What is next for the UPT-Next graduates?

[Stitch]

On 9/17/2018 at 6:47 AM, Spaceballs said:

Where do they go next?

 

Back to UPT.

Question: I remember seeing something about where they had (or were thinking about) having fresh out of basic training enlisted dudes as part of this experiment to compare learning skills/curve/styles what-the-fuck-ever.  Did that actually happen? And if so, did any of those guys/gals graduate and what happens to them now?  I know they can't take a rated slot, but send em' back to some sort of tech school (hopefully an E flying gig; i.e. Engineer, Boom, etc...) and not TCN escort duty, finance, shoe clerk stuff, etc...

I hope, if qualified, any E's could have at least get their PPL out of it.     

[Bode]

I know they didn’t make it through. The learning curve was too steep. The kids we 18 and had zero aviation background. From what I was told as the time crunch started to happen they focused on the Os and left the Es to fail. A couple of them could have made it given better pre-conditions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

On 10/9/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bode said:

From what I was told as the time crunch started to happen they focused on the Os and left the Es to fail. A couple of them could have made it given better pre-conditions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In other news the sky is blue.

[Majestik Møøse]

On 10/9/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bode said:

I know they didn’t make it through. The learning curve was too steep. The kids we 18 and had zero aviation background. From what I was told as the time crunch started to happen they focused on the Os and left the Es to fail. A couple of them could have made it given better pre-conditions.

Oh shit.  Not hearing much about those results.  It’s almost as if the pilot selection process works well enough and isn’t the root cause of the Air Force’s pilot retention problem...

[SurelySerious]

4 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Oh shit.  Not hearing much about those results.  It’s almost as if the pilot selection process works well enough and isn’t the root cause of the Air Force’s pilot retention problem...

No no, you see the issue is 4/3 of the population is ineligible for AF pilot training due to obesity, academic, and other disqualifiers. Those are the real pilot problem root causes. 

 

Edit: just in case...this is satirical

Edited October 12, 2018 by SurelySerious
Note the 4/3

[Sprkt69]

The stupid color vision test is not helping either. 

[Magnum]

1 hour ago, Sprkt69 said:

The stupid color vision test is not helping either. 

You're no longer required it pass it... Or go past chart 'B' on the depth perception.

[Sprkt69]

12 hours ago, Magnum said:

You're no longer required it pass it... Or go past chart 'B' on the depth perception.

Are you trying to say there was come common sense that was applied? 

[icohftb]

On 10/9/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bode said:

I know they didn’t make it through. The learning curve was too steep. The kids we 18 and had zero aviation background. From what I was told as the time crunch started to happen they focused on the Os and left the Es to fail. A couple of them could have made it given better pre-conditions

How did the Os do and where are they now? Or you meant nobody at all made it thru?

[LookieRookie]

FWIW, some e Dawgs didn't wash out. The decision was decided they weren't going to get pilot wings so they were removed from training.

[Bode]

How did the Os do and where are they now? Or you meant nobody at all made it thru?

I was talking specifics on the Es.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

FWIW, some e Dawgs didn't wash out. The decision was decided they weren't going to get pilot wings so they were removed from training.

If the reason is known, why?

[Homestar]

17 hours ago, Magnum said:

You're no longer required it pass it... Or go past chart 'B' on the depth perception.

Once I found out that it’s never the first or last circle I got much better at that test. 

[icohftb]

3 hours ago, Bode said:

I was talking specifics on the Es.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where are the Os? Have they gone to the FTU yet?

[ToHoldShort]

2 hours ago, icohftb said:

Where are the Os? Have they gone to the FTU yet?

On the fighter side, I think two went to the F-35 and two went Vipers at Kelly, numbers might be slightly off.  I think the Kelly FTU course started in August.  Unsure about any thing on the heavy side of the house.

[Genghis John]

Hopefully they’ll do so good the Air Force will offer us VSP. 

[LookieRookie]

Well it seems the Air Force wants to do a mod to a new "E-model" standard for the PTN T-6s. (Navy has T-6Bs, Beech sells T-6C, Army has T-6Ds)

 From the RFI:

 

The United States Air Force is interested in assessing industry’s capability and technical maturity in modifying up to eight T-6As to integrate the following capabilities on a temporary basis to demonstrate evolutionary training/learning procedures.   
We ask that any interested potential vendors specifically address each numbered capability with a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) along with substantiating data and estimated schedule to field each capability.  Additionally, we are interested in airworthiness certification, cybersecurity, and spectrum certification strategies.  Please include all of your assumptions in these strategies.  

