1 hour ago, reloder said:

Where do these prior-rated E's come from? Certainly not the USAF. Army helos maybe?

I’d certainly offer it to boom operators. They talk on the radio, learn approach plates, and are already trusted to not carve their initials into 5th gen paint.

I’d rather have instuctor boom E-5 — E-8s become warrant CFIs than civie CFIs teach LTs how to fly. If that’s a choice I’d ever have to make.

Found this link showing changes to USAF pilot training over the years. Might be of interest.

https://www.aetc.af.mil/Portals/88/Documents/history/AFD-070130-081.pdf?ver=2016-01-12-160015-923

29 minutes ago, StrikeOut312 said:

I’d rather have instuctor boom E-5 — E-8s become warrant CFIs than civie CFIs teach LTs how to fly. If that’s a choice I’d ever have to make.

I had T-41 training at the Valdosta airport prior to T-37s and 38s at Moody. I remember my T-41 instructor as a young guy, probably no college, wanted to go on to the airlines. He was a competent teacher and had the patience to put up with my fumbling around. Nice guy. I hope he found his dream. For what the T-41 program was intended for back then, he did a good job.

Long form articles on the T-7 woes

https://breakingdefense.com/2026/06/t7-red-hawk-air-force-trainer-secret-struggles-investigation/

It’s done, there’s no chance of buying anything else at this point but whatever decision matrix they use for non-operational platforms must increase the weighing of technical / industrial risk in its calculation.

17 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Long form articles on the T-7 woes

https://breakingdefense.com/2026/06/t7-red-hawk-air-force-trainer-secret-struggles-investigation/

It’s done, there’s no chance of buying anything else at this point but whatever decision matrix they use for non-operational platforms must increase the weighing of technical / industrial risk in its calculation.

• 'The first 82 T-7 aircraft are projected to fly with a “serious” airworthiness risk."' At this point, just keep the t-38..

2 hours ago, wikz said:

• 'The first 82 T-7 aircraft are projected to fly with a “serious” airworthiness risk."' At this point, just keep the t-38..

Too old (T38)

Gotta move on, just for all the decision makers lurking here, hedge, get an interim / second advanced trainer

On 6/24/2026 at 6:19 AM, reloder said:

That made me laugh. I recall a 1980s USAF program that put new UPT grads into ANG/AFR units as a first assignment because there were no slots in active duty units. So we put an impressionable 2Lt into a unit of folks who essentially were people who wanted out of active duty for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so much. What could go wrong with that?!

That has existed for most of my career - and it generally has the effect you’d expect.

Full rate production decision delayed 2 years

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/gao-t-7-delays-push-full-rate-production-decision-back-two-years/

Again, hedge your bet, interim trainer acquisition, continue T-7 program but have an option.

PC-21 or M-345. Versatile enough for both intermediate and advanced training, if the T-7 works out, awesome, keep flying them as trainers or special program aircraft (demo, test/chase, training support, conversion, etc…).

On 6/24/2026 at 1:19 PM, reloder said:

That made me laugh. I recall a 1980s USAF program that put new UPT grads into ANG/AFR units as a first assignment because there were no slots in active duty units. So we put an impressionable 2Lt into a unit of folks who essentially were people who wanted out of active duty for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so much. What could go wrong with that?!

Going to a first assignment non-AD unit has been occurring much more recently than the 80s, I dropped a TFI Sq in the Guard out of UPT and that was in 2010.

I know a couple guys that did Project Season in the 1980s which was UPT grads going into Guard units. Results varied. The lack of structure compared to an AD unit resulted in lack of training/mentoring. Also, brand new idealistic Lt.'s witnessing sketchy documentation of training/checkrides and flying practices then calling them out ruffled some Guard feathers. I'm assuming the expansion of TFI had improved the program since then.

Breaking Defense

Fixing the machine: Inside the Navy's race to rebuild its...

An in-depth discussion with the service's chief of Naval Air Training Command.

1 hour ago, KODAK said:

Breaking Defense

Fixing the machine: Inside the Navy's race to rebuild its...

An in-depth discussion with the service's chief of Naval Air Training Command.

That was a good read, thanks for sharing.

On 9/6/2026 at 8:48 AM, DirkDiggler said:

That was a good read, thanks for sharing.

Concur. From the article: McCoy also drew a firm line on culture. He does not want to outsource large parts of the training enterprise. Naval aviation is not a generic air force, and flying from ships imposes requirements a contracted model does not capture on its own.

That’s leadership, they are using contractors for some of their training but the majority remains in house, for now we are too but I fear we will be mostly contractor eventually.

I’ve thrown out a lot of ideas on this thread but opening a 4th regular UPT base (Sheppard is its own thing), primarily manned by the ARC and primarily for ARC bound graduates with their own syllabus and iron will alleviate the pressure. Give the state and wing that takes this mission confidence the rug won’t be pulled out from under them by making sending ARC bound students there as the normal paradigm. Steady business, steady program support from the Bobs.

Keep it reasonable, PC-21 and KA-90 training aircraft, 150 hour syllabus.