Unsolicited T-1 Replacement Proposal

[hispeed7721]

Okay, sure, if you're not flying any aircraft at all, ever, then yes getting some time in a T-38 is better than sitting on the ground for weeks at a time. 

Joe, I think this is EXACTLY what they're talking about. Without the -38, they would be sitting for long periods of time without getting to fly. The point they're making (I think) is that having the T38 as a companion is that it allows for flying where in its absence there would be none.

Someone call me on it if I'm misinterpreting...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HU&W]

And TreeA10 I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you were landing a 707/-135 at the time, in which case, please elaborate.

Based on his callsign, I'm guessing that he flew a really long sortie in a really slow single seat fighter that's capable of air refueling.

[HiFlyer]

 

Joe, I think this is EXACTLY what they're talking about. Without the -38, they would be sitting for long periods of time without getting to fly. The point they're making (I think) is that having the T38 as a companion is that it allows for flying where in its absence there would be none.

 

Someone call me on it if I'm misinterpreting...

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's pretty much it.  The value of the companion trainer is especially good when you have two things: a primary aircraft that is particularly specialized and doesn't operate like most aircraft, and an aircraft so specialized that you don't get to fly it much when not deployed or its unique characteristics preclude you from flying it much at home.  The U-2 fits both to varying degrees, and the B-2 probably at least the second. In the case of the U-2 crew force, they fly like heck for two months while deployed, but when home for two or three months between deployments, or more for some, they get very little time in the U-2, and can't really fly like they do when deployed.  In many cases, they might get only a few hours per month in the U-2 at home.  The T-38 allows them to get sufficient time in the air to keep current and trained in the normal world of aviation.  I'm not sure, but in the RC community, that may not be an issue when at home, so the need for a CTP is not a requirement.  If you have to fly, doing it at a couple of thousand an hour is better than multiple tens of thousands an hour.  Do I think a CTP for the RC guys would be a good thing?  Damn right, although maybe a T-1 rather than a T-38 for a crew aircraft, but either would be great.  Not likely in this budget environment, but still a good idea.

[TreeA10]

 

And TreeA10 I have no idea what you are talking about, unless you were landing a 707/-135 at the time, in which case, please elaborate.

I was landing an A-10 in a freaking snow storm and max crosswind after air refueling 8 times over 11 hours and 22 minutes of flying time. 

Basic flying skills are just that, basic.  Those basic skills are the foundation everything else is built on.  Consistently getting air under your ass can build the airmanship that allows a pilot to use that judgement thing to do more skill based or task intensive operations later.  Big jet, small jet (I've got lots of hours in both)....doesn't matter.  Experienced pilots transition faster and are making better decisions sooner than the less experienced.   So I think any flying is better than no flying and if we can get stick time in a T-38, T-1, or Eclipse for the young guys, we get a better product sooner.

[herkbum]

A CTP would be great for the RPA community, but what do you do with the 18X guys? They don't come out of URT with enough hours to get a PPL. I would think this would cause a some issues for leadership IRT keeping everyone happy. Maybe an in-squadron qualification program? I would think a T-6 type aircraft would be ideal.

[BFM this]

A CTP would be great for the RPA community, but what do you do with the 18X guys? They don't come out of URT with enough hours to get a PPL. I would think this would cause a some issues for leadership IRT keeping everyone happy. Maybe an in-squadron qualification program? I would think a T-6 type aircraft would be ideal.

Even if the RPA community reaches manpower nirvana of 13 per cap, there will never be enough bodies to clear someone off a few times a month for CT flying. Never gonna happen.

My guess is that we get to around 11 per, leadership gets distracted by some other squirrel, and suddenly CAP expansion drives back down to 9.5. Again, no room on the schedule to not sit in the seat for 6+ hours, 5(6)on, 3(2)off.

[herkbum]

Even if the RPA community reaches manpower nirvana of 13 per cap, there will never be enough bodies to clear someone off a few times a month for CT flying. Never gonna happen.

My guess is that we get to around 11 per, leadership gets distracted by some other squirrel, and suddenly CAP expansion drives back down to 9.5. Again, no room on the schedule to not sit in the seat for 6+ hours, 5(6)on, 3(2)off.

I guess that depends on your location.

[GKinnear]

...what do you do with the 18X guys? 

My guess is the 11Xs would receive a T-6 IP qual in the backseat and let the 18X try to kill him. Joe1234's point is more valid in the RPA world where not everyone has an LR qual or need. Let the guy who can go to a different airframe keep his skill set up, and let the 18X get some basic airmanship w/out the pesky landing currency. An abbreviated pattern only, ala Sport Pilot Licence, might be the ticket for an LR qual'd 18X.

[Majestik Møøse]

A companion trainer would work wonders in the heavy world, allowing them to save billions while increasing their airmanship and hand-flying skills.  Heavies cost between $15-50k per hour to fly not including fuel while a smaller trainer runs on peanuts.

That said, there are many heavy pilots who would kill themselves in the T-38.  I say that coming from the community; some are great and some are absolutely heinous.  So it would have to be some other airplane (without an autopilot available, because some would lean on it and negate the whole purpose of a CTP).

[TarHeelPilot]

That's pretty much it.  The value of the companion trainer is especially good when you have two things: a primary aircraft that is particularly specialized and doesn't operate like most aircraft, and an aircraft so specialized that you don't get to fly it much when not deployed or its unique characteristics preclude you from flying it much at home.  The U-2 fits both to varying degrees, and the B-2 probably at least the second. In the case of the U-2 crew force, they fly like heck for two months while deployed, but when home for two or three months between deployments, or more for some, they get very little time in the U-2, and can't really fly like they do when deployed.  In many cases, they might get only a few hours per month in the U-2 at home.  The T-38 allows them to get sufficient time in the air to keep current and trained in the normal world of aviation.  I'm not sure, but in the RC community, that may not be an issue when at home, so the need for a CTP is not a requirement.  If you have to fly, doing it at a couple of thousand an hour is better than multiple tens of thousands an hour.  Do I think a CTP for the RC guys would be a good thing?  Damn right, although maybe a T-1 rather than a T-38 for a crew aircraft, but either would be great.  Not likely in this budget environment, but still a good idea.

4.5 hours per month at home to be CMR.

[di1630]

How about academy style flying squadrons at some bases with cirrus SR-20s or diamonds.....Cheap, fun and easy. Hell even an aero club for RPA dudes.

[BFM this]

 

I guess that depends on your location.

Valid.  My viewpoint is limited to the steel-mill business models of Holloman and Creech.

Hell even an aero club for RPA dudes.

This is probably the most achievable course of action.  

But even before this option is considered, I can't for the life of me fathom why the Air Force has allowed the ACs to wither on the vine in the first place.  We are the AIR FORCE, FFS!  ACs allowed Amn Snuffy to wander in and try flying in a safe, cost competitive environment.  I imagine that said Amn, during the course of training, might learn that his CFI worked at one of the Ops Squadrons (an interaction that never would have otherwise taken place).  Pre-solo Amn would have at some point taxiied out to the runway alongside the local MWSs, another experience that is non-existent otherwise.  Giving these experiences to the masses serves a much broader strategic purpose, extending to the veteran voters later on--advocacy of airpower.  

But instead ACs were cut; the myopia of the stance in a broader strategic sense is staggering.

To your original point, sure: a monthly funded allocation of four hours per pilot plus annual stan-eval requirements, fly more at your own expense and on your own time.  Never gonna happen, but it's fun to spitball ideas.

[Clark Griswold]

Never gonna happen, but it's fun to spitball ideas.

I wish that weren't true but damn it....

On spitball ideas, if we cared about the long term viability of the officers careers as pilots (and God forbid, morale) we would put MCEs at UPT bases, when the planes and RPA pilots could fit into the schedule for a CT sortie, go do it.  But this is the SAPR-DTS-AAD required-Disco Belt modern day AF, hell bent on forgetting its heritage and reason for being a separate service... 

[SurelySerious]

we would put MCEs at UPT bases,

Hey, they're campaigning for better/more logical places like Germany, England, and Hawaii. Don't put that evil on them Ricky Bobby.

[Clark Griswold]

Hey, they're campaigning for better/more logical places like Germany, England, and Hawaii. Don't put that evil on them Ricky Bobby.

Ok I won't cast that curse but if it was Pensacola or San Antonio that'd be pretty good IMO

Had not heard of the effort to put MCEs in decent locales but given that could raise morale you can be sure that is below the line unfortunately

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MooseAg03]

Ok I won't cast that curse but if it was Pensacola or San Antonio that'd be pretty good IMO

Had not heard of the effort to put MCEs in decent locales but given that could raise morale you can be sure that is below the line unfortunately

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know I mentioned that in my RPA climate survey, that and many other things. Unless we put RPA units in more compelling locations, retention in this career field will continue to suffer. Nobody wants to spend an entire career bouncing between Creech, Canon, Holloman, and Whiteman.

Instead, we continue to pour tens of millions into a crappy, desolate piece of land in good ol' Indian Springs, NV. Isolation is an advantage, but can also be a risk factor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

 

I know I mentioned that in my RPA climate survey, that and many other things. Unless we put RPA units in more compelling locations, retention in this career field will continue to suffer. Nobody wants to spend an entire career bouncing between Creech, Canon, Holloman, and Whiteman.

 

Instead, we continue to pour tens of millions into a crappy, desolate piece of land in good ol' Indian Springs, NV. Isolation is an advantage, but can also be a risk factor.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Yep - they put em in shitholes with limited economies, the town becomes dependent and desperate to keep the base / mission and then the AF can leverage that to get a vote for something else - myopic and unconcerned about the second order effects of all that wheeling and dealing

 

Edit for better thought rambling.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Edited October 18, 2015 by Clark Griswold

[SurelySerious]

I know I mentioned that in my RPA climate survey, that and many other things. Unless we put RPA units in more compelling locations, retention in this career field will continue to suffer. Nobody wants to spend an entire career bouncing between Creech, Canon, Holloman, and Whiteman.

Instead, we continue to pour tens of millions into a crappy, desolate piece of land in good ol' Indian Springs, NV. Isolation is an advantage, but can also be a risk factor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can also have the benefit of limiting shift work with geographic distribution across time zones, but there are unfortunately many factors at play.

[HU&W]

 

 

I know I mentioned that in my RPA climate survey, that and many other things. Unless we put RPA units in more compelling locations, retention in this career field will continue to suffer. Nobody wants to spend an entire career bouncing between Creech, Canon, Holloman, and Whiteman.

 

Instead, we continue to pour tens of millions into a crappy, desolate piece of land in good ol' Indian Springs, NV. Isolation is an advantage, but can also be a risk factor.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Best idea I've heard is to bump the 12 ANG bases up to 5-6 caps each, then stick an active associate squadron at each one.  Almost too many benefits to list.

[Clark Griswold]

T-1 back in the crosshairs (sorta)...

Full article behind the paywall but the idea that the T-1 (as it is now) is past its prime is back.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-us-air-force-overspending-t-1a-its-forgotten-trainer

If the T-1 is too much to upgrade/sustain, get a Cessna Mustang.

[Ram]

We can consider it as long as it'll get ATIS for the UP.

[MooseAg03]

The Cessna Mustang (and most other VLJs) have much slower cruise speeds than the Tone. I wonder what that would mean for reaching all of those out bases for Transition and Nav phase while trying to stay within ASD. I think SUPT has outlived its usefulness and I'll volunteer to go fly the T-X.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HossHarris]

More time for ATIS and TOLD

[Clark Griswold]

12 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

The Cessna Mustang (and most other VLJs) have much slower cruise speeds than the Tone. I wonder what that would mean for reaching all of those out bases for Transition and Nav phase while trying to stay within ASD. I think SUPT has outlived its usefulness and I'll volunteer to go fly the T-X.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid critique.

Going back to a single advanced trainer is fine by me with the breakout of Fighter Rec'd and not later in the syllabus.

However, if SUPT survives and not GUPT and they want to replace the Tone, then another modern suggestion would be the Syberjet SJ30, fast light jet, about the same size/weight as a Tone but a fuel miser with long legs.

[Duck]

I don't get how the T-X single track makes sense financially. It takes half the IPs for the T-1 and I'm assuming it is more fuel efficient than an AB fuel guzzling fighter type aircraft.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums