Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
JimNtexas

What is next for the UPT-Next graduates?

Recommended Posts

And how expensive is this 5th gen helmet supposed to be? Or what weapons are they going to simulate? And what happens when the datalink does not work? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this at least indicates that some level of leadership is convinced that there is literally no way to retain currently serving pilots. Therefore very dramatic and very immediate steps are required to replace them. They've gone from thinking there's no problem at all (under reaction) to thinking the problem is so dire it can't be undone (over reaction).

I wonder if any of this will ever be attributed to their unwillingness to properly present the problem to Congress for so many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Spend 9 figures on developing a T-6 that has capes that many CAF aircraft still lack? Except that it doesn’t actually have a real sensor or drop a real bomb. Sounds about right. While the SPs get worse at basic flying skills because they’re wrapped up in what FIPS 140-1 means.

I wouldn't be surprised if every T-6 is updated to this standard and the turbotrack only* track is expanded big time.

*There is a N=1 data set being tested at END from a SP that didn't graduate PTN and that SP is currently flying T-6s for Advanced Phase.  Separate from PTN and currently restricted to T-6 FAIPing and U-28s as follow-on platform as of a few weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-tracking these experiment guys is not all that cumbersome. We've recycled legacy students through an entire UPT cycle in the past, so this is really not a big deal in the volume we're speaking. Now, you go scale the production of PTN up to UPT classes, and any systemic recycling completely kills the economy sought after in the first place.

What is true, is that the yearly production numbers originally targeted by AETC for the 2020 and beyond time frame, will not and are not being met under the current paradigm period dot. Everybody is circling around the answer but nobody wants to say it. The only way they're gonna legitimately meet the production quota is by re-opening another UPT base. There's no political capital to make that happen, so we'll continue failing. They're trying to crank up production on a cost neutral basis, and they'll fail. Show me the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there may be a little to much credit given to the whole PTN thing.  From what I am seeing locally there is an incredible sense of self worth being cultivated up there from nonexistent results.  While the whole VR thing clearly has some value the inflated sense of it is insane.   Some one says "BIG DATA," "ANALYTICS," and I swear people just about climax in their pants.  I really don't see PTN ever producing any crazy change with how we produce pilots beyond perhaps providing some $$ for new toys which will break within a year, and won't have sufficient support to keep running (aka operations normal) and we will return to grounding our IP force to dust at the UPT bases to make sure the meat is produced in a timely manner.  If that involves more more "syllabus" innovations then I'm sure they will entertain it, until more people can either get themselves killed or class A a lot more iron.   So while this sideshow has been entertaining you'll excuse me while I get back to actual instruction and use the new VR simulators to hide my terabytes of midget dungeon porn.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 1:00 PM, Bode said:

I know they didn’t make it through. The learning curve was too steep. The kids we 18 and had zero aviation background. From what I was told as the time crunch started to happen they focused on the Os and left the Es to fail. A couple of them could have made it given better pre-conditions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where are you getting your data?  I have a pretty direct source who says 1 self eliminated, 4 completed program and of those 4 2 were recommended for commissioning programs.  Are we talking different programs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the IPs on the ground at AUS told me that. They may have been rec’d for commissioning but I don’t believe any actually finished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, uhhello said:

2 were recommended for commissioning programs.

So they’ve got a bachelors? So a year ago when they expressed their desire to be pilots, their Chief leadership sent them to this program instead of OTS and UPT where they’d be nearly done by now?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bode said:

One of the IPs on the ground at AUS told me that. They may have been rec’d for commissioning but I don’t believe any actually finished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

11 hours ago, Bode said:

One of the IPs on the ground at AUS told me that. They may have been rec’d for commissioning but I don’t believe any actually finished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, the program was pretty stupid from what I gather on the AF side.  These were brand new fresh out of basic Airmen.  A couple were in the linguist pipeline I believe.  Nobody had a degree.  You are correct in that none finished but I don't think there was actually a 'finish line' on this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, uhhello said:

 

No, the program was pretty stupid from what I gather on the AF side.  These were brand new fresh out of basic Airmen.  A couple were in the linguist pipeline I believe.  Nobody had a degree.  You are correct in that none finished but I don't think there was actually a 'finish line' on this.  

If you don’t set out a definitive measure of performance that asserts success...you can’t fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2018 at 11:53 AM, hindsight2020 said:

Re-tracking these experiment guys is not all that cumbersome. We've recycled legacy students through an entire UPT cycle in the past, so this is really not a big deal in the volume we're speaking. Now, you go scale the production of PTN up to UPT classes, and any systemic recycling completely kills the economy sought after in the first place.

What is true, is that the yearly production numbers originally targeted by AETC for the 2020 and beyond time frame, will not and are not being met under the current paradigm period dot. Everybody is circling around the answer but nobody wants to say it. The only way they're gonna legitimately meet the production quota is by re-opening another UPT base. There's no political capital to make that happen, so we'll continue failing. They're trying to crank up production on a cost neutral basis, and they'll fail. Show me the money.

Where will we find the IPs to staff a new UPT base?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where will we find the IPs to staff a new UPT base?

With there being a 3 year ADSC to requal to your MWS, you might see a lot of 2nd assignment UPT IPs not returning to their MWS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pawnman said:

Where will we find the IPs to staff a new UPT base?

Open Mather again as UPT base instead of a UNT base you'll get a lot of VLPAD guys who want a 3 year tour while they build seniority. Or another desirable location 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

Open Mather again as UPT base instead of a UNT base you'll get a lot of VLPAD guys who want a 3 year tour while they build seniority. Or another desirable location 

Willy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FlyArmy said:

Willy. 

Everyone would wash out, the “distractions” nearby are too scenic for studs’ own good.  Enoid single moms looking to latch an officer down was enough reason to keep to the room to study and chairfly! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ihtfp06 said:


With there being a 3 year ADSC to requal to your MWS, you might see a lot of 2nd assignment UPT IPs not returning to their MWS.

Almost sounds like that’s the plan, doesn’t it?

Share this post


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

Willy is still in use as Mesa Gateway with no airspace. Mather or Reese are available for UPT buffoonery.

 

There’s a lot of airspace just east/south of KIWA. They’d just have to share it with the TUS guys and/or whoever else uses it. And the mix of light commercial and GA traffic isn’t much to contend with. I’ve never flown mil in this airspace so maybe there are more conflicts than I’m aware of, but from flying commercial and GA in the area, I don’t see why it wouldn’t work. Looks like it’s more airspace with fewer users than some other areas. 

Share this post


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

 

There’s a lot of airspace just east/south of KIWA. They’d just have to share it with the TUS guys and/or whoever else uses it. And the mix of light commercial and GA traffic isn’t much to contend with. I’ve never flown mil in this airspace so maybe there are more conflicts than I’m aware of, but from flying commercial and GA in the area, I don’t see why it wouldn’t work. Looks like it’s more airspace with fewer users than some other areas. 

I've had to KIO so many times in that airspace due to GA, please don't make this situation worse.  GA pilots love to tell everyone they can go in there, but its at their own risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, matmacwc said:

I've had to KIO so many times in that airspace due to GA, please don't make this situation worse.  GA pilots love to tell everyone they can go in there, but its at their own risk.

When I used to fly GA I was an active mil pilot, so i was vaguely familiar with MOAs. I was always on FF and didn’t go thru active moa’s. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the GA and commercial traffic at KIWA, which wouldn’t be much of an issue if a bunch of T6/38/Xs showed up. The PHX area is saturated with GA flight schools, including many weak english speakers. But they tend to hang out at the GA airports and some of the practice areas, not MOAs and probably not KIWA if it became a UPT base. So long as this hypothetical Willy base had easy access to the MOAs east and south, I don’t see much conflict with commercial/GA. So long as it wasn’t too saturated with Luke, TUS, and DM traffic (and anyone else in the area), seems like it’s as adequate airspace as any, with 99.69% of days flyable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FlyArmy said:

When I used to fly GA I was an active mil pilot, so i was vaguely familiar with MOAs. I was always on FF and didn’t go thru active moa’s. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the GA and commercial traffic at KIWA, which wouldn’t be much of an issue if a bunch of T6/38/Xs showed up. The PHX area is saturated with GA flight schools, including many weak english speakers. But they tend to hang out at the GA airports and some of the practice areas, not MOAs and probably not KIWA if it became a UPT base. So long as this hypothetical Willy base had easy access to the MOAs east and south, I don’t see much conflict with commercial/GA. So long as it wasn’t too saturated with Luke, TUS, and DM traffic (and anyone else in the area), seems like it’s as adequate airspace as any, with 99.69% of days flyable. 

Probably not the best idea unless your UPT people’s plan on flying to the Sunny MOA. Besides, there are civilians that use that airspace and airport for fighter training as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 5:06 PM, LookieRookie said:

Well it seems the Air Force wants to do a mod to a new "E-model" standard for the PTN T-6s. (Navy has T-6Bs, Beech sells T-6C, Army has T-6Ds)

 From the RFI:

 


The United States Air Force is interested in assessing industry’s capability and technical maturity in modifying up to eight T-6As to integrate the following capabilities on a temporary basis to demonstrate evolutionary training/learning procedures.   
We ask that any interested potential vendors specifically address each numbered capability with a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) along with substantiating data and estimated schedule to field each capability.  Additionally, we are interested in airworthiness certification, cybersecurity, and spectrum certification strategies.  Please include all of your assumptions in these strategies. 

...

If you read the T-X system specification you will see that this list is almost identical to the required capabilities of the now Boeing T-X.

I suspect the USAF hopes that by equipping both trainers with these advanced simulation features that they can reduce the time from a student pilot walking in off the street to becoming MR in his end weapons system.

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=646b86a7bd46af87a7fc69de9ed306fc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 10:53 AM, FlyArmy said:

When I used to fly GA I was an active mil pilot, so i was vaguely familiar with MOAs. I was always on FF and didn’t go thru active moa’s. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the GA and commercial traffic at KIWA, which wouldn’t be much of an issue if a bunch of T6/38/Xs showed up. The PHX area is saturated with GA flight schools, including many weak english speakers. But they tend to hang out at the GA airports and some of the practice areas, not MOAs and probably not KIWA if it became a UPT base. So long as this hypothetical Willy base had easy access to the MOAs east and south, I don’t see much conflict with commercial/GA. So long as it wasn’t too saturated with Luke, TUS, and DM traffic (and anyone else in the area), seems like it’s as adequate airspace as any, with 99.69% of days flyable. 

You don’t know what you’re talking about. The BMGR, Sells MOA and airspace north of Tucson is already saturated.  Fat Amy squadrons at Luke block off two-hour periods (vice the 50-min standard the Viper used to use) of larger Chunks of airspace, and Luke is only getting more jets. Tucson and DM are supposed to be gaining jets in the next 6-9 years. When we call up the daily airspace schedule it’s typically booked solid, and we takeoff NLT 0800. Large pieces of airspace and available airspace are two different things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ViperStud said:

You don’t know what you’re talking about. The BMGR, Sells MOA and airspace north of Tucson is already saturated.  Fat Amy squadrons at Luke block off two-hour periods (vice the 50-min standard the Viper used to use) of larger Chunks of airspace, and Luke is only getting more jets. Tucson and DM are supposed to be gaining jets in the next 6-9 years. When we call up the daily airspace schedule it’s typically booked solid, and we takeoff NLT 0800. Large pieces of airspace and available airspace are two different things. 

Which is why I said “So long as it wasn’t too saturated with Luke, TUS, and DM traffic.”  I don’t request or use airspace in the area. Just said on paper it looks like there is a lot of airspace out there to use. Apparently not enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×