1.    Generic Inflight weapons employment simulation (air-to-air and air-to-ground) including fully integrated sensor fusion 
a.    5th Gen style Helmet / HUD symbology
b.    Gun (20, 25, and 30 mm) – air-to-air and strafe
c.    Targeting/ISR sensor simulation and management (radar, FMV, infrared, radar warning)
d.    Unguided weapons (general purpose, rockets)
e.    Guided missiles (heat-seeking, radar)
f.    Laser-guided air-to-ground weapons (rocket, bomb, missiles)
g.    GPS-guided air-to-ground weapons/Inertially-aided munitions
h.    Retaskable after launch munitions (e.g SDB, JASSM-ER, etc)

2.    Helmet mounted cuing system (HCMS) (objective) or fully integrated Heads-up-Display (HUD) (threshold)
a.    5th Gen style Helmet/HUD symbology fully compatible with capabilities listed in item 1 above
b.    Simulation of sensors (radar, infrared, radar warning)
c.    Sensor displays (attitude, altitude, airspeed, TCAS/ADS-B)
d.    Simulated target display (air-to-air and air-to-ground)
e.    Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Construct display capability (fully compatible with datalink
f.    Display of GPS flight planned route(s)

3.    Enhanced data transfer & sharing: UNCLAS datalink; data & video transfer (msn planning, scenario builds, debrief data [Ops, Safety, & Mx])
a.    Mission planning upload to include full mission simulations as a Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) – data transfer device (DTD)
b.    Datalink to fully enable LVC missions
1)    Sufficient bandwidth to support multiple channels of HD video (Threshold:  3, Objective: 12)
2)    High definition video (threshold:  4K, objective 8K)
3)    Ground control station to build, execute, monitor and record LVC missions
         Range w/gnd station repeaters (T:   40 Nm, O:  60 Nm)
         Range w/out repeaters (T:   70 Nm, O:  100 Nm
4) Datalink meets FIPS 140-1 security for FOUO data
c. Ability to adjust LVC scenarios, helmet/HUD displays from rear cockpit or from ground station controls and inject synthetic sensor data and constructed targets (overlaid on geo-rectified sensor “feed” for air-to-ground) to include ability to construct moving ground targets
d.    Mission record capability via DTD
1)    Operations (HUD/Helmet video, crew biometrics, datalink, 360/cockpit video)
2)    MFOQA data
e.    Objective: Integrated Bluetooth & Wi-Fi to import external sensors (i.e. view real-time biometrics, helmet data); Threshold (data port for biometrics, helmet data)
f.    Power and/or data ports for hand-held equipment (EFB, FIS-B, TIS-B, ATAK)
g.    Tactical Situation Display that integrates the simulated radar and weapons cueing/control with real sensor data   (LVC, ADS-B [TIS-B], TCAS), the datalink and simulated Radar Warning Receiver with cursor ability to determine target data

4.    Hands On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS)
a.    Fully compatible with all weapons and sensor simulations
b.    Maximum similarity with 5th Generation Fighters
c.    Data entry options (e.g. single pilot, left-hand oriented).

5.    Night Vision Goggle compatible lighting and displays.

6.    Radar Altimeter

7.    Ability to display GPS-driven flight plan (Threshold) and Moving Map (Objective)

8.    Simulated defensive system (chaff/flare with HOTAS buttons to dispense); captured on mission recording

9.    Debriefing system capability that can combine AHRS, LVC and DTD information.

10.    360 degree video record capability (separate from Helmet/HUD) – recordable and datalink

11.    Basic Altitude Hold function

12.    Fully-coupled, three-axis autopilot

13.    Expanded video of front cockpit occupant displayed in the back seat, recorded, and datalink (e.g. supplement biometric data of student)

14.    HMD adaptable to accept biometric monitoring capability (recorded parameter)

We request that you also provide your company’s recommendation for existing T-6 capabilities and components whose function can be provided via the components that would be proposed to meet these new capabilities, along with strategies to certify these existing capabilities through the use of these new components.  This modification must not negatively impact the existing aircraft flight capabilities.  Identify a strategy to verify these existing capabilities remain intact post-modification.

Edited October 15, 2018 by LookieRookie

[jazzdude]

Sounds like IFF with T-6s...

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

[Standby]

29 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

Sounds like IFF with T-6s...

Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
 

Sure does. I’d love to fly a T-6 equipped as such but why not just give more money to Boeing and get the TX faster with said additions?

[YoungnDumb]

Doesn't the AT-6 meet most of these requirements already?

[jazzdude]

AT-6 is like 33% bigger. Bigger prop, bigger wings, etc. I think this rfp is a retrofit on the existing fleet

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[YoungnDumb]

The AT-6 wingspan is only a few inches more than a regular T-6 not 33%, you are correct that the prop is a bit fatter/bigger but it already has the majority of the requested capabilities built in, so a retrofit seems pointless.  Plus I'd be willing to bet that the retrofit/testing would cost more than an AT-6 straight off the line. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by YoungnDumb

[Majestik Møøse]

Spend 9 figures on developing a T-6 that has capes that many CAF aircraft still lack? Except that it doesn’t actually have a real sensor or drop a real bomb. Sounds about right. While the SPs get worse at basic flying skills because they’re wrapped up in what FIPS 140-1 means.

[Sprkt69]

And how expensive is this 5th gen helmet supposed to be? Or what weapons are they going to simulate? And what happens when the datalink does not work? 

[Lord Ratner]

All this at least indicates that some level of leadership is convinced that there is literally no way to retain currently serving pilots. Therefore very dramatic and very immediate steps are required to replace them. They've gone from thinking there's no problem at all (under reaction) to thinking the problem is so dire it can't be undone (over reaction).

I wonder if any of this will ever be attributed to their unwillingness to properly present the problem to Congress for so many years.