Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[Clark Griswold]

I doubt the Navy has the capacity to support. There’s a reason we stopped tracking C-130s to T-44s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even better, now there’s the justification for AF owned T-54s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CaptainMorgan]

Even better, now there’s the justification for AF owned T-54s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dude, they will not spend the money. HAF’s priority is with other expenditures. They want the cheapest acceptable option for pilot training. It’s going to take dead bodies for them to reverse course.

T-54 could be a viable option at END or CBM, but not DLF. The transition bases are just too far away for a plane with that cruise speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Dude, they will not spend the money. HAF’s priority is with other expenditures. They want the cheapest acceptable option for pilot training. It’s going to take dead bodies for them to reverse course.

T-54 could be a viable option at END or CBM, but not DLF. The transition bases are just too far away for a plane with that cruise speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I know they’re not going to be convinced until they can’t deny it anymore but… there’s at least a 0.69% chance someone lurks in this forum that has the ear of someone who could affect change / return to the historical norm

The T-54 would be another option for the prepositioned aircraft / liaison aircraft COA, as it’s a King Air, MX and foot print at the out bases (FBO, mil fields, etc) would be feasible if the AF applied the KISS principle

Add on thought: if the AF went with the ME / T-54 idea, make it like an airline schedule, you could operate/deadhead to one base, pick up another IP, operate / train for a few sorties, then operate / deadhead back to your base or another and fly more, but just be flexible, fly where the IPs are and are willing to fly out of


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SurelySerious]

Sorry, don't know what that is either. Just an OFP who can't keep up with all the current lingo.

Bosses being Bobs is a reference to a widely popular 25 year old movie.

[LookieRookie]

On 1/25/2025 at 11:43 PM, SurelySerious said:

Bosses being Bobs is a reference to a widely popular 25 year old movie.

Office space for the ORF

[Clark Griswold]

Decent discussion on Lemoine’s channel

Point brought up at the end that I thought was good, the advanced trainer for pointy nose bound studs needed to teach fast cognitive skills and airmanship by primarily being a high performance trainer versus a high performance trainer and fighter sensor trainer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Decent discussion on Lemoine’s channel
 

 

Point brought up at the end that I thought was good, the advanced trainer for pointy nose bound studs needed to teach fast cognitive skills and airmanship by primarily being a high performance trainer versus a high performance trainer and fighter sensor trainer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well the whole premise was wrong. Of the 3 competitors, the T-7 was the only prototype and not in production COTS jet.

 

 There’s also a whole lot of problems with the T-7 which is why it can’t legally go into LRIP.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, LookieRookie said:

Well the whole premise was wrong. Of the 3 competitors, the T-7 was the only prototype and not in production COTS jet.

 There’s also a whole lot of problems with the T-7 which is why it can’t legally go into LRIP.

Yup it’s a FUBAR decision but here we are.

The T-50 may yet find a US buyer just not the USAF.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/aero/documents/TF-50N Product Card.pdf

https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/us-navy-steaming-ahead-new-trainer

An interesting point Lemoine made was why not use the Viper?  Yes way more expensive per flight hour but versus setting up a new program it might have made sense, at least initially.  
 

[Clark Griswold]

One more thing, maybe it’s the same thing or a difference without distinction but is it the acquisition process or the requirements definition process that’s the problem?

Who is it that decides it needs x, y and z but then comes back says oh yeah add on a, b and c too.

Are these requirements linked back to the bill payers so that they could potentially see a train wreck being thought up?

[hindsight2020]

 

2 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

Well the whole premise was wrong. Of the 3 competitors, the T-7 was the only prototype and not in production COTS jet.

Correct. Furthermore, Boeing purposely underbid the contract in ways that would be considered malfeasance on the part of a customer, in trying to legitimize it. Some may go farther and imply collusion in said decision, but that's for another thread. Point being, COTS was maliciously handwaved away here, and some people [have already, and] will die for that capitalization fraud.

On 1/24/2025 at 8:38 AM, CaptainMorgan said:

The Air Force could make a course correction, but I don’t see that happening until they’ve suffered multiple class As that are attributed to the pathetic training that was the result of AMF-S, direct FTU, and now IPT. They won’t be quick to admit that either, something else will be found causal as mishaps occur.
 

That is really the start and the end of the conversation right there. That is the only thing that moves the needle in an enterprise that is otherwise considered soo scutwork and small fry for Big Air Force, they're willing to equivalence away our experience to that of sub-ATP, low time piston CFIs.

There are so many layers of plausible deniability baked into the training pipeline, they'll always handwave it away as something else. You can't debate in good faith with these self-preserving shapeshifters.

@Ant-man assessment from the FTU perspective is absolutely correct. They WILL rationalize the increasing shit product, while gaslighting all of you into believing the dilution as an innovative reformulation. And when people die, they'll sacrifice-lamb direct local leadership at the unfortunate ops squadron (see Shaw Viper class A, an undergraduate student of mine btw). But don't you dare look an inch backwards when investigating....

 

[Day Man]

34 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

And when people die, they'll sacrifice-lamb direct local leadership at the unfortunate ops squadron (see Shaw Viper class A, an undergraduate student of mine btw).

were there eventually adverse actions in Schmitty's chain?

[hindsight2020]

4 hours ago, Day Man said:

were there eventually adverse actions in Schmitty's chain?

I'm not personally aware of any, not to say there wasn't. Certainly nothing like what was publicized wrt the Rapid City Bone landing class A, and nobody died on that one mind you.

[Clark Griswold]

Something to listen to on your commute

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/fighter-pilot-podcast/id1330534712?i=1000686308685

Guy (USAF test pilot) seemed like a decent dude and gave a good overview on the -7, didn’t really get into the issues with the jet mentioned here but good points covered, he didn’t get into the programmatic problems but the FPP creator did after he talked with the interviewer about the episode

Interestingly the FPP creator did bring up in the review the idea of F-16T, I’d call it a T-16, but whatever, did this ever get brought up as a COA?
A new order of all D models in a Trainer configuration?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

Asked and answered brah. The T-50 was the "T-16" COA. It's circa an 80% replica. Boeing cheated (again); we all lost. It's over.

But hey, do not despair, piston CFIs are going to save military aviation... if they're not too distracted updating their regional ehrirlineapppps on their phone.

And if people think I'm being hyperbolic with the latter, then that tells me they don't have a fvcking clue what the operating and quality control realities of part 61 (even some 141) are. I cut my teeth in that morass before I touched a single .mil airplane; I know the rot in that pay to play, blind leading the blind environment.

FAFO doesn't even begin to encapsulate the hubris of senior AF management in proferring this IPT imprudence with a straight face.

What's insane is that the USAF/USN doesn't even recognize Army wings as real. But regional aspiring thumb-suckers is A-OK for .mil flying fundamentals, straight into a gazillion/multimillion dollar PL1/PL3 asset? And I'm the imprudent one here? Orwellian, this whole clusterfvck of dereliction.

Edited 8 hours ago by hindsight2020

[Clark Griswold]

Asked and answered brah. The T-50 was the "T-16" COA. It's circa an 80% replica. Boeing cheated (again); we all lost. It's over.
But hey, do not despair, piston CFIs are going to save military aviation... if they're not too distracted updating their regional ehrirlineapppps on their phone.
And if people think I'm being hyperbolic with the latter, then that tells me they don't have a fvcking clue what the operating and quality control realities of part 61 (even some 141) are. I cut my teeth in that morass before I touched a single .mil airplane; I know the rot in that pay to play, blind leading the blind environment.
FAFO doesn't even begin to encapsulate the hubris of senior AF management in proferring this IPT imprudence with a straight face.
What's insane is that the USAF/USN doesn't even recognize Army wings as real. But regional aspiring thumb-suckers is A-OK for .mil flying fundamentals, straight into a gazillion/multimillion dollar PL1/PL3 asset? And I'm the imprudent one here? Orwellian, this whole clusterfvck of dereliction.

Copy that
What was your preference among the 4 contenders?
T-50, 7, 100 or Scaled Composites offerings?
I’m guessing the T-50 but just wondering


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

T-50 by a mile, then T-100. Both offered full suite logistics and simulator support COTS. Plug n play.

[LookieRookie]

Lockheed would have delivered multiple T-50s within 6 months of contract award. 
 

not Prototypes, real working jets ready to execute iot&e then student sorties

[CaptainMorgan]

Lockheed would have delivered multiple T-50s within 6 months of contract award. 
 
not Prototypes, real working jets ready to execute iot&e then student sorties

Agreed, I met the Chief Pilot for the T-50 at the F-35 line at Navy Fort Worth about ten years ago. Lockheed was ready to go then, as opposed to the cluster we got with Boeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk