Clark Griswold

Yup, I see both sides. Just my opinion but I’d buy domestic if I were them - Local industrial base, you’ll need that for the upcoming GCAP - EF is already good and getting improvements - You have F-35B in the RN and LO capabilities there if you need it - Shit is in flux with the USA & Europe, have your own stuff Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F-35 or Eurofighter? https://simpleflying.com/british-union-urges-government-pick-typhoon-over-f-35/

Winning. Colombia’s Petro Backs Down: Sending Personal Plane to Pick Up Migrants After Trump Announced Sanctions https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/01/26/colombias-petro-backs-down-sending-personal-plane-to-pick-up-migrants-after-trump-announced-sanctions/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good Lord we can’t get our shit together but still you have to hope and advocate otherwise what? It’s just criminal the inability to admit the past efforts didn’t work, we need new iron and policy changes to OTE this enterprise because of x,y and z. Adm. Tom Connolly risked his career and killed the F-111B because it was never going to work for the Navy, hence the F-14 Tomcat was born. We need that kind of leadership now with this issue.

Yup I wish the HAF would look at how that worked out for the navy when they handed their new SWOs a stack of CDs and said here’s your basic boat handling and navigation training, good luck… 2 collisions later… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dual qual has all its own issues and some advantages but I think that would be a no go, at least in two high performance aircraft as a standard paradigm of the IP cadre as a whole That’s just my opinion and worth what you paid for it To me it’s flight time in multiple aircraft on a reasonable time frame with not a lot of hurry up and wait, the way to achieve that is dispersal of training but not closure of existing training bases Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@hindsight2020 @brabus Just another of my outta left field ideas but could you / would you want to shift T-38 eventually T-7 training to existing fighter bases with their syllabus incorporating IFF? Probably converting some Wings or activating ones to a light fighter version of the T-7 for synergies? Reason I ask is that in this thread, constipation in student training pipelines is often mentioned, my thinking is that is you have 3 places where consistent repetitive training flights (basic military flying training) are not occurring you will get studs thru quicker with proximity to actual fighter / attack Wings (thinking converting A-10 Wing or two to a F-7 and them being attack focused) being an additional bonus. Training with said Wings post graduation if their follow on FTU is not ready for intake. There’s more than a few Wings losing iron that would support methinks with access to airspace and facilities to handle this. Add in liaison support aircraft for scheduled and on demand movement of IPs, you may ameliorated the remoteness issue too. Just throwing it out there.

If you mean the guys who fly to from the boat yes but even their land based aviators are getting an advanced trainer, the oft mentioned T-54. How are the f is the f*cking Air Force less interested in basic flying training than the Navy? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has the point ever been brought up the Navy is not going down this road? That is phoning in pilot training vs actually doing it? Not saying they (USN) are doing it perfectly but they don’t seem to be robbing from training as bad as we are Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point, a quantifiable reason for them to take Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

92 T-1s at AMARC https://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=274# Refurbish or replace USAF… you owe it to the future LAF Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I know they’re not going to be convinced until they can’t deny it anymore but… there’s at least a 0.69% chance someone lurks in this forum that has the ear of someone who could affect change / return to the historical norm The T-54 would be another option for the prepositioned aircraft / liaison aircraft COA, as it’s a King Air, MX and foot print at the out bases (FBO, mil fields, etc) would be feasible if the AF applied the KISS principle Add on thought: if the AF went with the ME / T-54 idea, make it like an airline schedule, you could operate/deadhead to one base, pick up another IP, operate / train for a few sorties, then operate / deadhead back to your base or another and fly more, but just be flexible, fly where the IPs are and are willing to fly out of Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even better, now there’s the justification for AF owned T-54s Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah that’s what I figured Unless a GO / Cols is willing to risk their career, they will keep things as is / going or alternatively a Congressman or two is willing to begin to pick at this scab, get data and honest opinions from below the field grade level in a public forum so the Borg can’t suppress it. What I think could happen now that would draw attention but would entail personal career risk would be the ANG directing their pilot students to the USN T-54 ME program after T-6s to show little to no confidence in the T-6 direct FTU model Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reminds me of Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tandem seat Tweet concept

Could be that but in my mind it’d be a Cirrus or like aircraft if it’s too much to synch student training lines to the out n backs or if the larger liaison aircraft is a no go. I could see the Bobs balking at using flight time on the T-6 or other training aircraft for shuttles, if those flights did legit student sorties maybe. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Liaison aircraft to run ARC IPs to/from training bases with these hypothetical IPs being airline pilots at major bases around 200 NM from existing UPT bases. I mentioned Caravan/Courier as they would have reasonable costs in terms of acquiring and operating, crewed by IPs or recent grads but I could see the USAF also owning a small fleet 4 place aircraft to run IPs to/from, again either all IP flown or a recent grad flying liaison duty. Again, the $169 billion Air Force can afford 40 or so liaison aircraft.

Yeah, I hate that it might take that but you might be right I’d prefer a preemptive solution versus the reactive Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You gotta suggest what you want / think should be done I mention acro as it just differentiates UPT from Civ training, builds confidence, SA, experience and is just cool.

Thanks, I’ll be an optimist and say we’re staring into the abyss but not in it yet. Concur on CODELs might be the unlikely saviors, parochial and self-serving might be but perhaps they can get the right thing done. Concur, additional sweeteners might be non-mobility positions with waivers for most bull fertilizer, anything is possible, go for broke and settle somewhere in the middle with the Bobs. Thanks another datapoint, if a new model of UPT is to be built, the no kidding what do you want out of this has to be known and if possible built to meet those to get participation. More ideas - Plan on 18 month start to finish for UPT students. Might already be that way but building time lines for all the following events based on that might give breathing room. - 3 phase program: Basic, Mil Fundamentals and Advanced. Wings after all three. Basic PPL with instruments, acro familiarization. Mil Fundamentals is basic aircraft checkout with heavy emphasis on standardization in comms, procedures, etc. then acro, form and mission sub-phases. Advanced is ME trainer or T-7. Guard runs/funds ME trainer, Reserves T-7 and AD/ARC Mil Fundamentals. I think this sans the Advanced phase is what is being proposed but just putting it into the BO ether - Liaison program or trainer aircraft pre-positioned, I’d probably go with liaison as it would also be a place to put recent grads if the FTU wasn’t ready to accept intake and would keep their butts flying. A $169 billion Air Force can afford a fleet of 40 Cessna Caravans or Couriers. Tenant units at existing bases or light foot prints at remote sites, don’t over think this or try to over do it.

Thanks that’s one datapoint. Two ideas: 1 - New syllabus that has out n backs intermixed in different phases to get to where the Reserve IPs are. Start duty at Domicile, fly out in prepositioned aircraft with/without students as required. 3 day trip with return to preposition aircraft for the next iteration of this cycle. 2 - Establish a liaison aircraft program to fly IPs in something like a Cessna Caravan or Courier to UPT base regularly. Both have costs but if you wanna relieve the AD manning requirements you gotta do something to make it easier and more attractive to get the guys you want to fly it. I’d also recommend an additional sweetener, two UPT support trips a month gets Tricare Prime or other monetary benefit. This just addresses the manning, aircraft reliability and availability is another issue but one at a time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This

Tangent: It might get better https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/01/21/trump-taps-officer-who-castigated-lack-of-afghan-accountability-for-defense-department-post-n2184618 He's just one guy but light a candle and if there are others to fight for change in the Puzzle Palace things might get better. Think about it, pretty much the entire LAF officer cadre think acquisition is totally FUBAR, I’m hopeful this is reaching critical mass and change could happen. Question for guys that live in base or close to it for your airline, if a new UPT syllabus was created along with likely a new aircraft to go with it, would you drop mil leave if you could start your mil duty at or near base flying out in the training aircraft, fly for a week or so then return to your base in said mil trainer. Students then fly aircraft back to mil UPT base, solo or crewed. This is just another of my ideas from left field but the existing UPT bases are not that far from major domiciles, END to DFW is 211 NM, CBM to ATL is 201, etc… if they could out n back to pick up Reserve IPs to fly but cut out the self directed commute and positive space effectively would there be interest?

But how are supposed to get 5 years behind schedule, 6.9 billion over budget and not meeting all specs? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk