F-16s from Hill to Holloman

[Sprkt69]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Legit critiques, there is an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul but I think I could pay Paul back with interest in this case if the program (a 3+ FY ARC IP, MX and MEO personnel surge) runs for at least 3 FYs, grows more IPs first and then in years 2 and beyond to train the newly minted 11Fs from IFF

Make it the objective to not only solve the AC 11F shortfall but to grow in your RC the 11F IP cadre, as the program ran, specifically in the first year or so, focus on growing you IP cadre by training first new IPs, the AC and RC F-16 pilots ready to IP qual and in year two and beyond then focus on the FNGs to getting them their B qual (terminology check - is the the first qual for an 11F when hey go thru their FTU?)

It will likely cost 100+ million to move the 40 jets and 800 folks from Hill to Holloman, that is about 640 man years of MPA depending on the O to E ratio.  Spend about that on an activation (partial unit) of two F-16 wings with the units not inside of 3 years for their AEF rotation.  3 years, two sites, surged training and MX.  Sugar it with a bonus and the ARC will have multiple units volunteering.

Just a thought.

Different pots of money argument sprinkled with a complete lack of leadership capable of long term personnel management. Add that to guys punching to the airlines at an alarming rate and you have a recipe for the ongoing abortion.

The state of NM has been a bane to the 11F communities. It was forced upon the Viper community so that NM would have its fighters after the Raptors popped ninja smoke and left NM for the beach. 

Hill may have had the airspace, but the number of IPs that are B course qual'd are minimal, even with the help from the TFI reserves. Many of those guys are now F-35 guys and/or fled to Delta. So you'd have to fix the IP issue along with needing more D-models unless you transition to the C model only syllabus. To add fuel to the fire, the AD has decided to shorten the B course syllabus to 6 mo, meaning those students will need a longer MQT upgrade to get to the same point that the Guard B courser graduates are at or just be a lesser qual'd pilot. Of note, the Guard refused to shorten their course. So now you have the absorption problem in the CAF. There are some lucky guys that will season with the ARC, but the guys at AD bases may not be so lucky as some have already found themselves out of the jet as soon as 2 yrs apparently. That's may or may not get the pilot to the magical 500 hrs to be "experienced." But the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and Holloman will continue to accelerate the Viper pilot Exodus with its amazing locale and outstanding airspace

[MD]

39 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

To add fuel to the fire, the AD has decided to shorten the B course syllabus to 6 mo,

"Shortened to 6 months" just sounds weird, remembering back to when the A-model Hog FTU was 90 training days

[di1630]

How many flights for the FTU?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Seriously]

14 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

....grows more IPs first...

...grow in your RC the 11F IP cadre, as the program ran, specifically in the first year or so, focus on growing you IP cadre by training first new IPs, the AC and RC F-16 pilots ready to IP qual and in year two and...

Being able to teach at the IP level in the F-16 doesn't magically happen through the IPUG. It's a process that takes many years of study and flying due to the enormous mission set. Yes, you can send guys through the IPUG with minimal time or grant waivers to put them through earlier, but that doesn't give them more experience.

The answer isn't to train more IPs; it's to retain the experienced pilots. 

That said, history is just repeating itself again. We've been here before and we'll be here again in another 15 years. 

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Different pots of money argument sprinkled with a complete lack of leadership capable of long term personnel management...

The typical shields used by feckless "leaders" 

Be bold AF, rollout an aggressive strategy to stop the exodus of 11Fs and grow their ranks.  

Fighter Pilot Recovery Plan (F-16/15 centric):

- Surge the ARC, recapitalize MX and training, and prioritize where you use 11Fs, every staff / non-operational billet that doesn't actually need an 11F that is manned by one is just another straw on the camel's back, scrutinize every one and even if you can only get rid of 50 or so that is 10% of the 500 or so 11F deficit you need to fix

3 hours ago, Seriously said:

Being able to teach at the IP level in the F-16 doesn't magically happen through the IPUG. It's a process that takes many years of study and flying due to the enormous mission set. Yes, you can send guys through the IPUG with minimal time or grant waivers to put them through earlier, but that doesn't give them more experience.

The answer isn't to train more IPs; it's to retain the experienced pilots. 

That said, history is just repeating itself again. We've been here before and we'll be here again in another 15 years. 

True, this will likely be a 3+ year bill to pay by the AF to fix the loss of experience and quantity in the 11F community 

Edited November 20, 2016 by Clark Griswold

[tac airlifter]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Be bold AF.......

 prioritize where you use 11Fs, every staff / non-operational billet that doesn't actually need an 11F that is manned by one is just another straw on the camel's back, scrutinize every one and even if you can only get rid of 50 or so that is 10% of the 500 or so 11F deficit you need to fix

I'm not sure the AF is capable of bold changes anymore.  Senior guys got to be senior by avoiding bold action and it's subsequent risk.  They didn't rock the boat, didn't push boundaries, kept things safe and might not understand how to flip the tables over and fix a crisis.  Time will tell.

To your second point--- damn I wish the AF would do this with every staff billet!  Now that I'm on staff, holy shit it is managed in such a retarded fashion!  Yea, yea, no one likes staff and we've heard it before, but I'm talking about managing what staff billet exists for what reason.  A force wide audit is desperately needed.  

[Clark Griswold]

42 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I'm not sure the AF is capable of bold changes anymore.  Senior guys got to be senior by avoiding bold action and it's subsequent risk.  They didn't rock the boat, didn't push boundaries, kept things safe and might not understand how to flip the tables over and fix a crisis.  Time will tell.

To your second point--- damn I wish the AF would do this with every staff billet!  Now that I'm on staff, holy shit it is managed in such a retarded fashion!  Yea, yea, no one likes staff and we've heard it before, but I'm talking about managing what staff billet exists for what reason.  A force wide audit is desperately needed.  

Possible but I have some hope - while I am not in agreement with the policy of enlisted RPA pilots (would rather seen and E to WO program) but the fact they did something different, even if it is small scale and possibly fleeting, is a sign there is still some of the wild blue yonder left in the overly corprotized, overly risk averse, modern day AF...

[viper154]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Possible but I have some hope - while I am not in agreement with the policy of enlisted RPA pilots (would rather seen and E to WO program) but the fact they did something different, even if it is small scale and possibly fleeting, is a sign there is still some of the wild blue yonder left in the overly corprotized, overly risk averse, modern day AF...

Ahh yes, they took a huge risk putting senior enlisted in a "plane" that takes off and lands its self, is on autopilot 99.9% of the time, and is flying above controlled airspace. Not to hate on any Global Chicken guys, but it's true. That being said, these guys deserve a pat on back, there are very few enlisted ACs in USAF history  

This was nothing more more than a conservative publicity stunt so generals could save their ass by saying "hey look we are fixing the problem". 

NM is a shithole with shady politics, how else would they have 3 AF bases and a Army base in this wasteland. 

The AF has several large caliber bullet rounds right now and only a couple band aids, they are going to keep moving these band aids around to make it look like it's getting better when it's only getting worse. Last year it was RPAs, this year its fighters, next year will be the heavies, missiles were mixed in there somewhere. 

Not until we see wholesale failure as a force (with probably a lot of flag draped caskets) will it get better. 

Rant off. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, viper154 said:

Ahh yes, they took a huge risk putting senior enlisted in a "plane" that takes off and lands its self, is on autopilot 99.9% of the time, and is flying above controlled airspace. Not to hate on any Global Chicken guys, but it's true. That being said, these guys deserve a pat on back, there are very few enlisted ACs in USAF history  

This was nothing more more than a conservative publicity stunt so generals could save their ass by saying "hey look we are fixing the problem". 

NM is a shithole with shady politics, how else would they have 3 AF bases and a Army base in this wasteland. 

The AF has several large caliber bullet rounds right now and only a couple band aids, they are going to keep moving these band aids around to make it look like it's getting better when it's only getting worse. Last year it was RPAs, this year its fighters, next year will be the heavies, missiles were mixed in there somewhere. 

Not until we see wholesale failure as a force (with probably a lot of flag draped caskets) will it get better. 

Rant off. 

Valid assessment that the risk taken / change was not a window shaking sonic boom but it was at least something, even a small token.

Not to get too into the weeds with you on the intricacies of the Global Chicken but it is always on autopilot, just a matter of whether it is on the flight plan or being directed by the pilot.  The takeoff and landing itself is directed by the pilot, nothing is exactly automatic.  Having been a badass Global Chicken driver and flown several manned aircraft, the GH would be an ideal fit for a WO program IMO, particularly the rebirth of one in the AF.  Just a sidebar point.

I am not sure it will take dead Airmen to prove the need for change, there is that sense now we can't pretend everything is fine.  It is just like everything else in our huge Byzantine and risk averse government, it takes too long to get done and it never gets completely finished.

As to NM and the subject of this thread, no doubt but as I hail from a Southern state and we send the same jokers back term after term to develop seniority so they can bring home the bacon, I can't blame them for it.  They have an industry, bilking the federal government.  They're good at it.  Do what you're good at.

[sqwatch]

NM is a shithole with shady politics, how else would they have 3 AF bases and a Army base in this wasteland. 

I don't know about the politics, but i do know that large urban centers with dense populations are generally tougher to convince that their property values won't suffer by being in proximity to an air base/live range. It turns out that if you put loud, supersonic airplanes in sparsely populated areas and drop bombs in the middle of the "wasteland", noise complaints are minimized and poorer states get an influx of money.

I hear the navy has nice bases though.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Inertia17]

Shame we can't get a squadron or two in to share Miramar with the Marines...they seem to get by just fine buzzing Hornets around San Diego daily.

[tk1313]

41 minutes ago, Inertia17 said:

Shame we can't get a squadron or two in to share Miramar with the Marines...they seem to get by just fine buzzing Hornets around San Diego daily.

Miramar is a special case for whatever reason. More retired military in the area possibly? San Diego and awesome surfing is just 30 minutes away... Vegas is also well within driving distance...

At NAS Oceana, half of the people are parked by the front of the neighborhoods taking pictures and loving the 24/7 air show, and the other half are constantly bitching about the jet noise.

Edited November 21, 2016 by tk1313

[SocialD]

1 hour ago, tk1313 said:

Miramar is a special case for whatever reason. More retired military in the area possibly?

Day 1 of a two week trip to Davis-Monthan, I'm first out the gate, and roll onto the runway as the sun is cresting the horizon (TDY squadrons lose the BMGR scheduling war).  The controller says, "time to wake up the complainers, cleared for takeoff..."  Turns out a PW229, makes A LOT of noise on a cold, calm, quiet Tucson morning.  Within 20 minutes of our first takeoffs (8-ship), we have numerous noise complaints.   After talking with  the DM folks, they say the biggest complainers are former milItary.  "...I was in 20 years and I know how they're supposed to fly..."   I think they said in the 2 weeks we were there, they had more noise complaints than the previous 6-9 months.  

One of the great things about being at a stand alone Guard squadron is the locals love us!  I stopped at a coffee ship on my way to work and had someone walk up a say they had a complaint!  He says, you don't fly low enough, fast enough or loud enough over my house...then he buys my coffee.  Small town, hard working, blue collar Americans...gotta love them!  

Edited November 21, 2016 by SocialD

[Stitch]

On 11/19/2016 at 10:58 AM, matmacwc said:

My B, PM sent.

PM read, check your's  

[viper154]

On 11/20/2016 at 8:17 PM, Clark Griswold said:

Valid assessment that the risk taken / change was not a window shaking sonic boom but it was at least something, even a small token.

Not to get too into the weeds with you on the intricacies of the Global Chicken but it is always on autopilot, just a matter of whether it is on the flight plan or being directed by the pilot.  The takeoff and landing itself is directed by the pilot, nothing is exactly automatic.  Having been a badass Global Chicken driver and flown several manned aircraft, the GH would be an ideal fit for a WO program IMO, particularly the rebirth of one in the AF.  Just a sidebar point.

I am not sure it will take dead Airmen to prove the need for change, there is that sense now we can't pretend everything is fine.  It is just like everything else in our huge Byzantine and risk averse government, it takes too long to get done and it never gets completely finished.

As to NM and the subject of this thread, no doubt but as I hail from a Southern state and we send the same jokers back term after term to develop seniority so they can bring home the bacon, I can't blame them for it.  They have an industry, bilking the federal government.  They're good at it.  Do what you're good at.

Agreed on all points. I probably should have taken  the opertunity to STFU, it's been a long week and after a couple drinks a took my anger/frustration on this post. 

 

Also, keep making loud airplane noises. 'Merica 

[matmacwc]

On 11/21/2016 at 7:27 AM, SocialD said:

Day 1 of a two week trip to Davis-Monthan, I'm first out the gate, and roll onto the runway as the sun is cresting the horizon (TDY squadrons lose the BMGR scheduling war).  The controller says, "time to wake up the complainers, cleared for takeoff..."  Turns out a PW229, makes A LOT of noise on a cold, calm, quiet Tucson morning.  Within 20 minutes of our first takeoffs (8-ship), we have numerous noise complaints.   After talking with  the DM folks, they say the biggest complainers are former milItary.  "...I was in 20 years and I know how they're supposed to fly..."   I think they said in the 2 weeks we were there, they had more noise complaints than the previous 6-9 months.  

I've seen said list, it's like 10 people with the same complaints that call 6-9 times a day.  It's from a group called Tucson forward, bunch of socialist retards.  The base has been around longer than they have been alive yet they still chose to live near it. 

Just do our alert scramble takeoff.  Keep in on the deck to 400+ then climb at 45 degrees nose high at the end of runway, we get less complaints.

Edited November 22, 2016 by matmacwc

[tk1313]

10 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

It's from a group called Tucson forward, bunch of socialist retards.

"Socialist retards." No need to repeat yourself.

[Smokin]

On 11/19/2016 at 10:35 PM, Sprkt69 said:

Hill may have had the airspace, but the number of IPs that are B course qual'd are minimal, even with the help from the TFI reserves. Many of those guys are now F-35 guys and/or fled to Delta. So you'd have to fix the IP issue along with needing more D-models unless you transition to the C model only syllabus. To add fuel to the fire, the AD has decided to shorten the B course syllabus to 6 mo, meaning those students will need a longer MQT upgrade to get to the same point that the Guard B courser graduates are at or just be a lesser qual'd pilot.

You need to make B-course IPs from somewhere.  Just because Holloman is already a B-course doesn't mean they have two extra squadrons of IPs sitting around doing nothing.  FYI, the 6 month B-course has been underway for years and the C-model only syllabus was a success for everyone except AETC who saw it as too big of a risk to continue once the D-models started coming back.  This was despite the fact that there were zero additional issues with the C-model only students and I think they actually did better.  As a whole, their pre-solo emergency sims were noticeably better than previous or later classes.  I attribute it to the fact that they knew that if they couldn't hack it, there wouldn't be an IP in the back to save the day.  Makes perfect sense to me that a single seat fighter should only be flown single seat from day one.

[Jaded]

I thought that the F-16 landed differently enough from the T-38 that I was very glad I had an IP in the backseat for the first 3 rides.

[matmacwc]

It does, I taught in both, but I think a T-38 grad could handle it.

[tk1313]

T-38 is a pretty tough Aircraft to land precisely, though, isn't it? Ground effect doesn't like stubby wings.

[Clark Griswold]

12 hours ago, viper154 said:

Agreed on all points. I probably should have taken  the opertunity to STFU, it's been a long week and after a couple drinks a took my anger/frustration on this post. 

Also, keep making loud airplane noises. 'Merica 

No worries and nothing taken.

 

[Kenny Powers]

T-38 is a pretty tough Aircraft to land precisely, though, isn't it? Ground effect doesn't like stubby wings.

Define precisely. We did formation landings all the damn time, so landing with another aircraft 10 feet or so off your wing.

I don't recall any difficulty going from -38 to the Viper. Stay on speed, put the thing on the thing, land airplane.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[tk1313]

2 minutes ago, Kenny Powers said:

 

Define precisely. We'd did formation landings all the damn time.

I don't recall any difficulty going from -38 to the Viper. Stay on speed, put the thing on the thing, land airplane.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 

 

Formation landings would definitely fall under the "precisely" category. Did you think hitting the touchdown point was harder or easier in the T-38 vice the viper/eagle/raptor/etc?

[Kenny Powers]

Formation landings would definitely fall under the "precisely" category. Did you think hitting the touchdown point was harder or easier in the T-38 vice the viper/eagle/raptor/etc?

Again, I don't recall much of a difference. I also don't recall it being too difficult to learn to land the 38. The issue with both the 38 and a GE powered Viper is being on the back side of the power curve before you're ready to shift your aim point and flare. If you have the power back you're gonna have a high sink rate when you shift your aim point down the runway. Best case you have a firm landing, worst case you swap ends and scrap the back end of the jet.

That should be valid for any airplane but the 38 and GE powered Vipers have a little bit of delay spooling up compared to a Pratt powered Viper.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk