Clark Griswold

I’m not arguing against OHWS, if this prevents injury / promotes pilot health I’m for it. I’m arguing that there is enough money in all the different areas of the AF, cobbled together, to provide a decent, equitable level of training, if it can’t be in a resurrected Phase 3 then a resurrected ACE. Baffling that if one institution (AETC) is unable, unwilling or indifferent to that which should be done, arguing for an alternate method implemented by other institutions (AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC) to achieve the same effect?

I get it but assigned to each squadron and somehow we managed to not collapse wheezing on the way to jet prior to these? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All true and all good points. This has a very low probability of execution but you advocate for what you think ought to be done. Boomer, how in the ever living fornication is a squadron strength / happy ending coach being justified. Unless said coach in a 20 year female intern who also models lingerie then there is no saving the AF …

I get it, the death of Phase 3 in SUPT for heavy tracked pilots (for now) and the deleterious effects of that policy choice causes discussion that really shouldn’t happen but here we are. This is only serious on Base Ops and in this thread. AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC should combine resources and resurrect this program IMHO, the inevitable protest of AETC be damned. Contracting out is likely the easiest way to do this. Contractor based COA, 3 course ACE program: COs first report to their assignment, fly one contractor based ACE program then attend FTU, remaining two ACE courses after FTU. 1st course: Multi-engine experience course, simple piston twin based. 2 weeks basic training in aircraft, 4 training trips, fly through multiple Class B & C airports. FTU 2nd course: Tailwheel, STOL / backcountry flying program, about 6 weeks; return to base, fly there another 3 or so months. 3rd course: Tailwheel based acro aircraft, solo acro & form, about 6 weeks; return to base, complete. Just my opinion and looking at the present state of the training enterprise, this seems to be a way to get training & experience despite the course AETC has set and the delays Boeing is delivering.

Yup, the advocacy for ACE 2 would still be there but the call would not be as loud. The overall point of ACE to me would be to make a stronger pilot in a formative point in their career. High enough performance to make neurons fire fast and build the overall awareness of flying, airmanship, regardless of flying the ACE aircraft or in their primary MWS. What aircraft could do that affordably and feasibly (easy enough to learn and maintain currency / proficiency) is a pickle.

Yeah, it is technically the T-50 not the actual Su-57 which presumably is what Algeria will receive next year The prototype T-50s appear to not have the build quality the Su-57 one would expect a 5th gen to have, I guess Lowe’s is a sub for the T-50 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Felon showing off the goods https://www.twz.com/air/su-57-felon-brandishes-its-loaded-weapons-bays-for-the-first-time Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One more idea, in another thread this may have come up but what if ACE 2 were run at one or several centralized bases and participants TDY’d in for recurrency and a set training profile, like recurrency flights then an intense 2-3 weeks flying schedule. Figure 3-5 training programs. Since it would be about a one month TDY, the interference factor from home base could be eliminated.

Correction applied, thanks for the input as I strive for accuracy in my posts. Yup, lotta questions to try to seed the discussion. I see the value, looking back at my AD AMC tour, and I think it is possible unless things are way different now than then for a new CP (probably an Lt and not a Capt CP), especially in that first year at their assignment. The CT program the Global Hawk was about $90,000 (05-06 dollars) to fly all the RQ4 pilots for the year, maintaining ASEL INSTM currency per the FAA LOA that was in effect at the time that covered Navs directing the GH as Mission Commanders when it was in the US NAS. Dirt freaking cheap. ACC HQ squashed it as they whined they couldn’t set it up all their projected bases for the GH so nobody could have it, because you can’t fly a Cessna in Japan apparently. That was one of the reasons I requested my GH assignment, it was a great benefit while getting a RPA tour done, then the bait and switch happened. Total bullshit and not even penny wise, it was less than the color copier budget for an FY, no kidding. An example to consider for the HAF staffer lurking on this thread: Google AI says a -46 per flight hour cost is about $12,000 and a Gamebird GB1 would be about $400 per hour. Checking their AFMAN 11-2KC-46 Vol 2, to go from FP to MP you need a 1000 total and 400 -46 hours. Substituting 300 hours of GB1 time with a good bit of that being solo to really build airmanship would save $7 million in flying hours and I’m confident in saying likely deliver a stronger upgrade candidate than one with all -46 time.

