ACE 2.0

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

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.

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?

That part makes sense, and I'm glad other people are recognizing and trying to solve the problem. This one is particularly frustrating though because it's so obvious what the solution is, and also so painfully obvious what the cause was. No doubt the whole circuit will get promoted. One half for "solving" a production problem. The other half for "solving" an experience problem. Everyone wins I guess.

13 minutes ago, bfargin said:

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.

It's called UPT.

[HuggyU2]

On 11/11/2025 at 8:23 PM, 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 totally agree that UPT cuts are seriously degrading the quality of the product. 

But don't conflate the UPT syllabus cuts with a need to create a new ACE program:  even with a robust UPT syllabus like I went through many moons ago, the ACE Program was extremely beneficial for the new co-pilots.  

 

Story time:  I remember back in the 2005-2006 time frame, there was a Langley F-22 at Hill AFB whose crew chief lost control of the landing gear pin during ground ops, and the pin got sucked down an engine.  IIRC $6.8M in damage.  

That year, at Beale, our T-38 CT Program was run on a budget of around $6M for ~3700 hours of flying time.  

Think about that.  That's around 3,000 SORTIES in a T-38... for $800,000 less than the cost of a single Raptor FOD incident.  

My experience in the Beale T-38 CT Program has made me such a better U-2 pilot and overall aviator than I would ever be without it.  A magnitude better.  

There is so much that could be done to make our USAF aviators "that much better"... but the AF leadership will simply not invest the pennies... and I do mean "pennies"...  to make it happen.  It's no longer a priority.  

I hope I am proved wrong on my last statement.  

 

 

Edited yesterday at 05:26 AM by HuggyU2

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, Av8 said:

I have heard rumint of a program similar to ACE as a possibility in the near future 

Really?   That’s at least one thing possibly moving in the right direction 

9 hours ago, ViperMan said:

That part makes sense, and I'm glad other people are recognizing and trying to solve the problem. This one is particularly frustrating though because it's so obvious what the solution is, and also so painfully obvious what the cause was. No doubt the whole circuit will get promoted. One half for "solving" a production problem. The other half for "solving" an experience problem. Everyone wins I guess.

Probably so but if the Bobs get a win they don’t lose face and the Line gets the flying it needs, so be it.

I think if the staff wanted to approach the Hill and justify they could with fairly defensible points:

- Delays in delivery of new MWS platforms causing excessive waits / BITs

- UPT production is high, no corresponding increase in FTU capacity hence low flying time for newly winged aviators

- Need for proficiency and experience building prior to and during MWS training with tasks / general flying that are cross platform reinforcing

- Fewer MWSs now than historically per pilot in the Air Force hence there is a need for an affordable, capable training aircraft(s) or program(s) to achieve flying experience targets

 

[Clark Griswold]

Don’t want to veer off topic too much and fantasize this plane or that one but…. this jet, yes it’s a kit plane, could be the basis for what could be a great ACE CT aircraft

https://www.kitplanes.com/viperjet-redux/
 

Like a modern Folland Gnat, small light quick nimble and cheap in jet aircraft terms.  It would be modified some for sure if adopted for an ACE or CT aircraft but the basics I think are handled. 

[disgruntledemployee]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Don’t want to veer off topic too much and fantasize this plane or that one but…. this jet, yes it’s a kit plane, could be the basis for what could be a great ACE CT aircraft

https://www.kitplanes.com/viperjet-redux/
 

Like a modern Folland Gnat, small light quick nimble and cheap in jet aircraft terms.  It would be modified some for sure if adopted for an ACE or CT aircraft but the basics I think are handled. 

Who puts it together, the LPA?😁

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Who puts it together, the LPA?😁

I know, you’d have to get a contractor and I’m sure there would be some mods, Viperjet proposed a mil trainer version, it probably could be done relatively cheaply.  
 

[Swizzle]

6 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Who puts it together, the LPA?😁

Not a PRIME*

Edited 20 hours ago by Swizzle
*typical one at least

[ViperMan]

On 11/12/2025 at 9:25 PM, HuggyU2 said:

i totally agree that UPT cuts are seriously degrading the quality of the product. 

But don't conflate the UPT syllabus cuts with a need to create a new ACE program:  even with a robust UPT syllabus like I went through many moons ago, the ACE Program was extremely beneficial for the new co-pilots.  

Story time:  I remember back in the 2005-2006 time frame, there was a Langley F-22 at Hill AFB whose crew chief lost control of the landing gear pin during ground ops, and the pin got sucked down an engine.  IIRC $6.8M in damage.  

That year, at Beale, our T-38 CT Program was run on a budget of around $6M for ~3700 hours of flying time.  

Think about that.  That's around 3,000 SORTIES in a T-38... for $800,000 less than the cost of a single Raptor FOD incident.  

My experience in the Beale T-38 CT Program has made me such a better U-2 pilot and overall aviator than I would ever be without it.  A magnitude better.  

There is so much that could be done to make our USAF aviators "that much better"... but the AF leadership will simply not invest the pennies... and I do mean "pennies"...  to make it happen.  It's no longer a priority.  

I hope I am proved wrong on my last statement.  

Certainly there are platforms that benefit from a construct like this, and if that is the reason for the renewed discussion you could say I'm all for it. Limiting it to platforms that are in high demand with inherently low flight time available makes a lot of good sense. That said, I have a feeling that this subject is coming up because of the UPT/FTU pipeline problem, which was wholly self-induced. And if that is the reason, all I can do is shake my head.