Is it time in returning to the old days of UPT?

[alwyn2d]

From the early 1960s to the early 1990s, AF UPT consisted of a 1 track system of T-37/T-38. Helo only training from 1971 to the early 1990s. In the 1980s the military was focus on Jointness between the services. The AF decided on the Naval track system in which you could have exchange student pilots in the early 1990s. 

I was informed the days of the exchange program for flight students is in the history books. That being the case, should the AF return to the 1 track system regardless of EXPENSE in the T-6A/T-38C or future T-6A/T-7A?

What is your opinion?

 

 

[raimius]

The formula of basic, primary, and advanced trainers has worked since before WWII.  I don't see any serious arguments as to why it should be scrapped.

As to whether you should have a T38/T7 split with T1s, I can't speak to that very well, although introducing a CRM habits to those going to crew aircraft earlier makes sense.  Having all fixed wing students go through a universal set of training also makes sense.  

Helo only track is a bad idea.  The AF already doesn't understand helos, and further divorcing them from fixed wing aircrew won't help.  Also, siloing helo students from the start will limit the student pools on both sides.

[Homestar]

We've already entered a single aircraft UPT world right now with UPT 2.5  By 2025 all the T-1s will (might) be retired and it doesn't seem like the money is there to buy enough T-7s to replace the T-38 in UPT.  But if money it no object, I'd prefer UPT maintain a dual track pipeline where future fighter pilots can work on fighter pilot stuff and mobility pilots can practice copying ATIS.

[Sua Sponte]

19 minutes ago, Homestar said:

We've already entered a single aircraft UPT world right now with UPT 2.5  By 2025 all the T-1s will (might) be retired and it doesn't seem like the money is there to buy enough T-7s to replace the T-38 in UPT.  But if money it no object, I'd prefer UPT maintain a dual track pipeline where future fighter pilots can work on fighter pilot stuff and mobility pilots can practice copying ATIS.

Where do bomber pilots fall?

[jazzdude]

Ignoring expense (which isn't really reasonable), what is the goal at the end of UPT?

- Universally assignable pilots that can go to any MWS? This only makes sense if there's actually crossflow between jets and commands that don't really require interviews. The downside here is that it can mask "real" experience in good manning numbers as pilots are moved around between communities. Nothing would change for fighters (IFF being the gatekeeper), but could allow more movement between MAF and ACC non-fighter aircraft.

- Pilots that are on UPT tracks that emphasize skills in advanced/phase 3 that their gaining communities value (though if money were not a factor, that training could be better done in the MWS)? This reduces the ability to crossflow (early specialization, baseline knowledge is different based on track completed).

Another thing to consider: if a stud can't fly great fingertip formation, does that mean they would make a bad heavy pilot? Is fingertip a relevant skill in the fighter community? It's a challenging flying skill, but does it teach skills relevant to how we fight today (and in the future)? So should that skill be taught? Even if money wasn't an problem, time line still would be.

Helicopter track is the odd one. Having a track select gives a bigger pool for helos to draw from, and provides a shared experience (T-6) for AF pilots. You may get a class where several studs want helicopters but only 1 gets it, even if they all were good studs. And again, there's probably not going to be crossflow from helos to other fixed won't aircraft (can't cross flow into helos without completing helo conversation training).

Navy track system is different. There's a "class" for administrative purposes, but for the track you get is based on what is available the week you completed training. Have a great NSS ("class ranking" comparing you to the last 200ish students to complete), but no jet spot that week? Going to go fly helos, while the guy next week with sightly above average NSS gets the jet that's available that week (sure, there's some gamesmanship that the CC can do to help out the track selection, but sometimes there's not).

Then you've got Marines that do a quality spread for where their studs track.

Not better or worse than the AF, just different. Plus, the exchange of student pilots wasn't an AF idea, it was a Congress idea.

[VMFA187]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

Another thing to consider: if a stud can't fly great fingertip formation, does that mean they would make a bad heavy pilot? Is fingertip a relevant skill in the fighter community? It's a challenging flying skill, but does it teach skills relevant to how we fight today (and in the future)? So should that skill be taught? Even if money wasn't an problem, time line still would be.

Navy track system is different. There's a "class" for administrative purposes, but for the track you get is based on what is available the week you completed training. Have a great NSS ("class ranking" comparing you to the last 200ish students to complete), but no jet spot that week? Going to go fly helos, while the guy next week with sightly above average NSS gets the jet that's available that week (sure, there's some gamesmanship that the CC can do to help out the track selection, but sometimes there's not).

Then you've got Marines that do a quality spread for where their studs track.

Even if close formation flying isn't tactically relevant, it is a vital skill which you have to be able to do when things are going south. There are a lot of hazreps recently in the F-35 community regarding tanker operations likely because of the lack of focus on basic formation flying skills. 

Regarding the Navy system, you generally start and finish with the same class unless there are extenuating circumstances. Entire classes do get rolled depending on what is happening but they typically stay together. Also, not true regarding a rock star NSS and no jet slots. If that is the case oftentimes that student will get rolled to another class where there is a slot available. 

Marines do not do a quality spread, unless you know something that I don't. The top guy almost always gets his first choice (unless no one finishes above the NSS jet minimums) and it gets filtered on from there. In Primary you need to be in roughly the top 45% to even qualify to select jets, but generally there are 1-2 slots per classes of 8-12. Typically the top couple guys go jets, then there is one C-130 slot due to desirability, the rest go tilt or helos. In Intermediate/Advanced jets the top Marine generally went Hornets, then the next one or two selected Harriers because they require a 50 NSS (top half) due to the difficulty flying the platform. Then the next two or three guys went Hornets with the bottom feeder selecting Prowlers. 

Now, with the F-35 ramping up almost everyone selects them so there is no way to weed out the weak swimmer by sending him to the EA-6B. Seems like the top guys are selecting F-35Cs vice F-35Bs however. 

[Orbit]

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

Even if close formation flying isn't tactically relevant, it is a vital skill which you have to be able to do when things are going south. There are a lot of hazreps recently in the F-35 community regarding tanker operations likely because of the lack of focus on basic formation flying skills. 

This.  
 

 

[Guardian]

Where do bomber pilots fall?

Copying ATIS or bottom fighter track. Just like always. There are some that choose the path too.

[brabus]

2 hours ago, VMFA187 said:

There are a lot of hazreps recently in the F-35 community regarding tanker operations likely because of the lack of focus on basic formation flying skills. 

The only issues regarding tankers that I’m aware of is the shitty night visuals in the jet, which makes flying on a tanker way worse than with NVGs. There isn’t any systemic lack of basic form skills. But, I agree with your general premise that formation flying skills still has its place, even in modern fighters. 

[Danger41]

My $0.02

Get back to one primary trainer and one advanced trainer. The argument over CRM being critical to teach for half a year in the heavy track is crazy IMO. Learning CRM should take about a week in the FTU, even if the guy is trained in a T-38/T-7. It’s not hard to ask someone else to do stuff for you.

I realize I’m being flippant, but CRM is not some highly challenging concept.

[brabus]

14 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

My $0.02

Get back to one primary trainer and one advanced trainer. The argument over CRM being critical to teach for half a year in the heavy track is crazy IMO. Learning CRM should take about a week in the FTU, even if the guy is trained in a T-38/T-7. It’s not hard to ask someone else to do stuff for you.

I realize I’m being flippant, but CRM is not some highly challenging concept.

And CRM occurs every day in fighters, we’re just doing it over the radio vs. physically sitting next to someone in the same airplane. CRM isn’t a heavy-only thing, and it’s dumb to think a T-1 is necessary to teach it. 
 

Any old guys here who went through UPT back in the 38 only days, can you confirm the following: I have heard there were dudes who washed out in 38s because they couldn’t do “fighter things,” like close formation (including takeoff/landings). They otherwise would have been fine in a non-fighter aircraft. Is there truth to that, or is this just an excuse for guys who didn’t deserve to graduate regardless? 

[theoriginalturk]

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Helicopter track is the odd one. Having a track select gives a bigger pool for helos to draw from, and provides a shared experience (T-6) for AF pilots.

I wonder if there was another “pilot” group that could benefit from a legitimate pipeline, with shared experiences with the rest of the Flying Air Force? Of course the first step would be to stop systematically delegitimizing and disenfranchising them. 

Edited March 22, 2021 by theoriginalturk

[SurelySerious]

9 minutes ago, theoriginalturk said:

I wonder if there was another “pilot” group that could benefit from a legitimate pipeline, with shared experiences with the rest of the Flying Air Force? Of course the first step would be to stop systematically delegitimizing and disenfranchising them. 

First step: give them different wings, ensuring them that no one will see them any differently 

Second step: cut all flying from their training

Third step: profit

[jazzdude]

Regarding the Navy system, you generally start and finish with the same class unless there are extenuating circumstances. Entire classes do get rolled depending on what is happening but they typically stay together. Also, not true regarding a rock star NSS and no jet slots. If that is the case oftentimes that student will get rolled to another class where there is a slot available. 
Marines do not do a quality spread, unless you know something that I don't. The top guy almost always gets his first choice (unless no one finishes above the NSS jet minimums) and it gets filtered on from there. In Primary you need to be in roughly the top 45% to even qualify to select jets, but generally there are 1-2 slots per classes of 8-12. Typically the top couple guys go jets, then there is one C-130 slot due to desirability, the rest go tilt or helos. In Intermediate/Advanced jets the top Marine generally went Hornets, then the next one or two selected Harriers because they require a 50 NSS (top half) due to the difficulty flying the platform. Then the next two or three guys went Hornets with the bottom feeder selecting Prowlers. 
Now, with the F-35 ramping up almost everyone selects them so there is no way to weed out the weak swimmer by sending him to the EA-6B. Seems like the top guys are selecting F-35Cs vice F-35Bs however. 

Thanks for the clarification, Marines doing quality spread was what the Marine studs were saying when I was going through way back when at Whiting, so secondhand info. Though that may have been on career fields, not flying assignments. Lots of discussion from the Marines I be if it was better to be bottom of top third, or top of middle third from what I remember. Either way, I'll defer to you.

My whiting class has a primary completion spread of about 2 months, no real extenuating circumstances besides scheduling and luck. Still technically the same class in the Navy's eyes despite the wide range of completion dates and different PCS dates (and different phase 3 classes, I want to say my class was split over 3 or 4 Vance classes for phase 3) for follow on training. That's very different than the AF system, when everyone in the class finishes/tracks on a predetermined date and tracks together. For reference, my track select night at Whiting consisted of only 1 stud (me) tracking from any class that week.

Copy on the rockstar getting rolled to get what they want-but that's happening to someone with a 70+ NSS, and not the guy just making it at 55-60 NSS. Luck and timing...

[CharlieHotel47]

We've already entered a single aircraft UPT world right now with UPT 2.5  By 2025 all the T-1s will (might) be retired and it doesn't seem like the money is there to buy enough T-7s to replace the T-38 in UPT.  But if money it no object, I'd prefer UPT maintain a dual track pipeline where future fighter pilots can work on fighter pilot stuff and mobility pilots can practice copying ATIS.

I take pride in my ATIS writing skills as well staying polite with the tower folks by saying “good morning / good afternoon”... unlike those fast moving guys with their “FAF, gear, stop” coms lol


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

And CRM occurs every day in fighters, we’re just doing it over the radio vs. physically sitting next to someone in the same airplane. CRM isn’t a heavy-only thing, and it’s dumb to think a T-1 is necessary to teach it. 

It's similar, but not quite the same. But any gap/difference is readily crossed in the FTU. But it's also not just teaching CRM, but teaching the AMC way of doing things.

That being said, you're right, doesn't take the T-1 to teach it. And from the looks of it, the AF doesn't think so either, and isn't replacing the T-1 after it's retired in a few years.

[HossHarris]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Copying ATIS or bottom fighter track. Just like always. There are some that choose the path too.

I laugh every damn time. Such good memories of such a good old fashioned burn. Ahhhhh.  Good times. 

[Stoker]

Realistically, if they're not buying enough T-7s to even fully replace the T-38, and the T-38 is falling apart, how does retiring the T-1 with no replacement not dramatically reduce the throughput at UPT? The T-1 was only ever about increasing capacity as the -38 fleet couldn't handle the numbers required... What's changed?

[SurelySerious]

41 minutes ago, Stoker said:

Realistically, if they're not buying enough T-7s to even fully replace the T-38, and the T-38 is falling apart, how does retiring the T-1 with no replacement not dramatically reduce the throughput at UPT? The T-1 was only ever about increasing capacity as the -38 fleet couldn't handle the numbers required... What's changed?

Sending half your students only through T-6s is pretty much what’s changed if I’ve understood the talking points correctly. 

[Stoker]

I'm mystified at how Textron hasn't managed to lobby to sell a couple years' production of a random not-in-demand business jet as a T-1 replacement / jobs program. 

[jazzdude]

I'm mystified at how Textron hasn't managed to lobby to sell a couple years' production of a random not-in-demand business jet as a T-1 replacement / jobs program. 

Probably because Raytheon, Lockheed, and Boeing have better lobbyists. And the AF messaging that there isn't a need for a T-1 replacement.

[VMFA187]

14 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Thanks for the clarification, Marines doing quality spread was what the Marine studs were saying when I was going through way back when at Whiting, so secondhand info. Though that may have been on career fields, not flying assignments. Lots of discussion from the Marines I be if it was better to be bottom of top third, or top of middle third from what I remember. Either way, I'll defer to you.

Copy on the rockstar getting rolled to get what they want-but that's happening to someone with a 70+ NSS, and not the guy just making it at 55-60 NSS. Luck and timing...
 

When were you at Whiting? I was there March-Sep of '09. And yes, for career fields out of TBS (Infantry, Logistics, Artillery, Intel, etc...) there is a quality spread. The top third of each third tend to get their first choice. Kind of confusing but they don't want all the type A dudes going infantry. 

Absolutely. No one is getting preferential treatment for being slightly above average. You had to show that the Marine Corps would be losing a really talented guy for the fighter community. 

15 hours ago, brabus said:

The only issues regarding tankers that I’m aware of is the shitty night visuals in the jet, which makes flying on a tanker way worse than with NVGs. There isn’t any systemic lack of basic form skills. But, I agree with your general premise that formation flying skills still has its place, even in modern fighters. 

The Marine Corps lost an F-35 last WTI due to loss of SA on the tanker. There have also been numerous canopy strikes. That being said I'm aware that Navy and Marine Corps tanking is significantly different. Proud to admit I was always doing the plugging and not vice versa. 😉

I'm not sure what you guys are seeing but we are having issues with FRS/FTU students trying to fly form by being glued to the glass in ATC spread on a 10nm scale TSD transiting to and from the area vice simply looking over his/her shoulder. 

[Sua Sponte]

59 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

When were you at Whiting? I was there March-Sep of '09. And yes, for career fields out of TBS (Infantry, Logistics, Artillery, Intel, etc...) there is a quality spread. The top third of each third tend to get their first choice. Kind of confusing but they don't want all the type A dudes going infantry. 

Absolutely. No one is getting preferential treatment for being slightly above average. You had to show that the Marine Corps would be losing a really talented guy for the fighter community. 

The Marine Corps lost an F-35 last WTI due to loss of SA on the tanker. There have also been numerous canopy strikes. That being said I'm aware that Navy and Marine Corps tanking is significantly different. Proud to admit I was always doing the plugging and not vice versa. 😉

I'm not sure what you guys are seeing but we are having issues with FRS/FTU students trying to fly form by being glued to the glass in ATC spread on a 10nm scale TSD transiting to and from the area vice simply looking over his/her shoulder. 

Slightly different? You refuel fighters with a -130 and a drogue system. That’s more than “slightly different” 😂 

[VMFA187]

I think you might've confused "significantly" with "slightly." Easy mistake. 

[TreeA10]

16 hours ago, brabus said:

And CRM occurs every day in fighters, we’re just doing it over the radio vs. physically sitting next to someone in the same airplane. CRM isn’t a heavy-only thing, and it’s dumb to think a T-1 is necessary to teach it. 
 

Any old guys here who went through UPT back in the 38 only days, can you confirm the following: I have heard there were dudes who washed out in 38s because they couldn’t do “fighter things,” like close formation (including takeoff/landings). They otherwise would have been fine in a non-fighter aircraft. Is there truth to that, or is this just an excuse for guys who didn’t deserve to graduate regardless? 

Call me an old guy again and I'll ask you to get off my freakin' lawn!!!

I was in CBM 85-01 and unsuccessfully dodged the FAIP assignment.  At the time, everybody went through Tweets then came over to the T-38.  Our problem students could usually be traced to the Tweet phase where they should have been washed out for basic airmanship.  Anything marginal in the Tweet did not get any better moving twice as fast in the T-38.

So, most students were washed out in the Contact Phase of training.  The most bloody I recall was @ 50% of the class.  There were 3 Checkrides, Contact, Formation, and Instrument.  I do not recall anyone ever washing out for formation work.  Some busted the ride and reflew it but did not wash out.  I sent one of my better students to his formation check and the Check Pilot came up to me after they got back in the building, "Uh...did you show him how to do a lag roll?"  Apparently my student had executed a lag roll to solve some angle off issues on a rejoin.  My reply was , "Yep, how did he do?"  "He did fine.  Just wondering where he saw it."  Anyway, that student was a Reservist going to C-141s but certainly had the skills to learn more so we (I say "we" but I might have been the only one for all I know.) taught them beyond the syllabus what they could handle.  My poster kids were pretty much at their limits with the basic formation tasks but I never lost a student due to formation problems.

What did change from when I started UPT to when I finished my FAIP assignment:  While I was a student in Tweets, there was a mid-air collision between 2 T-38s executing a rejoin from a 4 ship tactical formation that killed 3.  So, a decision was made sometime during my FAIP tour that students that were going to heavys would no longer do the 4 ship tactical work but would do single ship instrument sorties.  They still did the 2 ship formation sorties and Formation Check which included 2 ship tactical formation work.

My concerns is the steadily decreasing amount of air under the seat.  All the VR or sim time in the world does not present the problems associated with the real world.  In the last couple years, there have been numerous accidents resulting in the loss of aircraft and life and these accidents were supposedly benign takeoff and landing events.  WTF is up with that?