PlanePhlyer Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 Follow on question for the 11F types: Could you incorporate the syllabus of IFF into a longer syllabus for Phase 3 with the new replacement for the 38 and at least have seeded the crew force? Going old school again but when everyone went 38 they were Fighter-Bomber-Recce certified at UPT based on class rankings, couldn't you do that with a last block of tactical instruction in a new Block 3 program to UPT? Just guessing it would add 6 weeks to UPT overall. While I was an 11B, turned -38 IP and not a fighter guy, my opinion is that this would not work. We now have C-17 and PC-12 guys in addition to bomber guys in my sqdn. The 11F shortage is keeping those types in the operational cockpits. Do you really want bomber, cargo or PC-12 guys teaching BFM or Surface Attack sorties? The manning at UPT with 11Fs wouldn't support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Powers Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 While I was an 11B, turned -38 IP and not a fighter guy, my opinion is that this would not work. We now have C-17 and PC-12 guys in addition to bomber guys in my sqdn. The 11F shortage is keeping those types in the operational cockpits. Do you really want bomber, cargo or PC-12 guys teaching BFM or Surface Attack sorties? The manning at UPT with 11Fs wouldn't support it. Having been through IFF as a stud, it was a lot easier to respect the dudes who left the CAF to be IFF IP's vs. listening to the FAIP in UPT telling me what I needed to do to perform well in my fighter squadron. However, while I think it was good to be exposed to the flying, I'm not sure why it is necessary. It's not like we got good at BFM and Basic SA because we only got 4 OB rides, 4 DB rides, and 4 Basic SA rides, 2 HB rides and 2 SAT rides (for Viper/Strike guys), not enough to become proficient at anything. Also, most of the IP's brief you in the BFM sorties the limitations of the -38 and how you won't necessarily fight the same in your follow on fighters. Plus, the only people I have seen struggle with IFF were guys who did not do well in UPT (ironically guard guys from fighter units) and just couldn't fly good formation. I think the biggest learning in IFF has nothing to do with the jet. There is a significant difference in the squadron attitude, how it operates, and what they expect of you vs. UPT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 While I was an 11B, turned -38 IP and not a fighter guy, my opinion is that this would not work. We now have C-17 and PC-12 guys in addition to bomber guys in my sqdn. The 11F shortage is keeping those types in the operational cockpits. Do you really wat bomber, cargo or PC-12 guys teaching BFM or Surface Attack sorties? The manning at UPT with 11Fs wouldn't support it. Respectfully disagree, build the curricula and allocate the time to develop the cadre, the Navy uses guys who flew E-2's and C-2's for their T-45 program and as far as I know there are no restrictions on who can teach what in their syllabus. As an AF and especially as aircrew, we've got to try to breakdown the stove-pipe mentality that once you're given wings you do only one kind of career path and that's it. Now do you want to retrain a high tenure guy in a totally new plane and mission, probably not but we shouldn't arbitrarily hamstring ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learjetter Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 ...build the curricula and allocate the time to develop the cadre....As an AF and especially as aircrew, we've got to try to breakdown the stove-pipe mentality that once you're given wings you do only one kind of career path and that's it. Preach it, brother! And...UPT ADSC to 6 years, no bonus. Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sqwatch Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Preach it, brother! And...UPT ADSC to 6 years, no bonus. Amen How is that cost effective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learjetter Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 How is that cost effective? Who said that it needed to be? Or even should be? Flying hours are cheap. Fuel is cheap. Salaries are cheap. Real estate is expensive. Cut infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDonut Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I haven't seen any RPA guys get anything but bombers for follow ons. I do have an MC-12 guy in my pit class getting spun up for IFF to eventually go F-16s. That individual worked up at the wing hq, so it's definitely not the norm. Most of the other 20-30ish t38-to-mc12 pilots didn't fare so well. Clark, you're right about the stovepipe, but I don't think it's a mentality issue - it's a manpower issue. 11F and 11R/U are critically manned. Not many pilots volunteer to go to 11R/U since it is a one way door due to manning. 11F would take more, but training capacity is too low to take anyone but UPT grads. 11S is shedding airframes, but not pilots. God knows what's happening in 11M; they can't decide if they are over manned or undermanned. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Do you think a senior Capt that has been flying tankers/heavies up to this point could crossflow to a fighter sq just because he flew the T-38 or whatever replacement they come up with years ago in UPT? I don't think it really solves any problems in that regard. The 11F shortages are pipeline and seasoning issues that can't be fixed with a common UPT trainer. I'd venture to say the transition would be the same for a T-1 trained guy. A thousand hours in an MWS tends to drown out <100 in a trainer real quick, no matter which trainer we're talking about. As for cross flowing heavy guys into fighters, good luck! I doubt the voluntary take rate would be very high. Once you get used to The Good Life, fighters don't sound too appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 That individual worked up at the wing hq, so it's definitely not the norm. Most of the other 20-30ish t38-to-mc12 pilots didn't fare so well. Interesting....... Wing Exec gets hooked up with good deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Interesting....... Wing Exec gets hooked up with good deal? See PRF thread where it was argued that exec skills far outweigh pilot skills/leadership ability for getting ahead in the USAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ Kind Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 This can't honestly surprise any of you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Clark, you're right about the stovepipe, but I don't think it's a mentality issue - it's a manpower issue. 11F and 11R/U are critically manned. Not many pilots volunteer to go to 11R/U since it is a one way door due to manning. 11F would take more, but training capacity is too low to take anyone but UPT grads. 11S is shedding airframes, but not pilots. God knows what's happening in 11M; they can't decide if they are over manned or undermanned. Valid point. Coming at it from a Guard perspective, my answer to the manpower issue (requiring a change in AF mentality) would be to offer 3-5 year contracts upon completion of FTU/award of MR qual for Guard / Reservists as required to fill those gaps (sts). The AF gets a solid return on its investment with the contract stipulating they hired for aircrew purposes not as regular officer with an expected vertical progression and other official duties. Very much like a Warrant Office but not technically a Warrant as they would still retain a regular commission. Flexibility is not only the key to airpower but to running an effective organization, we need to flex with the times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 God knows what's happening in 11M; they can't decide if they are over manned or undermanned. This is hilariously true and sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11F Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 WRT IFF and its purpose (data point of one in 2003): It is 10% learning BFM/tactical fundamentals, 10% learning how a fighter squadron operates, and 100% a washout program for those determined not to be cut from the fighter pilot cloth. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just saying that was the appearance when I went through in '03. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
link Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) As someone that just went through IFF I would say it isn't really a washout program. The flying really isn't that difficult and the standards for BFM aren't tough. What they teach you is how to be a good/humble wingman. I have honestly only heard of two people that have hooked a ride for the actually flying, usually it's for something stupid like cross feeding or overflying bingo. It was nice to understand the BASICS of BFM, hard to teach anything relevant in an aircraft that can't fight vertically. As far as a breakdown I would have to say 20% BFM and 75% how to be a wingman (i.e. how a fighter squadron operates) and 5% washout program (just making sure that they don't kill themselves or someone else down the road). ....and to get back on the topic of the forum, we just had a brief about "future" of UPT. The are going to go back to everybody flies the same plane with some caveats; they are going to track at some point during phase 3 and the heavy guys will do more navigation rides and the fighter guys will have a longer syllabus with a concentration on formation. Curious what people think about this. I know several guys who just struggled to get through form in the T-6 and were just dying to get in the T-1 because they had no aspiration to get into fighters. That being said I found it much easier to fly formation in the 38 than the T-6. Edited April 4, 2015 by link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeA10 Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) Geez, sounds like a blast from the past, circa 1987-ish. FAR guys did 4 ship tactical formation work and TTB guys did more low level and navigation work in the 38. That was a change from everybody flying the same syllabus after a mid-air at Columbus killed 3 during a 4-ship rejoin from a tac formation. Edited April 4, 2015 by TreeA10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 So what are they going to do with the helo guys if the "track" isn't until phase III? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busdriver Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Pre-SUPT, they finished T-38s then went to Rucker. Before that, they went straight to Rucker and never flew fixed wing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breckey Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 So they'll have 18 months of UPT? Not to mention 8 months of KIKR. The LPA will barely exist anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norskman Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 So they'll have 18 months of UPT? Not to mention 8 months of KIKR. The LPA will barely exist anymore. With the rapid increase of popularity for helos in UPT, an argument could be made for the option of a "straight-in" to Rucker similar to the UHT program that existed in the 80's. Yes, much basic airmanship and general aviation knowledge (more specifically, instruments and formation) was attained in the T-6, but nothing the 23rd couldn't compensate for with an extended program in the TH. But like everything else, I'm sure 11Hs will be an afterthought in the UPT planning process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaarman Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 We have helicopters? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookieRookie Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) So what are they going to do with the helo guys if the "track" isn't until phase III? The Generalized UPT brief I saw still had helos tracking after the T-6. Everyone else went to the T-X. Edited April 4, 2015 by LookieRookie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 (edited) Question for IFF grads: Did you fly any sim profiles prior to IFF flights and has anyone seen if there is a requirement for the 38 replacement to have this capability in its sim? Edited April 4, 2015 by Clark Griswold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Powers Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 At SPS, we did one sim per phase and it was a prerequisite for the flight. I.E., before flying offensive bfm, we did an OBFM sim. Same for DBFM and Surface Attack, but that was it. 4 instrument sims and 1 EP sim made up the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 At SPS, we did one sim per phase and it was a prerequisite for the flight. I.E., before flying offensive bfm, we did an OBFM sim. Same for DBFM and Surface Attack, but that was it. 4 instrument sims and 1 EP sim made up the rest. copy thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now