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.

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 November 13Nov 13 by HuggyU2

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

 

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. 

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?😁

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.  
 

6 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Who puts it together, the LPA?😁

Not a PRIME*

Edited November 14Nov 14 by Swizzle
*typical one at least

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.

McPeak was not everybody’s favorite CSAF but I agree with his point here from the AFA’s magazine:

America’s Air Force today is smaller and older than it or age is just how ready we are to fly, fight, and win in a future war. I graduated from flying school and got my wings in January 1959. From then until I left Vietnam in November 1969, I logged 3,138.4flying hours in the two principal types of aircraft I flew, the F-100 and F-104—an average of 23.9 hours per month. It is true that this 131-month period included a two-year tour with the Thunderbirds and 11 months in combat, both high-in-tensity flying jobs. But it also included 16 months on the staff of the Third Air Force, the momentum lost in transitioning back-and-forth between the two aircraft types four times, downtime associated with six PCS moves, and time spent in various schools—jump school, half a dozen survival schools, forward air controller school—as well as leave and so forth. In those days, we aimed to get 20 hours a month, and I was able to beat that average. For me, the end result was remarkable. For one thing, I loved the life; I decided to make the Air Force a career. More importantly, you could say I felt quite at home in the air. There is a certain attitude that goes with being a combat pilot. The fight starts at the bottom of the ladder. From then until the forms are filled out, nobody is better than you—no team is better than you and your wingman. It’s the other guy—the whole other side—that’s in trouble. In my opinion, this is a winning attitude. The seed for it is planted during checkout, in academics, and daily briefings. It can be cultivated in the simulator, watered at beer call, and nourished during time spent hanging around the ops desk hoping someone else will cancel. But the combat pilot attitude matures into a way of life in the cockpit—flying real hours in a real airplane, face-to-face, with real things that happen in real air. I am worried about today’s force. We’re not flying enough. Increasing flying hours for combat pilots should be a top priority. Maybe today’s fighter jock is better than my generation and no longer needs 20 hours in the cockpit every month. Maybe. But I don’t think single-digit flying hours per month is the right answer for anybody.We used to ridicule our Soviet-era opposition when they were flying at about our present rate. Grapes, waiting to be plucked.In my view, increasing flying hours for combat pilots should be a top priority. I can’t say it’s number one, or number two, or number six, or whatever, because we need to fix some other very urgent problems, particularly air base hardening and defense. But the flying hour program must surely be among the handful of highest priority matters our Air Force should fix quickly. If all else fails, we can use our imaginations to help solve the problem. If the F-22 or the F-35 simply cannot produce enough hours, buy and assign gliders or train ers like the T-6 to each fighter squadron. Do aerobatics, do spin training, hooded takeoffs, and landings. Timespent in the air flying anything builds airmanship and confidence. Better still, it’s fun. It glues people to the organization, as it did me.I’m all for increasing the number of pilots coming out of flying school. But this is an example of how competing priorities should be ranked: First, produce a flying hour program that ensures the excellence of the existing force. Then let’s talk about increasing pilot production. Better a small Air Force that can be relied on than a big one that cannot.

Gen. Merrill A. “Tony” McPeak

There are affordable platforms, programs and COAs out there, just prioritize flying vs queep for at least O1 to O3s.