Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Since when has the AF cared about later?

BTW Prince Saleem needs more cigarette breaks and 12 more 87 rides.  He's on the 2 year UPT program.  Also he won't make formal brief Monday because he's got some Tinder dates in Dallas on Sunday and

The T-38 is TIRED, that is a given, it must be replaced NOW.  That being said, I don't think a 9G $30 MILLION trainer is the answer.  Having been forced to look at the "numbers" as a OSD staff we

Posted Images

49 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

It'd probably be cheaper, easier, and more effective to give the CAF dudes more incentive to stay. The result of this, if implemented, will have a terrible effect on the fleet gun squadrons (or whatever you guys call them).

No argument with that (retaining already trained talent is better) but just offering a what is IMO a viable Plan B.

47 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Well that got interesting quick.  The other rumor was that these students would only be high school grads, you read that correctly.

Wow... just wow if that rumor is in fact truth. 

Now if you had a program for HS grads to join, train, get an Associate's Degree from the CCAF and then become a WO1 with an 18X AFSC in about a 2.5 year time line, I think that is viable and would alleviate the pull of 11Fs to Droids but straight to single seat manned fighters?  Really AF, this is a good idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

... look for a short / medium term lease option for a common fast jet trainer, L-39 or similar, ...

As a current L-39 IP,  I do not see this as a reasonable option.   

Too bad the AF wasted all that money on C-model, PMP mod, and Martin-Baker seats.  How many hundreds of millions of $$$ was it?  That would have been a great down payment on the T-38 replacement, and it would have been fielded by now.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
As a current L-39 IP,  I do not see this as a reasonable option.   


Copy - was hoping to get your opinion on the Albatross as an advanced trainer.

My suggestion for the L-39 was mainly due to the likely availability of enough airframes quickly to stand up a temporary training det.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, HeloDude said:

If they make it through PIT then what does it matter?  Heavy guys go onto to fly T-38s at TPS/with the U-2 and I'm sure some become IPs.  If you're a good instructor then you can learn to teach anything you've been qual'd in.  

T-38s for u2/b2 are very limited in what they can do .... your argument may not be apples to apples

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If every CAF fighter pilot is saying this is a bad idea, it's a bad idea.

People trying to come up with creative solutions with a "can do" attitude just don't understand the complexity of what we do. It's not rocket surgery but you can't rush the process. The only way to get better is with experience. That goes for executing tactics and general decision making skills.

All this for what? Cutting 6 months of the decades worth of manning issues the AF is going to have? Not worth it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Copy - was hoping to get your opinion on the Albatross as an advanced trainer.

My suggestion for the L-39 was mainly due to the likely availability of enough airframes quickly to stand up a temporary training det.

 

It would be a huge step back as an advanced trainer.  And the slow spool from idle to mil (9"-12") will kill a lot of students.  

I suppose you could get Aero to build us a bunch... but I really don't know where you'd get the number of airframes we would need.  

I like flying it.  And I know the Eastern Euros use it extensively.  I just don't believe it's even close for what we expect.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Powers said:

If every CAF fighter pilot is saying this is a bad idea, it's a bad idea.

People trying to come up with creative solutions with a "can do" attitude just don't understand the complexity of what we do. It's not rocket surgery but you can't rush the process. The only way to get better is with experience. That goes for executing tactics and general decision making skills.

All this for what? Cutting 6 months of the decades worth of manning issues the AF is going to have? Not worth it.

Shack.  There’s innovative thinking and there’s being reckless.  This is the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be a huge step back as an advanced trainer.  And the slow spool from idle to mil (9"-12") will kill a lot of students.   I suppose you could get Aero to build us a bunch... but I really don't know where you'd get the number of airframes we would need.  

I like flying it.  And I know the Eastern Euros use it extensively.  I just don't believe it's even close for what we expect.  

 

Gotcha - that spool up is Tweet like

 

Thinking about this temp det I️ was thinking used L-39s refurbished & modified to a common configuration - with money and top cover to just get it done, figure 6+ months to buy/modify/bed down aircraft while simultaneously training the instructor cadre and modifying an existing syllabus and finishing out a campus at an AFB

 

Project Liberty was far from perfect but an example of getting it done fast

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The money spent on bringing in an interim trainer is money that should be spent on accelerating the Next Gen Trainer.  It's basically what the C-model, PMP, and MB seat were for the T-38:  a way to kick the can down the road instead of addressing the issue head on.  

Personal opinion only.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The money spent on bringing in an interim trainer is money that should be spent on accelerating the Next Gen Trainer.  It's basically what the C-model, PMP, and MB seat were for the T-38:  a way to kick the can down the road instead of addressing the issue head on.  
Personal opinion only.  

Cool

Valid points

All the points/suggestions I’ve been making are just techniques to try to pump water faster out of sinking ship while there’s still a hole in the boat
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

Does T-38 PIT not ensure that you are qualified to teach the T-38 PIT syllabus?  

Sort of. 

Some folks come back from pit with a qual rating, some with an IP rating, some with an SUPT IP rating. It’s all about what the unit wants to pay for. Different syllabi for different products. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Does T-38 PIT not ensure that you are qualified to teach the T-38 PIT syllabus?  

The PIT syllabus has different tracks for SUPT and CTP.  The MIF/Standards are the "same" by syllabus definition but guys going to CTP are held to different standards aka weak swimmers are let through.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently a phase 3 T-38 IP (not my choice, thanks AFPC/luck/timing for that). There have been multiple credible reports of the new AETC/CC floating similar ideas (shortened T-6 only syllabus, then sim top off and direct to the FTU) back when he was the OG/CC at Laughlin. After reading the posts on the CAF Facebook page, I'm thinking we're hearing about the newest iteration of this terrible idea as it assumes its final form.

As someone who is in the UPT trenches and a witness to the assignments pendulum and quality of the product we're sending to IFF and the B-courses, I wonder if I'm alone in thinking that those at the top have given up on being the most lethal/capable/best Air Force and now we're just going with "well, at least we've got the most pilots..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The objective requirements for the TX program basically make it a new F-16...yet another blunder. 

50 years later I would think we could make a reasonable T-38 replacement in minimal time that would have the economy and dependability of a business jet while still having the performance required to teach formation and BFM.  Yet again, this mess is self-induced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attention any lurking senior leaders: get your shit together, go to congress, and stand on their desks until they give you $600m annually for aircrew bonuses. That's $100k more for 6k dudes. All of the harebrained ideas above will cost you way more than that; $600m is only enough to get 600 unqualified wingmen/copilots vs getting thousands of experienced guys to stay.

Dont make this hard.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Attention any lurking senior leaders: get your shit together, go to congress, and stand on their desks until they give you $600m annually for aircrew bonuses. That's $100k more for 6k dudes. All of the harebrained ideas above will cost you way more than that; $600m is only enough to get 600 unqualified wingmen/copilots vs getting thousands of experienced guys to stay.

Dont make this hard.

E9A96563-EC28-4F90-8871-23EE876FBE3E.gif.8862329feebaa0c09744ffcc41dd2754.gif

Just don’t forget the QoL and lethality/capability bits that go with the $600m. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Attention any lurking senior leaders: get your shit together, go to congress, and stand on their desks until they give you $600m annually for aircrew bonuses. That's $100k more for 6k dudes. All of the harebrained ideas above will cost you way more than that; $600m is only enough to get 600 unqualified wingmen/copilots vs getting thousands of experienced guys to stay.

Dont make this hard.

Last I saw it was closer to $10 million to get a dude to show up to a fleet squadron as a wingman not even qualified to fly into combat. Granted, that’s in an F/A-18 but it can’t be too significantly different. I’d say you’re overestimating the number of fighter pilots you get for $600 million by a factor of 10. Which makes your argument even stronger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The objective requirements for the TX program basically make it a new F-16...yet another blunder. 

50 years later I would think we could make a reasonable T-38 replacement in minimal time that would have the economy and dependability of a business jet while still having the performance required to teach formation and BFM.  Yet again, this mess is self-induced.

I hear ya, but I think there's two issues at hand, one I agree with you and one I'm not so sure about. I guess I should ask you, what should the TX embodiment look like if you were king? Other than being part of the near-kleptocratic bidding and contracting process of our rent-seeking-contractor-beholden civilian government, I don't see anything obscene or "unreasonable" about a T-50 to replace the clapped out 38. It's not like the JPATS wasn't a blunder, and let's not get into the F-35. All "success" stories as far as the pocket lining they were intended to create. I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying I live in the world of what things are, though I'd love to live in the world of what things should be.

At any rate, it's [T-50] largely commercially available already, which means your complaint about timelines would not otherwise exist if the procurement process wasn't broken to begin with. That's not KAI's fault, though certainly Lockheed is complicit. Now, just because it isn't a weaponized mission set doesn't mean we have to eat another underpowered handicapped airplane for a trainer just so the CAF doesn't get penis envy, if that's what you were getting at with the "nouveau-F16" reference. F404 power is not some sort of FWA just because it's UPT. Less of that ethnocentrism would do the organization a bunch of good imo.

This week is probably not the best week for me to pipe up about the T-38 replacement all things considered, but it's overdue. That I agree with you wholeheartedly. If the political climate is such that these tragedies actually accelerate the implementation, so be it. I very much look forward to a F404 punching class of airplane in SUPT, and I don't think the world will end if they have to go back to a two-airplane UPT in order to pay for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Last I saw it was closer to $10 million to get a dude to show up to a fleet squadron as a wingman not even qualified to fly into combat. Granted, that’s in an F/A-18 but it can’t be too significantly different. I’d say you’re overestimating the number of fighter pilots you get for $600 million by a factor of 10. Which makes your argument even stronger.


Does the $10 million include bringing his boyfriend with him?
Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this abortion of an idea comes to pass, what does or would the FAA have to say about this?  

While the military is a self-certifying agency there are some basic assumptions between the DoD and the FAA on aircrew training for qualification and certification, that we won't do anything reckless, risky, dumb or that would endanger the public or property unduly.  Like marginally training people and then putting them in the control of a jet they by any other standard would not be qualified to operate at their given level of experience and training.

I doubt they would be cool with us certifying someone good to fly a multi-engine jet if they had no turbine or multi engine experience, so extend that idea to someone only having 100 or so hours in a high performance turboprop, some sims (not even Class D) and then put in the seat of a supersonic jet.  Methinks they would not be ok with that person at the controls in the NAS.

How can the Air Staff or AETC Staff seriously bounce this idea around without considering the first incident and then the subsequent investigation, reports, headlines, etc... and not see the AF losing all confidence in its ability to operate?  I mean really, look at the Navy right now, they took shiphandling and turned it from a formal course into a stack of CDs for dudes to review prior to reporting to their first assignment, how's that working for them now?

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/07/549117911/navy-officials-examine-training-procedures-after-ship-accidents

fitz-170617-n-xn177-155_wide-17b10d3700e

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the powers that be think this is achievable. Not to sound arrogant, but I would've probably been chosen as one of the test cases because I showed up to UPT as a CFII. I did okay in UPT, but I didn't get adequate at tac form until IFF and to the point where just flying didn't require a serious amount of brain bytes until after that. I did well in the instrument phase and the contact stuff, but the tactical flying required me to develop those skills just like everyone else. If the plan is to have a fully qualified F-35 wingman in 365 days, that's an extremely lofty goal for mass production.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...