precontact

And electric seats!

C-17 was almost cancelled due to an array of designs issues but had emerged to be an excellent weapons system. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1113line/ “But the project was hardly an engineering milk run. The C-17 was being asked to do things a giant airlifter had never done before, such as land on unimproved airstrips, land on short fields, taxi in a tight space, and even back up on a runway, all while delivering superheavy, outsize cargo at strategic distances. The C-17 had to overcome flight-control problems, wings that were unable to carry their designed maximum load, automation growing pains, and a crew size reduced to just two pilots and a loadmaster. There were also teething problems in using new computer-aided design methods. The program’s early years were troubled. Several generals and a host of company managers were fired during development and initial production. The C-17 was threatened with cancellation, and Pentagon leaders delivered an ultimatum that if it couldn’t be shaped up, some other transport aircraft—such as a cargo version of the Boeing 747—would be substituted.”

The KC-46 is a great airframe and will be the preeminent tanker going forward. The underlying design is solid, but decisions made by Boeing in the name of saving money have hit it hard. We're gaining more confidence in the airplane everyday and its potential to be more than a tanker will be interesting to follow.

Meanwhile FedEx and UPS are watching these developments with bated breath!

I disagree. AC should have hired you as a homegrown applicant. Doesn't send a good message if they don't hire their own, especially with great scores, unit experience, etc. Did they explain why they turned you down?

Honestly I don't know, was just trying to say that the philosophy of years ago with engine failures has changed.

That's why in the airline world shutting engines down is not a Boldface/Memory item procedure anymore.

Unfortunately pilot error along with command deficiencies compounding equipment failure. https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/AIB-Reports/2020/June/F-16 Mishap AIB 30 June 2020 Shaw AFB (ACC).pdf

Wow - bringing back the memories of doing this process in the late 90s. About 50 applications, 3 invites, 1 job offer. It's always been a competitive process but hang in there. Ironically was still receiving invites after graduation UPT!

Would it be acceptable for the Thunderbirds to fly around T-37s these days when it has been out of active service for over 10 years (like the Tutor)? It has served them well, but the risk/reward today isn't justifiable when other newer options are out there. CF-18s, BAe Hawks, etc would be better choices.

Summary is as follows: Tudor jet was identified as needing replacement almost 10 years ago. Substandard technology, including limited ejection seat capability. Canada has slow-rolled its replacement, placing undue risk to aircrew and others. Jets have a lifespan, this one is past its effective timeframe.

The air force is also looking at the purchase of a new trainer for fighter pilots, according to a report in late June in the U.S. publication Flightglobal. No cost was provided for that potential purchase. Dan Dempsey, a former Snowbirds commanding officer and team leader, said the air force’s decision to start moving on a replacement aircraft was welcome news. “This is a very, very positive development,” said Mr. Dempsey, a retired lieutenant colonel. He said there are always going to be budget pressures on the Canadian Forces, but he pointed out that a new aircraft will last the team for another 30 or 40 years. “Yes, it’s not a hard-core combat capability, but it is an essential, and in my mind integral, component of the Canadian Forces because recruiting and public relations are always going to be vital.” But spending $755-million on new aircraft for the Snowbirds is an extravagance, says Steve Staples of the Rideau Institute, the Ottawa research and communications group. “The Snowbirds, while entertaining, are a luxury at a time when people are losing their jobs, the economy is hurting and the government is in debt,” said Mr. Staples, who argues that too much is being spent on the military. “It’s a huge cost for air show entertainment.” The air force has put in place a maintenance contract that will cover the Snowbirds aircraft until 2020. In February the government awarded a contract to IMP Aerospace in Halifax to maintain the military’s fleet of 25 CT-114 Tutor aircraft, the RCAF email to Postmedia News said. The three-year contract is for routine preventive maintenance and repairs, with the work taking place at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Ont. After that the contract has the provision to be renewed annually over seven years, each time for a one-year period. The planes have been in the Canadian Forces inventory since 1963 and have been used by the Snowbirds team since 1971. In the past the air force has examined leasing aircraft for the Snowbirds. It also looked at, but rejected, a suggestion to substitute the CF-18 fighter aircraft for the Tutors. Using CF-18s would increase the ability of the Snowbirds to perform around the world but reduce their availability for smaller venues in Canada that have runways too short to accommodate the jets, the air force concluded. In addition, the CF-18s would be 20 times more expensive to operate than the Tutors. From 2016: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snowbirds-tutor-jets-replacement-1.3689876 Military studies extending life of Snowbird aircraft 20 years past retirement The military's aging fleet of Tutor Snowbird jets could remain in flight until 2030 — two decades past their scheduled retirement date, according to documents obtained by CBC News under an Access to Information request. The Royal Canadian Air Force show team, the Snowbirds, perform the diamond formation pass over the Peace Tower during Canada Day celebrations on Parliament Hill on July 1, 2016. (Justin Tang/Canadian Press) The military's aging fleet of Tutor jets flown by the Snowbirds demonstration team could remain in flight until 2030 — two decades past the scheduled retirement date. Documents obtained by CBC News under an Access to Information request show the Department of National Defence is studying the feasibility of keeping the Canadian-built CT-114 Tutors in operation until 2025 and 2030, despite some "significant concerns" about the aircraft. CBC camera flies with Snowbirds Fighter jet debate rages Sajjan consults on CF-18 replacement The aerobatic show team thrills spectators by swirling the skies in precise formations, demonstrating the superior skills of pilots commanding the planes. But there have also been serious safety incidents in the past, ranging from seatbelt malfunctions to fiery fatal crashes. The 1960s-era jets were set to retire in 2010, but that date was extended 10 years, despite an internal 2003 report that warned of escalating technical, safety and financial risks and urged the fleet be replaced "immediately." Little progress in replacement More than 13 years later, there has been little progress in procuring new planes. A report from the fall of 2014 cleared the fleet as "technically airworthy," but noted "significant" concerns, including some caused by financial restraints. "Repairs have been reduced to bare bones (one year support) necessitating to put main items in repairable reserves and depleting our stock levels to nothing," it reads, adding this has the effect of creating "more robbing actions and additional maintenance costs." It also noted a "lag in data analysis/reporting" was causing the Snowbirds 431 Squadron to continue flying aircraft "with an unknown condition." A briefing note for the air force, also released under Access to Information, said the department is carrying out a robust life-expectancy extension study to "validate" the option of using the Tutors beyond 2020 to ensure an "uninterrupted" capacity. "Maintaining a military air demonstration team is considered to be a government-mandated requirement," said the memo, written when the Conservatives were in office. Pushing the retirement planes to 2030 would make some of them roughly 67 years old at that point. The life-extension study is expected to be complete by the end of 2016, but the most recent Defence Acquisition Guide, a public listing of anticipated procurements, suggests the contract award and replacement delivery could be between 2026 and 2036. Tutor 'extremely reliable' Retired lieutenant-colonel Dan Dempsey, a former Snowbird pilot who has written a book about Canada's military air show history, said the Tutors have proven extremely reliable over the years. The planes, used as training aircraft until 2000, are tested by technical experts who leave "no stones unturned" to ensure structural integrity, he said. While Dempsey would have liked to see earlier steps to replace the fleet — and have it in place for Canada's 150th birthday next year — he suggested 2025 is a "reasonable limit" as budget cuts pushed the procurement behind other operational priorities. "I'm not surprised this has happened. It's a little disappointing, but I think the main thing is that everybody recognizes the importance of the Snowbirds to the country, to the Canadian Forces, to the RCAF," he said. "And therefore the desire is to keep these flying as long as necessary until a new aircraft can be purchased, and I think that's a very positive thing." Kim Nossal, a professor with the Queen's University Centre for International and Defence Policy, sees no problem with extending the lifespan, since most accidents involving Tutors have resulted from risky manoeuvres or pilot error, not aging parts. "As long as the aircraft has updates and refits, you can extend the life of an airframe however long you like," he said. "The real risk for the demonstration team is what they end up doing — the kind of performances they put on." Snowbirds showcase never-before-seen footage from belly of plane 0:58 Retired colonel Paul Maillet, a former RCAF planner, says the concern is less about safety than value for money. He doesn't believe the demonstration team adds to the operational capacity of the military other than to entertain and help recruit — functions other military planes could fulfil, he said. Scrap Snowbirds? At a time of tight budgets, he questions if the Snowbirds should remain a funding priority. "You start to cut non-essential things to fund essential things," he said. "Basically, it's recruiting, it's public relations stuff.… and does the taxpayer want to pay for that?" According to figures provided by National Defence, hourly operational costs are $14,350 and the total annual cost to run the squadron is $4.3 million. Retired lieutenant-general Lloyd Campbell, former chief of the air staff, said the fleet is relatively economical and he believes Canadians would be disappointed if the Snowbirds were grounded. "They're a tremendously unifying national organization that Canadians find appealing," he said. "They're a great recruiting tool, but the whole question of should we keep them, can we afford them … that is really less military in nature and more political and national in scope. Is this something Canadians want? If so, how do we make it affordable, how do we make it safe?" A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan said the Liberal government remains committed to the Snowbirds, noting the life-expectancy study will help guide the decision-making process for a replacement fleet. "We have full confidence in the RCAF's ability to ensure aircraft reliability going forward, while our government will continue to build Canada's defence capabilities to ensure our men and women in uniform have safe, reliable equipment," said Renée Filiatrault. 'Safe and effective' aircraft A RCAF spokesman said the number of aircraft grounded due to safety or maintenance concerns varies from day to day and is managed by maintenance crews to meet airworthiness standards. "The CT-114 is a safe and effective aircraft," Maj. Scott Spurr said in an email. "DND is dedicated to ensuring that the fleet will remain effective until the fleet is retired. The Snowbirds, and the entire RCAF, maintains a robust flight safety and airworthiness program to ensure the safety of the public, as well as our personnel and aircraft." The famous Snowbirds touch down at the Cold Lake Airshow to show off their stuff.0:58

Time to ground them...Too many crashes with an outdated airplane...sad.

Time for an upgrade: https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/04/16/avionics-upgrade-for-u-2s-to-feature-open-mission-systems/

Actually the USAF screwed this one up. They awarded Northrop Grumman bonus points for additional AR offload beyond the contractual minimum but that extra wasn't supposed to be scored per the contract, right or wrong. In Boeing's defense, they would have offered up a 777-based tanker since it would be able to offload more fuel. The GAO agreed with Boeing and the rest is history.

The KC-46 design did show winglets originally but they were removed by Boeing primarily to be able to carry more fuel. B767 winglets weigh 3,300 lbs total and the internal wing structure is a little different.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-16cm-thunderbird-investigation-of-fatal-crash-rele-452748/ “Auto GCAS has successfully saved several F-16 pilot lives, however it is not currently installed in F-16 Block 52s flown by the Thunderbirds,” said the USAF. “The Air Force will be installing this upgrade in all Thunderbird jets in November 2018, following the completion of the current season."

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/15/657411353/ukraine-hopes-russia-takes-note-of-its-air-exercises-with-u-s There was an interesting story about this exercise on NPR yesterday including an interview with CANG pilots.

Fuse...you need to update your profile pic...that's not 737 landing gear!

That's pretty funny there. What does he think he's got ALPA USAF backing him up?

Talk about ruining a good-looking airplane! At least it will be a nice type-rating to score for corporate wannabes!

Anyone else heard that they eliminated the TS requirement for tanker pilots?

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-considers-72-new-f-15s-or-f-16s?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20151120_AW-05_723&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000222965&utm_campaign=4309&utm_medium=email&elq2=e5153b4a2cf242409c8803e7790d1554 U.S. Considers Up To 72 New F-15s Or F-16sNov 19, 2015Bill Sweetman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report EMAILINSHARECOMMENTS 9F-15: Boeing LONDON — The U.S. Air Force may solicit bids for 72 new Boeing F-15s, Lockheed Martin F-16s or even Boeing F/A-18E/Fs as budget issues put planned production rates for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter out of reach, according to senior service and industry officials at the Defense IQ International Fighter Conference here. F-15s and F-16s are now expected to serve until 2045, when an all-new aircraft will be ready, and plans to modernize F-16s with active electronically scanned array radars and other improvements are being revived. The conference was run under Chatham House rules that prohibit identifying specific speakers. The U.S. Air Force “is struggling to afford 48 F-35s a year” for the first years of full-rate production, a senior officer says. The program of record shows the service buying 60 aircraft in 2020, rising to 80 per year soon after that. Consequently, F-15s and F-16s will serve longer and will outnumber F-35s and F-22s through the late 2020s. The service is looking at a three-tier force, with 300 F-16s and some F-15s being modernized “to augment the F-35 and F-22 in a high-end fight” and others assigned to low-end operations, while the contemplated 72-aircraft buy (an Air Force wing) would sustain force numbers and provide additional modern aircraft. Although “the last time we looked, this was more expensive than buying F-35s in bulk,” the senior leader says, the issue is being re-examined. An industry official confirms the Air Force has asked for pricing data on new F-15s along with life-extension and upgrade options, including fitting in-service aircraft with new wings and rebuilt fuselages. The U.S. Air Force activity parallels U.S. Navy fleet planning; the Navy, likewise, is considering reductions in the planned F-35C production rate to fund life-extension efforts for the Super Hornet. The production phase of the Combat Avionics Program Extension Suite (Capes) upgrade for the U.S. Air Force F-16 force was canceled under the fiscal 2015 budget, but development of its major elements is continuing for Taiwan, with South Korea and Singapore expected to join the project. The U.S. Air Force plans to seek money to upgrade its fleet in small batches, according to the service leader. Also under consideration is a plan to augment U.S. Air Force electronic attack capabilities by fitting some F-15Es with a version of the Raytheon Next Generation Jammer pod, the Air Force leader said.

More good news: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-beat-the-plane-its-replacing-in-a-dogfigh-1714712248 The F-35 Can't Beat The Plane It's Replacing In A Dogfight: Report 106,859 47 Tyler Rogoway Filed to: F-35 SAGA 6/29/15 5:29pm We’ve heard of significant shortcomings before with the fighter jet that’s supposed to be America’s future, but this is just as bad as it gets. The F-35 performed so dismally in a dogfight, that the test pilot remarked that the it had pretty much no place fighting other aircraft within visual range. And it’s even worse than a mere maneuverability issue. At one point, the pilot’s helmet was so big he couldn’t even turn his head inside the cockpit. That’s according to a scathing report obtained by our friends over at War Is Boring that details the results of visual range air-to-air engagement tests between an F-35A and an F-16C. The F-35, which the US Air Force, Navy, and Marines are expected to rely upon, in addition to the air arms of militaries across the world for at least the next few decades, was supposed to be better than its F-16 predecessor in all respects. The F-35’s ability to compete against other fighter aircraft in a close-in dogfight, even against the decades old designs it looks to replace, has always been a contentious issue. Long ago, the F-35’s maneuverability was planned to far exceed that of fourth generation fighters. Over time, those claims eroded to the point where the troubled stealth jet is described as being “about as maneuverable as an F-16.” The fact that the F-35 can carry its weapons and fuel internally was of course the major deciding factor in being able to make such a claim. Keep in mind, all of this is anecdotal, but testing reports over almost the last decade have supported the fact that the F-35 was not nearly as nimble as many would like it to be. Still, all claims regarding its performance against other fighters in a dogfight remained largely academic, with only bits of data to compare in a vacuum. Which is why the candid report described in the War Is Boring article finally gives us a good first hand account as to how capable – or incapable as it may be – the F-35 is in the within-visual-range fight. The test pilot flying the F-35 makes it very clear that the new jet, even in its ideal configuration without any external stores, was no match against a Block-40 F-16C in a less-than-ideal configuration with a pair of under-wing fuel tanks: Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement. In dogfighting, energy is everything, and if your enemy has more kinetic and potential energy for maneuvers than you do, then you’re toast. The report even goes into what is akin to a fairly desperate move usually only used in one-on-one air combat maneuvers, known as a rudder reversal, that the F-35 is apparently decent at performing at slow speeds. The fact that this was even detailed in the report as a useful tactic is telling. In reality, using such maneuvers means you are probably going to die if any other bad guys are in the area as it rapidly depletes the aircraft’s energy state, leaving it vulnerable to attack. Another area that the test pilot highlights on is the F-35’s abysmal rearward visibility. David Axe from War Is Boring writes: And to add insult to injury, the JSF flier discovered he couldn’t even comfortably move his head inside the radar-evading jet’s cramped cockpit. “The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft.” That allowed the F-16 to sneak up on him. The report goes on to make other telling remarks about the F-35’s air combat maneuvering performance. It should be noted that the aircraft’s flight software can probably still be tweaked to offer a little wider envelope for pilots to traverse during a hard turning dogfight, but seeing as this test occurred this year (almost a decade after the first F-35 flew), the amount of extra agility that can be squeezed out of the F-35 is most likely marginal at this point. All of this also reminds us of the fact that we cannot believe the information coming from the program itself, which is troubling. Only as the aircraft continues to enter the fleet (which is a whole other ridiculous story) will we begin to hear more honest reviews of its performance, as in the past we have had to rely on unclassified congressional watch dog reports and other unbiased sources to identify trends and key data points. Major Obvious: F-35 Pilot Says A-10 Will Always Be Better At Air Support F-35 pilot Major John Wilson said the obvious in an interview with Danish aviation reporters; the…Read more Eisenhower, and others to some degree, did warn us gravely to beware of the military-industrial complex, I supposed of which the F-35 is the poster child. Arthur C Clarke Warned Us About The F-35 And Its Damning Costs The fantastic and haunting short story "Superiority," written by the science fiction…Read more The fact that the F-35 is maybe not really a good fighter at all is reminiscent of the question that we’ve been asking for years — if you don’t really need competitive maneuverability, than why do we need a fighter at all?

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/16/general-praising-the-a-10-to-lawmakers-is-treason/ General: Praising the A-10 to Lawmakers is ‘Treason’ By Brendan McGarry Friday, January 16th, 2015 2:13 pm Posted in Air, Policy A top U.S. Air Force general warned officers that praising the A-10 attack plane to lawmakers amounts to “treason,” according to a news report. Maj. Gen. James Post, vice commander of Air Combat Command, was quoted as saying, “If anyone accuses me of saying this, I will deny it … anyone who is passing information to Congress about A-10 capabilities is committing treason,” in a report published Thursday on The Arizona Daily Independent. In a response to the news outlet, a spokesman at the command, based at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, described the comments to attendees of a recent Tactics Review Board at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada as “hyperbole.” In an e-mail to Military​.com, spokeswoman Maj. Genieve David said, “The intent of his comments were to communicate the Air Force’s position and decision on recommended actions and strategic choices faced for the current constrained fiscal environment.” She added, “Our role as individual military members is not to engage in public debate or advocacy for policy.” The Air Force is seeking to retire its fleet of almost 300 of the Cold War-era gunships, known as the Thunderbolt II and nicknamed the Warthog, even as pilots fly the aircraft — whose snub-nose packs a 30mm cannon — in the Middle East to attack targets affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Congress rejected the service’s requests to begin the process of divesting the low, slow-flying aircraft this year and included about $337 million in the budget to keep it in the inventory. While they did allow the Air Force to move as many as 36 of the planes to back-up status, they blocked the service from sending any of them to the bone yard. Air Force officials say they’ll renew the effort as part of the fiscal 2016 budget request, which is expected to be released in a couple of weeks. In a briefing Thursday at the Pentagon, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the service’s use of A-10 in U.S.-led air strikes against ISIS isn’t inconsistent with its strategy to eventually retire the plane. “There are a number of strike platforms that are engaged” in the operation against ISIS, including the F-15 and F-16, she said. The A-10 is “a great contributor, but so are the other aircraft,” she said. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, himself a former Warthog pilot, said the proposed retirement of the gunship is “an emotional issue inside the Air Force.” Pilots “love their airplane — they should love their airplane,” he said. “For the Air Force … it’s a sequestration-driven decision,” Welsh said, referring to automatic, across-the-board budget cuts Congress and the White House agreed to in 2011 as part of deficit-reduction legislation. The cuts are slated to return with greater effect in fiscal 2016 unless lawmakers agree on an alternative plan. “We don’t have enough money to fund all the things that we currently have in our force structure,” Welsh said. Even if the service’s request to retire the A-10 was approved as part of the fiscal 2015 budget, he added, the aircraft would have remained in service until 2019. Sen. John McCain, the longtime Republican from Arizona and new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was part of a group of lawmakers who worked to preserve funding for the A-10. ““We are going to do away with the finest close-air-support weapon in history?” he questioned during a press conference last year on Capitol Hill. The senator, a longtime critic of the F-35 fighter jet – the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons acquisition program designed to replace the A-10 and other aircraft – questioned why the Air Force would begin to get rid of the Warthog before it has started operational flights of the stealthy, radar-evading jet. The F-35A is scheduled to reach initial operating capability, or IOC, in 2016 but only by employing a less lethal version of software. “And we are then going to have some kind of nebulous idea of a replacement with an airplane that costs at least 10 times as much — and the cost is still growing — with the F-35?” McCain said at the news conference. “That’s ridiculous.” And now possibly hearings on all of this... http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/01/20/posts-comments-generate-calls-for-congressional-hearing/