Initial Pilot Training and Future Pilot Training

[Inertia17]

11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Question 

How many hours of T-7 time will SPs get if they go (ultimately) to this T-7 only UPT model?

You don't want the answer to that question.

[Clark Griswold]

You don't want the answer to that question.

That bad? Like less than 50 hours?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Punk]

41 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

That bad? Like less than 50 hours?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heavy-track studs will not fly the T-7, IPT direct FTU

[LookieRookie]

On 9/5/2025 at 8:08 AM, Punk said:

Heavy-track studs will not fly the T-7, IPT direct FTU

Obviously you have no clue what you’re talking about.

 

IPT is just the part 141 portion of FUPT. All students still fly the T-6. Tanker/Airlift/SOF/Recce/MAF FAIPs students then go to their FTU or T-6 PIT.

 

Fighter/Bomber/CAF FAIPs will go fly the T-38 and be the first to fly the T-7 at IOC. CBM is MOB 2.

 

When the T-6 sunsets, everyone at that base will fly the T-7 at FOC.. 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by LookieRookie

[Punk]

41 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

Obviously you have no clue what you’re talking about.

 

IPT is just the part 141 portion of FUPT. All students still fly the T-6. Tanker/Airlift/SOF/Recce/MAF FAIPs students then go to their FTU or T-6 PIT.

 

Fighter/Bomber/CAF FAIPs will go fly the T-38 and be the first to fly the T-7 at IOC. CBM is MOB 2.

 

When the T-6 sunsets, everyone at that base will fly the T-7 at FOC.. 

 

 

Any word on how much they'll fly? We're buying 20% fewer T-7s than we even have T-38s, but even 20hrs per student doesn't sound that bad

[Clark Griswold]

Any word on how much they'll fly? We're buying 20% fewer T-7s than we even have T-38s, but even 20hrs per student doesn't sound that bad

IDK about that (20 hours).
Just my 2 cents the order of priority for training is quality of events, number of events then length of each event.
Just from thin air, 60+ flying sorties sounds (X sims also) right if… the T-7 is the only mil trainer SPs will see as their introduction to military flying, each of those sorties being a 1.something but well planned with focused training objectives

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

2 hours ago, Punk said:

Any word on how much they'll fly? We're buying 20% fewer T-7s than we even have T-38s, but even 20hrs per student doesn't sound that bad

There will be a second buy. Boeing is going to no lube us on the prices.

 

As of now the total syllabus (including employment) is just under 90 hours. 

Non-CAF tracked studs will get around 40-45 hours.

Edited 11 hours ago by LookieRookie

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, LookieRookie said:

There will be a second buy. Boeing is going to no lube us on the prices.

As of now the total syllabus (including employment) is just under 90 hours. 

Non-CAF tracked studs will get around 40-45 hours.

Yup

Still the heavy track getting some T-7 hours is better than none and 40+ was more than I expected.
This IPT + T-7 track only is odd to me given Leard’s background, a multi engine follow on would be  probably good enough to then go on to the MAF, I’ll hold hope it or something similar will come along.

Type course plus some extra sims in a King Air 260 / T-54, then about 40 sorties / 50-60 hours.  Night, x-country, formation etc.. experience building then on your way. Get it done quick, 2 sorties out n backs, 1 week night, 1 week form, etc…

You can afford this Air Force.

[Boomer6]

26 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yup

Still the heavy track getting some T-7 hours is better than none and 40+ was more than I expected.
This IPT + T-7 track only is odd to me given Leard’s background, a multi engine follow on would be  probably good enough to then go on to the MAF, I’ll hold hope it or something similar will come along.

Type course plus some extra sims in a King Air 260 / T-54, then about 40 sorties / 50-60 hours.  Night, x-country, formation etc.. experience building then on your way. Get it done quick, 2 sorties out n backs, 1 week night, 1 week form, etc…

You can afford this Air Force.

Do you work at Textron/own a bunch of stock there? Just curious because you make it a point to recommend the USAF buy their aircraft a lot.

[Clark Griswold]

Do you work at Textron/own a bunch of stock there? Just curious because you make it a point to recommend the USAF buy their aircraft a lot.

Ha - nope but I get it, another consequence of letting our aerospace base consolidate too much, not enough domestic suppliers with heft to adequately compete with each other so for smaller fleets, it’s the same companies or a foreign supplier
I pushed a KA solution there as the Navy has already done the groundwork of getting the T-54, would not be a stretch methinks for the USAF to acquire it then
I’d prefer a jet like a PC-24 or CJ3 but every now and then I try to keep my BO posted suggestions relatively close to feasible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[contraildash]

3 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

There will be a second buy. Boeing is going to no lube us on the prices.

Absolutely agree, no way 350 tails can support the FHP requirement for 1650 USAF students, plus 100-ish international students, CT requirements, FBF, and PIT. I doubt FUPT was even a consideration back in 2017/2018 when this buy was being decided.

Anyone know if ENJJPT is just going to keep chugging along with T-6s and T-38/T-7s till the end of time? Or are we somehow going to convince that conglomeration of allies that FUPT is the way?

Final question...at what point are we going to fix the FTUs and OPS units ability to absorb in-experienced pilots that they already cannot absorb? 1500 pilots is great an all....but what are we gonna do with them?

 

Edited 7 hours ago by contraildash
corrected some words

[LookieRookie]

1 hour ago, contraildash said:

Absolutely agree, no way 350 tails can support the FHP requirement for 1650 USAF students, plus 100-ish international students, CT requirements, FBF, and PIT. I doubt FUPT was even a consideration back in 2017/2018 when this buy was being decided.

Anyone know if ENJJPT is just going to keep chugging along with T-6s and T-38/T-7s till the end of time? Or are we somehow going to convince that conglomeration of allies that FUPT is the way?

Final question...at what point are we going to fix the FTUs and OPS units ability to absorb in-experienced pilots that they already cannot absorb? 1500 pilots is great an all....but what are we gonna do with them?

 

A ENJJPT IPT CONOP was briefed/being briefed to the latest steering committee meeting. I haven’t asked the guy what the outcome was.

I know there has been some “talk” about how the T-6s are all owned by the USAF, so if we get rid of them, tough shit NATO has no choice. They are also the last base to get the T-7 so they would keep their T-6s last too.

To your final point, this came up in 2020-2021 at the HQ AETC level. Air Staff stated FTU/Ops is a separate issue, pilot production’s job is just to produce 1500 pilots, it doesn’t matter how long follow-on takes.

Or AETC cuts the syllabi to produce more wingman/copilots.

[Arkbird]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Ha - nope but I get it, another consequence of letting our aerospace base consolidate too much, not enough domestic suppliers with heft to adequately compete with each other so for smaller fleets, it’s the same companies or a foreign supplier
I pushed a KA solution there as the Navy has already done the groundwork of getting the T-54, would not be a stretch methinks for the USAF to acquire it then
I’d prefer a jet like a PC-24 or CJ3 but every now and then I try to keep my BO posted suggestions relatively close to feasible


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PC-21 to PC-24 for heavy studs. PC-21 to T-7 for CAF studs. Makes the most sense and would be relatively easy to procure both. But the Air Force wants an "innovative" solution, not an actual solution that will produce favorable results equivalent to legacy UPT syllabus.

[LookieRookie]

47 minutes ago, Arkbird said:

PC-21 to PC-24 for heavy studs. PC-21 to T-7 for CAF studs. Makes the most sense and would be relatively easy to procure both. But the Air Force wants an "innovative" solution, not an actual solution that will produce favorable results equivalent to legacy UPT syllabus.

The T-6s have a lot of life in the airframes. AETC just needs to do the ARP to the entire fleet. 

[Arkbird]

21 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

The T-6s have a lot of life in the airframes. AETC just needs to do the ARP to the entire fleet. 

They made it seem like the T-6 was getting old and having maintenance issues to the point of making IPT a thing when I was at Columbus. Not sure if that's accurate but maintenance was always the focal point of why we had a class sitting for weeks.

[Clark Griswold]

56 minutes ago, Arkbird said:

PC-21 to PC-24 for heavy studs. PC-21 to T-7 for CAF studs. Makes the most sense and would be relatively easy to procure both. But the Air Force wants an "innovative" solution, not an actual solution that will produce favorable results equivalent to legacy UPT syllabus.

That’s fine by me, quality and quantity are always in a tango with each other, I’m blazing away at the AF for trying to phone it in on UPT and ultimately pinch pennies while being pound foolish but some innovation / taking some risk by using new technology, methods, platforms is ok, but ultimately you have to want a product better than what you typically get produced by other systems 

We can take some risk by teaching / exposing SPs to the basics in cheaper GA training aircraft but you can never escape the fact you need a newly minted pilot trained to a higher level because of the risk, responsibility and missions demand it. The day after these guys are winged, excrement could hit the fan and they could be rushed thru to God knows what

The innovation I’d pursue if king for a day (in addition to a lot of new jets) would be to accept that for a lot of reasons, the need is actually for fewer but higher quality graduates as the FTUs of the MAJCOMs are under their own pressures and having to intake fewer but more highly trained and ultimately easier to train graduates better unfornicates things getting ready for WW3.

[contraildash]

45 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

The T-6s have a lot of life in the airframes. AETC just needs to do the ARP to the entire fleet. 

They certainly do. I saw a snippet somewhere that there was a $2.1 billion contract to upgrade our T-6s over the next 10 years. Maybe we'll have T-7s showing up by then? 

I am obviously not read into what the contracts with the various 141 schools are, but using their locations per diem, average cost for PPL/Instrument/Multi as they have listed, the overall program cost could be north of $130 million per year. This isn't reallocated money from T-6s. It is my understanding that the truncation of the T-6 syllabus was done to reallocate hours to getting more students through. The planes are still expected to be used at the same rate, which ebbs and flows, but isn't going great.