Originally Posted by
BDGERJMN
Interesting difference in philosophies there. The Navy/Marine Corps tactical jet syllabus teaches each SNA(Student Naval Aviator) the basics in BFM and Strike in addition to the standard... and then makes a decision based on stage performance, total performance, and needs of the respective service(not in that order) in placing aviators into platforms....I think in the end the exposure to all mission areas enables the building block approach in the FRS(RTU)...if we didn't teach those basic skillsets in the Training Command the re-fly rate at the FRS level(increased cost/flight hour) would be much higher, so its win-win for big Navy.
Same theory, different execution. The difference in AF is that we save the tactical stuff for Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals still flown in the T-38...between UPT and FTU (FRS). The washout rate in that program hovers around 10%. So the real benefit is that if someone washes out because he can't handle the tactical stuff, we still have a dude with wings on his chest...he just goes to a heavy as opposed to the million or so training dollars spent up to that point being wasted. That's also where the "basic skillsets in the training command" before FTU/FRS show up. So when we get a guy to F-15/16/22 or A-10 training, he already has a strong wingman 101 foundation plus practice in all of the basic BFM concepts, etc.
Bottom line, similar training. Ours just throws the tactical stuff into a graduate portion. I realize you push the assignment down the road until after you've seen them perform tactically, and I see the merit in that, but let's face it...who cares if you can be an ace in a T-38. Plus, I think unlike you guys, we have a fragged graduation date that needs to be made, so the T-38 portion of the class needs to finish at the same time as the T-1 (heavy track) dudes. Not enough time to get all of the tactical stuff in before wings.