Timeframe for T-1 retirement

[CaptainMorgan]

Does anyone have any new info on when they expect to retire the T-1? Most recent article I found said 2023-2025, but I’m wondering if anyone in AETC land has better gouge.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[texancrier]

There's nothing currently happening that's "reducing reliance" on the T-1. If anything they're increasing reliance. New syllabi just dropped for 2.5 grads and a XPW (T-1 only UPT) syllabus. I've heard 2025 as a rumor too but the T-1 squadrons are definetly not winding down. Only step I've seen is they're not taking T-1 FAIPs any more at Vance.

 

Side note to quash rumors: the new T-1 syllabi have plenty of flying in them. Definitely less than the old syllabus but the whole "all simulator and 2 flights" rumor isn't true.

[Air_Space]

At AETC headquarters land they are saying they'll start being divested in 2023 but who knows at what rate/where.

None of this makes sense especially because they just T-1 FAIPd someone at Vance last night. 

[LiquidSky]

How is any of this supposed to save the AF money? The T-1 costs a fraction per flight hour of the T-38, not to mention any of the follow on heavy platforms. As far as I can tell this is simply kicking the training can down the road to a different pot of money.

[SurelySerious]

How is any of this supposed to save the AF money? The T-1 costs a fraction per flight hour of the T-38, not to mention any of the follow on heavy platforms. As far as I can tell this is simply kicking the training can down the road to a different pot of money.

Allegedly the airframes are at the end if their service life, so maintaining that fraction of the per flight hour cost would require acquiring a new airframe.

[McJay Pilot]

Sounds like Beechcraft needs to pump out an AF version of the T-44C. Beefy landing gear from the start and there goes half your longevity problems for a UPT airframe! But that’s not a jet, so clearly it won’t meet our training needs. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[MC5Wes]

Didn’t the Air Force just pay to have some rebuilt after all the hail damage?

[HeloDude]

42 minutes ago, McJay Pilot said:

Sounds like Beechcraft needs to pump out an AF version of the T-44C. Beefy landing gear from the start and there goes half your longevity problems for a UPT airframe! But that’s not a jet, so clearly it won’t meet our training needs. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Well, the AF did replace a twine engine jet with a single engine turbo prop as its primary initial trainer...

[Homestar]

43 minutes ago, MC5Wes said:

Didn’t the Air Force just pay to have some rebuilt after all the hail damage?

Those will be repaired and sent straight to retirement most likely. Different pot of money. 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Homestar

[McJay Pilot]

1 minute ago, HeloDude said:

Well, the AF did replace a twine engine jet with a single engine turbo prop as its primary initial trainer...

Not sure if that misspelling was intentional or not, but that accurately describes the tweet! 🍻

[Stoker]

5 hours ago, MC5Wes said:

Didn’t the Air Force just pay to have some rebuilt after all the hail damage?

Repaired, at a significant premium over buying a like-new, refurbished Beech 400.

[CaptainMorgan]

Sounds like Beechcraft needs to pump out an AF version of the T-44C. Beefy landing gear from the start and there goes half your longevity problems for a UPT airframe! But that’s not a jet, so clearly it won’t meet our training needs.

I think the Citation Mustang or one of the other VLJs would have been a good option with an upgraded gear. Cheap to acquire (until AF acquisition manages to up), cheap to operate, and the only setback might be a height limitation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[08Dawg]

20 hours ago, CaptainMorgan said:

I think the Citation Mustang or one of the other VLJs would have been a good option with an upgraded....

Nah, that’s much too modern!  

[Bergman]

On 4/26/2021 at 12:50 AM, CaptainMorgan said:

I think the Citation Mustang or one of the other VLJs would have been a good option with an upgraded gear. Cheap to acquire (until AF acquisition manages to up), cheap to operate, and the only setback might be a height limitation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cirrus Vision Jet would get the job done at less than $2M a copy.  

[CaptainMorgan]

Cirrus Vision Jet would get the job done at less than $2M a copy.  

Single engine though and I would say that doing one engine out training prior to FTU might have some benefit. The Mustang was also around $2M.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

But why do the heavy / crew tracked studs have to get a cheap (in airplane terms) if the Tone is getting near the end of its service life (via divestment or need for an unacceptable refurbishment)?

Kinda of a rhetorical question as I know what the Bobs are thinking but to hell with that, heavy GOs just rolling over and letting this part of the rated community get screwed over (assuming an eventual T-1 divestment with no replacement or with one that is less than the T-1) is infuriating bullshit

If you want quality then you have to select for it and train for it.

Anyway. Contact out initial ME training to get the bounces in someone else’s iron, next train in a STOL fixed gear ME platform for short and unprepared fields then move to a jet for the meat & potatoes. Refurbished and modernized T-1 or a new jet, if a new jet then I would suggest a Cessna CJ4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HuggyU2]

50 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

... if a new jet then I would suggest a Cessna CJ4.
 

That's a lot of overkill, potentially.  Why that over the CJ-3+, or even the Citation M2?

[Clark Griswold]

That's a lot of overkill, potentially.  Why that over the CJ-3+, or even the Citation M2?

Yeah, I should have suggested those two smaller models

Those would be fine and better sized

Shooting the moon I would want a PC-24

The main thing is to not phone it in with Phase 3 no matter the track


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the g-man]

But why do the heavy / crew tracked studs have to get a cheap (in airplane terms) if the Tone is getting near the end of its service life (via divestment or need for an unacceptable refurbishment)?

Kinda of a rhetorical question as I know what the Bobs are thinking but to hell with that, heavy GOs just rolling over and letting this part of the rated community get screwed over (assuming an eventual T-1 divestment with no replacement or with one that is less than the T-1) is infuriating bullshit

If you want quality then you have to select for it and train for it.

Anyway. Contact out initial ME training to get the bounces in someone else’s iron, next train in a STOL fixed gear ME platform for short and unprepared fields then move to a jet for the meat & potatoes. Refurbished and modernized T-1 or a new jet, if a new jet then I would suggest a Cessna CJ4.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah UPT 2.5 is the future man. Wing them after 6 months in a t-6 then send them to a sim top-off.

Honestly it probably would work well if the heavy sim top off wasn’t the POS that is the T-1 sim. Make it in some sort of full motion multi engine jet and it probably would be worthwhile. Too bad the cost per hour of those rivals the op cost of most small jets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jazzdude]

But why do the heavy / crew tracked studs have to get a cheap (in airplane terms) if the Tone is getting near the end of its service life (via divestment or need for an unacceptable refurbishment)?

So we can buy more F-35 and KC-46...

[Clark Griswold]

12 hours ago, the g-man said:

Nah UPT 2.5 is the future man. Wing them after 6 months in a t-6 then send them to a sim top-off.

Honestly it probably would work well if the heavy sim top off wasn’t the POS that is the T-1 sim. Make it in some sort of full motion multi engine jet and it probably would be worthwhile. Too bad the cost per hour of those rivals the op cost of most small jets.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then....

As @texancrier said 2.5 still has plenty of flying in it so that's good.  Real flight time is invaluable, you just have to have a certain amount to be trusted at the controls or have authority in certain fields. 
As you said, sim time can be as expensive as flight time and then you're still in the same boat.
For me it, if the AF wasn't so reactionary and was more strategic at an enterprise level it would pose to the mid and senior level members of the heavy rated community an opportunity for feedback and shaping of the process if there was/is to be a major revision to Heavy / Crew Track Phase 3.
What is it you (AMC, AFSOC, ACC, etc...) want in your Aircrew (not just but mainly pilots) graduating from the last, advanced phase of their training before earning their Aeronautical Rating?
If I were asked that and naively believed my feedback had a prayer of making past the spam filter on the email address I sent it to, I would answer thusly:
1.  Initial ME experience.
2. A moderate amount of cross-country, strange field experience in multi-day trips managing and planning missions, logistics, details, etc... initial training and experience to lay the foundation to build a competent and trainable co-pilot in their initial assignment developing soon into a competent, experienced, common sense driven aircraft commander
3. Initial experience and training in the mission sets of Air Mobility and ISR/C2 platforms.  The latter would require new resources and training events in SUPT but just my suggestion..
4. Experience in a training system(s) that has multiple levels of automation; adequate communications, navigation and mission management systems to train a student in prioritization of tasks, general and procedural knowledge and use of systems with other crew members in coordinated and regular ways to safely and effectively accomplish the mission.
4a. Experience in challenging maneuvers, approaches and landings in ME aircraft to both train and evaluate aviation skill and aptitude.
5. A syllabus that is challenging and robust, requiring an individual with above average intelligence, skill and character to successfully complete.  No swipe at those who did not or will not graduate but there must be a high enough bar to clear that this portion of the LAF is composed of strong swimmers only.  
I think we have that now and that is what I think I went thru back in the 00's but I fear the AF is looking at the civilian world and rationalizing itself into a training idea that will likely not save that much money and deliver a product it may not be happy with, requiring an even more expensive after the fact fix.  

11 hours ago, jazzdude said:

So we can buy more F-35 and KC-46...

I know but it won't even pay for the next set of software patches and spare parts required for an FY for either of those...

Edited May 7, 2021 by Clark Griswold

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

4 hours ago, the g-man said:

Nah UPT 2.5 is the future man. Wing them after 6 months in a t-6 then send them to a sim top-off.

Honestly it probably would work well if the heavy sim top off wasn’t the POS that is the T-1 sim. Make it in some sort of full motion multi engine jet and it probably would be worthwhile. Too bad the cost per hour of those rivals the op cost of most small jets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably the stupidest argument that I hear kicked around for the sim-only track (regardless of type simulated) is "well, the airlines train sim-only".  This completely ignores that the airlines don't hire dudes with nearly zero hours.  Ask any regional Capt how much fun it is to fly with a straight-from-flight-instructing new FO, and that's on a relatively small regional jet doing a VERY canned and low-threat flight profile.  

[the g-man]

Probably the stupidest argument that I hear kicked around for the sim-only track (regardless of type simulated) is "well, the airlines train sim-only".  This completely ignores that the airlines don't hire dudes with nearly zero hours.  Ask any regional Capt how much fun it is to fly with a straight-from-flight-instructing new FO, and that's on a relatively small regional jet doing a VERY canned and low-threat flight profile.  

It’s probably as fun as flying a C-17 into ORBI with a 100 hr FP


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

On 5/6/2021 at 9:15 AM, the g-man said:

Nah UPT 2.5 is the future man. Wing them after 6 months in a t-6 then send them to a sim top-off.

Honestly it probably would work well if the heavy sim top off wasn’t the POS that is the T-1 sim. Make it in some sort of full motion multi engine jet and it probably would be worthwhile. Too bad the cost per hour of those rivals the op cost of most small jets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AMF will prob be T-1 sim and ITD (VR Sim)

[illusive]

On 5/11/2021 at 12:39 PM, LookieRookie said:

AMF will prob be T-1 sim and ITD (VR Sim)

Have you heard any talk of what happens to the T-1 guys?  Will they become Sim instructors?