Clark Griswold

Ha - nope but I get it, another consequence of letting our aerospace base consolidate too much, not enough domestic suppliers with heft to adequately compete with each other so for smaller fleets, it’s the same companies or a foreign supplier I pushed a KA solution there as the Navy has already done the groundwork of getting the T-54, would not be a stretch methinks for the USAF to acquire it then I’d prefer a jet like a PC-24 or CJ3 but every now and then I try to keep my BO posted suggestions relatively close to feasible Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup Still the heavy track getting some T-7 hours is better than none and 40+ was more than I expected. This IPT + T-7 track only is odd to me given Leard’s background, a multi engine follow on would be probably good enough to then go on to the MAF, I’ll hold hope it or something similar will come along. Type course plus some extra sims in a King Air 260 / T-54, then about 40 sorties / 50-60 hours. Night, x-country, formation etc.. experience building then on your way. Get it done quick, 2 sorties out n backs, 1 week night, 1 week form, etc… You can afford this Air Force.

IDK about that (20 hours). Just my 2 cents the order of priority for training is quality of events, number of events then length of each event. Just from thin air, 60+ flying sorties sounds (X sims also) right if… the T-7 is the only mil trainer SPs will see as their introduction to military flying, each of those sorties being a 1.something but well planned with focused training objectives Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That bad? Like less than 50 hours? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Question How many hours of T-7 time will SPs get if they go (ultimately) to this T-7 only UPT model?

That’s what they need to nail their asses to the wall with, 1500 PILOTS not just graduates

https://redstate.com/katie-jerkovich/2025/09/02/college-students-can-take-a-class-to-learn-how-to-steal-yes-really-n2193504

Ok they are running a trial / experiment, is that the environment where you are going to get data that you can use to make policy? A training program, run in a foreign country, in a jet that the USAF does / has not flown and flown I suspect primarily with non US military IPs… this is not going to be the process you will use, is it really a representative test? If it were a USA based USAF instructed in an aircraft the USAF operated and/or was ready to run a larger training program in if the SGTO batch worked out, that were truly representative of an average student pilot and not some ringers they hand pick I think you would have a better case to run with this idea. Edit: no offense intended to DirkDiggler, just posting my two cents on the experiment and it’s execution being conducted

Every time I think the AF has hit rock bottom in screwing up its training enterprise it figures out something else to go that much further Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Long but worth the time, a good explanation of why managerialism is everywhere and growing unfortunately https://tomklingenstein.com/managerialism-means-the-end-of-democracy/?utm_medium=paid&utm_source=fb&utm_id=6831201731268&utm_content=6831201731468&utm_term=6831201731068&utm_campaign=6831201731268 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Son of Scorpion being offered to the Navy https://www.twz.com/air/sncs-freedom-jet-enters-race-to-replace-navys-t-45-goshawk-trainer

Commute worthy podcast on Ukrainian War and differing opinions on what the West should do https://shows.acast.com/lockdowntv-with-freddie-sayers/episodes/ukraine-realist-vs-idealist

Question Is REFORGE dead or just waiting for the T-7 to actually get delivered? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup So it’s about 175 flight hours (not counting sim time) that we’re talking about here and that’s 75 shy of an FAA commercial instrument certificate, 75 hours, in the grand scheme of the things that’s not that much. That would have to 75 QUALITY flight training hours but the point is there, it’s not that much. If there is to be a public campaign, it needs to show the penny wise pound foolishness of this whole situation. No pilot would legally be allowed to operate for hire without the requisite minimum amount of training/experience, why is the AF allowed to cut corners? Now, if the Air Force wants to argue that it can’t afford a platform only used as a multi engine trainer, ok, I think that’s hard to believe but if you want to run with that then create a program that you build to have operational capability that you use also as an experience builder before other MWS assignments in AMC, AFSOC, etc… AETC pays for the type training, AMC flies / instructs these newly winged pilots in this short tour then onto their career assignment. There’s always a demand signal for light airlift from/to major bases, ex KSUU, KSAT/KSKF/KRND, KDOV, etc… pick any major base/concentrated military presence and there will be valid movement requests, buy an affordable, small regional airliner (Do 328 for example) that can serve as a utility transport for regular pax, cargo and medivac missions. Air Land only, no other specialized training, experience and reps while moving pax and cargo is the objective. Fly them for six months+ or so there, then move on to the assignment awarded out of UPT. That easily exceeds the missing 75 flight hours in their training, likely gives them 200+ hours in a transport category aircraft before operating a more complex, expensive mobility aircraft in a demanding training program and serves as an extension to the UPT system, thus keeping pilots from wasting time just waiting for an FTU.

This is very easy for me to say from Retiredville but it may take several whistleblowers (IPs and recent grads) who contact media, sympathetic congressional leaders for top cover and inform the public, civilian leadership that what the GOs are selling is just bullshit. For whatever reason, the people who should be and should have been skeptical of all this nonsense have let them get away with it, like 60 Minutes and the F-22 guys telling their story, someone(s) is going to have to risk their career & give an unvarnished, plain language explanation of the problem. Public shaming of the AF at this point is probably the last thing that could be done. It could be what I listed above but also a public advertisement(s) in appropriate places (military news sites, aviation news, etc) comparing recent historical UPT/SUPT to the recent iterations and comparisons to what allies and enemies are doing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assume (I know) that this process of feedback is being utilized, any response from AETC then? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha Kinda sorta this idea is for the MAJCOMs (heavy operators) to push back on AETC and get them to quit min running it or establish their own post-UPT programs and pre-FTU programs You (AETC) are not just gonna send us pilot with little multi engine time / training to fly a 75 million dollar Herc for example, you’re gonna put more into it sts… this list of events in a multi engine trainer, light twin if the AF is that cheap / broke… X flight hours, X landings, X GAs, X OEI approaches, X IAPs, X formation rides, etc… in a multi engine aircraft before you are accessed into an AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC, etc training program You could get granular on all the events but I’d try to keep it reasonable. Probably 10-12 tracked events / task items.

Reading some of the comments above and some googling of thoughts on the 1500 hour rule for an ATP certificate, maybe what we should think about for UPT (heavy tracked mainly) is an events / proficiency demonstrated in X number of events / checkrides approach to checkmate those trying just say well, they got X number of hours, passed X number of rides and checked successfully in the T-6 and their GA training aircraft so they’re good together go. You could say that you kinda get that done now by ensuring X hours of training but it’s possible half of that is just at single ship cruise and doesn’t capture, record, track the percentage of their training hours that the student is actually training vs straight level 1 g point to point. If AMC, AFSOC, etc… is noticing training deficiencies / difficulties with new students at FTUs, this might be a more concrete way to push back on AETC’s latest iteration of flight training. Seems like there might be data out there to support what is sensed / observed about the guys that got shortchanged Events in a new multi eng trainer or training program(s)

Well there goes that bit of hope there was a shred of self awareness and honesty in AETC leadership… Reminds me of the Army general in The Pentagon Wars, before he was in charge of the Bradley, he was in charge of an IR missile so shitty he covered the target in electric frying pans to get a hit during testing. Is there any insurgent pushback against this?

https://www.twz.com/air/crop-duster-armed-with-air-to-air-missiles-appears-in-ukraine

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt but the only way you get to that level, skill, awareness I think he is implying is by training and flying a lot and in several different types aircraft with good instructors, good equipment first in well crafted basic training situations then progressing to challenging, non-rote situations… Rinse lather repeat or Fly train fly… this is how it’s supposed to be #choirpreaching

Somewhere at AETC…