UPT Next

[hindsight2020]

With the other two contenders of consequence both being COTS. That's the real criminality here.

I pretty much threw out my T-7 swag already. With a first retirement eligible date of mid-late 2020s, I'm settled in the fact I'm gonna retire in my grandfather's ol timey ride. That is if it doesn't kill me first, or cost me a second divorce. The weef already got smart on the airline "trade", she's now on the  "100% you're just taking a gratuitous risk now" camp.

Jest aside, it's not hyperbole when I say I have more than one former co-worker who lateral'd back to the T-6 or went back to a heavy, citing these concerns. Though I never had any interest in the 121 thing, it does not escape me that the income vs bodily risk ratio went lopsided a while ago for me as a multi-thousand hour in type grey beard in this enterprise. The consideration does weigh on me at times.

What I'm also confident on, is had we gone T-50 or T-100, we'd have tails on ramp last summer. It was the height of malfeasance what Boeing did with that shtick of unserious underbidding. Not so much that they threw the number, but that the AF entertained it with a straight face. 

I still carry the memory of Stuck with me. Human factors notwithstanding, he didn't have to die that day. These are losses squarely in the camp of the right side of the MTBF curve, aka the bathtub model. To say nothing of the fact we've exceeded Northrop's projected airframe life by thousands of hours and multiple decades, pacer classic potato or not. It doesn't have to be this way.

And as much as it pains me to say this, there will be more losses stemming from  *aging-structures (*term in engineering grad school for this issue) related failures, mark my words. Acceptable as it may be to HAF, it needs to be said anyways. Because for those of us who are in the community, nothing could be more personal, AVF platitudes be damned. Boeing has blood on their hands as far as I'm concerned.

Everybody stay safe out there.

 

[Pooter]

33 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

With the other two contenders of consequence both being COTS. That's the real criminality here.

I pretty much threw out my T-7 swag already. With a first retirement eligible date of mid-late 2020s, I'm settled in the fact I'm gonna retire in my grandfather's ol timey ride. That is if it doesn't kill me first, or cost me a second divorce. The weef already got smart on the airline "trade", she's now on the  "100% you're just taking a gratuitous risk now" camp.

Jest aside, it's not hyperbole when I say I have more than one former co-worker who lateral'd back to the T-6 or went back to a heavy, citing these concerns. Though I never had any interest in the 121 thing, it does not escape me that the income vs bodily risk ratio went lopsided a while ago for me as a multi-thousand hour in type grey beard in this enterprise. The consideration does weigh on me at times.

What I'm also confident on, is had we gone T-50 or T-100, we'd have tails on ramp last summer. It was the height of malfeasance what Boeing did with that shtick of unserious underbidding. Not so much that they threw the number, but that the AF entertained it with a straight face. 

I still carry the memory of Stuck with me. Human factors notwithstanding, he didn't have to die that day. These are losses squarely in the camp of the right side of the MTBF curve, aka the bathtub model. To say nothing of the fact we've exceeded Northrop's projected airframe life by thousands of hours and multiple decades, pacer classic potato or not. It doesn't have to be this way.

And as much as it pains me to say this, there will be more losses stemming from  *aging-structures (*term in engineering grad school for this issue) related failures, mark my words. Acceptable as it may be to HAF, it needs to be said anyways. Because for those of us who are in the community, nothing could be more personal, AVF platitudes be damned. Boeing has blood on their hands as far as I'm concerned.

Everybody stay safe out there.

 

Carry the memory Stuck and Trojan with me as well.  The 38 is well past it's shelf life and I would do anything in my power to avoid flying that death trap. Up to and including answering a few choice PHAQ questions honestly for the first time ever. 

[Boomer6]

Copy Boeing (all aero companies) sucks, but they have blood on their hands? There’s hyperbole and then there’s that statement. If you want to blame someone then blame the bureaucracy of DoD procurement, incompetent contracting/staff officers, or how about AETC in general.

We’ve been doing formation Appr/LDGs in the T-38 (one of the most dangerous jets to land in the inventory) for many years past it being a requirement in CAF B-courses. Once we lost two guys it finally got taken out of the syllabus. Where were senior IPs in AETC with CAF experience saying we shouldn’t be doing this. Where were B course CC’s saying we don’t need the kids to know that because we don’t maintain it as a currency?
 

It’s kind of like flying a LL out of RND. How many times do we need to take a bird in one of the worst Turkey Vulture areas in the US at 500 ft and 400 KCAS before we decide the LL can be effectively taught at 1000 AGL. Or how long will RND continue to call Birds low when every other USAF base in the world would be calling birds MOD if not bird Severe. The AF does a lot of stupid shit, especially in AETC. I don’t see anyone campaigning at 19th AF to make meaningful changes. Checks in the mail on DET 24…

[Bigred]

1 hour ago, hindsight2020 said:

With the other two contenders of consequence both being COTS. That's the real criminality here.

I pretty much threw out my T-7 swag already. With a first retirement eligible date of mid-late 2020s, I'm settled in the fact I'm gonna retire in my grandfather's ol timey ride. That is if it doesn't kill me first, or cost me a second divorce. The weef already got smart on the airline "trade", she's now on the  "100% you're just taking a gratuitous risk now" camp.

Jest aside, it's not hyperbole when I say I have more than one former co-worker who lateral'd back to the T-6 or went back to a heavy, citing these concerns. Though I never had any interest in the 121 thing, it does not escape me that the income vs bodily risk ratio went lopsided a while ago for me as a multi-thousand hour in type grey beard in this enterprise. The consideration does weigh on me at times.

What I'm also confident on, is had we gone T-50 or T-100, we'd have tails on ramp last summer. It was the height of malfeasance what Boeing did with that shtick of unserious underbidding. Not so much that they threw the number, but that the AF entertained it with a straight face. 

I still carry the memory of Stuck with me. Human factors notwithstanding, he didn't have to die that day. These are losses squarely in the camp of the right side of the MTBF curve, aka the bathtub model. To say nothing of the fact we've exceeded Northrop's projected airframe life by thousands of hours and multiple decades, pacer classic potato or not. It doesn't have to be this way.

And as much as it pains me to say this, there will be more losses stemming from  *aging-structures (*term in engineering grad school for this issue) related failures, mark my words. Acceptable as it may be to HAF, it needs to be said anyways. Because for those of us who are in the community, nothing could be more personal, AVF platitudes be damned. Boeing has blood on their hands as far as I'm concerned.

Everybody stay safe out there.

 

I’ve yet to see wings fall off or engines explode. The jet isn’t difficult to fly if you respect the airspeed and op limits. 

Look at any dynamic aircraft over the last 50 years and you’ll see a bunch of mishaps, and the majority of those are attributable to pilot error. Structural issues, if found to be contributing, are remedied. 
 

I’ve only been flying the -38 for a year, but what am I missing here? 

[Boomer6]

If your goal is to teach SPs the skills they need to fly a modern fighter then the T-38 isn’t it, and hasn’t been for 40+ years. When we were flying super sabres and Thuds it was great. When you waste a third of your phase 3 teaching an SP how to land you’re wasting everyone’s time/money/brain bytes.  How long did it take you to learn to land effectively in B course? 2-3 rides (assuming 11F). 
 

Define structure issues being “remedied.”Without getting into CUI think about the areas you needed to inspect on the jet specifically for structural integrity issues. Or how about the go cart wheels/brakes/the new brakes.. 

Pilot error is easy for an AIB to attribute when you’re flying a thrust deficient A/C that’s within an RCH of the backside of the power curve in every critical phase of flight.  When not only the SP but the jet is constantly trying to kill you, the learning suffers.

[hindsight2020]

3 hours ago, Bigred said:

I’ve yet to see wings fall off 
 

I’ve only been flying the -38 for a year, but what am I missing here? 

Quite a bit apparently. Suggest you do your yearly FCIF review in earnest. Because that 4.4G under 5k limitation has quite a bit to do about wings falling off than you appear to be aware of.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by hindsight2020

[Pooter]

2 hours ago, Bigred said:

I’ve yet to see wings fall off or engines explode. The jet isn’t difficult to fly if you respect the airspeed and op limits. 

Look at any dynamic aircraft over the last 50 years and you’ll see a bunch of mishaps, and the majority of those are attributable to pilot error. Structural issues, if found to be contributing, are remedied. 
 

I’ve only been flying the -38 for a year, but what am I missing here? 

To name a few:

-The relatively common occurrences of airframe mounted gearbox failure

-wings de-laminating

-extreme susceptibility of the engines to birdstrikes

-century series fighter era TOLD on runways that are irresponsibly short

-low altitude compressor stalls which PMP was supposed to fix

[Vito]

 Some of this thread remind me of my Tweet IP’s in 1986 who were looking forward to flying the brand new Fairchild T-46 in a year or two (?). I retired from the AF in 2014. In 2003 the AF announced the T-46/767 tanker. My Goal was to get a plug on the new 767 Tanker before I retired (11 years in the future) it never happened, Procurement takes forever. 
The T-46, Tweet replacement that never happened

Edited May 25, 2023 by Vito

[Mighty]

10 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

Quite a bit apparently. Suggest you do your yearly FCIF review in earnest. Because that 4.4G under 5k limitation has quite a bit to do about wings falling off than you appear to be aware of.

 

 

Beat me to it lol

[Pooter]

 

44 minutes ago, Vito said:

 Some of this thread remind me of my Tweet IP’s in 1986 who were looking forward to flying the brand new Fairchild T-46 in a year or two (?). I retired from the AF in 2014. In 2003 the AF announced the T-46/767 tanker. My Goal was to get a plug on the new 767 Tanker before I retired (11 years in the future) it never happened, Procurement takes forever. 
The T-46, Tweet replacement that never happened

We haven't had an aircraft acquisition this century that hasn't been an unmitigated disaster. Huge cuts to the F-22 production run, endless delays and capability problems with the 46, they're prematurely gutted the F-35 order and it was plagued with problems.  B-21 first flight is a year late already (don't worry though we rolled it out of a hangar for 30 seconds!) We desperately need a new BVR AAM and hypersonics but the best we can do are embarrassing flight test fails with ARRW on the buffs resulting in program abandonment.  And the T-7 which is supposed to be the simplest of these is somehow the biggest poop show of the lot.
 

https://theaviationist.com/2023/05/22/what-we-know-so-far-about-the-u-s-air-forces-next-generation-air-dominance-platform/amp/
 

And now the Air Force is saying NGAD will start replacing raptors by the end of the decade. I couldn't write a funnier joke if I tried. 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Pooter

[Biff_T]

17 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

Nothing like a rolling ETIC… from the factory!

https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2023/05/tardy-training-jet-reveals-limits-digital-design-air-force-says/386687/

 

 

Thats a real shocker lol

[Bigred]

14 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

Quite a bit apparently. Suggest you do your yearly FCIF review in earnest. Because that 4.4G under 5k limitation has quite a bit to do about wings falling off than you appear to be aware of.

 

 

I’m aware of that FCIF and it’s sort of my point, that G limit is now an ops limit. 
 

I’m not arguing that the -38 is perfect for upt, I fully agree that a new trainer is warranted. I just don’t see the thing as a flying death trap.

 

Unforgiving? Absolutely. Dangerous? Far from it.  

[artvandelay43201]

4 hours ago, Bigred said:

I’m aware of that FCIF and it’s sort of my point, that G limit is now an ops limit. 
 

I’m not arguing that the -38 is perfect for upt, I fully agree that a new trainer is warranted. I just don’t see the thing as a flying death trap.

 

Unforgiving? Absolutely. Dangerous? Far from it.  

How will the talon drivers be able to talk about kissing the edge of death every time they strap in then?

[Biff_T]

12 minutes ago, artvandelay43201 said:

How will the talon drivers be able to talk about kissing the edge of death every time they strap in then?

Im pretry sure the fat chicks at Scooters/Crappys won't care what they're flying.  Lol

[HuggyU2]

On 5/24/2023 at 4:01 PM, Boomer6 said:

... but the jet is constantly trying to kill you, the learning suffers.

I simply do not understand this statement.  Constantly trying to kill me?

While the T-38 is long overdue on being replaced, I will jump in one every chance I get.  Formation, LL,... whatever.  

A wing hasn't "fallen off" since 1983 or 1984 (at Columbus).  Yes, we've lost wing tips where the Jo-bolts connect them to the wing... but everyone I know of landed fine.  

The jet's getting long in the tooth, and that needs to be taken into account. But calling it a "death trap"?  Really?

As for formation landings, we will agree to disagree.  In 60 years of operating the T-38, that was the only formation landing fatality.  Hardly a trend worthy of knee jerk.  What next?  Get rid of 3G/90 deg wingwork?  Or 4G/120 deg close trail?  How about formation approaches?  We showed THAT could end up as a fatality too.  Let's just make everything a single-ship straight-in.  

Edited May 26, 2023 by HuggyU2

[WheelsOff]

On 5/24/2023 at 9:29 PM, Bigred said:

I’ve yet to see wings fall off or engines explode.

A few years back at CBM we had a wingtip just outboard of the aileron snap off during a 2-ship G-warmup turn…jet rolled uncontrollably for a moment until the IP recovered it. (Not a wing falling off completely, I know).

Also had a FAIP and his student hit a vulture going up initial that caused an engine fire, completely scorched the bottom of the jet. Had they not immediately put it down they would have had to punch out at the rate that fire was consuming the back end of the aircraft (much like the IP who punched out after the birdstrike/ensuing fire that burned thru the hydraulics/flight controls on that 2-ship LL at Vance a few years ago). 

A lot more happened within the couple years I was there, to include some fatalities/very-near fatalities. I loved every minute of flying that airplane, but yeah, it’s time to see that thing gracefully retire. Sad that the AF procurement system can’t stop F’ing the football like a group of monkeys…

Edited May 26, 2023 by WheelsOff

[Boomer6]

50 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:While the T-38 is long overdue on being replaced, I will jump in one every chance I get.  Formation, LL,... whatever.  

A wing hasn't "fallen off" since 1983 or 1984 (at Columbus).  Yes, we've lost wing tips where they Jo-bolts connect them to the wing, but everyone I know of landed fine.  

The jet's getting long in the tooth, and that needs to be taken into account. But calling it a "death trap"?  Really?

As for formation landings, we will agree to disagree.  In 60 years of operating the     T-38, that was the only formation landing fatality.  Hardly a trend worthy of knee jerk.  What next?  Get rid of 3G/90 deg wingwork?  Or 4G/120 deg close trail?  How about formation approaches?  We showed THAT could end up as a fatality too.  Let's just make everything a single-ship straight-in.  

I don’t consider wings not consistently falling off as the delineation between a good training platform and a deficient one.

The jet finding new ways to break, to include wing tips falling off, is a key attribute of the T-38 being “long in the tooth.” When I say the jet is constantly trying to kill you I’m referencing the age of the airframe, it’s thrust deficiency during critical phases of flight, the engines that still continue to compressor stall low altitude, and the unforgiving nature during T/O and LDG. No problem if we disagree here.

Do we need trends of fatalities before we as a flying community stop doing things that increase risk with no positive increase in capability? I’m not risk averse in the slightest, but the juice needs to be worth the squeeze. If you think the cost in time and energy to teach/learn form LDGs during UPT improves the product delivered to the CAF and is worth the risk, then I and the rest of the CAF B-course IPs I’ve discussed this with disagree. I’d rather have a kid that doesn’t need to be taught how to fly tactical.

Since you mention it yeah, I think we waste an inordinate amount of time teaching kids how to fly 90deg wing work. I’d rather we spent time introducing spatial-D scenarios in formation and teaching them how to fight through it.

 

[brabus]

First I-check post FTU, I shit you not for the “formation” requirement the FE put me in close and did 90* wing work, unbriefed and not executed in several years. It was fine, but how retarded. First and last time I’ve ever seen or heard of that happening in the fighter community. Maybe there’s some confidence-building utility in it during UPT, but seems like we did WAY too much of it.

[viperdriver1313]

Who is flying 90 degrees IMC on the wing? Let’s keep it 45 or less and move on. Also, fat amy sucks flying in close formation so I try to avoid it other than flying up initial like most everyone else. 

 

[brabus]

It’s not the plane, it’s us…but I DGAF, I shouldn’t see you from takeoff until RJ to tactical on RTB!

[Magnum]

10 hours ago, viperdriver1313 said:

Also, fat amy sucks.

 

Appropriate on so many levels.

[HuggyU2]

On 5/25/2023 at 8:34 PM, Boomer6 said:

... the engines that still continue to compressor stall low altitude...

...the unforgiving nature during T/O and LDG.

If you think the cost in time and energy to teach/learn form LDGs during UPT ...

The PMP engine "upgrade" was a self-inflicted wound by the AF.  They spent millions to marginally improve TOLD, only to give y'all an engine that isn't as reliable, and a get that flies an ASD of about .1 shorter than the A-model.  Millions... and probably over a billion... of dollars (along with more millions wasted on the new ejection seat) that could have been utilized by an Air Force to accelerate their procurement of an advanced trainer.  They've poured good money after bad rather than do what needed to be done by 2010.  The Video Data Transfer System (and new speed brake position indicator) was over $50,000,000 just by itself.  Are you shitting me?  At least they are "celebrating" their accomplishment.

https://www.jbsa.mil/News/News/Article/1065812/program-office-celebrates-t-38c-mod-completion/

 

Unforgiving in the T/O and LDG phase?  Haha.  Have you read the approach/landing accident reports from the CAF over the last few years?  

 

You're the CAF.  If you don't want the UPT folks teaching it, then as "the customer", your demand to KIO this syllabus event is valid and I'm glad you got your way.  However, did formation landings magically become useless to the CAF at the exact same time as the first formation landing fatality?  Or was CAF leadership allowing the UPT syllabus to waste millions of dollars and hours that would have been useful elsewhere?  This whole evolution points to a continued lack of focus on the real issues by so many that were "in charge".  I know this shocks many of you.  

And while formation landings may be unnecessary for the pointy-nosed types, don't conflate banning them as a safety issue.  For those of us outside of the UPT and fighter environment that find formation landings useful, we didn't appreciate ACC / USAF killing them for everyone.  Not everything revolves around what is done in the F-35.  

 

I love the T-38.  It was and is an amazing aircraft.  But it should have been replaced by now.  There are second-rate air forces flying with a better advanced trainer than we have.  And that's embarrassing.  

Edited May 27, 2023 by HuggyU2

[Boomer6]

I’ve read some of the reports and talked to a few of the pilots involved in them. Not sure what you’re getting at in relation to those occurrences and the T-38 being unforgiving in similar flight regimes.

From what I could see AETC didn’t really start to care what the CAF said until there was both a mass exodus of 11Fs and they started re-writing the entire UPT syllabus. Once the ACTF was created and they opened the FB page, large numbers of IPs started chucking spears at AETC. The bobs, not liking getting called out in public, decided to at least make a show of getting buy in from the CAF by requesting inputs on the syllabus. That timeline just happened to be coincident with losing the guys at Vance. That’s at least what I could gather from the cheap seats.

Agreed other bases shouldn’t be prohibited from practicing form LDGs just because ACC/AETC decided not to do them anymore.

[Mighty]

Are UPT students still being taught form approaches? Haven't followed up since the XL mishap. Copy they’re not being taught form landings. 

[di1630]

The PMP engine "upgrade" was a self-inflicted wound by the AF.  They spent millions to marginally improve TOLD, only to give y'all an engine that isn't as reliable, and a get that flies an ASD of about .1 shorter than the A-model.  Millions... and probably over a billion... of dollars (along with more millions wasted on the new ejection seat) that could have been utilized by an Air Force to accelerate their procurement of an advanced trainer.  They've poured good money after bad rather than do what needed to be done by 2010.  The Video Data Transfer System (and new speed brake position indicator) was over $50,000,000 just by itself.  Are you shitting me?  At least they are "celebrating" their accomplishment.
https://www.jbsa.mil/News/News/Article/1065812/program-office-celebrates-t-38c-mod-completion/

And while formation landings may be unnecessary for the pointy-nosed types, don't conflate banning them as a safety issue.  For those of us outside of the UPT and fighter environment that find formation landings useful, we didn't appreciate ACC / USAF killing them for everyone. 

Forgive me Huggy but should we keep teaching form landings for B-2/U-2 companion trainers or were you getting at something else?

For the record I have 1200+ hrs in the T-38 and form landings never scared me but in 4,000+ hours spread over 4 airframes, it was never once necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app