UPT Next

[Khruangbin33]

1 hour ago, hindsight2020 said:

The mobility track piece promises the eventual near-complete divestiture of the T-1 and its manning across UPT locales.

U.S. Air Force's T-1A Jayhawk trainer takes flight with Collins Aerospace avionics

Quote

The USAF’s entire T-1A Jayhawk trainer fleet of 178 aircraft will be upgraded with Pro Line 21 as part of a contract awarded to Field Aerospace...The contract not only includes the aircraft flight deck upgrade, but also the development of 16 operational flight trainers and 14 part-task trainers that match the new avionics configuration.
 

Good thing we're putting in glass cockpits so they can fly one last RNAV into the boneyard with terrain awareness all the way down to mins.

[hindsight2020]

5 minutes ago, wazzuPIC said:

U.S. Air Force's T-1A Jayhawk trainer takes flight with Collins Aerospace avionics

Good thing we're putting in glass cockpits so they can fly one last RNAV into the boneyard with terrain awareness all the way down to mins.

Oh indeed. I'd never take those capex investments as insurance against divestiture. We've done much worse on that front btw (C-27 et al). As far as Uncle Sammy is concerned, he's playing w/ OPMs (other people's money). Remember, Congressional pork and the associated grift is not the bug, but the feature.

[Khruangbin33]

Hey who knows, maybe there are customers out there for surplus 30 year old business jets, beat to shit by stan, with that sweet Alpine system

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, hindsight2020 said:

Oh indeed. I'd never take those capex investments as insurance against divestiture. We've done much worse on that front btw (C-27 et al). As far as Uncle Sammy is concerned, he's playing w/ OPMs (other people's money). Remember, Congressional pork and the associated grift is not the bug, but the feature.

The sooner you realize that the DoD is nothing more than a streamlined, efficient way to spend taxpayer dollars at an astonishing rate, the sooner a lot more military decision making starts to make sense.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

This is only the fighter track piece. The mobility track piece promises the eventual near-complete divestiture of the T-1 and its manning across UPT locales.

As @SurelySerious highlighted, the final blueprint for T-1 and T-38 syllabus in the UPT 2.5 paradigm are yet to be finalized, so this is subject to change, especially post-Corona.

So heavy dudes will have none or almost no advanced trainer time?

 

[jice]

TLDR: kill IFF

Not read up on the plan for UPT 2.5+; assumptions based on the discussion above. 

We’re all treating IFF as a sacred cow.  Let’s be real; it’s an eight week top-off.  A program like that can screen, but it’s not enough time to teach much beyond vocabulary and how to fake it for those who don’t have it. I know, I know... the fighter pilot attitude, aggressiveness, intangibles, Excel spreadsheet bombing! More on that later.

It sounds like we are downloading expectations for basic airmanship to the basic trainer (reasonable) and at pretty much the same time phasing out our T-1 and T-38 fleets as we field the T-7. 
 

What if we killed IFF or, said another way: expanded its scope?
 

All studs who require the T-7 (I think there’s a lot of merit to a single trainer track for some airframes, having not flown them) would start in one squadron, per UPT base, for transition to the new airframe, eventually being selected into a fighter or non-fighter track after two months. 

The non-fighter studs stay in the jet transition squadron and finish a syllabus similar to current phase III. 3 more months. Basic form and nav focused. AETC, AMC, ACC/ISR and AFGSC have equal seats at this unit’s post-track syllabus development table. Syllabus tailored to airframe with multiple off-ramps for each community’s needs. The jet transition squadron is manned primarily with AFGSC/MAF/ISR backgrounds. T-7 FAIPs start here.

The fighter tracked studs finish UPT phase III in what was formerly IFF. Manned by fighter pilots, syllabus written by ACC/CAF and AETC. 6(+) months. Single syllabus to create a what would be a T-7 CMR wingman if the T-7 had real weapons. Begins with advanced formation and progresses to the limit of the T-7, or as deemed appropriate by ACC.

No more trying to fix bad habits from a six month phase III in an eight week course. IFF is no longer screening, they’re building the product. Don’t like the intangibles? You’ve got six months to instill the fighter pilot mentality.  It’s no longer a program that studs are just trying to get through, they actually have to absorb to survive, and contribute to the squadron. There’s room and time for truly valuable events to build confidence and airmanship. An ADAIR TDY to Nellis could be the capstone.

If we’re going to stay ahead of the world, it’s time to rethink the model they copied. And oh yeah, VR and shit. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by jice
Added TLDR

[Bender]

T-6 syllabus should be done with cord mid-May. Lots of contention...lots.

 

T-1 and T-38 tracks (which there still are, as of now), are set to be figured out in the upcoming months.

 

The real intent is to set up students as “universally assignable” after T-6. Which is a bit funny when I watch a T-38 trained FAIP go B-2 while we could send a T-1 grad, but whatever...

 

UPT 2.5 at this point adds sorties to the T-6...for everyone (that’s a GREAT thing). The problem starts when it’s vision depends on “early access” (which is neutered by regulations) to decimate phase 3 training leading to winging students from T-6s. Training identified pilots within AFA/ROTC is mandatory.

 

The current “scuttle butt” for phase 3 is fine on the T-38 side...create a new syllabus that incorporates VR while combining the 38 and IFF syllabus. Fine for bases that have IFF anyways...

 

The situation on the T-1 side, while we seem insistent that the AF is incapable of buying another OTS T-1 is much worse. We give them 737 sims or some shit to train multi-engine stuff, AR, etc. Worse, we think we can do it in the T-6. We (19AF) just DON’T want to put money down here.

 

Myopic. It’s just not a term for in the cockpit looking for traffic. It’s bad right now. We’re going VERY fast, and the outcome is going to be WAY less than ideal.

 

In reality, the fact that these changes are taking root, is a victory for a large number of O-1’s straight through O-5’s that have worked outside their means for years! It has been hijacked and distorted by leadership over and over, but leadership moves on, but the insurgency has continued. It has taken root and is now close to becoming reality.

 

UPT 2.5 is not leadership trying to cut sorties. It is the work of people who know better trying to do what is needed. Thinking of Billy Mitchell is a better analogy. They are still trying to tank it...even at the SQ/CC level. People do not like change.

 

You will hear it’s about pilot production, It’s about making more pilots faster...that is not the point of these people. It’s about making BETTER PILOTS. If they can be made faster, great!

 

If there is anything legitimate to weigh in on, it’s what MDS’s could take a winged pilot out of UPT, and what MDS specific top off a MAF pilot needs in a T-6 or 737 sim to be ready for an FTU. ...or heaven forbid someone come up with an idea that’s better, because the MAF track conceptualized is a straight mess.

 

What are you doing to improve your Air Force? Complain as you like, provide constructive criticism for sure...but, I can promise you this stuff is not borne from the mind of a General (although those people should be Generals one day, but never will be.)

 

Lock up the enemy before you release the weapon,

 

~Bendy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Duck]

T-6 syllabus should be done with cord mid-May. Lots of contention...lots.
 
T-1 and T-38 tracks (which there still are, as of now), are set to be figured out in the upcoming months.
 
The real intent is to set up students as “universally assignable” after T-6. Which is a bit funny when I watch a T-38 trained FAIP go B-2 while we could send a T-1 grad, but whatever...
 
UPT 2.5 at this point adds sorties to the T-6...for everyone (that’s a GREAT thing). The problem starts when it’s vision depends on “early access” (which is neutered by regulations) to decimate phase 3 training leading to winging students from T-6s. Training identified pilots within AFA/ROTC is mandatory.
 
The current “scuttle butt” for phase 3 is fine on the T-38 side...create a new syllabus that incorporates VR while combining the 38 and IFF syllabus. Fine for bases that have IFF anyways...
 
The situation on the T-1 side, while we seem insistent that the AF is incapable of buying another OTS T-1 is much worse. We give them 737 sims or some shit to train multi-engine stuff, AR, etc. Worse, we think we can do it in the T-6. We (19AF) just DON’T want to put money down here.
 
Myopic. It’s just not a term for in the cockpit looking for traffic. It’s bad right now. We’re going VERY fast, and the outcome is going to be WAY less than ideal.
 
In reality, the fact that these changes are taking root, is a victory for a large number of O-1’s straight through O-5’s that have worked outside their means for years! It has been hijacked and distorted by leadership over and over, but leadership moves on, but the insurgency has continued. It has taken root and is now close to becoming reality.
 