So in the GA thread a tangent got started and a new thread I think is better Background: Accelerated Copilot Enrichment (ACE) was a program for tanker & bomber copilots to fly and develop Total Flight Time to get guys who sat a lot of Alpha Alert to Aircraft Commander upgrade in a reasonable timeframe, it ended in 91 when Strategic Air Command (SAC) was inactivated. 94/95 when Gen Loh of ACC ended the program It made dollars and sense as the T-37s and 38s were cost effective trainers to develop the aviation skills and airmanship you wanted in your future Aircrew Commanders. The flying was different, no autopilot in a fairly nimble aerobatic aircraft, but that was the strong point IMHO, it maintained skills that flying their Primary Aircraft Assigned (PAA) you really couldn’t. More flight time, more real world experience in cross country / off station sorties and the challenge of keeping qualified & current in multiple aircraft; excellent opportunities for a newly minted military aviator to quickly become a strong swimmer. I’m not the target for a resurrected ACE program but looking for the two cents of COs and others serving now on what you would feel about it: - Do you think you would benefit from this additional flying? - If it was voluntary, would you volunteer for it? - Do you think you could manage it while maintaining Combat Mission Ready (CMR) in your PAA and additional duties? - If ACE were restarted, it would likely be structured, what program targets do you think it should have? X hours solo, X hours formation, X low levels, etc… - If you dual logged some of your training in an ACE platform with your PAA, do you think that would add or detract from proficiency overall? - The communities that a new ACE program would serve might have different priorities for what skills they want to practice, do you think a single platform could meet enough of their requirements or would separate platforms be better? - If the AF continues to send crew aircraft assigned UPT graduates straight to FTU from T-6s (until the T-7 is IOC), would first qualifying in an ACE platform before FTU be likely beneficial enough to justify (along with faster Aircraft Commander development)? All rhetorical questions but curious what those serving think.

Deal Carbon Cubs for TW training then the T-6, if Bobs balked at repurposing the T-6 fleet I’d want Game Bird GB1s

You are not far off the target, my time in tankers 01-05 had a LOT of one to a full stop at the Died flying essentially the same mission 2-3 days in a row. Complacency and expectation bias was a real CRM / ORM issue. Variety is the spice of life and necessary in the development of a military aviator

I bet those T-37 hours were probably 10% the cost of -135 hours and at that point in your flying career twice as valuable in building airmanship. Resurrect ACE, fly COs after UPT thru a solid 300 hour min program. Give the new ACE program T-6s from AETC (after an avionics update) then recapitalize UPT with PC-21s, T-6Cs or M-345s… or this training aircraft offered by Grob https://gaf-aerospace.com/tpx-cobra-en.html#:~:text=The TPX is a low-wing%2C side-by-side%2C two-seater,turboprop engine with 750 HP%2C 7-blade propeller. One more thing, ACE was unfortunately before my day but I believe it was there to give COs flying hours they weren’t getting sitting alert to assure pilot development and to aid the development and timing of Aircraft Commander eligible (by hours) pilots of whatever aircraft they were assigned. Good for the pilot and good for the Air Force. ACE 2.0 would serve the same / similar rationale, cheaper flight hours developing Aircraft Commander eligible pilots sooner, less expensive and less wear and tear on an already well utilized fleet of aircraft

https://www.twz.com/air/single-pilot-b-21-raider-stealth-bomber-operations-hint-at-advanced-ai-capabilities

I have about 1800 hours in the -135, around 100 IP so take this assessment from there. The -135 was a challenge to land and do OEI (outboard) training / landing OEI once all trimmed up was not bad, landed one 3 engine once, it was not a huge deal, a thing but not bad either. The challenge in landing was speed control and the effect of N1 inconsistency between engines on approach. The CFM 56 on the R models I flew had a poor man’s engine control called Power Management Control (PMC) there were multiple versions of them for CFM 56s and they controlled N1 above certain power settings, it is a system really meant to prevent overboost in climb but on approach they could be inconsistent and make the tanker’s speed control and pitch up/down kind of a bear. The cross wind landing technique was not the easiest to learn either as you have IIRC 18 inches (sts) from pod to pavement with only 4 degrees allowed in the wing low flare position. Most IPs taught an aileron pop technique with a flatter flare for strong x-winds (15+ knots). There were also challenges in proper sight picture as the dash and instruments were all slightly placed off from the original -80 bird, the plane due to the large changes in GW and fuel movement had a range of CGs to get used to, a 22 CG -135 is responsive and stable a 32 CG -135 is tail heavy and likes roll a bit, etc… All in all, a good plane but from a different era with challenges in the pattern but obviously learnable Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk