Mock Proposal- Fighter/Heavy Crossflow

[Ragansundowner]

I am taking a technical communications class this semester and the final project (which is actually a semester's worth of work) is a mock proposal to change/help a situation related to our major or career field we plan on entering. The proposal needs to go quite indepth on the subject and I need to find sources from as many different places as possible.

The proposal topic I have given the teacher is a look into how the USAF can best initiate a crossflow program between heavy/fighter/helo airframes so that pilot's (if selected to crossflow) have the opportunity to become universally assignable.

I am currently in the beginning stages of the research and am looking for any and all ideas, comments, contacts, sources, etc. that anyone is able to provide. I'm interested in what people really think about a crossflow program, how it could work, the costs, what the necessary steps are to implement one, etc. Thanks for taking the time to think about it.

-R.S.

 

[AlbieF15]

As long as the Air Force has enough pilots to fill their respective cockpits, I don't see much of a chance for crossflow.

I have no idea what the cost of the conversion would be, but taking a rated T-1 grad through 6 months of contact, formation, and introduction to fighter fundamentals blocks would take 4-8 months. Thats a lot of time and money...

Here is how we'll get a cross flow. One day, the Air Force cannot fill the respective heavy/fighter cockpits with enough folks. At that point, a short term interim conversion course might pop up. However, you can rest assured the pipeline of SUPT students would also be adjusted to help create the proper mix, so within 2-3 years the usefulness of such a program would likely be dampened, and it would likely fade away.

There are 3-4 guys in my FTU squadron who flew heavies. All were UPT grads in the early/mid 90s, and fighter cockpits were in short supply. They had all flown the T-38 in UPT. They eventually found their way back to fighters when the AF needed more pilots in the pointy jet side of the house. However...I don't know of any T-1 products who have crossed the fence.

I'll defer to Talon driver, Opie, and the other trainer qualified guys on whether or not there has been any exceptions, and how/why they occured.

To answer your original question, the students would need to get instrument qual'd in the T-38, which would involve 10-20 contact and instrument rides. They would then have to meet formation skill requirements....again (I'm guessing here) another 15-20 sorties. Next would be IFF (fighter basics), another 15-20 rides. I have no idea on how to cost average the training.

 

[SpeedBird]

The original design of the UPT syllabus (all fly T-37 & T-38) was to train and qualify all USAF pilots to be universally assignable. However,, in practice this was not the case because graduates were internally rated as either FAR'd (Fighter, Attack, Recon) or TTB'd (Tanker, Transport, Bomber[pre B-1]). Once UPT grads went to their MWS schoolhouse and became mission qual'd, the likelihood of crossing over to a fighter ( or heavy) was very remote. Although SAC had a program called the SAC-TAC exchange which allowed SAC bomber pilots to spend at least one tour flying fighters in TAC. The program was considered a success, but went the way of the dinosaur when both SAC & TAC merged in 1992.

 

[talondriver]

We've had this discussion with some of the other IPs with fighter training (IFF, RTU) backgrounds. Some say that heavy pilots who have upgraded to aircraft commander are the hardest ones to teach because they've been in they community too long...more stubborn in their old ways...and drank too much of the "heavy coolaid". There is (according to them) a point of no return.
As for T-1 studs transition over to the fighter world? I read a post here of a guard guy doing it. No active duty...why would they? IFF is having enough trouble with T-37 FAIPs getting through...who flew T-38s as studs!
The bottom line is needs of the Air Force. I would say that if a cross-flow were to open up (due to lack of fighter dudes) they'd open it up to bomber guys first. Plus, they (bombers and fighters) sorta speak the same language.
My opinion only

 

[Draginass]

It's not that simple. "Universally assignable" may sound good but is not practical nor economical. It's not a question of flying the aircraft. That's easy. It's performing the mission that's the hard part. That takes years of experience and learning to get "right." Let's take, for instance, a C-17 driver. He starts out as a copilot but takes several years to upgrade to aircraft commander, instructor pilot, etc. For his career progression that's really mandatory. If you extract him out and stick him in a fighter unit, he's going to have to start all over again, go to fighter lead-in, RTU etc, and start out as a wingman, then upgrade to flight lead and so on. All this doesn't happen overnight. Your "univerally assignable" theory just won't hold water when it comes to the practicality of the amount of time it takes to learn and progress in the different weapons systems. When I went from KC-135s to B-1, that was a MAJOR paradigm shift for me because of the complete change in mission and aircraft characteristics. Even shifting between a F-15 (air/air) and a F-16 (air/ground) probably isn't as easy as you might think.

"Universally assignable?" Nope. Not enough time or money . . . . and bad for career progression. Limited "flow-thru" programs are ok, however, and there is some of that anyway for guys who go medically unqualified for ejection seat aircraft.

 

[talondriver]

Also...

With a steady number of candidates applying for pilot training, each community will continue to get fresh pilots pumped into their weapon systems as older pilots go on to the staff or get out all together.
The problem the Air Force had was in the early nineties drawdown where there was a decreased number of candidates entering the military. The Air Force still had experienced pilots getting out but didn't have the normal flow progressing up the ladder to take their place. That was about the time they opened up a "crossflow" to fill the fighter cockpits.
Your concept (I agree with dragginass) has a lot of holes in it because it would not help the Air Force but hurt it. Yes, transitioning a pilot from "heavy" to "fighter" or "helo" costs money. And, it's taking experience from one community and turns that experience into a wingman or co-pilot. What good is that for the gaining community?

 

[JimNtexas]

I suspect most crossflows that have occurred in the past are pilots with pretty heavy duty sponsors. The way the USAF is organized it's not a good idea in general.

The problem is that a USAF flying career is so very short due to the "up or out" promotion system.

Suppose you are a strong transport pilot and get selected to go to fighters after one tour in transports. If you are T-1 trained, then you'll have to get qualified in the T-38 and then take lead-in, then RTU. All that will take over a year.

Now you walk into your squadron as a senior Captain, but you're a brand new fighter pilot. You'll come up to speed much faster than a new UPT grad, but it will again be another year before your responsibilities will come close to matching your rank.

Meanwhile the Squadron Commander is on the phone to the assignment officers begging for new UPT grads, because between you, guys coming back from the staff, and several FAIPs, he has all these senior guys but not enough flight commander / flight evaluator / assistant ops officer slots to accommodate them all.

At least some of these "junior-senior" guys are going to be really unhappy when their evaluations are not competitive with their year group peers.

Meanwhile, the Commander doesn't have a snackO.

If the USAF had a system like the RAF, where certain pilots were designated as career pilots who stay Majors and just fly until age 55, the crossflow would work fine. But its incompatible with "up or out".

 

[Draginass]

A long time ago I had bad experiences with senior (Maj/LtCol) "fast burners" who came into the B-1 weapons system for a touch & go. Since he was sponsored by someone important, he was there to upgrade as soon as possible (not as soon as "practical"), get the stink on, then move on. In one instance, this one knucklehead-boy-genius, caused a mid-air collision with a tanker (both aircraft returned safely to base; tanker was a hull loss and the bomber was REAL expensive to fix). This was made worse by the fact that he was cheating during a bombing competition by performing illegal formation tactics. He got a slap on the wrist, and was rewarded with a supply squadron commander position.

The worst part was that his stupidity, lack of integrity, and lack of airmanship singlehandedly set back the development of formation tactics for YEARS.

It's been a long time and I'm retired now, but that bonehead still chaps my ass.

 

[Ragansundowner]

Looking more at the idea of the crossflow boards in the late 90s. How would everyone feel about instead of having only a couple boards meet very infrequently, have 1 board meet annually?

This way between 20-25 pilots a year could change communities, broadening experiences around the Air Force, but the general structure of the airforce would remain unchanged. Crossflow candidates would be carefully screened for adaptability into a new airframe, and only the best people possible would be selected. One way to ensure that pilot's are not merely selected to fill slots would be to have selectee numbers not be a factor. An example would be that if the board felt that only 10 out of 100 applicants would be good for the problem, they would select 10 instead of pushing for 25 to fill quota.

These are all just ideas I'm throwing out there. Please forgive any ignorance in them, but tell me what you guys think, plus any other ideas. Thanks.

-R.S.

 

[talondriver]

Ragansundowner-

When you say 'crossflow', are you meaing heavy to fighter and vice versa? There are still crossflows to certain systems like the U-2, B-2 (to some extent) or E-4 (747), etc.

I think I understand your intent...but the Air Force totally went the other way when it started the 'S'UPT concept. It would be easier if everyone went through T-38s.

But, the fact is..the Air Force is not in the business of broadening a pilot's experience by allowing him or her to change cockpits for the mere reason of logging time in another aircraft. That would be expensive. It's not the airline industry where a pilot can change equipment whenever he/she wants (seniority allowing) because of higher pay.

Choices are made in SUPT. Everyone has the opportunity to get what they want. Yes, even the student who was ranked last. That student had the same opportunity to excel like his or her classmates and put themselves in a position to pick his or her track.

Crossflows will occur...based on the needs of the Air Force.

 

[Ragansundowner]

I'm sorry I guess I was a little unclear with the way I worded the question. When I say crossflow, I'm talking about about the transition between heavies and fighters and visa versa. I realize that any program the airforce implemented would be very expensive. I think I'm being misunderstood a little bit because I'm talking from a purely hypothetical standpoint.


Let me rephrase my question:
If the Airforce was to reinstate a annual crossflow between fighters and heavies and visa versa (purely hypothetical), what would be the best way to go about doing it? (not saying if they should or shouldn't) But from a logistical, cost, and man power standpoint, what would have to occur for the crossflow program to be set up?

Sorry if I seem to be asking the same questions over and over again. I'm still going through all the questions in my head that I need to ask to get the correct information. Thanks again.

-R.S.

 

[Spur]

In order to look at a realistic crossflow program you need to look at the career effects and the skill requirements as well. Career-wise, you would need to select a candidate who attended UPT very early after being commissioned, and didnt take to long getting to their first assignment. You would have applicants that are 1 yr 1LT to 1 yr Capts (3-5yrs TAFMS). The negative career effects on these pilots would be similar to a C-21 driver going to a heavy, or a Faip going to a fighter. The effects would even be less significant than that widely experienced by banked and deferred pilots in the recent past. Personally I think there would be a positive "career broading" effect, although that is certainly debatable, and would probably be very situationally dependent.

The skill requirement would be more difficult to address. Fighter to heavy shouldnt be much of a problem. The last heavy to fighter crossflow I am aware of required a candidate to have flown the T-38 in UPT. With a candidate who never flew the T-38, you would be looking a significant washout rates (adding significantly to cost) unless you could find some method to determine compatability ahead of time. I think that would be difficult to determine. Also, you would have to look at the strain the program would place on the T-38 fleet and IPs. The reason we went to the T-1 was to extend the life of the T-38. Adding another training program would just burn them out faster, and require more manning in an already short IP force.

As far a crossflow being used to make a pilot "universally assignable", I agree with previous posts in that it is not feasable. Crossflow would most likely be a permanent deal--a one time manpower adjustment. You would waste to much time and money bouncing back and forth.

 

[Spur]

Okay, I reread your question and will take a hack at the manpower requirements for a fighter to heavy transition. Some one else can talk about the tricky, costly, time consuming heavy to fighter transition.

1st. The fighter dude would probably go straight to the MWS (major weapon system) FTU (flying training unit). Lets say 4 months in FTU, each IP having 3 studs. and lets say 3 classes/yr. My math says one more FTU IP for each 9 extra studs per year. Also must increase aircraft utilization, so increase fuel/mx cost, and mx manpower.

2nd. Once at his new heavy unit, the newly minted heavy driver will consume IP resources while in local indoc (1 month) and will probably fly as a copilot for 100-400 hours (depending on airframe) until upgrading to AC, again requiring additional IP resources from his unit. How many more IPs per newbie? I would guess more than required for FTU, probably one more IP for every 2-3 newbies. plus additionaly a/c utilization blah blah blah...

Hope this helps...

 

[JimNtexas]

It would seem to me that for each pilot choosen for crossflown, then the Air Force should reduce one FAIP slot, replacing that UPT IP with a reservist or civilian contractor.

I just can't see any gain for the Air Force in dumping more high rank/low experience pilots (or Navs) into the operational squadrons.

And it indeed does defeat the purpose of the T-1 if you take a T-1 guy and then run him through a T-38 transition. He wouldn't need the full second half of UPT, but still its an expense.

I think a really good thing the Air Force could do is replace most of the T-37/T-6 instructors with old retired guys. They'd love it, they'd work cheap, and they'd do a great job introducing new pilots to Air Force flying.

 

[talondriver]

I think a really good thing the Air Force could do is replace most of the T-37/T-6 instructors with old retired guys. They'd love it, they'd work cheap, and they'd do a great job introducing new pilots to Air Force flying.

Yeah...an old retired guy in a tweet in the middle of summer...and on his third sortie of a trip-turn day. They couldn't pay me enough!