Napoleon_Tanerite

It still kills me that guys consider this a bad assignment. Aside from the perpetual toxic leadership mess that the 552 ACW is, I see the E-3 to Tinker as being a great assignment!

Huggy I think you missed my point, or I failed to communicate it well. I'm not saying to pull the plug on the CPT program, far from it. I'm saying that if there is a serious look at replacing the T-38A with something else the B-2 and U-2 communities probably would be unwise to put up much of a fight, as it could result in the loss of the whole program. Personally I think the program should be expanded to include RPAs and all ACC heavies, if not all heavy aircraft in general, but the money simply isn't there. As much as you scoff at the "what is good enough" argument, it comes down to just that. You will always be fighting against people who look at line items on spreadsheets and make arguments like "if this airplane just does XYZ, why do they need a CPT program to do the whole alphabet". These people don't get the idea of broad airmanship. I WISH we had a CPT program when I was flying the E-8. I don't care if it was a T-38A, T-6, Eclipse, or a Cessna 172, any time is better than no time. You get no argument from me regarding skill atrophy. After being a UPT instructor for a few years my stick and rudder skills are VASTLY superior to what they would have ever been had I stayed in the E-8 community for a lifetime. I don't mean that to brag, I mean that the kind of flying that is done in the UPT environment builds airmanship that you don't get elsewhere, and rightly so.

I'm well aware of small fleet dynamics (16 jet fleet) and the demands of ops, training, and MX on those few tails. Not to get into an appendage assessment contest, but I'd venture to say the average E-8 pilot flies the jet less frequently than the average B-2 guy, the only exception being deployed, but in terms of stick and rudder flying not the best. I think we both want tg same thing and for the same reasons. The most proficient and broadly skilled pilot is the best at employing his/her weapon system. With that said, budgetary reality is what it is. I wish I had 20 more hours to fly UPT students before graduating them, but the budget nerds say the current syllabus is enough. Probably the best candidate would be a T-6. It's the best balance between capability and cost, and aside from the go-fast aspect, I think the T-6 is more fun to fly.

This argument is short sighted and weak sauce in my opinion (no offense). By your logic we should give T-38s to E-8, E-3 and RC-135 squadrons. The kind of flying these airplanes do are probably 80% comparable to what the B-2 does. Full disclosure I'm an E-8 guy by trade, so that's my perspective. With that said, I'd be willing to bet that the preponderance of flying that the B-2 does is dominated by the following things-- takeoff, TONS of cruise time, get some gas, cruise some more, a brief moment where magic happens, cruise some more, land. In the kind of flying we are doing right now (or likely to EVER do with the B-2) you are better served with an airplane that flies (and is flown) like the B-2 is. And where I feel that this is short sighted, there's a reason that 75% or more of UPT students go through the T-1. You can operate a fleet of T-1s for what it costs to keep a handfull of T-38s in the air. Frankly I'm amazed big blue hasn't pulled your 38s already just to "save money". I think the B-2 community would be insane to pass on an opportunity for a cheaper companion trainer, even if it means trading off some of the fun of flying. ANY airplane is more fun to fly than NO airplane.

Yup, you nailed it.... T-1 students certainly don't learn a doctorate worth of instrument and mission planning knowledge, or at least not what they could otherwise learn in a month of academics. In other related news I heard the T-38 program was a months worth of education extended out to 6 months so the class could all graduate together with the -1 peers... it only takes about a week or so to learn to fly a 1.1 around the flag pole. As for the discussion at hand, I think there are certainly more cost effective ways to do what we do with the T-1 right now; however, it would be tough to do it for such a substantial cost savings as to overcome the sunk cost already invested in the paid-for T-1 fleet. There's a pretty major avionics upgrade coming to the T-1 by ~2020 or so (rumor has it) and that may bring up the economics of upgrading the existing T-1s or buying new off the shelf. The problem with OTS is that the T-1 really isn't. The UPT models have a LOT of armor up front to mitigate the higher risk of bird strikes for the LL flying the T-1 does, and on top of that the nav school ones are pretty substantially re-fit to do the training they do down there. It's not as simple as painting CB on the tail of an Eclipse and calling it a new T-1

I'm not going to say too much about the recent drop, but I can confirm that the RPA selection is not strictly MASS based. It's not necessarily the bottom two guys who automatically get the RPA. There's a lot of Flt/CC discretion there, usually in conference with the Sq/CC. On the other side of the coin, there's no "go do" regarding NOT giving the RPAs to bottom third types. Suffice to say, the RPAs will likely go to guys who have taken steps to remove their future from their immediate control, either via poor performance or poor attitude.

I brought this up on one of the aviation related FB pages that was discussing this mishap. Not necessarily the taking a tour of a control facility, but more the go a bit beyond the minimum WRT knowing your airspace. The group in that discussion were firmly in the position that the Cessna did nothing wrong and the F-16 was completely at fault for not "immediately" reacting to controller instructions. I will say that some of the closest calls I've had in an airplane have been vs GA airplanes that were legal, but not smart. We're talking about guys blasting through a MOA squawking 1200 and not talking to anybody, that kind of stuff. Count me in that this is an education not regulation issue. A little airmanship goes a long way, and in this case, if the Cessna had been listening to CHS approach, even if he wasn't talking to them, perhaps he could have deduced that he was the traffic the F-16 was getting panic vectors for.

Yes, there most certainly are. Usually they are the kids who did well in school (or had some strong sponsors along the way) and UPT presents them with their first real challenge and/or the first place where their excuses and quibbling is not tolerated. They tend to lack coping mechanisms for failure and tend to project their weakness on others, either their classmates or the IPs, usually both.

You'd be surprised at some of the students going through UPT right now. Not all, not most, but some.

"No way to raise your MASS" after hearing about RPAs? I'm kind of glad that the threat is real again, it will light a fire under entitled students who think all they need to do is show up, warm a seat, and they are entitled to wings. There was no real incentive to do well. You bomb UPT and you get an E-3 to Tinker.... oh no. Tell me how TERRIBLE that type rating in a four engine Boeing heavy is. Oklahoma city? That sounds horrible. I can't believe they would make you PCS to Alaska, Germany, or Japan after that! Now there's a real penalty for doing poorly in UPT. There is also talk of RPAs not being directly tied to MASS. What that means it the shitbag with the poor attitude but decent hands still isn't safe.

Currently flying T-1. Haven't gotten anything yet, but it would be an 11R gig. I'm former JSTARS, but could just as easily do RC-135 or E-3.

This uncertainty is the very thing that's driving me to the exit to begin with. If they were serious about retaining pilots they should offer a bit of stability and predictability. Instead, I'm facing being FORCED to move for no good reason to a TBD location. I think I'll seek greener pastures.

That's what I don't want. I'm hoping that since I'm at UPT right now they'll look at the $$ of a full up requal and decide it's not worth it to move me to get a year of CMR out of me.

I really woudn't mind serving out the rest of the ADSC. Options 1 and 2 are both perfectly fine by me.

I'm planning on going down this road, but want to make sure I understand it properly. I have an ADSC that is up in Apr 2018. If they try to tag me with an assignment that has a RNLTD of Apr 2106 or later I can opt due to the two year PCS ADSC that would take me beyond my existing ADSC? Also the way I understand it is once I officially opt the AF has three options: 1. Stay at current location to finish commitment, potentially with a nice 365 thrown in 2. Set a DOS now and potentially waive the remaining ADSC 3. Force the move anyway and don't force the additional ADSC Any "correct me if I'm wrong" would be really appreciated.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/asia/indonesia-military-plane-crash/ About as bad as it gets. Couldn't help but notice the article says there were 110 passengers and 12 crew on board. Seems high for a 130? Or not?

Just because it's another JQP post doesn't mean it's not a separate topic that merits its own thread if guys want to discuss it. As for the topic at hand, it's just another symptom of the yes man culture. Nobody is willing to challenge bad decisions by leaders. Are there bad leaders in the AF? Of course! But for every genuinely bad leader, there are probably ten good ones made to look bad by poor followers. It's unreasonable to expect WG/CCs and above to be in tune with the daily reality of their organization, so it's imperative for followers to inform the boss of the potential impact of proposals instead of blindly obeying every whim and wish.

There are certain things that come along with this job that are not advertised, but must be taken into consideration. You WILL be spending substantial time away from your family, and will not always be there when you're needed. In emergency circumstances you can take leave, but if you're the primary person your family counts on in tough times, perhaps this job isn't for you. You won't be in this job forever. You and the AF will eventually part ways, and it's important you ensure your family doesn't part ways with you first. Some people lose sight of that and allow this job to consume them. They don't realize it until it's too late.

Spot on, but for some reason the AF has decided that flying a T-1 in UPT somehow permanently prevents someone from having the ability to fly fighters or bombers. So instead of attempting to cross flow trained pilots to fill fighter shortages they try to offer insane bonuses. Unreal.

This would be the only reason that the -38 makes any sense.

Someone with a brain? Although T-38s are considered the easier program these days, or at least have a lower hook and washout rate.

http://www.mildenhall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123446539

No link, but word from people at EGUN in the know.