Track Selects and Assignment Nights

[Biff_T]

On 12/7/2024 at 8:28 AM, LittleSPLover said:

KDLF 25-04

T-1 Sim:
C-17 McChord x2
C-130 Dyess
C-130 Little Rock
C-130 Ramstein
KC-135 Fairchild
KC-135 MacDill
KC-135 Mildenhall
KC-46 McGuire
KC-46 Travis
RC-135 Offutt
T-6 FAIP

T-38:
C-130 Dyess
F-15 Seymour Johnson
F-16 NJ ANG
HC-130 Moody
KC-135 Fairchild
T-6 FAIP
T-38 FAIP

Congrats!

Good drop for the heavy dudes!

Only one AD fighter though.    I thought there weren't enough 11Fs on AD.  Anyways, you 38 dudes will enjoy flying herks and even tankers.  

 

[The46IsntThatBad]

On 12/7/2024 at 10:28 AM, LittleSPLover said:

KDLF 25-04

T-1 Sim:
C-17 McChord x2
C-130 Dyess
C-130 Little Rock
C-130 Ramstein
KC-135 Fairchild
KC-135 MacDill
KC-135 Mildenhall
KC-46 McGuire
KC-46 Travis
RC-135 Offutt
T-6 FAIP

T-38:
C-130 Dyess
F-15 Seymour Johnson
F-16 NJ ANG
HC-130 Moody
KC-135 Fairchild
T-6 FAIP
T-38 FAIP

T-38 guy to Fairchild KC-135s? Can't say I've seen something like that before. 

[CaptainMorgan]

Congrats!
Good drop for the heavy dudes!
Only one AD fighter though.    I thought there weren't enough 11Fs on AD.  Anyways, you 38 dudes will enjoy flying herks and even tankers.  
 

Fighter FTUs are too backed up apparently, as is T-6 PIT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

50 minutes ago, The46IsntThatBad said:

T-38 guy to Fairchild KC-135s? Can't say I've seen something like that before. 

t-38 studs are universally assignable again much like they were in the 08-14 timeframe

[LittleSPLover]

KDLF 25-05

T-1 Sim:
AC-130J Hurlburt
B-52 Barksdale
C-17 Hickam
C-17 McChord
C-17 McGuire
C-146 Duke
KC-46 Travis
KC-135 Fairchild
KC-135 Grissom
KC-135 MacDill
KC-135 Mildenhall
KC-135 MI ANG
2x MC-130J Kirtland
RC-135 Offutt
T-6 FAIP

T-38:
F-16 TBD
F-35 WI ANG
MC-130J Kirtland
3x T-6 FAIP
2x T-38 FAIP
T-38 Langley

[Biff_T]

On 1/23/2025 at 4:26 PM, LittleSPLover said:

KDLF 25-05

T-1 Sim:
AC-130J Hurlburt
B-52 Barksdale
C-17 Hickam
C-17 McChord
C-17 McGuire
C-146 Duke
KC-46 Travis
KC-135 Fairchild
KC-135 Grissom
KC-135 MacDill
KC-135 Mildenhall
KC-135 MI ANG
2x MC-130J Kirtland
RC-135 Offutt
T-6 FAIP

T-38:
F-16 TBD
F-35 WI ANG
MC-130J Kirtland
3x T-6 FAIP
2x T-38 FAIP
T-38 Langley

Congratulations amigos!

[Day Man]

On 1/23/2025 at 5:26 PM, LittleSPLover said:

KDLF 25-05

T-1 Sim:

does this mean they don't fly the T-1 at all before going to their MWS schoolhouse?

[CaptainMorgan]

does this mean they don't fly the T-1 at all before going to their MWS schoolhouse?

T-1 is dead except for XPW at CBM and END. AMF-S (T-1 sim only) is about to be dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, CaptainMorgan said:

T-1 is dead except for XPW at CBM and END. AMF-S (T-1 sim only) is about to be dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

still tumbleweed on how this works nowadays, but thanks anyways! 🍻

[hindsight2020]

3 hours ago, Day Man said:

does this mean they don't fly the T-1 at all before going to their MWS schoolhouse?

correct, sim only, there's no tails on the ramp anymore (DLF). And those (the sims) too will be divested. It's just paid for,  so it's being used as a front to distract from the backlogs the herbie FTUs are having themselves.

Deck chair re-arranging, nothing of substance here, it's just a failure to admit they didn't capitalize properly and now the chickens came home. Don't fall for the "innovation" spin.

[Clark Griswold]

92 T-1s at AMARC

https://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=274#

Refurbish or replace USAF… you owe it to the future LAF


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hindsight2020]

Further effects of the divestment, some GS [now former] toners at P-cola are scrambling for T-1 sim jobs at the garden varieties in order to get a touch n go to apply back to their own sim jobs down there. That's how saturated that market is, and how much location is an inducement for these AD retiree types. Some folks would bag groceries as long as the wife doesn't have to hear we gotta leave the redneck riviera. In fairness, I know Allegiant pilots in the same boat (vis a vis legacy 121 et al), so the dynamic is not unique. After all, it's why most people (HoH with dependents) get out of RegAF for, statistically speaking.

On our end, not everybody wanted to flow to T-6s, T-6 PIT is more than 12 months backed up, it's a mess. Some sour faces across AFRC regarding the divestment (Toners were always the easiest to fill due to the airline job gateway it was), and people looking at having their AGRs invol-curtailed short. It's a mess for sure, yai morale and loss of experience.

But fif gen and big pork programmes are capitalized, so it's all good. /s

 

[LiquidSky]

Can't wait to see the $ savings go up in flames as we add more FTU sim time & flight hours to get these dudes up to speed. Only gone cross country twice? Here's a c17 round the world fiesta. Never landed a multi engine aircraft? Here's an assault in the herk.

Wonder many class As do we need before they realize the toner saved a lot of $ by breaking cheaper planes.

[hindsight2020]

2 hours ago, LiquidSky said:

Wonder many class As do we need before they realize the toner saved a lot of $ by breaking cheaper planes.

 

Oh they know all of that already. They don't care.

In any event, the answer to your question is, as always, "more than currently". And they're always flirting with finding that line. The injurious part is of course, you know, the pawns of the innovation experiement who will die for it (and have died already since 2018).

 

 

Edited Sunday at 02:42 AM by hindsight2020
brevity.

[Clark Griswold]

Wonder many class As do we need before they realize the toner saved a lot of $ by breaking cheaper planes.

Good point, a quantifiable reason for them to take


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

Oh they know all of that already. They don't care.
In any event, the answer to your question is, as always, "more than currently". And they're always flirting with finding that line. The injurious part is of course, you know, the pawns of the innovation experiement who will die for it (and have died already since 2018).
 
 

Has the point ever been brought up the Navy is not going down this road? That is phoning in pilot training vs actually doing it? Not saying they (USN) are doing it perfectly but they don’t seem to be robbing from training as bad as we are


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

Sounds like yet ANOTHER bubble in the system...already short, massively short in a few years when ADSCs expire.  Fighter RTUs are backed up so lets cut input to a trickle...how will that manifest in a few years?  Sad that after all these years the only solution they can find is it F it up more.  Anyone know how it is on the Navy side?

[BFM this]

10 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Has the point ever been brought up the Navy is not going down this road? That is phoning in pilot training vs actually doing it? Not saying they (USN) are doing it perfectly but they don’t seem to be robbing from training as bad as we are

Just a thought, but I think that based on the nature of the flying involved, the feedback loop for the Navy is much more direct and severe.

[Clark Griswold]

Just a thought, but I think that based on the nature of the flying involved, the feedback loop for the Navy is much more direct and severe.

If you mean the guys who fly to from the boat yes but even their land based aviators are getting an advanced trainer, the oft mentioned T-54.
How are the f is the f*cking Air Force less interested in basic flying training than the Navy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Fighter RTUs are backed up so lets cut input to a trickle...how will that manifest in a few years? 

We couldn’t possibly know, hasn’t been done 69 times before. “It’ll be a great outcome!” - Gen Bob (who will be long gone before that outcome is realized). And the cycle repeats.

[Clark Griswold]

@hindsight2020 @brabus

Just another of my outta left field ideas but could you / would you want to shift T-38 eventually T-7 training to existing fighter bases with their syllabus incorporating IFF?  Probably converting some Wings or activating ones to a light fighter version of the T-7 for synergies?

Reason I ask is that in this thread, constipation in student training pipelines is often mentioned, my thinking is that is you have 3 places where consistent repetitive training flights (basic military flying training) are not occurring you will get studs thru quicker with proximity to actual fighter / attack Wings (thinking converting A-10 Wing or two to a F-7 and them being attack focused) being an additional bonus.  Training with said Wings post graduation if their follow on FTU is not ready for intake.

There’s more than a few Wings losing iron that would support methinks with access to airspace and facilities to handle this.  Add in liaison support aircraft for scheduled and on demand movement of IPs, you may ameliorated the remoteness issue too.  Just throwing it out there.

[Biff_T]

Are V1 cuts conducted in the T-1 sim?    Going from the T-6 into a multi-engine heavy, losing an engine on takeoff is a different creature.    

[mp5g]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

@hindsight2020 @brabus

Just another of my outta left field ideas but could you / would you want to shift T-38 eventually T-7 training to existing fighter bases with their syllabus incorporating IFF?  Probably converting some Wings or activating ones to a light fighter version of the T-7 for synergies?

Reason I ask is that in this thread, constipation in student training pipelines is often mentioned, my thinking is that is you have 3 places where consistent repetitive training flights (basic military flying training) are not occurring you will get studs thru quicker with proximity to actual fighter / attack Wings (thinking converting A-10 Wing or two to a F-7 and them being attack focused) being an additional bonus.  Training with said Wings post graduation if their follow on FTU is not ready for intake.

There’s more than a few Wings losing iron that would support methinks with access to airspace and facilities to handle this.  Add in liaison support aircraft for scheduled and on demand movement of IPs, you may ameliorated the remoteness issue too.  Just throwing it out there.

What about dual qual’ing IPs in a T-7/T-38 and their MWS to take on that plan at an actual base? Would you then be able to use the studs as perma Red Air for the first 1-2 years so they can learn tactics of their MWS they are going to while also being a part of the flying squadron and gaining ass in seat time? Think the F-22/T-38 dudes for the last 10-12 years. 
 

I would have loved the option to dual qual in multiple planes. That just means more opportunity to fly and gain experience. We often ran into issues trying to go cross country these past few years (PL3 ramps, FOD of unswept ramps, get your JOAP samples burned, to name a few) but if we would’ve been able to go wherever we wanted with an easy to maintain plane with few restrictions on where it could be parked overnight, sign me up for that any day of the week. 

[skybert]

2 hours ago, Biff_T said:

Are V1 cuts conducted in the T-1 sim?    Going from the T-6 into a multi-engine heavy, losing an engine on takeoff is a different creature.    

“Read this, it will tell you everything you need to know about engine failures in a multi”

[Clark Griswold]

What about dual qual’ing IPs in a T-7/T-38 and their MWS to take on that plan at an actual base? Would you then be able to use the studs as perma Red Air for the first 1-2 years so they can learn tactics of their MWS they are going to while also being a part of the flying squadron and gaining ass in seat time? Think the F-22/T-38 dudes for the last 10-12 years. 
 
I would have loved the option to dual qual in multiple planes. That just means more opportunity to fly and gain experience. We often ran into issues trying to go cross country these past few years (PL3 ramps, FOD of unswept ramps, get your JOAP samples burned, to name a few) but if we would’ve been able to go wherever we wanted with an easy to maintain plane with few restrictions on where it could be parked overnight, sign me up for that any day of the week. 

Dual qual has all its own issues and some advantages but I think that would be a no go, at least in two high performance aircraft as a standard paradigm of the IP cadre as a whole

That’s just my opinion and worth what you paid for it

To me it’s flight time in multiple aircraft on a reasonable time frame with not a lot of hurry up and wait, the way to achieve that is dispersal of training but not closure of existing training bases


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk