Why T-38s for B-52 (BUFF)

[hindsight2020]

What puzzles me about this discussion is that if the merits of the T-1 vs. T-38 contention are so "relative", then why do the senior guys on here point out to the factual washout rate differential under the all-Talon system? Now, I was too young to witness the system change, but I can only infer that the presence of the T-1 is due, in part, to the need to mitigate the attrition losses under the all-Talon system.

Can somebody comment on the economics of the argument? It seems to me that it would be more expensive to maintain 3 airframes rather than 2. I also venture to suggest that perhaps the cargo/airlift/tanker FTUs can and probably do a good enough job of imparting whatever CRM edge a T-38 Phase III tracking might have not stressed enough, and do so sufficiently well as to negate the need for a T-1 to begin with. At the very least it overcomes the opportunity cost of having a third airframe (T-1) on the line.

I guess I just don't get the T-1. To me it seems like a source of a lot of animosity among pilots who would have otherwise smoked in Talons, it fuels airframe-specific stigmas (the B-52 being a clear case), and it introduces the inability to cross-flow, which I think it's a meritless and unwarranted constraint. The only people it seems to be serving is the few cases where the pilot trainee can't fly if his life depended on it and the T-1 provides a larger buffer zone, at the cost of the class majority who could probably end up in the same operational airframe as they did in the new system, but maintain the possibility of cross-flowing at a later point in their careers; as somebody previously mentioned, UPT being only a slice of the performance profile of a pilot.

So unless we're ready to assert that the bottom 50% of the T-1 trackers would outright kill themselves in a T-38, I believe my argument for an all-Talon system holds water. If such assertion is true however, then I digress and understand the existence of the T-1, and T-1 folks just need to thicken up, but I don't think that's the case.

But that's my opinion from the outside looking in

[ 27. January 2006, 15:48: Message edited by: MDINC ]

[Guest thefranchise]

The T1 from my experience thus far basically gets you stepped up faster to challenge-action-response flying vs single pilot actions. T1s also introduce A/A refuel. I would assume that experience accelerates integration into real world crew aircraft since less time would be spent on crew interaction and dedicated to learning to actually fly a new airframe.

I heard it was more cost effective to buy the T1s for less maintenance than the 38 but that was back in the day when the T1 was new. Some IPs and chiefs have said they dont think this plane is gonna last another 10 years at the rate of abuse it get put under; it is only a business jet with reinforced cockpit glass and leading edges not really meant for 16+ bounces per sortie

[ASUPilot]

At the Bone FTU we had, oh I don't remember, roughly 30 sims before we hit the flightline. By sim 5 it was pretty easy to do the CRM thing with the other pilot. "Hey dude, rolling slats, gear and half flaps..." Or, "dude, I'll take slats...half flaps...gear."

I'm not a Tone trained guy, nor am I an airline pilot; I really don't see what the big discussion is regarding CRM...it's easy. When you're in a fighter(not me) 4-ship, that's CRM too...just in different jets. My point, CRM is instictive...not cosmic. Is that all the Tone offers...CRM? Single-seat guys have made the transition to crew aircraft for ever.

I don't know everything, but I haven't heard of a dude washing out of anything due to CRM issues. Lack of skill, airmanship or flight discipline, yes...but not CRM. There is a compelling argument to scrap the Tone.

[Guest SnakeT38]

I think the T-1 platform allows the communities that get those pilots to receive a "product" that

meets their needs faster and a more efficient way.

The same goes for the airframes that have 1 or 2 seats. The bombers, are the tweeners, I do think they need to be in the T-38 track.

The issues of 3 airframes is pertinent. I still look for a contractor type deal to get implemented

on the T-6 once the "new airframe" stink wears off. When I was at CBM in 1982-86 NO ONE ever thought we would see retirees teaching the old "Sturon" type stuff and sims. I don't think the bases that had mil MX ever thought it would go away. Lots of growing pains and more to come.

[Guest SnakeT38]

Originally posted by ASUPilot:

Believe it or not, not all Bone drivers are dudes who were "last" in their respective T-38 classes. As everyone knows, timing is everything. And beleive this or not, I can think of four younger AC's in my squadron who chose the Bone #1 out of T-38s.

Also, we have quite a few dudes who either washed out of IFF or fighter FTU. In my opinion the talent has been rather good. Are there a couple of idiots, of course, but that's anywhere. Not to get into a pissing match with anyone here, but I think history would support that when track select comes, usually about 25 studs plus or minus, 5 T-38s drop. Simple math suggests 20%. Now does that make every T-38 pilot better than every T-1 pilot...? Absolutely not. But even the "last" T-38 guy is pretty good.

Is there a little short dude named Jack Wiley still hanging around the B-1 in Abilene and sitting on the phone book when he flies?

[Guest croftfam]

Originally posted by SnakeT38:

The same goes for the airframes that have 1 or 2 seats. The bombers, are the tweeners, I do think they need to be in the T-38 track.

I'm sorry, but I always have to laugh when the single seat guys start acting like they can hack the job better. There are a lot of people on this board who turned down an offered -38. I had to go to the OG/CC to convince them I wasn't "screwing" my life up. I would love to see a single seater hack our mission by him/herself. That would be rich. Just so you know... there are jobs out there that you just can't do with one pilot. But what do I know, I fly helicopters. We weren't good enough to hack it in those stable fixed wing a/c, so they sent us to these crazy whirly machines.

I'll bet there are some amazingly great fighter types out there, I'll bet there are some amazingly great heavy types out there, and I'll even bet there are some amazingly great helicopter pilots out there. The crazy thing is, you don't always hear the heavy/helo types talking about how awesome they are vs. the rest of the world. I mean, we in the helicopter world don't do it because we don't want all you fixed wing types to feel bad

Seriously though, there are some jerks in every type as well, but sadly for you good ones, the fighter types seem to hold the patent on that one. This board is pretty good about having a classy group of fighter types though.

EDIT: I just reread snake's post, and maybe I jumped on the grenade a little early. Still, even though he may not have said what I was ranting about, it's still a valid point.

P.S. planning for a deployment and exercise after exercise makes the brain very sore, and tired, sorry.

[ 29. January 2006, 04:04: Message edited by: heloguy ]

[Guest SnakeT38]

Originally posted by heloguy:

I'm sorry, but I always have to laugh when the single seat guys start acting like they can hack the job better. There are a lot of people on this board who turned down an offered -38. I had to go to the OG/CC to convince them I wasn't "screwing" my life up. I would love to see a single seater hack our mission by him/herself. That would be rich. Just so you know... there are jobs out there that you just can't do with one pilot. But what do I know, I fly helicopters. We weren't good enough to hack it in those stable fixed wing a/c, so they sent us to these crazy whirly machines.

I'll bet there are some amazingly great fighter types out there, I'll bet there are some amazingly great heavy types out there, and I'll even bet there are some amazingly great helicopter pilots out there. The crazy thing is, you don't always hear the heavy/helo types talking about how awesome they are vs. the rest of the world. I mean, we in the helicopter world don't do it because we don't want all you fixed wing types to feel bad

Seriously though, there are some jerks in every type as well, but sadly for you good ones, the fighter types seem to hold the patent on that one. This board is pretty good about having a classy group of fighter types though.

EDIT: I just reread snake's post, and maybe I jumped on the grenade a little early. Still, even though he may not have said what I was ranting about, it's still a valid point.

P.S. planning for a deployment and exercise after exercise makes the brain very sore, and tired, sorry.

[Vetter]

I bet there are more on this board who didn't "turn down" a T-38 that those who did.

[Guest Hoser]

Originally posted by ASUPilot:

Believe it or not, not all Bone drivers are dudes who were "last" in their respective T-38 classes. As everyone knows, timing is everything. And beleive this or not, I can think of four younger AC's in my squadron who chose the Bone #1 out of T-38s.

While I'm sure there are some dudes that put B-1's first on their dream sheet out of T-38's, I can say that out of all the classes funneled thru during my FAIP tour, the overall general feeling from the students was that they picked 38's to fly fighters.

Hoser

[ASUPilot]

While I'm sure there are some dudes that put B-1's first on their dream sheet out of T-38's, I can say that out of all the classes funneled thru during my FAIP tour, the overall general feeling from the students was that they picked 38's to fly fighters.

Hoser

Yes...of course that's a true statement, myself included. My point was that not every Bone driver was "last" in their T-38 class. And truthfully, students don't know what they want, they only think they do. T-38s is so fighter focused, as it should be I guess, that all life outside of that is ignored.

Almost all of my friends from UPT fly fighters right now and they say once they figured out how to hang on as a wingman it's the coolest job in the world...for the 3 or 4 hours a week they fly. The other 50 hours a week are pretty rough.

I guess it "has" to be that way, but they were all pretty surprised at how much time they spend at the squadron. Not a lot of travel, skiing, surfing, or shagging women all over the country for them.

Would I have preferred a Hog or a Viper over my Bone out of UPT and sold my mother to get one, yes. But quality of life is a premium benefit too...I only have to be at the squadron 10 hours a day, LOL! The other 2 are mine...

[ 29. January 2006, 20:40: Message edited by: ENJJPT IP ]

[Guest SnakeT38]

Originally posted by ASUPilot:

While I'm sure there are some dudes that put B-1's first on their dream sheet out of T-38's, I can say that out of all the classes funneled thru during my FAIP tour, the overall general feeling from the students was that they picked 38's to fly fighters.

Hoser [/QB]

[Hacker]

Originally posted by SnakeT38:

when the brakes are parked you are done UNLESS they were parked while doing the Emergency Evac checklist.

How's the pay and job security these days?

[Guest SnakeT38]

Originally posted by Hacker:

How's the pay and job security these days?

[war007afa]

In this whole discussion, no one has mentioned how the slat system on the T-1 has modified its aerodynamics to act more sluggish than a C-5. That's part of why the Tone is set up for heavies. I have no, repeat, no, idea why they switched the Buff track from Tones to -38s, except for the fact that there are no other airframes, save for gunpigs (and those are mostly for FAIPs who flew Tones or -44 grads) that practice weapons delivery and don't go through the -38 track. I don't think that the Tone is around just to cut down on washout rates. Does Phase III really wash out that many dudes?

[LJ Driver]

Originally posted by Vetter:

I bet there are more on this board who didn't "turn down" a T-38 that those who did.

Does that statement and belief make you sleep better at night?

[ 31. January 2006, 00:38: Message edited by: LJ Driver ]

[Bergman]

Originally posted by war007afa:

In this whole discussion, no one has mentioned how the slat system on the T-1 has modified its aerodynamics to act more sluggish than a C-5. That's part of why the Tone is set up for heavies.

A small point, but I think you have fallen victim to a common myth. The T-1 was NOT modified to have spoilers. It may have been chosen by the AF BECAUSE it had spoilers - to simulate larger aircraft - but its flight controls are the same as the Beech 400A.

[hindsight2020]

Originally posted by LJ Driver:

Does that statement and belief make you sleep better at night?

[LJ Driver]

MDINC,

My point was only that not everyone wants a T-38. Many guys on both sides get their first choice of follow-on airplane. Until the AF releases data that actually racks and stacks first choice with actual assignment this argument will never be finished. I would be willing to bet that a random class of 20 kids has 7 that want T-1's, 9 that want T-38's, and 4 that want T-44's and UH-1's. Of them I bet 85% get their first choice. In other words, a lot of guys got their first choice, and it wasn't a T-38.

[Champ Kind]

Originally posted by LJ Driver:

MDINC,

My point was only that not everyone wants a T-38. Many guys on both sides get their first choice of follow-on airplane. Until the AF releases data that actually racks and stacks first choice with actual assignment this argument will never be finished. I would be willing to bet that a random class of 20 kids has 7 that want T-1's, 9 that want T-38's, and 4 that want T-44's and UH-1's. Of them I bet 85% get their first choice. In other words, a lot of guys got their first choice, and it wasn't a T-38.

Well put... That's pretty much how it went in my class.

[Guest Hydro130]

LJ --

So true!; I was Columbus 97-06 (last UPT class ever), and when we had the previously unheard-of FIVE T-44s and 2 UH-1s (complicated further that ours was the last UPT class ever and we were all getting fighters, blah blah blah... [*insert typical AFPC promise here*]).

Our Active Duty #1 guy took a Herc and the Tweet SQ/CC literally stomped out of the whole selection ceremony. That sucked -- be proud that the dude got his #1; just because it isn't a pointy-nose booty-whooper doesn't mean it's not the right fit for that person. Some of us can do great things in our own communities, but we wouldn't do as well in a fighter community.

Can't we all just get along (sniff sniff)...

Cheers, Hydro

[Champ Kind]

Originally posted by Hydro130:

So true!; I was Columbus 97-06 (last UPT class ever)

What's the story with that? Am I missing some sarcasm or something, or is there some kind of story that I've just never heard?

[Guest Hydro130]

Columbus 97-06 was the last full UPT (vs JSUPT) class ever. Look it up; I have better things to do...

[DC]

Last UPT class before SUPT, I'm guessing.

Hey, look at me, good guess!

Joint specialized undergraduate pilot training began at Reese Air Force Base, Texas, in July 1992 following the arrival of the T-1A Jayhawk. Undergraduate pilot training continued training all students in the T-37B Tweet and T-38A Talon until the T-1A arrived at each pilot training base. JSUPT was completely in place after the last UPT class graduated at Columbus AFB, Miss., in 1997.

https://baseops.net/militarypilot/

[DC]

Apparently I have nothing better to do. I don't, its true. JSUPT at Whiting! Six months of training crammed into 13 months. Gotta love it.

[Guest Hydro130]

DC; nice work!

[ 02. February 2006, 00:42: Message edited by: Hydro130 ]