Reforge....

[ORAC]

No, nothing to do with reinforcing Europe.......

https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/25/air-force-considers-leasing-losing-t-x-training-jets/

US Air Force considers leasing trainer jets that lost the T-X competition

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force wants to lease advanced trainers as early as next summer while it waits for Boeing’s T-7 Red Hawk (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/afa-air-space/2019/09/16/this-is-the-name-of-the-air-forces-new-training-jet/), creating an opportunity for the two training jets that lost out to the Red Hawk (https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/09/27/reuters-air-force-awards-9b-contract-to-boeing-for-next-training-jet/)during the T-X competition.

The Air Force intends to open a competition for trainer jets that would help it test out a new training concept called “Rebuilding the Forge,” (https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/06/23/building-a-better-fighter-pilot-acc-seeks-to-slash-training-time/) or “Reforge,” said Air Combat Command head Gen. Mike Holmes on June 22. The concept is meant to speed up the time it takes to produce an experienced pilot.

The service initially intended to lease T-50 jets (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2017/02/27/the-t-x-battle-comes-down-to-lockheed-and-boeing/) — originally made by Korea Aerospace Industries — from Hillwood Aviation, according to a sources-sought solicitation released in January. But since then, other companies have expressed a desire to bid on the opportunity, called RFX, and Holmes confirmed that the Air Force plans to allow outside firms to propose alternative options...........

The goal of Reforge, Holmes said, is to produce experienced fighter pilots without having to put operators through the “basic course” currently required by any student who has never flown a fighter.

“We proposed to lease some airplanes while we’re waiting on the T-7 to arrive and do some experiments along with AETC [Air Education and Training Command] to try to figure out what’s the best use of this new T-7 that we’re going to buy,” Holmes said. “We think taking advantage of the capabilities of that new trainer along with the [virtual] training systems that AETC has previewed and premiered give us a great opportunity to meet the requirements of the [pilot] shortage that we have in the fastest, best way.”

[Bob Viking]

If there is one recurring fault that I believe VSOs possess it is that they get to a stage where they forget what it was like to be a student or junior pilot.

Our current generation of FJ VSOs cut their teeth in an era where they flew 300 hours a year and could get 2 or 3 tours before promotion was likely. That meant they had a solid base from which to progress.

Young pilots now will be lucky to get half that amount of flying hours (synthetic can be very useful, especially in F35 but there are some things you just can’t replicate in a sim) and are burdened with secondary duties from a very early stage and are expected to be pushing for promotion by the middle of their second tour.

They now look at their training systems and are desperate to find ways to cut the length of training and amount of flying hours.

Of course you can do it and we all know it is basically a risk/benefit analysis intended to save money so why can’t they just be honest.

The bottom line is that if you want to make experienced aviators you have to let them gain that experience in the first place.

I have plenty of hours now but I can still clearly remember what it was like to be an inexperienced pilot. I do not believe I would have developed at the appropriate rate if my training hours had been cut.

Aviation is much safer than it was and they will probably get lucky enough to avoid fatal errors but I would be very wary of trying to remove the foundations because the structure may crumble.

BV

[downsizer]

Not just pilot training Bob, same attitude across ground Branches and Trades. Time spent learning and gaining experience is viewed as wasted money these days.

[Bob Viking]

I don’t doubt that you are correct but I can’t comment on things I know nothing about.

I don’t think VSOs do it on purpose it’s just that they are so far removed from that stage they have completely lost sight.

I know I shouldn’t go off on a tangent but I will briefly. It is the same as how VSOs don’t understand the housing crisis facing junior ranks.

Taking pilots as an example again (because that’s what I know but it will apply equally to all ranks) a Flt Lt pilot 30 years ago could afford a four bed detached house pretty much anywhere. By the time he (it was only men then) left his gratuity could probably pay off their mortgage.

That same Flt Lt now would be lucky to get a two bed terraced house anywhere let alone down South.

For junior ranks the problem is exponentially worse.

Anyway, it was a tangent but it illustrates how VSOs need to get down in the weeds more (not the kind of sanitised senior officer visits they’re used to) to really understand the implications of their decision making.

In the training environment they should spend at least a week shadowing a course or individual to get a real flavour. A day trip with the best canapés for lunch is not reality.

BV

[downsizer]

When I joined (1994) I planned that roughly speaking, my gratuity (If I stayed long enough) would pay for a house when I left. And roughly speaking it would have. Now it won't even cover the remaining mortgage. Although the house I'd have bought in my 17 year old mind is vastly different to the house now.

As an aside, it amazes me the number of people leaving it till very late in their careers to buy a house and live in Qrts till the last minute.

[Wensleydale]

Even 15 years ago, there was a big difference between "Currency" and "Competency". I entered a "ground post" but was required to maintain currency on the aircraft. Yes, you could legally fly the minimum stats each month and be legal to fly - however, maintaining the edge over and above was extremely difficult if not impossible and standards were bound to fall (as mine certainly did).

[Easy Street]

Even 15 years ago, there was a big difference between "Currency" and "Competency". I entered a "ground post" but was required to maintain currency on the aircraft. Yes, you could legally fly the minimum stats each month and be legal to fly - however, maintaining the edge over and above was extremely difficult if not impossible and standards were bound to fall (as mine certainly did).

In my supervisory career I found that different people had vastly differing rates of skill fade, and it wasn’t well-correlated to experience. For instance there were 2000hr+ guys who were useless after more than 2 weeks’ leave and needed a few trips to get back into it (then they were fine). Equally there were youngsters who could pick up where they left off a month earlier without skipping a beat. If ‘minimal flying with lots of synthetics’ is the future then I wonder whether our training systems need to prepare students for that - and dare I say, select out those that can’t cope with it, whether for skill fade or airsickness reasons? Check rides immediately after a 2-week exped :E

Over my career I can recall 2 individuals being removed from flying duties essentially (if maybe not explicitly) because they could not cope with breaks in currency. Continually going through cycles of remedial action to get them ‘on the horse’ for deployment only to see them fall straight off it after a period of post-operational leave got to be such drag on supervisory capacity and flying hours that it was affecting others’ development. And that was in the days when flying hours weren’t quite so precious; the wider impact multiplies rapidly as the pot of hours shrinks. There were many other such ‘strugglers’ who just about made it to the end of their tours but never reappeared at the front line.

BV - can you offer any assurance that MFTS course completion payments and VSOs’ focus on ‘getting bums on seats‘ don’t increase the likelihood of such individuals reaching OCUs?

[Blackfriar]

If nursing is now a degree course with classroom and practical mixed, why couldn't the RAF have an Officer's degree - it could be split into different trades with holidays and other "work experience" in the service. I'm sure I would have signed up for that as a follow-on from Air Training Corps at school. It would then cost the RAF little other than student fees and mixing them in with other courses during holidays. It would provide vastly more experienced officers at the end of 3 or 4 years when they entered the service. I'm sure a specialist University like Cranfield could provide a mix of subjects including aeronautical engineering and flying training.

[Bob Viking]

There are probably many people much better placed than me to answer that question.

BV