Clark Griswold

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…

In a sane and rational world with a bit of strategic vision versus how do I do this as cheap as possible not even considering risk, that program / location would / could be an answer. If they don’t wanna own new aircraft then buy the time, rent the planes and sim time. It is affordable, it’s not that difficult and they need the time, training and experience. Rant Generator - Off

Well… damn it… glad regular air land is going and I hope the risk mitigation measures work for the tactical ops… This is solvable inside of the budget of the AF, from above in the thread, heavy bound students are looking at 9 month waits till FTU, use that time and just buy the training they need. I rattled off a hypothetical set of training programs, I roughly estimate at $175k a student, round it up to $250k to be conservative. I’m not sure how many heavy crew tracked students AETC produces a year but just say it is 750. That’s 131 to 187 million lo to high for all multi engine flight training, even on the high end of that it comes to 0.09% of a 188 billion AF budget, the Bobs could easily find that money. Simplified post T-6 training suggested: Multi engine fundamentals + some time & experience building in an economical twin. 40 hours. Lease 50. Figure wet leased with instructor at $1200 an hour. Figure $60k per student for all training and flying. STOL, Tac Air Land introduction in a Twin Otter. Lease 30 aircraft. 20 hours, figure $135k for all training and flying. Transport aircraft training. 737 MAX simulator, lease 8, 25 hours, figure $35k for all training. That’s $230k per student, bit of leeway. In the grand scheme of the AF, actually very affordable and from my experience flying and instructing, would train your heavy pilots without the financial burden of acquiring and owning new aircraft. Commit to this program for 10 years to get industry interested in bidding.

Gotcha All copilots or inexperienced copilots? Are they adjusting the hours upwards to be considered experienced? No correlation of course to UPT 6.9 or F’dUPT of course… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I figured the loss in contractor jobs (MX, sims, academics, etc…) would draw their ire. Sub standard… any leadership acknowledgment (formal or informal) if this? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These people should be all over that https://www.legistorm.com/organization/summary/33466/Congressional_Air_Force_Caucus.html That’s what I don’t get, Congress loves spending, the AF is trying to spend less on this mission so why hasn’t the CODELs where UPT bases are put a hold on that?

9 months… doing nothing before FTU… what a waste when they could look around, shake the money tree, look in the couch cushions and use that time productively with a reasonable amount of money 1 - multi engine course probably $25,000 with all travel and training and that’s very conservative Figure 3 weeks for that, just call it a month. 2 - Type course, figure 1.5 months for that, probably $50,000 every thing said and done. One month King Air or Citation jet, experience and prep for transport category aircraft. 3 - Tailwheel & STOL training, figure 3 weeks for tailwheel plus some time building then 3 weeks for STOL, round up and make that 2 months. 4 - Plan on their water and SERE training plus M4, M9, tactical driving, etc… figure that at 2 months 5 - International experience last program. Lease multi engine Diamond DA62s, 1.5 months flying in Europe, 20 flights. The golden apple to work for… 8 months accounted for with 1 month for leeway Make UPT Great Again Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That replacement plan would be fine by me too, the M-345 has captured my fevered dreams as it’s a modern straight wing non afterburner jet with consequently a wide performance range, just like the American made Scorpion but I digress… That’s the crux, the Bobs will fall back on the saves no money argument and all mine and yours procurement suggestions do cost more but produce better results so how does one in the system pull the safety handle, with data, prove the correlation between under resourcing UPT and the dip in quality then tee up for Congress the solution? Rhetorical but the Bobs are the cause of and likely the solution unless there is champion in waiting in Congress or the DoD… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VIP Cessna Longitude concept

I tried finding the video where they discussed this but to no avail this morning, i think WOMBAT, was in that episode, anyway they said if you follow the current matrix it would lead to directing to a shore landing and if it was blue water ops, I think they said barrier but I will eat humble pie if wrong. Mover, WOMBAT and Gonky were all skeptical of the loss of a carrier capable trainer, same for me as I am skeptical of less flying in mil trainers with mil instructors for AF pilots during training. Just posting plane porn here: What should have replaced the T-1, Pilatus PC-24 Add a UARSSI (no plumbing, just for dry contacts) to it, NVG friendly if not fully compatible cockpit, mil radios, HUDs both sides and boom a great multi engine trainer and mobility lead in aircraft.

