ACE 2.0

[Clark Griswold]

So in the GA thread a tangent got started and a new thread I think is better

Background:
Accelerated Copilot Enrichment (ACE) was a program for tanker & bomber copilots to fly and develop Total Flight Time to get guys who sat a lot of Alpha Alert to Aircraft Commander upgrade in a reasonable timeframe, it ended in 91 when Strategic Air Command (SAC) was inactivated.  94/95 when Gen Loh of ACC ended the program 

It made dollars and sense as the T-37s and 38s were cost effective trainers to develop the aviation skills and airmanship you wanted in your future Aircrew Commanders.  The flying was different, no autopilot in a fairly nimble aerobatic aircraft, but that was the strong point IMHO, it maintained skills that flying their Primary Aircraft Assigned (PAA) you really couldn’t.   More flight time, more real world experience in cross country / off station sorties and the challenge of keeping qualified & current in multiple aircraft; excellent opportunities for a newly minted military aviator to quickly become a strong swimmer.

I’m not the target for a resurrected ACE program but looking for the two cents of COs and others serving now on what you would feel about it:

- Do you think you would benefit from this additional flying?

- If it was voluntary, would you volunteer for it?

- Do you think you could manage it while maintaining Combat Mission Ready (CMR) in your PAA and additional duties?

- If ACE were restarted, it would likely be structured, what program targets do you think it should have?  X hours solo, X hours formation, X low levels, etc…

- If you dual logged some of your training in an ACE platform with your PAA, do you think that would add or detract from proficiency overall?

- The communities that a new ACE program would serve might have different priorities for what skills they want to practice, do you think a single platform could meet enough of their requirements or would separate platforms be better?

- If the AF continues to send crew aircraft assigned UPT graduates straight to FTU from T-6s (until the T-7 is IOC), would first qualifying in an ACE platform before FTU be likely beneficial enough to justify (along with faster Aircraft Commander development)?

 

All rhetorical questions but curious what those serving think. 

Edited Tuesday at 02:11 PM by Clark Griswold

[HuggyU2]

Correction:  ACE did not end when SAC went away. It remained within the newly-formed ACC until summer 1994 (maybe '95) when General Loh cancelled the program literally overnight. 

In my opinion, this was one more indicator of the lack of understanding that officers like Loh and many of the other ACC generals with fighter backgrounds had WRT to the non-fighter platforms under their command.  
 

Although I was never in ACE, I have many friends and classmates that flew as ACE co-pilots, or that were assigned to ACE as instructor pilots.  I have a lot of experience with the CT Program at Beale, which ran in conjunction with ACE until the ACE portion was killed. 
 

You pose a number of questions, Clark. Bottom line: the ACE Program was a cost effective and solid aviation method for getting low-time co-pilots some much-needed quality flying experience. Not to mention, it made pilots very happy that they were able to fly... actually fly anywhere they wanted to go, and work on developing their new aviation skill sets. Imagine that... happy pilots working to better their fundamental aviation skills. 
 

For a brief period of time, Beale RQ-4 pilots were flying Beale aero club aircraft in an ACE-like program. Pennies on the dollar. Of course, it was cancelled. But it showed that with a tiny bit of thought and effort... and not much money... something positive could be done. 
 

The short-sightedness of Gen Loh and his staff was very unfortunate.  Bringing back an even better version of the ACE Program should be done today. In both ACC and AMC. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:03 PM by HuggyU2

[Clark Griswold]

43 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

Correction:  ACE did not end when SAC went away. It remained within the newly-formed ACC until summer 1994 (maybe '95) when General Loh cancelled the program literally overnight. 

In my opinion, this was one more indicator of the lack of understanding that officers like Loh many of the other ACC generals with fighter backgrounds had WRT to the non-fighter platforms under their command.  

Although I was never in ACE, I have many friends and classmates that flew as ACE co-pilots, or that were assigned to ACE as instructor pilots.  I have a lot of experience with the CT Program at Beale, which ran in conjunction with ACE until the ACE portion was killed. 

You pose a number of questions, Clark. Bottom line: the ACE Program was a cost effective and solid aviation method for getting low-time co-pilots some much-needed quality flying experience. Not to mention, it made pilots very happy that they were able to fly... actually fly anywhere they wanted to go, and work on developing their new aviation skill sets. Imagine that... happy pilots working to better their fundamental aviation skills. 

For a brief period of time, Beale RQ-4 pilots were flying Beale aero club aircraft in an ACE-like program. Pennies on the dollar. Of course, it was cancelled. But it showed that with a tiny bit of thought and effort... and not much money... something positive could be done. 

The short-sightedness of Gen Loh and his staff was very unfortunate.  Bringing back an even better version of the ACE Program should be done today. In both ACC and AMC. 

Correction applied, thanks for the input as I strive for accuracy in my posts.

Yup, lotta questions to try to seed the discussion.

I see the value, looking back at my AD AMC tour, and I think it is possible unless things are way different now than then for a new CP (probably an Lt and not a Capt CP), especially in that first year at their assignment.

The CT program the Global Hawk was about $90,000 (05-06 dollars) to fly all the RQ4 pilots for the year, maintaining ASEL INSTM currency per the FAA LOA that was in effect at the time that covered Navs directing the GH as Mission Commanders when it was in the US NAS.  Dirt freaking cheap.

ACC HQ squashed it as they whined they couldn’t set it up all their projected bases for the GH so nobody could have it, because you can’t fly a Cessna in Japan apparently.

That was one of the reasons I requested my GH assignment, it was a great benefit while getting a RPA tour done, then the bait and switch happened.  Total bullshit and not even penny wise, it was less than the color copier budget for an FY, no kidding.  

An example to consider for the HAF staffer lurking on this thread:

Google AI says a -46 per flight hour cost is about $12,000 and a Gamebird GB1 would be about $400 per hour.  
Checking their AFMAN 11-2KC-46 Vol 2, to go from FP to MP you need a 1000 total and 400 -46 hours.  
Substituting 300 hours of GB1 time with a good bit of that being solo to really build airmanship would save $7 million in flying hours and I’m confident in saying likely deliver a stronger upgrade candidate than one with all -46 time. 
 

[Clark Griswold]

One more idea, in another thread this may have come up but what if ACE 2 were run at one or several centralized bases and participants TDY’d in for recurrency and a set training profile, like recurrency flights then an intense 2-3 weeks flying schedule.  Figure 3-5 training programs.

Since it would be about a one month TDY, the interference factor from home base could be eliminated.

[herkbier]

A King Air would be a solid companion trainer for the C-130 community, and I’d imagine the rest of AMC. It would make an excellent Phase III trainer. You could have a program where guys from the MWSs fly with almost done with Phase III UPT students. Sort of like a top off thing. The UPT studs should be pros in the airplane at that point, and the MWS guys have the airmanship and basic competency to fly as the left seat in a relatively simple twin turbine. 
 

Everyone gets experience, everyone wins. All that said though, office jobs and additional duties, even for copilots and young ACs are such a time suck. I don’t know if this would be that great. 

[raimius]

2 hours ago, herkbier said:

A King Air would be a solid companion trainer for the C-130 community, and I’d imagine the rest of AMC. It would make an excellent Phase III trainer. You could have a program where guys from the MWSs fly with almost done with Phase III UPT students. Sort of like a top off thing. The UPT studs should be pros in the airplane at that point, and the MWS guys have the airmanship and basic competency to fly as the left seat in a relatively simple twin turbine. 
 

Everyone gets experience, everyone wins. All that said though, office jobs and additional duties, even for copilots and young ACs are such a time suck. I don’t know if this would be that great. 

There is no Phase III in UPT anymore.

[raimius]

19 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

So in the GA thread a tangent got started and a new thread I think is better

Background:
Accelerated Copilot Enrichment (ACE) was a program for tanker & bomber copilots to fly and develop Total Flight Time to get guys who sat a lot of Alpha Alert to Aircraft Commander upgrade in a reasonable timeframe, it ended in 91 when Strategic Air Command (SAC) was inactivated.  94/95 when Gen Loh of ACC ended the program 

It made dollars and sense as the T-37s and 38s were cost effective trainers to develop the aviation skills and airmanship you wanted in your future Aircrew Commanders.  The flying was different, no autopilot in a fairly nimble aerobatic aircraft, but that was the strong point IMHO, it maintained skills that flying their Primary Aircraft Assigned (PAA) you really couldn’t.   More flight time, more real world experience in cross country / off station sorties and the challenge of keeping qualified & current in multiple aircraft; excellent opportunities for a newly minted military aviator to quickly become a strong swimmer.

I’m not the target for a resurrected ACE program but looking for the two cents of COs and others serving now on what you would feel about it:

- Do you think you would benefit from this additional flying?

- If it was voluntary, would you volunteer for it?

- Do you think you could manage it while maintaining Combat Mission Ready (CMR) in your PAA and additional duties?

- If ACE were restarted, it would likely be structured, what program targets do you think it should have?  X hours solo, X hours formation, X low levels, etc…

- If you dual logged some of your training in an ACE platform with your PAA, do you think that would add or detract from proficiency overall?

- The communities that a new ACE program would serve might have different priorities for what skills they want to practice, do you think a single platform could meet enough of their requirements or would separate platforms be better?

- If the AF continues to send crew aircraft assigned UPT graduates straight to FTU from T-6s (until the T-7 is IOC), would first qualifying in an ACE platform before FTU be likely beneficial enough to justify (along with faster Aircraft Commander development)?

 

All rhetorical questions but curious what those serving think. 

Sounds like a cost effective plan to make more capable pilots.  Im sure the AF will reject it.

Details depend a lot on what the MWS community needs.  

Some sort of medium performance aircraft would make sense.  Single-pilot capable, with room for an instructor/mentor seems ideal.

 

....that all said, this seems like a bandaid for insufficient UPT/FTU training....so, probably spot-on.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, raimius said:

Sounds like a cost effective plan to make more capable pilots.  Im sure the AF will reject it.

Details depend a lot on what the MWS community needs.  

Some sort of medium performance aircraft would make sense.  Single-pilot capable, with room for an instructor/mentor seems ideal.

....that all said, this seems like a bandaid for insufficient UPT/FTU training....so, probably spot-on.

Yup, the advocacy for ACE 2 would still be there but the call would not be as loud.

The overall point of ACE to me would be to make a stronger pilot in a formative point in their career.  High enough performance to make neurons fire fast and build the overall awareness of flying, airmanship, regardless of flying the ACE aircraft or in their primary MWS.  

What aircraft could do that affordably and feasibly (easy enough to learn and maintain currency / proficiency) is a pickle.

 

 

[ViperMan]

On 11/10/2025 at 7:34 PM, Clark Griswold said:

...

- If the AF continues to send crew aircraft assigned UPT graduates straight to FTU from T-6s (until the T-7 is IOC), would first qualifying in an ACE platform before FTU be likely beneficial enough to justify (along with faster Aircraft Commander development)?

All rhetorical questions but curious what those serving think. 

 

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Yup, the advocacy for ACE 2 would still be there but the call would not be as loud.

The overall point of ACE to me would be to make a stronger pilot in a formative point in their career.  High enough performance to make neurons fire fast and build the overall awareness of flying, airmanship, regardless of flying the ACE aircraft or in their primary MWS.  

What aircraft could do that affordably and feasibly (easy enough to learn and maintain currency / proficiency) is a pickle.

This is from the cheap seats, but everything being discussed in this thread strikes me as the whole point of pilot training. What am I missing? What is the USAF missing?

Is this a serious proposal? We cut pilot training in half, but then add a program like this shortly thereafter? WTFO?

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

This is from the cheap seats, but everything being discussed in this thread strikes me as the whole point of pilot training. What am I missing? What is the USAF missing?

Is this a serious proposal? We cut pilot training in half, but then add a program like this shortly thereafter? WTFO?

I get it, the death of Phase 3 in SUPT for heavy tracked pilots (for now) and the deleterious effects of that policy choice causes discussion that really shouldn’t happen but here we are.

This is only serious on Base Ops and in this thread.

AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC should combine resources and resurrect this program IMHO, the inevitable protest of AETC be damned.

Contracting out is likely the easiest way to do this.

 

Contractor based COA, 3 course ACE program:

COs first report to their assignment, fly one contractor based ACE program then attend FTU, remaining two ACE courses after FTU.

1st course: Multi-engine experience course, simple piston twin based. 2 weeks basic training in aircraft, 4 training trips, fly through multiple Class B & C airports.

FTU 

2nd course: Tailwheel, STOL / backcountry flying program, about 6 weeks; return to base, fly there another 3 or so months.

3rd course: Tailwheel based acro aircraft, solo acro & form, about 6 weeks; return to base, complete.

 

Just my opinion and looking at the present state of the training enterprise, this seems to be a way to get training & experience despite the course AETC has set and the delays Boeing is delivering.  

[Swizzle]

ACE shouldn't be 'ACE' because it doesn't foster multi-capable-airman shenanigans or do-more-with-less realities (or as I say Aircrew A-Team concept because...reasons).

!Instead! it'll should be a subset of the LPA (IYKYK..u should) in the form of an LLC.  The Lieutenant's Logistics Corps...in otherwords the LPA LLC. 

LPA LLC Mission: do USAF, and if USSF or other branches are so inclinded to anty-up, air logistics and aircrew seasoning with GOGO, light, civil off the shelf aircraft in CONUS.  If the USAF winged them...would not they trust them with non-contingency, CONUS mission(s)?  As the crew are now qualified to fly now winged!  If not, they're not ready for wings and stay in AETC UPT or whatever it's called by the staff these days. 

"Seeing-eye" silver backs and ole' crusties welcomed in-seat too.*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*BLAB/Disclaimer: all 'good' deals offered to seniority, and favorite spots are destined as line-checks or LOSA obs naturally.  Mission is the mission, brutally enforce adherence to mission, not much else...let em' learn and LPA in an LLC with a proper mission, not planning a military ball or other chaff. 

 

[Boomer6]

As far as the AF is concerned there's no reason to waste more money on additional flying training/aircraft when you're building a force you expect to be heavily attrited. The pipeline is being cut extensively so when the balloon goes up it's already designed to produce pilots as fast as possible. Not to mention, we're still fighting to keep strength coaches/massage therapists in squadrons due to funding and you think someone is going to approve buying more airplanes...? Total pipe dream.

[Lord Ratner]

11 hours ago, ViperMan said:

 

This is from the cheap seats, but everything being discussed in this thread strikes me as the whole point of pilot training. What am I missing? What is the USAF missing?

Is this a serious proposal? We cut pilot training in half, but then add a program like this shortly thereafter? WTFO?

Yeah while it's an interesting conversation in an academic sense, the simple reality is that the people who view flying as an unfortunate necessity and impediment to ladder climbing are not going to do anything but the bare minimum to train and keep pilots trained. 

 

The bare minimum will be discovered by gradually reducing flying experience until too many planes crash to ignore the problem.

Edited 15 hours ago by Lord Ratner

[Blue]

Spit-balling from the cheap seats:  If the Air Force desired to set up a reasonable ACE program as quickly and cheaply as possible, would reactivating the T-1 fleet be an option?

 

[Clark Griswold]

All true and all good points.  This has a very low probability of execution but you advocate for what you think ought to be done.

3 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

we're still fighting to keep strength coaches/massage therapists in squadrons 

Boomer, how in the ever living fornication is a squadron strength / happy ending coach being justified.  Unless said coach in a 20 year female intern who also models lingerie then there is no saving the AF …

Edited 12 hours ago by Clark Griswold

[Boomer6]

Are you looking for medical data on how keeping pilots physically healthy is worth the AF's time or are you just screaming at clouds here?

[brabus]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

The bare minimum will be discovered by gradually reducing flying experience until too many planes crash to ignore the problem.

Or simply performance, independent of the crash discussion. The average performance level is noticeably lower today than it was 10 years ago. That’s not a referendum on the individuals today, it’s the training quality/quantity sacrificed in name of cost savings, bureaucratic bullshit, misplaced priorities, etc.

[Clark Griswold]

Are you looking for medical data on how keeping pilots physically healthy is worth the AF's time or are you just screaming at clouds here?

I get it but assigned to each squadron and somehow we managed to not collapse wheezing on the way to jet prior to these?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I get it but assigned to each squadron and somehow we managed to not collapse wheezing on the way to jet prior to these?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many retired pilots do you know with 100% disability that don't have neck/back issues as part of their claim? Are we really arguing the benefits of OHWS here.

[Boomer6]

3 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I get it but assigned to each squadron and somehow we managed to not collapse wheezing on the way to jet prior to these?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many retired pilots do you know with 100% disability that don't have neck/back issues as part of their claim? Are we really arguing the benefits of OHWS here.

[ViperMan]

11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

I get it, the death of Phase 3 in SUPT for heavy tracked pilots (for now) and the deleterious effects of that policy choice causes discussion that really shouldn’t happen but here we are.

This is only serious on Base Ops and in this thread.

AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC should combine resources and resurrect this program IMHO, the inevitable protest of AETC be damned.

Contracting out is likely the easiest way to do this.

Contractor based COA, 3 course ACE program:

COs first report to their assignment, fly one contractor based ACE program then attend FTU, remaining two ACE courses after FTU.

1st course: Multi-engine experience course, simple piston twin based. 2 weeks basic training in aircraft, 4 training trips, fly through multiple Class B & C airports.

FTU 

2nd course: Tailwheel, STOL / backcountry flying program, about 6 weeks; return to base, fly there another 3 or so months.

3rd course: Tailwheel based acro aircraft, solo acro & form, about 6 weeks; return to base, complete.

Just my opinion and looking at the present state of the training enterprise, this seems to be a way to get training & experience despite the course AETC has set and the delays Boeing is delivering.  

I'm honestly not trying to be overly critical here. It's just baffling that something like this is under consideration.

[brabus]

Probably matters less in heavies, but in the CAF, OHWS has been a huge benefit. I hope it never gets shut down, especially for the young guys who were lucky enough to have it since day one. 

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

How many retired pilots do you know with 100% disability that don't have neck/back issues as part of their claim? Are we really arguing the benefits of OHWS here.

I’m not arguing against OHWS, if this prevents injury / promotes pilot health I’m for it.

I’m arguing that there is enough money in all the different areas of the AF, cobbled together, to provide a decent, equitable level of training, if it can’t be in a resurrected Phase 3 then a resurrected ACE.

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I'm honestly not trying to be overly critical here. It's just baffling that something like this is under consideration.

Baffling that if one institution (AETC) is unable, unwilling or indifferent to that which should be done, arguing for an alternate method implemented by other institutions (AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC) to achieve the same effect?

[Av8]

I have heard rumint of a program similar to ACE as a possibility in the near future for AFGSC, although I have no idea where the process for that contract currently is.

Personally, I have seen the benefits of flying GA while struggling to find flying hours after UPT in the Air Force. Getting back in the jet after a few GA flights feels much more natural and the airmanship and SA bubble is much greater. I would go so as far to say a program like this would have a significant positive impact on retention as well. Job satisfaction rapidly improves when the option exists to fly consistently and feel safer while doing it, not to mention the adventure of increasing the types of flying pilots can be exposed to.

In the last couple years at least, I have seen the wait time for CAF assignees after IFF/T-38s exceed 12 months from last T-38 flight to MWS initial qual/B-course dollar ride. In my opinion, spending millions on training a pilot and then sitting them for a year is unacceptable, and we must find a way to bridge that gap. The additional crisis is the backlog of co-pilots/wingmen struggling to find hours to just keep currencies. When we aggregate the extra flights required and the safety impact created by decreased proficiency, I absolutely think some version of this is necessary.

[bfargin]

My godson finished UPT (abbreviated T-1 only). Graduated with way less than 80 hours and just now finished FTU recently. I guarantee he’s not comfortable in the seat with such an abbreviated training program. Now his squadron is going to have more work to get him up to speed (sharp kid but still he got less than 1/2 the hours we got back in t-37/t-38 UPT syllabus).

There is no doubt an ACE type program would benefit the individual pilots and the AF as a whole.