UPT 2.5 is not leadership trying to cut sorties. It is the work of people who know better trying to do what is needed. Thinking of Billy Mitchell is a better analogy. They are still trying to tank it...even at the SQ/CC level. People do not like change.
 
You will hear it’s about pilot production, It’s about making more pilots faster...that is not the point of these people. It’s about making BETTER PILOTS. If they can be made faster, great!
 
If there is anything legitimate to weigh in on, it’s what MDS’s could take a winged pilot out of UPT, and what MDS specific top off a MAF pilot needs in a T-6 or 737 sim to be ready for an FTU. ...or heaven forbid someone come up with an idea that’s better, because the MAF track conceptualized is a straight mess.
 
What are you doing to improve your Air Force? Complain as you like, provide constructive criticism for sure...but, I can promise you this stuff is not borne from the mind of a General (although those people should be Generals one day, but never will be.)
 
Lock up the enemy before you release the weapon,
 
~Bendy
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Very interesting Bendy. I am excited to see the final results!


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[JBueno]

23 hours ago, dream big said:

Haha, not a big fan of SKE, it is merely a tactic that we focus too much on.  But I have to roll my eyes anytime a cocky young AC tells me “oh we will never have to do x, y, z.”  Then I ask them what are the odds that the Buffs or B2s have to execute their nuclear mission? Does that mean they don’t train to it hard and seriously? As to your example, there is historical precedent for a JFE.  Twice they were recalled but it is definitely an arrow in the NCAs quiver so let’s not suck at it?

I . . . kinda . . . see your point, but I would not equate the importance of SKE with the importance of the nuclear arsenal. 

Also, we train (some of) it to a half-baked standard, so the skills we are good at are localisms. That's why guys don't buy into it. Not saying we shouldn't be able to drop two ship IMC, but flying 5 hours in a 30 ship SKE route? That's like marching into battle with a fife drum. 

 

Edited April 30, 2020 by JBueno

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, Bender said:

The situation on the T-1 side, while we seem insistent that the AF is incapable of buying another OTS T-1 is much worse. We give them 737 sims or some shit to train multi-engine stuff, AR, etc. Worse, we think we can do it in the T-6. We (19AF) just DON’T want to put money down here.

How the hell does this get past GOs with a Mobility / Big Wing ISR or C2 background who went thru the T-1?  Is there not any fight in these dudes to say hell no, we have a huge appropriation 120.69 billion or so, we can afford a heavy trainer and will get a replacement for the Toner, full stop.

Now that heavy advanced trainer program could be different than the traditional model I grant you, consolidated to 1 or 2 bases, flown by AF IPs in COGO aircraft for instance or vice versa for shits and giggles but still something, don't just roll over take it.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

How the hell does this get past GOs with a Mobility / Big Wing ISR or C2 background who went thru the T-1?  Is there not any fight in these dudes to say hell no, we have a huge appropriation 120.69 billion or so, we can afford a heavy trainer and will get a replacement for the Toner, full stop.

Now that heavy advanced trainer program could be different than the traditional model I grant you, consolidated to 1 or 2 bases, flown by AF IPs in COGO aircraft for instance or vice versa for shits and giggles but still something, don't just roll over take it.

Well I can tell you C2ISR probably doesn't give a shit. Most of their GOs are going to be EWOs or ABMs so they really care less about aircraft pilot production. My expereince in C2ISR was that we mainly subscribe to the MAF on best practices and common/similar type air frames.

[jice]

Honest question: What did you learn in the T-1 that can’t be taught in a sim or extended T-6 syllabus?

[LookieRookie]

14 hours ago, Bender said:

T-6 syllabus should be done with cord mid-May. Lots of contention...lots.

 

T-1 and T-38 tracks (which there still are, as of now), are set to be figured out in the upcoming months.

 

The real intent is to set up students as “universally assignable” after T-6. Which is a bit funny when I watch a T-38 trained FAIP go B-2 while we could send a T-1 grad, but whatever...

 

UPT 2.5 at this point adds sorties to the T-6...for everyone (that’s a GREAT thing). The problem starts when it’s vision depends on “early access” (which is neutered by regulations) to decimate phase 3 training leading to winging students from T-6s. Training identified pilots within AFA/ROTC is mandatory.

 

The current “scuttle butt” for phase 3 is fine on the T-38 side...create a new syllabus that incorporates VR while combining the 38 and IFF syllabus. Fine for bases that have IFF anyways...

 

The situation on the T-1 side, while we seem insistent that the AF is incapable of buying another OTS T-1 is much worse. We give them 737 sims or some shit to train multi-engine stuff, AR, etc. Worse, we think we can do it in the T-6. We (19AF) just DON’T want to put money down here.

 

Myopic. It’s just not a term for in the cockpit looking for traffic. It’s bad right now. We’re going VERY fast, and the outcome is going to be WAY less than ideal.

 

In reality, the fact that these changes are taking root, is a victory for a large number of O-1’s straight through O-5’s that have worked outside their means for years! It has been hijacked and distorted by leadership over and over, but leadership moves on, but the insurgency has continued. It has taken root and is now close to becoming reality.

 

UPT 2.5 is not leadership trying to cut sorties. It is the work of people who know better trying to do what is needed. Thinking of Billy Mitchell is a better analogy. They are still trying to tank it...even at the SQ/CC level. People do not like change.

 

You will hear it’s about pilot production, It’s about making more pilots faster...that is not the point of these people. It’s about making BETTER PILOTS. If they can be made faster, great!

 

If there is anything legitimate to weigh in on, it’s what MDS’s could take a winged pilot out of UPT, and what MDS specific top off a MAF pilot needs in a T-6 or 737 sim to be ready for an FTU. ...or heaven forbid someone come up with an idea that’s better, because the MAF track conceptualized is a straight mess.

 

What are you doing to improve your Air Force? Complain as you like, provide constructive criticism for sure...but, I can promise you this stuff is not borne from the mind of a General (although those people should be Generals one day, but never will be.)

 

Lock up the enemy before you release the weapon,

 

~Bendy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You think it will be 737 sims? Hah, I think the AMP’d T-1 sim COA is more likely.

 

And to the person that said IFF should go away, it is. What remains to be seen is what the new APT fighter track construct is.

[LookieRookie]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

How the hell does this get past GOs with a Mobility / Big Wing ISR or C2 background who went thru the T-1?  Is there not any fight in these dudes to say hell no, we have a huge appropriation 120.69 billion or so, we can afford a heavy trainer and will get a replacement for the Toner, full stop.

Now that heavy advanced trainer program could be different than the traditional model I grant you, consolidated to 1 or 2 bases, flown by AF IPs in COGO aircraft for instance or vice versa for shits and giggles but still something, don't just roll over take it.

The T-1 only was brought online to extend the life of the T-38. It had nothing to do with making a better MAF product 

[LookieRookie]

54 minutes ago, jice said:

Honest question: What did you learn in the T-1 that can’t be taught in a sim or extended T-6 syllabus?

Funnily enough, AMF (Air Mobility Fundamentals) tracked studs for UPT 2.5 ( as of the latest draft) get more sorties after track focused on Crew Coord, mobility stuff. 
 

They also may never fly a T-1 but that’s another fight.

[HuggyU2]

4 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

The T-1 only was brought online to extend the life of the T-38. It had nothing to do with making a better MAF product 

What was justification to create the T-1 almost 30 years ago is somewhat irrelevant. 

What can it do for the USAF now?

Separate subject:   I'll bet the USAF could pick up some narrow body airliners parked in KROW for way less than the cost of other T-1 replacements.  

Edited April 30, 2020 by HuggyU2

[LookieRookie]

1 minute ago, HuggyU2 said:

What was justification to create the T-1 almost 30 years ago is somewhat irrelevant. 

What can it do for the USAF now?

It’s one of the justifications being used to not replace it now.

 

I don’t see the USAF with the appetite for a T-Z trainer.

 

especially, when ACC is trying to lease T-50s through Hillwood for their ReForge experiment.

And Hillwood/Alliance wants UPT at AFW.

[LookieRookie]

More spam!

buy some 737 Maxes and name them the T-43B

 

 

[jazzdude]

I think one engine inoperative approaches in the (trainer) aircraft are valuable. Doesn't need to be lengthy, but I think it would be value added training prior to getting to an FTU. Something similar in length say to a commercial multi engine add-on (intro to multi, considerations/factors like Vmc, EP training). Could be a top off post winging if doing an extended T-6 syllabus.

At least in the C-17, we can't practice OEI stuff in the jet, sim only.

[jazzdude]

 

 

 

What was justification to create the T-1 almost 30 years ago is somewhat irrelevant. 

What can it do for the USAF now?

Separate subject:   I'll bet the USAF could pick up some narrow body airliners parked in KROW for way less than the cost of other T-1 replacements.  

 

Or those sweet C-27s at the boneyard

 

[LookieRookie]

2 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

 

 

 

Or those sweet C-27s at the boneyard

 

Those were given away to other USG agencies from what I saw

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, jice said:

Honest question: What did you learn in the T-1 that can’t be taught in a sim or extended T-6 syllabus?

Well for one, the T-6 is not a multiengine aircraft. So you would need to move multiengine fundamentals to every heavy FTU. 

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, jice said:

Honest question: What did you learn in the T-1 that can’t be taught in a sim or extended T-6 syllabus?

How to tell the other pilot to get ATIS. 

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, FLEA said:

Well I can tell you C2ISR probably doesn't give a shit. Most of their GOs are going to be EWOs or ABMs so they really care less about aircraft pilot production. My expereince in C2ISR was that we mainly subscribe to the MAF on best practices and common/similar type air frames.

Copy that with resignation....

4 hours ago, jice said:

Honest question: What did you learn in the T-1 that can’t be taught in a sim or extended T-6 syllabus?

CRM, Mobility Mission Fundamentals, Experience in managing a crew, executing a mission, flying a more complicated jet, Multi Engine non-centerline experience and just more flight time,  etc.. there is a certain amount required to be safe, effective and ready to fly the big iron. 

This topic in other threads has come up (deleting most or all of Heavy track Advanced Trainer Phase III in SUPT) and there is a reason why (written in blood unfortunately) that the FAA and other Aviation Authorities around the world require a certain amount of time to hold certain certificates to exercise privileges, you can't just get a few hours or even 100's in a good high performance ASEL and then with minimal training go to a Transport Category AMEL and be truly safe and ready to learn to fly those aircraft. The experience acquired in the T-6 is good but not the same as acquired in the T-1. 

You need experience in a jet modified to simulate somewhat the maneuver performance of a large jet, has most of the systems (albeit at a smaller scale and lower complexity) of a big jet and time with a simulated Co-piglet IP running checklists, keeping track of all the parameters of your mission as an AC (timing, fuel, WX, objectives, ORM, etc..) and synthesizing all that simultaneously, continuously to get the mission done well.

There's no IFF for heavy dudes but just my two cents the Mission Fam phase of my T-1 time was valuable to introduce us to AR, Heavy Formation, Basics of Low Level with simulated Aerial Delivery, etc...call it our IFF and if yours truly were empowered I would expand it for NVGs, Short and Unprepared Field, Dry contact AR, simulated Mobility Multi-Ship Missions and the planning required for it, etc...

This would mean you believe the purpose of SUPT is to produce quality, strong aviators and AF officers prepared to begin careers executing and learning to lead the Line of the Air Force and your acceptance that this will take time, money and patience. 

Not holding my breath for this based on what this thread is teaching me about the forthcoming plans for SUPT... 

3 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

The T-1 only was brought online to extend the life of the T-38. It had nothing to do with making a better MAF product 

I'll accept that but it still doesn't change my belief that the MAF deserves a quality product.  If AETC wants to deliver that product thru the T-7 and and going back to UPT I'm fine with that or if they want to keep SUPT and refurbish the Tones to squeeze more life out of them or get another jet, I'm fine with that.  What I am not ok with and what I believe every Heavy Aviator who gives a shit should be mad as hell about is the apparent attitude rearing it's fugly head that our jobs are so un-challenging compared to fighters that we don't need a robust and established Advanced Trainer Program following Phase II.  

To hell with that and any GD bean counter and his evil minions trying to screw Heavy track students.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Homestar said:

How to tell the other pilot to get ATIS. 

I just tell your mom to get it for me