Unsolicited T-1 Replacement Proposal

[LookieRookie]

2 hours ago, Duck said:

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

It's more expensive from the brief I saw actually for everyone to go T-X.  But the brief still had it has the top choice.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, Duck said:

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

Maybe but there could be other reasons to go back to a single advanced trainer even it is more expensive.  I lean towards a single track but SUPT does make a helluva lot of sense still.

To mitigate the cost of a more expensive advanced trainer (assuming a single T-X track) - could the instrument phase in T-6's be expanded and the instrument phase in T-X be shortened?  Just use T-X to teach military specific items (form, mission, etc.)?

60% T-6 & 40% T-X or some other ratio...

The T-X program seems to be emphasizing capability vs. cost (to a point)....

http://aviationweek.com/defense/high-performance-t-x-could-edge-out-low-cost-bid

If there is to be a T-XXX as a Tone replacement, maybe Big Blue would be willing to get a new jet with the luxury options?

A jet that has range, modern avionics with full automation to manage (capable of full auto flight & HUD), NVG compatible cockpit, short field capability (landing on 5K' wet asphalt at ISA), a UARSSI just like the T-X will have even if only for dry plugs, etc...

Swing for the fences for T-1 replacement...

Edited March 9, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[Clark Griswold]

At this point anything that is flight time for guys going multi eng heavy would be fine but if the Navy can find the resources (granted fewer pilots to train for their heavy community) the USAF can too

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/first-t-54a-trainer-jet-arrives-at-naval-air-station-corpus-christi/ar-AA1nHW9c?cvid=9bde1b3471da4db689e9e85ad188cb6c&ei=4
 

USAF buys 120, send studs to a civ multi course after T-6s, then to Flight Safety for a type course or AF written syllabus, then a flight syllabus in the T-54 to teach Air Mobility basics (air mob mission planning, transport aircraft form, simulated air refueling & delivery, NVGs, etc…

Syllabus NOT focused primarily on repetitive basic sorties but heavy military airmanship, reasonable length, shooting for stud grad / winging 3+ months from start.

3 bases, east-central-west, near major airports / airline domiciles to develop operational experience and entice Reservist support

[08Dawg]

Why not just replace the T-1 with a COT solution like a CJ3?

[Vito]

My Bud went to the T-1 retirement event they had at RND a few weeks ago. He said that they (ATC Brass) told the crowd the T-7 was still a few years away, like 2030ish! And that in the future the AF was looking at UPT being T-6 to T-7 for all pilots, like the old T-37 to T-38 syllabus of yore. That was from the mouths of the AETC Commanders. I’m sure some of you guys attended as well.
 

[Clark Griswold]

47 minutes ago, 08Dawg said:

Why not just replace the T-1 with a COT solution like a CJ3?

Cost and risk, Navy already has gotten the aircraft delivered to meet mil training requirements and has costs for support already worked out so the AF could piggyback off that.

Any new acquisition program would take years before anything would get decided let alone delivered, methinks this would be the VFR direct solution 

39 minutes ago, Vito said:

My Bud went to the T-1 retirement event they had at RND a few weeks ago. He said that they (ATC Brass) told the crowd the T-7 was still a few years away, like 2030ish! And that in the future the AF was looking at UPT being T-6 to T-7 for all pilots, like the old T-37 to T-38 syllabus of yore. That was from the mouths of the AETC Commanders. I’m sure some of you guys attended as well.
 

Copy, cheat off the Navy’s homework AF and just get this plane now.

Basing suggestions: Dobbins for ATL, JRB Ft Worth for DFW and a tenant unit on a AZ ANG facility in PHX.  

 

[McJay Pilot]

The real question… does the T-54 have a “god box”?

[Swizzle]

37 minutes ago, McJay Pilot said:

The real question… does the T-54 have a “god box”?

https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/T-54A

 

Perhaps, but it WILL fly in the valley-of-the-downs!  Ah the good ole' days of doing an NDB approach sucking O2 mask with an engine simulated out. And uphill both ways. 

[DirkDiggler]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

At this point anything that is flight time for guys going multi eng heavy would be fine but if the Navy can find the resources (granted fewer pilots to train for their heavy community) the USAF can too

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/first-t-54a-trainer-jet-arrives-at-naval-air-station-corpus-christi/ar-AA1nHW9c?cvid=9bde1b3471da4db689e9e85ad188cb6c&ei=4
 

USAF buys 120, send studs to a civ multi course after T-6s, then to Flight Safety for a type course or AF written syllabus, then a flight syllabus in the T-54 to teach Air Mobility basics (air mob mission planning, transport aircraft form, simulated air refueling & delivery, NVGs, etc…

Syllabus NOT focused primarily on repetitive basic sorties but heavy military airmanship, reasonable length, shooting for stud grad / winging 3+ months from start.

3 bases, east-central-west, near major airports / airline domiciles to develop operational experience and entice Reservist support

This would be a good idea.  I thought my TC-12 training was a good feeder for the Herk.  It would give the student a more complex airplane with more than one engine to worry about.  At this point anything is better than the ridiculous idea of T-6s straight to whatever heavy the student tracks.  Would probably be fairly cheap operating cost wise too.  All those are reasons why the AF would most likely never go for it.

[Clark Griswold]

20 minutes ago, DirkDiggler said:

Would probably be fairly cheap operating cost wise too.  All those are reasons why the AF would most likely never go for it.

Concur unfortunately 

At this point (phase 3) you’re starting to refine and shape the product, allow for greater responsibility and lay the foundation for a future aircraft commander who can lead a crew, handle change, manage priorities and execute the mission.  

You only get that in the training environment of actually flying an aircraft in the real world with all its variables.  
Comment not directed at you but the GOs, SESs, CODELs and policy makers lurking here for ideas on what the AF should be doing.

[DVT]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Cost and risk, Navy already has gotten the aircraft delivered to meet mil training requirements and has costs for support already worked out so the AF could piggyback off that.

Any new acquisition program would take years before anything would get decided let alone delivered, methinks this would be the VFR direct solution 

Copy, cheat off the Navy’s homework AF and just get this plane now.

Basing suggestions: Dobbins for ATL, JRB Ft Worth for DFW and a tenant unit on a AZ ANG facility in PHX.  

 

I was discussing this the other day, after seeing what the USN pulled off almost overnight.  AF buy a slew of the same darn Beechcraft and get on it NOW.  All those turboprops can be delivered in 3-4 years.

Guys need real flying and learning in the real world and all the things one learns by doing that.  T-6 onward to King Air onward to "Heavy Whatever" is WORLDS better than T-6 to F it, we do it live.

Kudos to the USN boys.  AF...take notes and execute on a T-1 replacement.

[LookieRookie]

Everyone is going to do contract initial pilot training. PPL, IFR, Multi. Then shorter T-6 direct FTU or shorter FBF.

 

SGTO happening now

 

T-6 is going away for everyone eventually and IPT direct T-7s for all my friends.

[Berry]

Quote

He said that they (ATC Brass) told the crowd the T-7 was still a few years away, like 2030ish! And that in the future the AF was looking at UPT being T-6 to T-7 for all pilots, like the old T-37 to T-38 syllabus of yore. That was from the mouths of the AETC Commanders. I’m sure some of you guys attended as well.

This was the AETC/CC's vision since at least 2016, but when suggested it was shot down on account they'd need twice as many to execute the mission.  Here's the funny part: the T-7 is a purpose-built, lead-in fighter trainer intended to bridge the gap between the T-6 and fifth gen.  AETC/A57 worked with ACC/A3 on what they wanted it to accomplish, not AMC/A3.  What a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars to put heavy kids through this thing.  "Universally assignable" as a goal is a joke. 

[nsplayr]

4 hours ago, DVT said:

I was discussing this the other day, after seeing what the USN pulled off almost overnight.  AF buy a slew of the same darn Beechcraft and get on it NOW.  All those turboprops can be delivered in 3-4 years.

Guys need real flying and learning in the real world and all the things one learns by doing that.  T-6 onward to King Air onward to "Heavy Whatever" is WORLDS better than T-6 to F it, we do it live.

Kudos to the USN boys.  AF...take notes and execute on a T-1 replacement.

It's not rocket science to look out at the civ aviation world, find a decent multi aircraft that you can buy at scale, and just buy it. Then send all your non-fighter, non-helo pilot studs to train with it. Wham bam, done.

I or anyone with half a brain could do it in a couple of weeks if Uncle Sam will loan me the gov AMEX Centurion w/ no spending limit. Too bad it "doesn't work that way" for...reasons.

[dream big]

10 hours ago, Vito said:

My Bud went to the T-1 retirement event they had at RND a few weeks ago. He said that they (ATC Brass) told the crowd the T-7 was still a few years away, like 2030ish! And that in the future the AF was looking at UPT being T-6 to T-7 for all pilots, like the old T-37 to T-38 syllabus of yore. That was from the mouths of the AETC Commanders. I’m sure some of you guys attended as well.
 

Single track worked for years, created many of the old heads on this forum now - no need to fix what isn’t broken. Current AETC commander is phenomenal and unlike many of his predecessors doesn’t have his head up his ass. 

[Rated Flyer 4 Life]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Single track worked for years, created many of the old heads on this forum now - no need to fix what isn’t broken. Current AETC commander is phenomenal and unlike many of his predecessors doesn’t have his head up his ass. 

If they were to go single track, I wonder if there would be an opportunity for former T-1 IPs/heavy type pilots to be retrained / TX as IPs for the T-7? 

Edited 2 hours ago by Rated Flyer 4 Life