38 minutes ago, Stormbird said:

Ya gotta remember these flight academy instructors are civilian kids working towards their ATP rating and, none have ever been exposed to anything military. Right now, it's a 30 min brief, maybe a 15 to 30 min de-brief. It's an assembly line.

What you're suggesting above might help, but I don't have the data. It would be a huge ask. If I were one of these young CFI's, I'd say GFY and go where there is a nice relaxed atmosphere to instruct.

Totally valid point, in my fever dream this basic flight training would be on an AF base(s) or a flight college(s) Uncle Sam would buy

19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Totally valid point, in my fever dream this basic flight training would be on an AF base(s) or a flight college(s) Uncle Sam would buy

No, I don't think that would work. But I think you're close.

This idea of yours needs to happen where the major airline hubs are. That's where you could find cfis with military experience and a general willingness to fly for money. I can think of a lot of guys at American Airlines who would love to moonlight teaching the next generation, as long as it didn't take away from their lives in the same way that all the other Air Force /guard/reserve duties do.

Pay for a retired or separated Air Force pilot working at the airlines to get their CFII, and then give them a decent "per day" pay for showing up and flying two or three student rides. Do it like the Air Force academy liaison program and allow them to accrue time towards retirement, but no official Air Force pay. You get the idea.

That would end up being wildly cheaper than active duty pilots at an active duty base teaching, but you could get that military-esque training.

Just a thought

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

No, I don't think that would work. But I think you're close.

This idea of yours needs to happen where the major airline hubs are. That's where you could find cfis with military experience and a general willingness to fly for money. I can think of a lot of guys at American Airlines who would love to moonlight teaching the next generation, as long as it didn't take away from their lives in the same way that all the other Air Force /guard/reserve duties do.

Pay for a retired or separated Air Force pilot working at the airlines to get their CFII, and then give them a decent "per day" pay for showing up and flying two or three student rides. Do it like the Air Force academy liaison program and allow them to accrue time towards retirement, but no official Air Force pay. You get the idea.

That would end up being wildly cheaper than active duty pilots at an active duty base teaching, but you could get that military-esque training.

Just a thought

Yup, that would be fine too. Placing this program(s) at some BFE location would have the opposite intended effect and likely require salaries that would not be approved for the IP cadre.

Driving distance from a domicile, I’d define that as less than 100 miles, good pay as a contract pilot or as an ARC member. Street hire civ pilot positions would be there too but the job requirements / role would be clearly communicated.

To incentivize the mil community living in domicile, I could see special exemptions, carveouts, bonuses, etc… being offered. Assuming legalities, getting new ones or exceptions to policy… non deployable billets, bonuses for X number of training flights per FY, Tricare benefits, etc…

Spread the love, West-Central-Southeast locations. PHX, DFW, ATL as likely bases to be near.

Give each location two planes, single and a multi engine program.

Can't remember the derogatory name given to the flag officers that came up with the current program, but it's obvious that when they opened up the conversation for ideas, their bandwidth was extremely narrow and recognition of valuable inputs from outside their staff was extremely short-sighted.

With contracts awarded it's probably just too damn late to do anything about it. It'll be like the airlines, courses won't be changed and problems solved until it starts costing more money.

2 hours ago, Stormbird said:

Can't remember the derogatory name given to the flag officers that came up with the current program, but it's obvious that when they opened up the conversation for ideas, their bandwidth was extremely narrow and recognition of valuable inputs from outside their staff was extremely short-sighted.

With contracts awarded it's probably just too damn late to do anything about it. It'll be like the airlines, courses won't be changed and problems solved until it starts costing more money.

They were just pretending to be interested in inputs to keep up appearances

Saw that multiple times in my mediocre career, soliciting suggestions/applications for a position/program when the selectee was already decided on or the COA was set.

But do what you can and what is reasonable, career self-immolation is rarely the right choice for anyone but an O-5/6 or above and even then only at the right time.

Yeah, it’s going a certain way but I would say that the Borg could be convinced that quality is worth it in the long run.

Sufficient flight hours, good equipment in reasonable quantity to keep production steady, specialized advanced flight training. This isn’t rocket science.

Navy released RFP for T-45 replacement

https://theaviationist.com/2026/03/30/us-navy-rfp-t-45s-replacement/

Boeing pulls out, sts

The War Zone

Boeing Drops Out Of Navy's T-45 Jet Trainer Replacement C...

The field of competitors to design and build the Navy's next jet trainer has narrowed to just two teams, and both are putting forward twin-engine designs.

Probably for the best. The Navy should be going with an already proven platform vs the T-7 just like how the Air Force should have as well. We waste so much time and money trying to reinvent the wheel when we don't have to. UPT is a great example of that. We don't need some new revolutionary trainer aircraft, we need something that works. Same with the syllabus and all of the changes in the last 6 years for UPT. New pilots are coming out of UPT with less experience and that puts more pressure on the FTU to teach things that they should have learned in UPT like TOLD. /rant

3 hours ago, Arkbird said:

Probably for the best. The Navy should be going with an already proven platform vs the T-7 just like how the Air Force should have as well. We waste so much time and money trying to reinvent the wheel when we don't have to. UPT is a great example of that. We don't need some new revolutionary trainer aircraft, we need something that works. Same with the syllabus and all of the changes in the last 6 years for UPT. New pilots are coming out of UPT with less experience and that puts more pressure on the FTU to teach things that they should have learned in UPT like TOLD. /rant

Concur - that’s been one of the maddening parts watching this from the outside and seeing the machine do something completely at odds with their purported main goal, make more military pilots faster.

Why bet the farm on something new, not in or ready for production when you could buy ready now? When your advanced trainer that you fly now is really ready to be retired, why buy the model that will take the longest to actually get on the line flying?

I think it was earlier in this thread someone speculated the T-7 was selected to keep the St Louis based Boeing plant open to keep the door open for the F-15EX and more Superhornets if wanted. Probably was one of the real reasons they went with it, besides domestic supplier preference.

I’m actually neutral on that because I see the 3D chess reasoning but again they should have aggressively hedged, argued for an interim solution available now and continued the T-7.

Hindsight being 20/20, I would have gone with a mix, 50% training in general aviation aircraft available now flown by military instructors (IA-100 or Grob 120, KA 90) and 50% in a PC-21 or M-345.

IFF bound and ENJPT guys would get wings first then go fly the remaining T-38s until the T-7 hit the line.

4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Concur - that’s been one of the maddening parts watching this from the outside and seeing the machine do something completely at odds with their purported main goal, make more military pilots faster.

Why bet the farm on something new, not in or ready for production when you could buy ready now? When your advanced trainer that you fly now is really ready to be retired, why buy the model that will take the longest to actually get on the line flying?

I think it was earlier in this thread someone speculated the T-7 was selected to keep the St Louis based Boeing plant open to keep the door open for the F-15EX and more Superhornets if wanted. Probably was one of the real reasons they went with it, besides domestic supplier preference.

I’m actually neutral on that because I see the 3D chess reasoning but again they should have aggressively hedged, argued for an interim solution available now and continued the T-7.

Hindsight being 20/20, I would have gone with a mix, 50% training in general aviation aircraft available now flown by military instructors (IA-100 or Grob 120, KA 90) and 50% in a PC-21 or M-345.

IFF bound and ENJPT guys would get wings first then go fly the remaining T-38s until the T-7 hit the line.

Would it be reasonable to assume that they chose the T-7 to play the long game? If the AF chose the same or a similar trainer as everyone else, they wouldn't be fulfilling their wishes of producing better pilots than any other country. I agree though, it is a gamble with how much the fleet and syllabus are struggling.

Regarding your solution. I think an interim trainer would have been the right choice, but do we even have enough money to procure that?

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by wikz