Clark Griswold
Supreme User
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Yup While I don’t agree with the premise the AF is apparently taking in a long term policy, that is to divest itself of all training aircraft save the T-7, I get why certain parts of the brain trust are advocating for that as there is only so much money, personnel, facilities, time and attention you can devote to training till while OTEing for ops. With that in mind and trying to meet the other side in the middle, both the CAF and MAF could use their ARC associated wings to build out new capabilities that still meet operational requirements but also serve as expanded training capabilities before new pilots report to their assignments. For the CAF, I’d argue for a light fight version of the T-7 with homeland defense, aggressor, training & exercise support as the raison d’etre(s). For the MAF, I’d argue for a reasonable fleet of transport category aircraft, probably replacing some older Herc and 135 tails. Adding airlift capability to the AF for regular personnel movement, light cargo, aero medical airlift, etc. Season and prepare new MAF bound pilots there before reporting to their FTU. There are costs and consequences to those ideas but you either want a strong pilot culture or not. You fly, train and focus on operating better than other Air Forces or not. You allocate the resources to build better aviators or not. I’m also not saying that those COAs are the only ways either but in a general sense an institution must have the honesty and character to change course when previous choices aren’t working as well as they thought they would. It must also think a bit creatively when resources are scarce, as Churchill said “Gentlemen, we have run out of money; now we have to think“ Think creatively, reasonably but also not timidly. The end goal is always a well trained, reasonably experienced and tested pilot graduate. -
8 months So much good, applicable and affordable training / experience / airmanship building could be done vs meaningless busywork Already posted this musing but whatever $175k ish would buy a good deal of tailwheel, acro, AMEL time and a type course in a transport category sim, travel costs included But… here we are. Somehow other Air Forces seem to figure out how to keep a multi engine trainer program going, not that only multi engine training is ailing in the Air Force Italians are getting the Piaggio 180 Key AeroModernising ITALY’S multi-engine trainingNew generation Piaggio P180s The Italian Air Force’s air transport...From the article: The typical course of Phase 3, for pilots aiming to gain their military wings for the multi-engine fleets, lasts about seven months and includes 60 flying hours, plus 51 hours in the simulator. This equipment is provided by Alsim which is representative of a generic multi-engine jet aircraft. As mentioned earlier, SATA will receive a new simulator from Piaggio Aerospace, representative of both the VC-180B and the VC-180C versions. If they can afford it we can too.
-
-
Contract seaplanes The War ZonePentagon To Contract Fleet Of Seaplanes For The PacificThe lack of an American amphibious aircraft capability has become more glaring as the possibility of a conflict with China looms larger.
-
As a retiree I wish I owned a pawn & gun store, Dodge dealership and tobacco/vape shop, preferably all one stop shop, outside of an active duty base(s) right now
-
-
Congress not happy The AviationistFY2026 NDAA: Congress Pushes Back On Aircraft Cuts and Se...The NDAA freezes E-3, F-15E and A-10 retirements, accelerates F/A-XX and F-47 oversight, and demands a concrete plan for post-E-6B nuclear
-
Glad to hear that, it just popped up on Airplanes and Coffee I think and I wanted to promote here
-
Save Tweets and get one flying Project TweetProject Tweet
-
-
-
I can’t say your skepticism isn’t justified however given the essential nature of the mission & capabilities of this platform, I may be naive but methinks it will quell the parochial greedy shoe clerks of the MIC and get done with an acceptable amount of bull fertilizer I blast pointlessly into the ether for more flying for training for an organization supposedly run by pilots, who seem hell bent on doing as little as possible so I feel your pain
-
50? Most of the chatter I’ve seen is for 200 or more https://www.aei.org/op-eds/why-the-u-s-needs-200-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers-not-100/#:~:text=Mark%20Gunzinger%20and%20colleagues%20advocate%20for%20more,build%20a%20nearly%20400%2Dstrong%20strategic%20bomber%20force. https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/why-the-u-s-air-force-needs-300-or-more-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers/ Granted if there is a way to f up an acquisition process going mostly smoothly, the AF is the GOAT but it seems we will get more not less. Concur on your point on long duration sorties Maybe but I’d like to try before we buy, fly off and testing the cognitive load and tasking in representative scenarios should be done if it is not already being done
-
Mover and Gonky discussed this with the F-15EX My druthers is to provide a place for them to land that seems more logical and to retrain some for the right seat with pilot wings. F-7 & F-15EX with GIBs to control CCAs, B-21 with attached UPT program…
-
Another left field idea from moi but why not make this the golden apple to reach for in the WSO/CSO world? Selectees get a UPT slot then go to the -21? Longer tour in the -21 to begin to recoup the additional costs but setup a training program and syllabus, communicate what a competitive applicant would have (strong flight record, commander endorsement, civ ratings, etc…) I’d build a stand alone UPT program, probably establishing a Companion Training Aircraft program to go with the B-21, dovetails with ACE 2.0 PC-21 and a T-54
