Clark Griswold

Yup. Wanna change my suggestion for the primary multi-engine trainer to the Beech Cougar Baron, turboprop conversion of the venerable Baron. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/august/pilot/pilot-briefing-one-fast-cat

Not to proficient but introduced and practiced at a level appropriate for an as yet non rated student Real training and qualifications still are the prerogative of the FTUs Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Watched / listened to his presentation, had valid points on updating the methods of pilot training but I'm just crusty, bitter and clinging to my 3-3 and whiz wheel. Still advocating for a new and challenging phase 3 for heavy tracked studs Split the program into a military taught and civilian instructed program with multiple aircraft. I'm ok with T-6 program increased in length and additional training accomplished there to have Phase 3 focused on different concepts / skills. - Multi-engine Fundamentals. 30 hours in a Beech Baron G58 for basic twin experience and extensive cross country missions. - Tactical Air Mobility Fundamentals. Low levels, NVG takeoff / landings, short field and grass strips. Would use a simple, tough aircraft like the aforementioned Husky and probably around 20-30 hours. - Strategic Air Mobility Fundamentals. This could be all sim and I think that could work. At least a Cat C sim with the student training not to emphasize learning this aircraft backwards and forwards but introduction to managing a sophisticated, fast jet with integrated FMS/AP/AT/CPLDC/etc.. and military specific avionics to manage and execute Air Refuelling, Air Delivery, Air Land. That's likely 6+ months but just my two cents looking back and what I think would have trained me for what I needed to be able to do when I was first in the right seat of a USAF heavy jet. Gets the fundamentals done in a cheaper system(s) before the FTU, likely costing more time in SUPT but saving time in the FTU and likely money.

Shit's getting crazy https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/36072/pentagon-releases-terrifying-video-of-russian-su-27-turning-directly-in-front-of-a-b-52

Not sure, just a WAG but I think probably 75-85 would be ADAIR, Companion Trainers, Test / Chase Birds, etc... Just my cynical suspicion on the delta between what is now and what is planned for the future is less or no flight hours for students bound for heavies / most crew aircraft in the future. Strongly disagree with that idea but it seems the Bobs are looking at that. Ranting into the ether but if the Borg Cube of HAF is listening (not holding breath for that) consider that if you min run Phase 3 for crew / heavy tracked students with little or no flight time in SUPT you will create yet another chasm in the culture of the rated force. They will never be considered even close to their peers who tracked 38 or 7 and had a more robust, challenging and respected training phase to successfully complete. This will just make things worse in the rated communities I think in immediate terms of the product supplied to the MDS communities by having a less rigorous training program to build experience, knowledge and judgement while also being a less effective filter to appropriately winnow the field who of who should not be pilots. I hate that aspect of training but their must be a filter aspect to it otherwise the herd will not be as strong as it should be. I also doubt that the T-1 sim even if improved would be the right training environment for that. In the long term, it makes the heavy / crew pilot and officer less in the eyes of peers and other branches and this is not a small or unimportant detail. If these rated officers do not have the full respect of their peers as aviators and likely as officers, a large and sizeable mission set of the Air Force looses ground in the never ending competition for leadership and resources. Seems like overeaction I realize but would you really respect someone who didn't go thru a program at least similar to yours to earn the same operational badge? Save money by changing Phase 3 for heavy tracked dudes? Sure but they still need FLIGHT training.

That assumes they will put everyone thru a classic UPT program vice what I think is their intention to put some thru a true advanced trainer phase 3 program and others thru a weak / nothing advanced trainer program There are about 500 T-38s in the inventory now including companion trainers but they ordered only 351 T-7s but with options for more. If they said divest the 170ish T-1 to buy more T-7s to return to UPT then sure but as we see the AF doesn’t believe if your going to a heavy you need robust military mission specific and multi engine training. They wanna phone it in and create a second tier of pilots, and the heavy aircraft GOs are just rolling over and taking it... But I’m not cynical not one bit and yes you do need an advanced training program if you are going to heavies Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Distracting but interesting sidebar on 4+ fighters, Su-35S getting a less than stellar review: https://theaviationgeekclub.com/an-in-depth-analysis-of-why-the-sukhoi-su-35-is-the-most-overhyped-4th-generation-fighter-aircraft/amp/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree that it is Not True but it is True* *Asterisk item for this article that lists the known policies and reasonably suspected shenanigans involved with admin shoe clerks using sometimes consulted reimbursement rules/new policies to the advantage of their institution https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3000638001 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Money - Medicare pays 20% more if cause of death is listed as COVID Not sure if the above listed example of suspicious relation to COVID would square with that but it seems like hospital administrators are gaming the COVID relief legislation and policies for additional funds Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No doubt but every idea has to justify & defend itself to get money so how does this capability square against already existing capabilities that could fulfill this requirement? Just playing devil’s advocate but why would we need a seaplane when we have V-22’s that could do this mission? Advocates for a reborn seaplane capability will have to specifically answer why amphibious takeoff/land when we have tiltrotor platforms now. Don’t get me wrong, as a taxpayer and internet genius I think a modernized R3Y Tradewind or stretched model US-2 is what the US military needs and should equip my ANG wing with but... you have to get it past the Bobs so refine arguments and show why Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel like we've played that game before (trading people to buy airplanes) and it didn't turn out very well. Well we cut the wrong people. In reality, I suspect a 5% reduction in CT flying hours in the heavy community would pay the bill, no numbers to quote to support that just a WAG.

A1

Agree with most of your points but to answer your rhetorical question - is that worth keeping up another airframe? Yes. Because to address another comment you made, schedulers should not be pairing the new CP with the new AC but they do. Someone on that dynamic duo has to be in charge and ultimately capable of handing the mission, crew and jet. Experience built at every level in training via qualified instructors, quality equipment, enough time and a robust syllabus and standards has to be it. There is no substitution for it. I realize the AF is in a crunch and things can and do change but don't forget why we had / have an advanced training program, because some training is more advanced than what the basic trainer can provide and a simulator only Phase 3 is not advanced training. It's bullshit and they know it.

Good capability additions to be sure if only money grew on trees that were planted on every AF base but if there were to be a US mil operator for this the USMC would likely be it. Too expensive for the Coasties and not enough assigned mission(s) requiring this capability for the AF to invest in a fleet of 30 to 50 aircraft, the Marines, maybe as they get back to their Naval / Amphibious roots with the direction the Commandant is taking them, necessary to prepare for Pacific shenanigans. Thinking about the article (Bring Back the Seaplane from WOR), the problem with the current feasible model (Shinmaywa US-2) for the US (maybe the Aussies too) for military amphibious airlift is the lack of a ramp for parallelized cargo or vehicle delivery to austere locations. Don't see that feature on the Chinese AG600 either. People and their personal gear to a remote distant island(s) would be no problem, but something that could really have an appreciable effect on the fight like a small SAM battery or other system/cargo, don't see how it would carry and deliver it without an unacceptable amount of ass pain. We still need a seaplane though 😉

I can't believe AMC isn't telling AETC to shove this idea where the sun don't shine...

No way this would get screwed up, not a chance... On a semi-serious note I will say I see a seaplane as a legitimate requirement solver (long range maritime logistics) but just one that would never get high enough in the list of 69,000 to do's to get funding. Niche capability and not a cheap one (assuming we would buy the Japanese US-2) so no seaplane for you... Still love'em and always remember the wisdom of Turgidson, we can not allow an *INSERT WEAPON NAME HERE* gap to exist!

Possibly (as to the long technical, tactics and operational know how) to make this work so let's crawl to the first stages so we can walk then run to the second and third. This manned/unmanned team is not just for the Title Fight over the Taiwan Straits but at all levels of ops/combat and not only Air Dominance. Using a new new build 4+ gen to work out the kinks prior to modifying the 5th gen systems to add this capability (likely expensive) seems to manage risk and mitigate future costs. Modifying the Bone for at least a demo/experiment might be more feasible for the Bobs to approve and fund this vice new iron. Possibly (redundant use noted) but AI may make everyone obsolete, I'm not betting that's gonna happen tomorrow so I'll still advocate for a second aviator directing the AI wingmen to which mission or task to perform then let the AI figure out the best way to do that specific job till otherwise re-tasked.

And cocaine is a helluva drug but go pills aren’t the Limitless pill that make you unstoppable Yes but with new toys requiring minding during the fight and fighting an opponent likely 69 times more capable than the last enemy we fought who had capabilities to oppose us and pose a realistic threat(s) Give the 4+ gens LO loyal wingmen controlled by the WSOa while the pilots fly the Eagles as 4+ gens, each crew in each Eagle is effectively now a mixed force two ship leveraging the relative strengths of each platform Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But, but the metric is green now! That means better right? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Somewhat counter intuitive I admit but if this platform takes on a quarterback role, not necessarily but just envisioning it to, I think flying & fighting the platform itself, directing the wingmen, keeping the full tactical picture and defending the HVAAs, again assuming it would be DCA tasked as LOs went forward, would be a lot for anyone not to mention the comm piece.

Yeah but... the second seat is someone to share the load and manage the fatigue of long missions strapped into the seat. Considering the distances of the Pacific and potentially long range missions to the Arctic, the additional cognitive load of unmanned loyal wingmen management, etc... another cranium would be useful IMO.

But we didn’t buy it, now 20 years on we have a need IMO for this but starting / buying another 5th gen is a bridge too far, a capable 4+ gen is possible Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Navy is looking at longer range fighters, take a cue AF and build a modern escort fighter Navy Quietly Starts Development of Next-Generation Carrier Fighter; Plans Call for Manned, Long-Range Aircraft From the article: Compared to the F-35’s 700 nautical miles of combat radius, Clark said his “impression” is that the Navy hopes to build a new fighter with a radius of more than 1,000 nautical miles. Build a modified hybrid of the Silent / EX Eagle with an additional section in the fuselage to hold 3 AIM-260s and an additional 750 gallons Too expensive to start another 5th gen program, forgo the LO and give it every other advantage you can.

That's a legit point but the greater threat could be creating a cohort of weak pilots / officers who in other times of less desperation would have been more thoroughly tested and filtered, likely eliminating some. Not having enough pilots is a problem, having a potentially weak cohort of pilots / officers is likely a worse problem. If the GOs believe this is just about having meat in the seats then they just need to implement a Warrant Officer program for some X percentage of the rated force in the AF and get it over with.