Mover n Gonky discussed this on their channel, USN’s reasoning is that if PLM is not working they’ll do a land recovery or take a barrier anyway, their jets their rules but a bold strategy Cotton… ———————————————— If there was a program to replace the T-6 and expand the syllabus taught in phase 2 M-345… took a big sip of the kool aid… it’s probably the best jet for an intermediate+ trainer PC-21 / AT-6C if the Bobs wanted to stay turboprop for intermediate+ trainer

True, I mention as it they seemed to be there for specific training, drones, and how to use asymmetric capabilities / tactics to fight conventional forces. Bodes ill for stability in certain areas poorly / loosely governed methinks.

Textron / Leonardo ready to get the USN a new trainer now https://theaviationist.com/2025/07/28/textron-unveils-beechcraft-t-346n/ I wonder if they could offer the same partnership for the AF for the M-345… https://aircraft.leonardo.com/en/products/m-345 Making this jet the standard intermediate trainer, companion training aircraft and an aggressor/support aircraft.

So this is good news… https://www.twz.com/news-features/cartel-members-fought-in-ukraine-to-learn-fpv-drone-skills-report

Meh it’s just Monopoly money to the AF at the prices we’re talking about here but an RV could work too An airplane that is not too challenging to fly but more to handle than a 172, can enter the pattern at 200 knots, can put on Gs for the break turn, etc… not perfect but before studs hit the T-6, this trainer plus a syllabus to give them a transition from a 141 training environment to a quasi mil would pay dividends methinks If FUPT (really?) is it then polish that turd as best you can. PPL + Instruments, AMEL, TW + transition to mil flying, probably around 130-150 hours flight time.

Then begin Operation Shoe Clerk Subversion Standardize the part 141 training, shift from existing ESAs to stand alone programs at aviation schools; get more training at these schools before they report to UPT, flight time in something fast (relatively) that can put on Gs to build fast thinking and high SA in a busy mil pattern, etc… basically more UPT just before they report to UPT. I don’t have any tail dragger time but after a PPL, instrument and AMEL courses, could an average student get the endorsement in about 10-15 hours then get another 20-30 hours in something like an Extra 300 (as an example) to get experience in a fast(er), maneuverable aircraft before the T-6 and would that increase the chance for success? I’d rather see UPT resurrected but that is not likely to happen so like aikido, go where the energy is going till you can direct it where you want it to go. Edit: make that a Game Bird 1, read this review and googled training in an Extra 300. Probably too much to use a 300 for initial tail wheel but a Game Bird seems like it could hit all the wickets. https://www.flyingmag.com/we-fly-gb1-gamebird/ in this phase, students first TW qual, then train for two ship form, no form acro just basic maneuvers and fly form to mil bases to train there, form arrivals, overhead pattern, etc…

Ozzy, RIP

One more from Roger Alan Wade

Turkish Typhoons https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/07/23/turkey-uk-agree-on-eurofighter-exports-in-step-closer-to-deal/

Half turboprop half jet biz jet https://www.autoevolution.com/news/gulfstream-american-hustler-half-turboprop-half-turbojet-100-percent-a-weird-idea-218444.html 3 built and tested They reused wings, tail and empennage in the proposed but not purchased Peregrine 600 trainer concept jet

Yup Never gonna happen but the need for a light inexpensive (in airplane money) to operate aircraft capable of the mission demanded by the light attack armed reconnaissance mission has overlap with primary / intermediate military flight training, seems like the AT-6 could have been not just an answer to LAAR but also an evolution over the T-6 without as much disruption to that part of the UPT enterprise. Rugged & reliable for high use rate / repetitive sorties. Benign flight characteristics for student pilots, inexperienced foreign pilots in training but capable of acro / defensive maneuvers for missions. Economical costs in acquisition and sustainment. A simple training sortie would cost as much as much as a complex sortie, in flight hour cost, normalizing over a syllabus. In your intermediate phase of training, it would give you a wider syllabus before you tracked and specialized. Just my opinion Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk