Gene offered his thoughts "Training costs are insignificant"
EXCUSE ME?

Since I have written the Navy Training Plan (NTP) for the E-6A Hermes (more
commonly known as the Gecko) I am QUITE familiar with training pipelines and
their associated costs.

Don't tell me you'll just "grab some other pilot" and train him to fly a
tanker! That pilot has to come from "off the street" sooner or later and
will require several years of training to become qualified. These costs are
easily calculated by taking the overhead of the school (trainers, sims,
instructors, equip, aircraft, maintenance, etc) and divide by the throughput
(number of students per year). Then add all the pay/bennys for the students-
This cost (per pilot) is over $200,000 on some platforms on up to well over
a million dollars on others.

More to this discussion is the "dual qual" which in that case would likely
add at least several months to a training pipeline (with all the overhead
associated with trainers, sims, instructors, equip, etc) for what purpose?
Then you'll have two "training squadrons", two "model managers", double the
"pilot instructors", and on and on.

What interval will cross-qual be required to keep current? Many of our
pilots cannot keep "current" now due to budget constraints- let alone
maintain a "dual-seat" qual? Why???

More thought needs to be applied here. You don't just "run out and jump into
an airplane"!




Larry
AECS (AW/SW/MTS)
Disabled Combat Veteran
USN Retired
"MTS = Master Training Specialist and that includes coordinating training
pipelines and curriculum development, not just mass podium time"






"Gene Storey" wrote in message
newsF7Jb.6477$6l1.101@okepread03...
Actually, since the fall of Iraq, the number of tankers needed has dropped
significantly. With the end of operation northern and southern watch,
this
has freed-up essentially a squadron of aircraft.

Tanker pilots can fly anything heavy, with minimal training. Training
costs
are insignificant.

The USAF leasing planes means the lessor has to maintain a bench stock.
In any scenario described, the lessor will also contract the maintenance
CONUS and Overseas.

Personally, I would go for the 767, as this is a very large aircraft that
can
carry pallet cargo, and has the fuel tanks for a significant offload. The
767
is all the USAF needs for both an AWACS and Tanker replacement. I also
think it could replace the B-52 in cruise missile launch capability. With
an
internal load of hundreds of cruise missiles, it can eject them from a
rotary launcher and track system. Most B-52's that launched cruise
missiles
never crossed the FEBA (Gulf, and Med).