Clark Griswold

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

Alright that’s another data point Score 1 to 1 for yes/no to whether it could be your first training aircraft If the syllabus was nice and fat (100+ hours / 80+ rides) with good sim and FTD time prior to flight line I suspect you’re right, with judicious expectations in the first few rides I’m still for a screening / elementary program, basically a mil instructed PPL with introductory instrument work but if it was a choice between that and a straight to a 100+ hour T-6 syllabus if king for a day I’d get more T-6 hours for UPT Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A350 MRTT concepts A350 in military grey

More on their new trainer, carrier focused with potential for light fighter https://defence-blog.com/chinas-new-combat-jet-spotted-in-test-flight/#

Gotcha, yeah I thought it would be a bit much for your first rodeo.

From this photo it does not But this one does: The M345, this is where we really let the right one get away IMHO for an intermediate trainer, yeah the Chinese jet is an advanced trainer but just wanted to say that. The advanced trainer we should have bought Never flew the T-6 but is it forgiving enough that it could be used for an initio pilot training? No Cessna or Diamond training first but straight to a turboprop?

New Chinese trainer(s) https://www.twz.com/air/new-chinese-advanced-training-jet-breaks-cover We struggle to just get new avionics in 20 year old T-6s and they have multiple efforts producing while probably not as advanced aircraft but they are produced, fielded and flying with units… if things like this don’t cause a Sputnik moment in the MIC nothing will.

Gripens for Ukraine… probably… https://www.twz.com/air/huge-gripen-fighter-order-letter-of-intent-signed-by-ukraine

Concur The strategic enablers to the operational enablers to the ubiquitous tactical platforms saturating the battle space. Tactical tanker really should be part of a broader acquisition effort by the AF IMHO under the ACE umbrella. Tactical Force Concept All ACE capable Fighter - UCAS - Tanker/Airlifter - SHORAD.

One more thing on your comment, legit question for discussion not passive aggressive but in the Indo Pacom environment operating just outside the first island chain are small(er) systems really relevant given the distances, persistence on station, harsh marine environment, etc…? Small conventional systems equal small effects maybe the platforms will remain in traditional sizes but really just employ a lot more small attritable weapons/drones/etc… That case we will just have to mitigate and prepare for the targeting of those platforms Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True but ultimately there is a required minimum size of platform to deliver the gas, cargo, magazine depth, etc… to be operationally relevant What is that sweet spot? Enough capability to enable or assist a large strike platform or basic formation of strike platforms Enough performance to egress when threatened without taxing the overall force in terms of DCA Enough range to operate from a reasonably safe distance and still provide effects Right now I think you’re probably looking at a large business jet or small airliner unless you can modify an in production military aircraft. Money doesn’t grow on trees so IF this was going to happen the biz jet is probably the most likely Proven operational history, high mounted rear engines and decent short field performance (weight and temp considerations factored) but if we want to bring Air Mobility missions into the fight, closer to the fights, then this kinda takes us back to the stealth or signature managed tanker air lifter idea. Good concept minus the VTOL nonsense About 130 sized, ramp, probably reasonable RCS, but with enough wing to not need a minimum of 7000’ to operate Honestly this would be our answer to China’s J-36 but we would be combining tanker, transport, bomber/arsenal, patrol/strike into one platform

Yeah I should’ve caveated that I guess the C-37 is what they wanna replace / supplement My druthers… a new large cabin jet converted for mil use needs to be the basis for a tanker, arsenal, awacs, medivac, vip transport I think a small airliner would work better for all that but just my two cents Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bombardier pitching the 8000 as platform for tanker https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/bombardier-pitches-global-vip-transport-tanker-usaf

RCAF getting a multi engine trainer, CT-145 Expeditor II, about 40 hours aircraft 55 hours simulator Sounds like they privatized most of their pilot training https://www.key.aero/article/canadas-new-trainer-aircraft-names-announced Just buy a ME trainer, earlier in this thread someone noticed that the T-7 buy would likely not meet the primary and continuing training requirements, you’re gonna need it. Fix the glitch early

Spartan COD

Just some more about the 346 https://theaviationist.com/2022/05/05/usaf-certifies-polish-m346-training/#

My guess is they will replace immediately what doesn’t work as well as something they might have that works better

Yeah but I think we could get this done even with the American MIC involved, the Israelis seemed to have this problem solved and operational by likely keeping it simpler https://www.twz.com/air/secretive-israeli-707-tanker-remote-vision-system-revealed-in-long-range-yemen-raid Another potential design and partner South Korean MC-X

That’s a good question Automate the boom, have the Co operate it or have a regular boom operator? My druthers would be for a real boom operator but I see the potential of a robo boom Speed of development is key here, go with the least risky but work on options Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk