Clark Griswold

Cool. This is not my bailiwick but concerns me in general for preserving a strong pilot culture in the center of the AF. The MAF having a finishing school after UPT but before FTU is where this idea really would be focused. Just as commercial operators look for minimum hours, experience levels and track records of success prior to hiring, the MAF needs that in the pilots it assesses. Again strong pilot culture. A first short assignment like the first job a civilian pilot lands, can start their careers, training and ultimately lead to a more capable MAF. I’m just day dreaming on BO but if a post graduate universal 1st assignment system (multiple steps) was synched up to MAF and other big wing / crew bound graduates, it could handle the intake and steadily produce better aviators prior to heavy FTUs. Would it produce the immediate mass they say is needed now? Probably not but methinks the cost of a glut of less than optimally trained pilots is greater than waiting a bit and getting the heavy customers accustomed to getting better pilots at a slower but steady cadence. My druthers would be for the AF to petition for a military B737 MAX 7 with reasonable mods and have this be a short assignment for all heavy tracked grads. The sequence would be a multi engine refresher and short experience builder course, all contractor provided. A short break for some leave then report for a contractor provided type course with additional sims, a type plus course. Then report to one of three units flying this jet, get about 25-35 sorties, then move on your way. This is fusing advanced training with operations, reducing the investment of the AF into training only aircraft but gaining new reliable, efficient, organic steady airlift capabilities.

All in the execution and really this idea is more for the MAF than the CAF. The F-7 has been discussed and probably some initial work has been done, no inside knowledge, but as an affordable mass replacement for older F-16s, a modern F-5 our smaller Allies could afford and IMHO, a good round out for the USAF to keep its fighter pilots always flying. https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/air-force-weighing-turning-t-7-into-f-7-armed-light-attack-jet-official/ Really, it would be additive but probably not in total costs if an ARC squadron were so equipped with a lesser amount of their PAA but also equipped with X of F-7s. Devil in the details and all but likely a ratio of 3-4 F-7s could be had and supported for the cost of 1 “heavy” fighter. As for the MAF, this needs to be cargo, people, modern systems and lots of reps. Basically a regional airline run by AMC to give that pilot experience before moving on to the bigger jets while establishing or restoring capabilities lost when we lost jets like the C-9, most of the C-21s, etc… if an appropriate ME program is not going to be fielded.

It’s all in the execution whether or not it would be beneficial, detrimental, additive or unacceptable to the CAF and the Joint Force. I’m not privy to the data, people, o-plans, intel, etc… that I would need to come up with a real proposal but shooting from the hip on BO I’d recommend this F-7 mission(s) to A-10 units losing their jets, F-15C units not yet slated for EXs, F-16 units that have an ASA mission, etc… All branches of the DOW are looking at financially challenging times ahead even if the top line of the DOW keeps going up. The premier new weapons and platforms are expensive in of themselves, new less expensive unmanned weapons and platforms will need to be purchased in mass so in total cost of ownership they won’t be cheap and the sheer scale of what needs to be replaced, refurbished and acquired is daunting. Even if a patch wearing super smart guy says we need 690 F-47s, we won’t get them. Just my two cents, but the AF needs to consider a force less all gold plated and more copper, brass and some gold plating. Not every fight is night 1 in the Taiwan Strait. In terms of the CAF, an affordable light fighter, most if not all will be family models, primarily based in the ARC gives them billets & seats to retain experience, train FNGs and execute some missions without overkill. It would be awesome to have everything in the numbers we want but we are just not going to get that. Taking some risk, altering our perceptions of what the AF should look like and being able to change are necessary.

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.

Is Doss Aviation going away then once this starts?

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

Chinese J model flying The AviationistChina’s New Medium Airlifter Has Flown for the First TimeChina’s new turboprop-powered medium airlifter built by Xi’an Aircraft Corporation, dubbed Y-30, has flown for the first time. A long-rumored medium-class

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

News The AviationistFirst T-7 Red Hawk Delivered to JB San Antonio - RandolphThe U.S. Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command received its first T-7 Red Hawk trainer at Joint Base San Antonio - Randolph, marking a milestone

Interesting read on the PC-21 Skies MagPilatus PC-21: This simulator burns jet fuel - Skies MagSkies test pilot Rob Erdos flew the Pilatus PC-21 military trainer, discovering that it combines the best aspects of aircraft and simulator to deliver a unique training capability.

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

Concur with actual flying for low time crew platform aviators being the primary focus of ACE 2, I just think that with the capability to link to ground stations now for LVC, it could be incorporated into a program for additional training opportunities ACE 2 in my perfect little world would have regular flying mission sets but also regular participation in exercises, LVC capabilities to be linked with other platforms (real or virtual) could open the minds of leadership who might dismiss this idea as just a flying club (I have no problem with that or other good deals but you have to answer naysayers)

That’s a good point (high capability sims) An ACE aircraft program could have a ground based training element with the aircraft and ideally link them for LVC training

Probably but I hope AMC could make the argument to not have to get into a problem and just lead the turn with a replacement before we get to fatigue life issues My druthers would be to separate out how much lift really needs to be capable of expeditionary / austere delivery and how much just needs to be conventional (air land to at least modest length / width / load bearing prepared runways) Buy commercial freighters for probably half the lift and half having military airlift capability

The War ZoneC-17 Will Fly Until 80 Years Old Under New USAF Airlifter...The Air Force does not expect to have fully transitioned to its Next-Generation Airlift aircraft until 2075.Family of systems, new engines for C-17s, etc… lotta ideas in the article. Family of systems is a buzz phrase but probably the best COA. Crewed / Unmanned fleet

McPeak was not everybody’s favorite CSAF but I agree with his point here from the AFA’s magazine: America’s Air Force today is smaller and older than it or age is just how ready we are to fly, fight, and win in a future war. I graduated from flying school and got my wings in January 1959. From then until I left Vietnam in November 1969, I logged 3,138.4flying hours in the two principal types of aircraft I flew, the F-100 and F-104—an average of 23.9 hours per month. It is true that this 131-month period included a two-year tour with the Thunderbirds and 11 months in combat, both high-in-tensity flying jobs. But it also included 16 months on the staff of the Third Air Force, the momentum lost in transitioning back-and-forth between the two aircraft types four times, downtime associated with six PCS moves, and time spent in various schools—jump school, half a dozen survival schools, forward air controller school—as well as leave and so forth. In those days, we aimed to get 20 hours a month, and I was able to beat that average. For me, the end result was remarkable. For one thing, I loved the life; I decided to make the Air Force a career. More importantly, you could say I felt quite at home in the air. There is a certain attitude that goes with being a combat pilot. The fight starts at the bottom of the ladder. From then until the forms are filled out, nobody is better than you—no team is better than you and your wingman. It’s the other guy—the whole other side—that’s in trouble. In my opinion, this is a winning attitude. The seed for it is planted during checkout, in academics, and daily briefings. It can be cultivated in the simulator, watered at beer call, and nourished during time spent hanging around the ops desk hoping someone else will cancel. But the combat pilot attitude matures into a way of life in the cockpit—flying real hours in a real airplane, face-to-face, with real things that happen in real air. I am worried about today’s force. We’re not flying enough. Increasing flying hours for combat pilots should be a top priority. Maybe today’s fighter jock is better than my generation and no longer needs 20 hours in the cockpit every month. Maybe. But I don’t think single-digit flying hours per month is the right answer for anybody.We used to ridicule our Soviet-era opposition when they were flying at about our present rate. Grapes, waiting to be plucked.In my view, increasing flying hours for combat pilots should be a top priority. I can’t say it’s number one, or number two, or number six, or whatever, because we need to fix some other very urgent problems, particularly air base hardening and defense. But the flying hour program must surely be among the handful of highest priority matters our Air Force should fix quickly. If all else fails, we can use our imaginations to help solve the problem. If the F-22 or the F-35 simply cannot produce enough hours, buy and assign gliders or train ers like the T-6 to each fighter squadron. Do aerobatics, do spin training, hooded takeoffs, and landings. Timespent in the air flying anything builds airmanship and confidence. Better still, it’s fun. It glues people to the organization, as it did me.I’m all for increasing the number of pilots coming out of flying school. But this is an example of how competing priorities should be ranked: First, produce a flying hour program that ensures the excellence of the existing force. Then let’s talk about increasing pilot production. Better a small Air Force that can be relied on than a big one that cannot. Gen. Merrill A. “Tony” McPeak There are affordable platforms, programs and COAs out there, just prioritize flying vs queep for at least O1 to O3s.

T-7 offered with local assembly for the RAF The War ZoneT-7 Red Hawk Jet Trainer Offer To United Kingdom Includes...The Royal Air Force needs a replacement for its Hawk T1s, flown by the Red Arrows aerobatic team, and its Hawks T2s, used for advanced training. The Royal Air Force needs a replacement for its Hawk T1