Degradation of SUPT

[Bob Uecker]

Just now, LookieRookie said:

Interesting. The first class won’t be till the summer.

Yep, I PCS at the end of May with like 5 other dudes also on here. Supposed to be ~30 students last I heard.

[di1630]

What skills are missing with the grads going to heavies that AMC is complaining about?

I’m amazed most deficiencies can’t be fixed via sims.

And I’m of the opinion that changes need to happen across the board. We can prep guys on the fighter side much better for the realities of being a 2019 fighter pilot if we let go of some legacy thinking.



Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

21 minutes ago, di1630 said:

What skills are missing with the grads going to heavies that AMC is complaining about?

I’m amazed most deficiencies can’t be fixed via sims.

And I’m of the opinion that changes need to happen across the board. We can prep guys on the fighter side much better for the realities of being a 2019 fighter pilot if we let go of some legacy thinking.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Not AMC staff but perhaps they mean the filtering effect of old SUPT as opposed to Common Core SUPT

Curious, - what legacy thinking in regards to training fighter pilots do you mean?

Edited December 7, 2019 by Clark Griswold

[hindsight2020]

1 hour ago, di1630 said:

 We can prep guys on the fighter side much better for the realities of being a 2019 fighter pilot if we let go of some legacy thinking.
 

Could you expand on this?

[Majestik Møøse]

On 12/5/2019 at 4:35 PM, LookieRookie said:

Dont have one, the Bobs are still debating over what it will be.

Referring to the dudes that are actively trying to rework your syllabus as “Bobs” is a little disparaging.

[YoungnDumb]

How are they doing UPT at KRND?  Did they stand up another squadron or are the PIT guys helping out?

[di1630]

Could you expand on this?

Sure, as of recently, the T-38 track was designed to produce the standard legacy wingman in attitude and aptitude. Tons of tac form, how to take direction as 2 some blatantly outdated things like a bunch of formation landings. The avg standard was based on setting the foundation for a basic F-16/F-15C wingman.

 

We need to shift our training on the fighter side towards the “cough” 5th gen wingman mentality.

 

Unfortunately the T-38 really can’t do a lot to prepare kids to fly jets like the F-35. I’d say airmanship, the basics of handling/tac form, form approaches are valid but there’s no reason to spend 20 flights focusing on tac turns.

 

UPT next has shown that we can put the “right” people in fighters with a fraction of the training vs legacy UPT and they can excel.

 

Of course kids going to legacy fighters might need some prep but those skills can be focused on in IFF tracks and polished in the B-course.

 

I say cut the syllabus, place more focus on specialization during IFF to meet the needs of VASTLY different skill sets required in the spectrum of current fighter aircraft inventory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Duck]

Sure, as of recently, the T-38 track was designed to produce the standard legacy wingman in attitude and aptitude. Tons of tac form, how to take direction as 2 some blatantly outdated things like a bunch of formation landings. The avg standard was based on setting the foundation for a basic F-16/F-15C wingman.
 
We need to shift our training on the fighter side towards the “cough” 5th gen wingman mentality.
 
Unfortunately the T-38 really can’t do a lot to prepare kids to fly jets like the F-35. I’d say airmanship, the basics of handling/tac form, form approaches are valid but there’s no reason to spend 20 flights focusing on tac turns.
 
UPT next has shown that we can put the “right” people in fighters with a fraction of the training vs legacy UPT and they can excel.
 
Of course kids going to legacy fighters might need some prep but those skills can be focused on in IFF tracks and polished in the B-course.
 
I say cut the syllabus, place more focus on specialization during IFF to meet the needs of VASTLY different skill sets required in the spectrum of current fighter aircraft inventory.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Honest question, because I got out of the UPT IP world about the time they were selecting the initial cadre, but has UPT Next been that much of a resounding success?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[hindsight2020]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Sure, as of recently, the T-38 track was designed to produce the standard legacy wingman in attitude and aptitude. Tons of tac form, how to take direction as 2 some blatantly outdated things like a bunch of formation landings. The avg standard was based on setting the foundation for a basic F-16/F-15C wingman.

 

We need to shift our training on the fighter side towards the “cough” 5th gen wingman mentality.

 

Unfortunately the T-38 really can’t do a lot to prepare kids to fly jets like the F-35. I’d say airmanship, the basics of handling/tac form, form approaches are valid but there’s no reason to spend 20 flights focusing on tac turns.

 

UPT next has shown that we can put the “right” people in fighters with a fraction of the training vs legacy UPT and they can excel.

 

Of course kids going to legacy fighters might need some prep but those skills can be focused on in IFF tracks and polished in the B-course.

 

I say cut the syllabus, place more focus on specialization during IFF to meet the needs of VASTLY different skill sets required in the spectrum of current fighter aircraft inventory.

 

Our feedback from IFF is the exact opposite wrt the cut in hours. Now, in fairness to your point, IFF is teaching to the classic wingman philosophy, and I concur with your assessment that a movement towards the "multiple flights of one" of the "5th gen" paradigm would yield some efficiencies in cutting some MIF items.

My only objection to your assessment of the T-38 program, is that I think you dismiss the degree to which the dexterity required to fly formation to a 4th gen standard in an incredibly manual and underpowered airplane like the T-38, does lead to more well-rounded baseline product, and safer 5th gen wingman by proxy. Yes, it is also more expensive, but I thought we were the world leader in tactical proficiency...we certainly have the defense budget for it  no? (don't answer that, I'm being rhetorical).

 My read of your argument is one similar to what the airlines are making these days with the MPL approach to training. E.G. "The airplanes are so automated, we can lean on that automation to mask the significant lack of pilot comprehensive dexterity we're willing to eat in order to cut training length. These guys are to be system/sensor monitoring experts." I'm not particularly persuaded by that argument.

As to the macro philosophical point on 5th gen nuances, I'm with ya by all means. My objections to your assessment of UPT Next efficiencies are not to be taken as a Luddite argument at all. I agree with you that the syllabus should incorporate hardware that better exposes the kids to the new rides. I believe the T-7 will achieve that.

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by hindsight2020

[di1630]

Honest question, because I got out of the UPT IP world about the time they were selecting the initial cadre, but has UPT Next been that much of a resounding success?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

In limited cases, yes. I heard the instructors could not tell a difference between them vs a UPT grad. Caveat, these people were super sharp which is why they were selected. It shows you can train a good product on minimal flying if you select the right people. This could go down the wormhole of are we as a AF selecting the best pilot candidates. I don’t think we do.

Other variables...how is IFF doing on training a product? When I went thru, very little was relevant to what I saw in the b-course skills wise. It was BFM and dive bomb-centric with legacy wingman admin focus.

Today, wingmen are expected to fly formations based off sensor cues at 6.9+ miles, work their systems and have tools like HMD and data links to free up flying workload so they can maneuver to a large bubble in space to release their PGM’s.

It’s a far cry from following lead to vid your target and roll in for a weapons pass.

Whole new world, I say embrace it, move on. Accept some short term pain and flailing while we experiment to make things better.

*IFF has complained about the UPT product for as long as I’ve been in the USAF and I’ve seen specific people they thought were bad UPT products go on to be tactical leaders in our most advanced jets. Because guess what...being .2nm wide on the way to the MOA or setting bad aspect on a BFM set just doesn’t matter much in reality.





Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[HossHarris]

42 minutes ago, di1630 said:

Today, wingmen are expected to fly formations based off sensor cues at 6.9+ miles, work their systems and have tools like HMD and data links to free up flying workload so they can maneuver to a large bubble in space to release their PGM’s.

It’s a far cry from following lead to vid your target and roll in for a weapons pass.

Whole new world, I say embrace it, move on

Which is great for today’s fight. 
 

but start playing with a marginally competent opponent in an even slightly  denied environment and you’re gonna have to dust off some of those old fashioned fighter pilot skills. 
 

next thing you know, they’ll be building F-4s without guns!

 

/get off my lawn

Edited December 7, 2019 by HossHarris

[Clark Griswold]

Copy on discussion of 38 training relevance
Considering that idea that the baseline training is dated is their a corollary argument to be made for heavies?

Not saying it is or isn’t but... I could see value in challenging the studs in SUPT Phase 3 T-1 training in the Nav / Mission Fam phase with dynamic mission changes via INMARSAT/CPLDC, simulated threats, dry real contact AR, etc... looking back now almost 20 years in the rear view mirror I could see that value of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

Copy on discussion of 38 training relevance
Considering that idea that the baseline training is dated is their a corollary argument to be made for heavies?

Not saying it is or isn’t but... I could see value in challenging the studs in SUPT Phase 3 T-1 training in the Nav / Mission Fam phase with dynamic mission changes via INMARSAT/CPLDC, simulated threats, dry real contact AR, etc... looking back now almost 20 years in the rear view mirror I could see that value of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

19 AF only cares about developing fighter pilot candidates. They want to completely get rid of the T-1 and graduate pilots to the MAF with minimal capability.

[di1630]

Which is great for today’s fight. 
 
but start playing with a marginally competent opponent in an even slightly  denied environment and you’re gonna have to dust off some of those old fashioned fighter pilot skills. 
 
next thing you know, they’ll be building F-4s without guns!
 
/get off my lawn

No, I’m talking about how today’s new jets train for future peer fights.

F-4’s without guns, I get it, I’ve heard it too many times to count and it’s valid to argue if the F-35 should have more gun, maneuvering ability etc but that ship has sailed and we are stuck with it.

The contingency plans in 2019 generally aren’t “you might have to dust off those old fashioned fighter pilot skills” and I’d they are, you were sent into combat in the wrong airframe for the high end fight.

Some airframes probably require a bit more legacy skills than others. A-10 for example operates a lot and always will where nose position and maneuvering is important.

Other jets focus on running the electrics and staying as far from the fight as possible. For them, the current T-38 syllabus is less relevant.

I’m not saying cut it all, I’m saying tailor it for the spectrum of jets a t-38 grad can go to, and the legacy “one size fits all” t-38 track is not the answer.

F-16 is a great example where contingency plan in a big war may be “dust off some old school skills” but that is a remote contingency. But yes, a F-16 pilot probably needs IFF / b-course focus a bit more in some areas.

T-38 is great for teaching certain flying aspects but a lot of those aspects have drastically decreased in relevance over the past decade or two.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, ThreeHoler said:

19 AF only cares about developing fighter pilot candidates. They want to completely get rid of the T-1 and graduate pilots to the MAF with minimal capability.

 

Copy that (spits in disgust)

The GOs who went thru the T-1 should revolt, should but not expecting anything.  So do they want to send everyone thru T-7s but at some mid-point have a track select where Fighter/Attack qual'd studs go to further T-7 training but others are winged and sent to the MAF with fewer hours and a stigma of inferiority?

If heavy pilots and the AF in general wants to promote better culture in arguably the most prominent part of its officer cadre then it has to stop the bifurcation that happens when we track select in SUPT.  Heavy pilots trained in a rigorous, respected syllabus with challenging tasks incorporated into multi-engine training could do this IMO.

[Bigred]

On 12/5/2019 at 8:44 PM, ThreeHoler said:

People in AMC training (at the MAJCOM level) are of the opinion that the product coming out of UPT is not quality for MAF operations. It probably doesn’t help that 19 AF is of the opinion that UPT Phase III can be taught in much larger more expensive airframes.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Any chance you can give details/opinion on what is perceived to be inferior? 

[brabus]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

No, I’m talking about how today’s new jets train for future peer fights.

F-4’s without guns, I get it, I’ve heard it too many times to count and it’s valid to argue if the F-35 should have more gun, maneuvering ability etc but that ship has sailed and we are stuck with it.

The contingency plans in 2019 generally aren’t “you might have to dust off those old fashioned fighter pilot skills” and I’d they are, you were sent into combat in the wrong airframe for the high end fight.

Some airframes probably require a bit more legacy skills than others. A-10 for example operates a lot and always will where nose position and maneuvering is important.

Other jets focus on running the electrics and staying as far from the fight as possible. For them, the current T-38 syllabus is less relevant.

I’m not saying cut it all, I’m saying tailor it for the spectrum of jets a t-38 grad can go to, and the legacy “one size fits all” t-38 track is not the answer.

F-16 is a great example where contingency plan in a big war may be “dust off some old school skills” but that is a remote contingency. But yes, a F-16 pilot probably needs IFF / b-course focus a bit more in some areas.

T-38 is great for teaching certain flying aspects but a lot of those aspects have drastically decreased in relevance over the past decade or two.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Concur overall. But it was a good laugh in the bar after a hot pit F-35 sortie where no datalink worked and I flew visual “old school” tactics the whole time. We mostly joked about how all of the Lts would have rolled inverted and ejected had they been in that situation.

Tailoring needs to happen, with less focus on archaic syllabus items, BUT there is still value in some baseline fighter pilot skills...the young guys rage with all the Gucci shit working,  but they flounder when their technology pacifier is taken away. And it’s not their fault, they weren’t afforded the opportunity to build those baseline skills like we were; now they have to build them in the CAF.

Edited December 8, 2019 by brabus

[BashiChuni]

Bring back fix to fix 

[LookieRookie]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

Bring back fix to fix 

As long as you can calculate TAS with a whiz wheel.

[di1630]

Concur overall. But it was a good laugh in the bar after a hot pit F-35 sortie where no datalink worked and I flew visual “old school” tactics the whole time. We mostly joked about how all of the Lts would have rolled inverted and ejected had they been in that situation.
Tailoring needs to happen, with less focus on archaic syllabus items, BUT there is still value in some baseline fighter pilot skills...the young guys rage with all the Gucci shit working,  but they flounder when their technology pacifier is taken away. And it’s not their fault, they weren’t afforded the opportunity to build those baseline skills like we were; now they have to build them in the CAF.

I flew the tweet, dropped BDU’s from a T-38A with a manual pipper and I still have become completely reliant on datalink and other technology to the point that when it fails, it’s mission degradation. Yeah, I’m more comfortable than the young guys when some stuff fails but that doesn’t happen often. I’d hate to dust off my manual bombing skills on the fly.

We were saying the same thing about datalink/HMD/PGM reliant Lt’s in 2012 and most of those guys we worried about “what if” have all been just fine whether it be combat in Syria or training at home. In 2003, my b-course IP’s were saying the same thing about my class because we had EGI and if that failed...watch out, those dumb f-ers can’t navigate with INS drift.

Every generation is one computer glitch away from catastrophe, only to be saved by their tacan, eyesight and stby pipper.



Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[brabus]

Totally agree there are many scenarios where datalink, etc. is a min force requirement. I’m with you, but I would still like young guys to show up with more general air sense, the ability to know where other things are by comm/time and bull/map correlation (e.g. decent geospatial awareness of the AO without having the answer on a screen), and better multi-tasking ability (especially with degraded/denied blue capes). I bet the IFF/UPT syllabus could change to leverage what tools they have to grow those types of skills.  For example, I’ll probably never do a lowat ingress to 10/20 pop again, but maybe, given the tools they have available,  that’s the best way for IFF to put the pressure on a guy and make him Mx SA on 3 other aircraft while executing threat reactions, making radio calls and maneuvering in 3D to not hit the ground and accurately fly the attack.  The tactic is not exportable to an F-35, but the holistic lessons of geospatial awareness and multi-tasking under stress is.

6 hours ago, di1630 said:

Every generation is one computer glitch away from catastrophe, only to be saved by their tacan, eyesight and stby pipper.

Now that shit is funny!

[SocialD]

8 hours ago, di1630 said:

Every generation is one computer glitch away from catastrophe, only to be saved by their tacan, eyesight and stby pipper.

That's a quote straight out of OFP of Facebook.  Dudes lots their shit when someone mentioned we don't really do formation takeoffs/landings anymore.  

[di1630]

That's a quote straight out of OFP of Facebook.  Dudes lots their shit when someone mentioned we don't really do formation takeoffs/landings anymore.  

I was chatting with some old who retired 20+ years ago dudes the other day, they had flown F-4’s, vipers, eagles, hogs, the spectrum and they were asking about what the flying was like these days.

A lot of “I can’t believe you guys don’t do xyz anymore! That’s all we did back in 19xx.”

I did my best on an unclass level to explain our weapons and technology. Hearing things like the how PGMs work and the TGP capes blew their minds. The look on their faces when they heard the lowly A-10 from their day now had a color HMD, PGMs etc was classic.

In the end, I realized that these guys were stuck in time and their legacy viper/hog/eagle was nothing like the ones of today.

That’s why I am all for change and applaud our leadership for breaking the cycle of “well, that’s how we trained in 1995 and I turned out ok.”


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SocialD]

39 minutes ago, di1630 said:

In the end, I realized that these guys were stuck in time and their legacy viper/hog/eagle was nothing like the ones of today.

A very accurate description of many of these guys. 

 

39 minutes ago, di1630 said:

That’s why I am all for change and applaud our leadership for breaking the cycle of “well, that’s how we trained in 1995 and I turned out ok.”

Agreed.  

[Majestik Møøse]

All a very interesting debate. Answers should only come from realistic problems. What’s the likelihood that a particular system or procedure will fail you in a current war? What’s the likelihood in a future war? If said system fails (or is denied), will it raise your risk a notch during certain phases? Maybe that’s acceptable and not worth the training costs to mitigate it.

However, if a targeted attack on your Achilles Heel isn’t likely but would result in a F-Kill for your entire MWS, then it’s probably still worth it to train to it.