruiting videos, it's not gonna make me any better at putting an RJ down on the ground at night in a -20 degree Alaskan blizzard after a 24 hour duty day.

The T-38 is great at making pilots better at skills that are completely irrelevant to a heavy MWS's mission.

I don't see the B-2 and U-2 communities asserting that companion training is useless because they cannot fly above 50,000' or 24+ hour missions in a T-38. Your post indicates an assumption that companion training must be directly related to the MWS mission for it to be worthwhile.  That is incredibly myopic.

[hispeed7721]

Okay, sure, if you're not flying any aircraft at all, ever, then yes getting some time in a T-38 is better than sitting on the ground for weeks at a time. 

Joe, I think this is EXACTLY what they're talking about. Without the -38, they would be sitting for long periods of time without getting to fly. The point they're making (I think) is that having the T38 as a companion is that it allows for flying where in its absence there would be none.

Someone call me on it if I'm misinterpreting...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HU&W]

And TreeA10 I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you were landing a 707/-135 at the time, in which case, please elaborate.

Based on his callsign, I'm guessing that he flew a really long sortie in a really slow single seat fighter that's capable of air refueling.