Hey guys, quick question to dispel or confirm some gouge I've heard floating around. Have they officially moved E-6 advanced training from Vance down here to Corpus? I've heard from some semi-reputable sources that the Navy decided that the T-44 was a better platform to teach the asymmetric thrust and instrument syllabuses than the T-1. Thanks.
They are still cutting orders to guys leaving their fleet squadron to instruct T-1s with the AF at Vance, so it doesn't seem likely.
Very possible, guy in my squadron had T-1 orders and very recently got modded to T-6 orders. He was told it was because the Navy was pulling out of T-1's.
That checks with just about everything I've heard. I'm not sure if the "official" word has been given, however. Rumor was the last few T-1 trained studs would be showing up in September. Although the rumblings I've heard is that it is to save some $ more than better training. Flying a swept wing jet aircraft is quite a bit different than a straight wing turboprop (at least when you're learning), especially wrt power adjustments.
The gouge I heard jives with September being the last month Navy E-6 studs would show up at Vance...that was from the CNATRA contractor at Vance, so if anyone had a clue, she did. The rest were going to learn to fly props to learn to fly jets... don't ask questions, silly ensign...don't ask questions...
If this is true, then my people will finally be free! Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, free at last! The T-1 is a great airplane for learning to fly heavies, but the Air Force sucks every bit of enjoyment out of flying. While I learned a lot during my tenure at Vance, it is just a red ass for guys to go from Navy primary to AF advanced. It will be quite a leap in speed to go from the T-44 to the E-6, but that is what the 70 sims that you do before you fly the thing are for. Now, will they throw a refueling syllabus in there? I mean, the P-8 is going to refuel too, right? Another thought...does this mean that students will select Maritime and then select E-6/P-3 out of advanced?
Hopefully not... we fly long enough and spend enough of our time chasing quals as it is. In flight refueling capability can be the first thing they delete from P-8 to save weight as far as we are concerned (I have not met anyone who wants that capability).
I heard that it leaked like hell, and that was part of the reason the mod never made it to the P-3, everytime I heard those stories, I thought someone had lost their mind, but your pic confirmed it
Oh hell no. Refueling because you only have four hour legs is one thing, refueling when you have 10-12 hour legs is something else entirely.
I don't know that any birds were ever plumbed for it. A target box was painted on test bird and feasibility study flights flown. As far as I know, it was intended for VQ and not VP usage. I'll delve further into it and report back.
Word from my on wing was that P-3's could carry nukes originally, and having refueling capability would have given it range akin to a strategic bomber, which we agreed with the Ruskies we wouldn't build.
The 737, at least in it's civilian version, doesn't have the legs to do the things that a maritime patrol aircraft needs to do. I suspect that spending 14 hours airborne in a big, comfy, quiet jet is a bit different than riding around in the P-3. As far as the quals are concerned, I suspect that many of them will be kept current in a high fidelity sim, although I don't have any facts to back that up, just a suspicion. Yeah, refueling sucks....until you are in a situation where you need the gas. The P-8 will also have the 737-900 cockpit. "Two positive rates, gear up, flaps up, flight director on, heading select, level change, autopilot on command A, engage autothrottles." is a lot less draining than hand flying, not that hand flying the 737 sucks. I know, I know...you spend all your time flying around at 200 feet over the ocean...I suspect that will change too so that the wings aren't falling off in a few years.
Dunno .... I got my type-rating in the -37 @ Moses Lake in a driving snow-shit-storm ... I weather-cocked into the wind on at least TWO landings ... it wasn't "quiet" ... we... me, my instructor, and the FAA ... were all screaming, crying, farting, and pleading to God to "spare us" ...
Actually i believe this is only partially true. Yes the P3 could originally carry nukes and this is what kept it from getting the refueling ability, but I think the limiting factor was the Key West Agreement, which outlined how each branch's air assets would be utilized (ie USAF for strategic deterrence). The Navy having a four engined, long range patrol/nuclear bomber that in theory had an unlimited loiter time would have put some boys in blue out of a job... and we all know how they feel about that.
