Document created: 18 August 03
Air University Review, March-April 1975

The New USAF Fighter Lead-In Program

A First Year’s Progress Report

THE history of aerial warfare has repeatedly demonstrated that a superior fighter pilot can usually prevail in combat against a less capable pilot in a somewhat better-performing aircraft.¹ Consequently the United States Air Force historically has invested a significant portion of its resources in training its "fighter jocks." The Air Force has collected dividends on this investment whenever called to action in a combat situation. The accelerating complexity of weapon systems and tactics makes the training of fighter aircrews more important today than ever, and also more expensive. This article explores a new step in the process of training men to fly fighter aircraft, a change that might be both better and less expensive than the traditional way.

Under the customary practice, the future Air Force fighter pilot or weapon systems officer (wso) begins earning his wings with undergraduate pilot or navigator training (UPT/UNT) after a systematic selection, process. Here he learns basic flying skills in the T-41, T-37, and T-38 at an Air Training Command base. He then goes on to combat crew training (CCT) in first-line fighter aircraft with a Tactical Air Command unit. This move from undergraduate to combat training has meant a significant and sometimes difficult transition period for the developing fighter pilot.

Upon his arrival at CCT the potential combat crewman faces two major challenges. First he must take transition training to a new aircraft and learn the fundamentals of flying a real fighter plane. Then he must learn how to use it and its sophisticated systems aggressively n the highly demanding combat environment. After several familiarization sorties, he is still "getting the feel" of his complex new aircraft while at the same time mastering the close teamwork and discipline of tactical formation flying—"scissors," "barrel rolls," and other basic fighter maneuvers (BFM)—and the precise delivery techniques of ground attack (GA). Performance is closely watched by the instructor pilot (IP). If the new man continues to make the grade in progressively more difficult tasks, he can expect to be a full-fledged Phase II fighter jock in about six months, after approximately 100 hours of flying in the F-4 or 85 hours in an A-7.² If making the grade proved to be too hard at the expected pace, the new man had to be given more instruction, more practice, more time. This happened often enough to call for a close look at the scheduled progression through training.

In recent years Tactical Air Command officials began developing the concept of a more gradual transition or "lead-in" from UPT/UNT to combat crew training. A 1969 Curriculum Review Conference at Luke AFB, Arizona, explored the idea in considerable detail. The fighter lead-in concept envisioned several advantages to be gained by utilizing the Northrop T-38A Talon in a concentrated tactical training course to teach basic fundamentals of combat flying. Today the concept is being put to the test by the 465th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron (TITS) at Holloman AFB, New Mexico. ³

Briefly outlined, the mayor advantages that planners anticipated might ensue from employing the fighter lead-in concept were as follows:

(1) TAC could reduce the high cost of training an F-4 or A-7 pilot. Average total cost per flying hour was recently computed at $319 for the T-38 versus $1215 in an F-4 and $947 in an A-74 With the current configuration of the T-38, it is estimated that the lead-in program saves 10.1 F-4 and 9.4 A-7 training and indirect support flying hours per student. Even if total costs are not cut, the much lower fuel consumption of the T-38 (about 1/5 that of an F-4) has already become a significant factor in conserving JP-4.⁵

(2) A better pilot might be produced using fighter lead-in training. He would learn BFM, selected ground attack and tactical formations in a familiar, easier-to-fly aircraft, theoretically advancing faster than if starting these courses in a new and more difficult machine. The lead-in training would be consolidated in a highly controlled environment provided by a specialized training unit, a setting that a larger and many-faceted replacement training unit (RTU) cannot duplicate.

(3) With fewer first-line fighter aircraft devoted to training missions, TAC's combat posture would be strengthened.

In June 1972 TAC obtained concurrence from Headquarters USAF on the concept of T-38 lead-in training and through September briefed the Air Staff Board Structure on details of the plan. TAC was required to use its own existing resources to fund the program and did so by trading off 27 T/AT-33s and slightly under 500 manpower spaces. In March 1973 the Chief of Staff approved the transfer of T-38s to TAC, and the command was authorized to start a limited program during FY 74 as these aircraft became available.⁶

To carry out the Fighter Lead-In Program, Headquarters TAC chose the 465th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron, then an AT-33 unit stationed at Cannon AFB, on the plains of eastern New Mexico. On 1 August 1973 the 465th transferred "without personnel or equipment" to a new home at neighboring Holloman AFB, in the south-central part of the state.⁷ At Holloman the 465th joined the 49th Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW), the Air Force's only dual-based NATO-committed fighter unit. The 465th was integrated into the 49th TFW organizational structure and became its fifth flying squadron. On 28 August the 465th flew its first T-38 sortie.

After the 49th TFW's official notification in May 1973 that it would be responsible for the Fighter Lead-In Program, wing officials planned the numerous actions required to bed down the 49th's newest unit. Adequate facilities were, of course, a priority. To provide hangar, classroom, and administrative space, the Holloman Facilities Board, in accordance with instructions from higher headquarters, approved use of a large hangar across the airfield from the main base and required several base organizations to move from adjacent buildings.⁸ These facilities then underwent modification for the new mission. The 49th also had to add an entirely new logistics capability for the T-38 and the J-85 engine to its existing commitment to maintain the combat readiness of 96 F-4Ds. This required additional personnel training, equipment, and supplies. Even part of the Holloman BOQ was vacated and refurbished for the future students. The base used local resources as much as possible to accommodate its new squadron and training mission.⁹

Air Training Command (ATC), and to a lesser extent Air Force Systems Command, furnished the 465th with its most important item of unit equipment Northrop T-38A Talon supersonic trainers.¹⁰ These aircraft were transferred to the Tactical Air Command after thorough preparation and inspection. The 465th TFTS gradually received its 40 assigned and 4 not operationally authorized (NOA) aircraft in a delivery schedule that lasted from August 1973 to July 1974.¹¹ Many of the Talons required wing changes prior to their assignment to the more rigorous flying maneuvers of a tactical fighter environment. Almost all of the 465th's T-38s were built in 1960 and 1961. The 465th is currently working with the San Antonio Air Logistics Center, Kelly AFB, in a detailed stress analysis study to collect data for determining the actual wing life of T-38s in the lead-in program. The 465th's T-38s are now scheduled for wing changes after 1000 hours of lead-in flying.¹²

The San Antonio Air Logistics Center (SAALC) is also presently involved in a project to modify TAC's lead-in T-38s by adding a practice ordnance capability. The new equipment consists of a modified A-37 gunsight (CA 513), a KB-26A sight camera, an armament control panel, an A-37B-type aircraft pylon, and a B-37K bomb rack. The SAALC will strengthen the T-38s' center-line fuselage structure and also install MXU-553 recording systems on ten of the aircraft to obtain fatigue analysis data. The 465th expects to achieve weapons delivery capability in spring of 1975 and the project is scheduled for completion by early 1976. At a programmed cost somewhat over $2,000,000, the "Class 5 Mod" permit further expansion of the 465th's ground attack training missions with a corresponding reduction of A- 7 and F-4 sorties during CCT.¹³

In addition to the 65 officers and 18 listed personnel who are presently authorized in the 465th TFTS itself, the 49th Tactical Fighter Wing was given 300 new manpower spaces in support of its new ission.¹⁴ Most of these positions were or T-38 maintenance. They have been largely filled by using assigned 49TFW personnel as well as by diverting pipeline resources, intracommand reassignments, and special assistance from the Air Force Military Personnel Center.¹⁵

The wing's logistics complex had to establish the necessary maintenance and I supply support for the new aircraft. This I involved everything from training personnel in T-38 aircraft systems to obtaining numerous bench stock items. The 49th Organizational Maintenance Squadron set up a new flight-line section devoted to the T-38s. The Field Maintenance Squadron encountered the most serious T-38 problem area in seeking to obtain a functional J-85 engine test cell. Fortunately the 78th Flying Training Wing at Webb AFB, Texas, was able to help the 49th by providing use of its "Queen Bee" jet engine intermediate maintenance facility pending the establishment of this capability at Holloman.¹⁶ Despite some J-85 maintenance difficulties and shortages of certain T-38 parts and equipment, the 49th has been able to generate up to 1100 sorties per month to successfully meet the 465th's training requirements to date. The size of the squadron's future student load depends largely on increased manning and a reduction in the NORS (not operationally ready—supply) rate.¹⁷

A key to the future success of the Fighter Lead-In Program was the formation of a competent and highly motivated faculty of instructor pilots. The original cadre of IP's for the new 465th came from three main sources: the old 465th TFTS at Cannon, ATC T-38 units, and various TAC combat support groups. In addition, the squadron obtained the services of two former POW's as instructor pilots.¹⁸ As newly arrived members signed into the 465th, they found a tremendous job ahead of them before the first student class even arrived. Since the 49th's civil engineers could not provide all the resources needed to accomplish the unprogrammed workload suddenly required by the new mission, the 465th relied heavily upon "self-help" projects. Its officers and airmen took up hammers, saws, and paint brushes to remodel their facilities into a professional learning and operating environment in which to conduct the USAF Fighter Lead-In Program. ¹⁹

Even more important, the methods of instruction and course content for the new program had to be developed and refined. Headquarters TAC prepared the syllabi for T-38 Qualification (Course T3800Q) and IP Upgrade (T3800I) as well as the overall Fighter Lead-In Course (T3800A). The 465th TITS itself prepared the detailed phase manuals for the lead-in course as well as academic course outlines. The academic instructors constructed the actual course content by referring to Tactical Fighter Weapons School publications and texts in Use by A-7 and F-4 training units.²⁰

The USAF Fighter Lead-In Course consists of five phases of training for pilots, four of which wso's will also complete. The amount of flight training in each phase is listed in Table 1.²¹ After modification of the T-38s for practice weapons delivery, the ground attack phase will increase by three sorties and three hours for both pilots and wso's. Simulator usage and the academic training load are also listed in the table.

Each fighter lead-in class goes through 25 flying days and 3 ground training days, with a scheduled duration of six weeks. Student progress follows an orderly flow schedule, which charts all required tasks, coordinated in a chronological sequence. RTU’s have shown considerable interest in their academic program interface with the 465^th TFTS. For example, in April 1974 an Instructional Systems Development (ISD) Team from the 355^th TFW of Davis-Monthan AFB Arizona, visited Holloman to review at first hand the 465th's capabilities and its lead-in curricula. As a result of this review, the 355th deleted eight hours of BFM academics as well as a tactical navigation course from its CCT for lead-in graduates. Close coordination in the future between the 465th and the combat training units it serves will be highly productive.²²

Flying T-38s, however, remained the number one priority in the new squadron's order of business. The officers assigned to the 465th had a wide variety of flying experience and included combat veterans of Southeast Asia. Others had more limited backgrounds. For administrative purposes, the original contingent of pilots was divided into the following six groups, based on the range and currency of their previous experience and training: (1) six former ATC T38 IP's with fighter experience, (2) six TAC T-33 IP's qualified in ground attack (GA) as well as T-38 Air Combat and Basic Fighter Maneuvers (AC/BFM), (3) nine TAC T-33 IP'S qualified in GA with fighter experience but without, T-38 time, (4) four T-38 proficiency pilots with fighter experience, (5) three TAC F-4 pilots current in GA and ACM/BFM, (6) eighteen T-33 proficiency pilots with T-38 student time but without fighter or IP experience.²³

Based on the needs of each of these groups, the squadron implemented a comprehensive upgrade program to obtain a fully qualified faculty of IP'S in a minimum number of sorties and in time for the student load to come. The IP's in Group I needed only local orientation missions, which also served to qualify those in the second group as transition instructors. Full mission qualification in compliance with the TAC T-38 IP Upgrade Course was achieved when the squadron could generate multisortie missions. The IP Course consists of T-38 Transition, Formation, BFM, and GA achieved in 17 sorties (about 18 flying hours) and 30 hours of academics. A valuable added experience for many of the 465th's IP's has been the opportunity to fly BFM occasionally with the expert air-to-air T-38 pilots of the 64th Fighter Weapons Squadron from Nellis AFB, Nevada.²⁴

This nucleus of a dozen instructors then began the task of upgrading the remaining pilots. The officers in the other four groups required training as follows: Groups 3 and 5--the T-38 Aircraft Qualification Course (T3800Q) and the T-38 IP Upgrade Course (T3800I); Group 4--Course T3800I; and Group 6-Courses T3800Q and T3800I as well as the new USAF T-38 Fighter Lead-In Course itself (T3800A). The T-38 Qualification course consists of both transition flying and instruments. It requires 10 sorties of about 14 flying hours and 24 hours in the classroom. ²⁵

Squadron officials selected both more experienced pilots (from Group 3) and the least experienced (Group 6) to begin training first. This allowed the 465th to increase its core of IP's quickly while at the same time gaining practical experience in its rapidly approaching mission of teaching the Fighter Lead-In Course. Pilots from the other groups also soon began receiving the training they required. ²⁶

Despite not yet having as many of its aircraft on hand as it could have usefully employed, the 465th had fully qualified 22 T-38 IP's by the end of 1973 and 46 of 47 assigned pilots by 31 March 1974, just a month after the arrival of its first student class and slightly ahead of the revised program schedule.

Due to restricted areas over the vast White Sands Missile Range and the high volume of F-4 traffic in the 49th's existing airspace, the 465th TFTS needed its own airspace to safely perform its heavy load of student training missions. (It calculated a T-38 sortie generation of 60 per day.) Therefore, the Federal Aviation Administration established a special operating area Southeast of Roswell, New Mexico, as requested by the squadron. ²⁷

The 465th TFTS actually began performing its T-38 training mission in February 1974. The first pilots to receive instruction from the new squadron were somewhat more experienced than its expected typical student. These pilots were the USAF Thunderbirds, who cross-trained to the T-38 in two groups of three each and one individual pilot between 4 February and 17 April 1974.²⁸ This accomplishment by the squadron helps indicate the three-pronged training mission of the 465th, which includes T-38 qualification-jet recurrency and IP Upgrading as well as the Fighter Lead-In Course. The Lead-In Course itself is also designed as initial fighter training for experienced flyers (e.g., 0-2 and OV-1O pilots) as well as students fresh from UPT and UNT.

The raison d'être of the 465th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron remained to begin molding the products of undergraduate pilot and navigator training into "fighter jocks." The 465th was soon involved in a busy schedule of turning out fighter lead-in graduates. By 1 August 1974, its first anniversary at Holloman, the 465th had completed training 121 pilots in 8 classes, and 2 more classes were somewhere in the process of completing the 6-week course. Classes ranged in size from 13 to 35 individuals. The average class is programmed to consist of 25 UPT and 15 UNT graduates. With a 3-week overlap period between classes, the total student load for the 465th will eventually be about 80 individuals at a time. The graduation of all classes on schedule has proved the wisdom of locating the program in the Southwest, as very few flying days have been lost to weather.²⁹

Student reaction to the overall Fighter Lead-In Course thus far has been highly favorable. Some typical comments upon their completion of training at Holloman have been:

The course is an excellent program for UPT grads . . .  . 

In talking to friends who have completed RTU, this Course seems almost invaluable . . . .

I expect I'll be a better and safer A-7 pilot in RTU because of it. . . .

I feel I learned a good bit in a relatively painless process, which is what training is all about. I feel much better prepared to go on to the F-4 . . . .

The learning here in six weeks was tremendous.. . .

The BFM phase of the program was outstanding . . . .

It's great to be able to learn these techniques in a familiar airplane..

Here the instructors realize that students are the output, not grade folders. . . .

Very professional outfit. ³⁰

The real proof of the 465th's performance and the validity of the whole fighter lead-in concept will come during combat crew training. That is where the 465th's graduates themselves will demonstrate how well they have learned. And that is where the Fighter Lead-In Program is now being evaluated.

Acting upon the interest expressed by TAC Commander, General Robert J. Dixon, Headquarters TAC developed a comprehensive "Plan for Evaluating the T -38 Fighter Lead-In Training Program."³¹ It monitors a number of classes entering RTU's for whom lead-in training was not available. The performance of these pilots serves as a control sample when compared with data from several other classes whose members have been through the course at Holloman. After each training sortie, the IP will quantify his student's performance on a specified grade sheet, using a grading scale of one to ten. (One connotes "Unable to perform task," five is average, and ten indicates a perfect performance.)³² The Tactical Air Command Directorate of Studies and Analysis will collect all these scores and process the data into learning curves to determine such parameters as (1) the time required to reach various proficiency levels; (2) the potentials of lead-in training for increasing proficiency levels; (3) the transferability of lead-in training in areas covered, e.g., formations, BFM, ground attack; (4) fallout benefits in other phases of training, e.g., transition, instruments, air attack; (5) potential for decreasing the amount of training in first-line aircraft; and (6) additional areas where lead-in training might be employed.

At the completion of each CCT phase, the IP's will complete additional evaluations on the students, including task analysis questionnaires. Project officers in each participating wing will forward bombing, strafing, and rocket scores for each student, as well as interview IP's for feedback and comments on lead-in gradates. The same methods will be used to monitor wso progress. The 49th TFW Project Officer is also maintaining similar data and instructor feedback on the students during their lead-in training, including the instructors' predictions on how their students will perform during CCT.³³ The TAC Comptroller has been tasked to compute total cost figures for both lead-in training and traditional training with first-line aircraft, which the Directorate of Studies and Analysis can use to determine the cost effectiveness of the new program. Headquarters Tactical Air Command expects the first authoritative report on this systematic evaluation to be in by 1 June 1975.

THE 465th Tactical Fighter, Training Squadron has in one year grown from a handful of officers with two T-38s into a highly active and professional training arena for producing apprentice fighter pilots. Its early graduates are already being further trained in combat tactics, flying A-7s and F-4s. The verdict on the new program's effectiveness is not yet in, but preliminary indications point toward a favorable judgment. If the existing program is found to be beneficial, further expansion of lead-in training is possible. Perhaps in the near future all would-be fighter crew members will be funneled through the Lead-In Course before moving on to combat training. The implementation of the Fighter Lead-In Program again demonstrates the willingness of the United States Air Force to find a better way of doing things.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Colonel Wi11iam L. Kirk, Commander of the 49th Tactical Fighter Wing, for suggesting and encouraging the writing of this article. It was accomplished only with the assistance of numerous officers of the 465th TFTS and the staff of the 49th TFW. The contributions of Captain Edward S. Cole, who prepared the squadron histories during the period of this study, were especial1y valuable.

Notes

1. In a recent article by Jack N, Merrit and Pierre M. Sprey, "Quality, Quantity or Training," USAF Fighter Weapons Review, Summer 1974, pp, 7-15, it has been stated: "Serious and detailed historical evidence of individual air and ground actions almost invariably points to the conclusion that sound training, well considered tactics, and individual competence overwhelm most other aspects of the battle."

2. TAC Briefing Guide, Course 111507B, USAF Operational Training Course F-4, Aug 1973; AFM 50-51, USAF Formal Schools Catalog, Jun 1974, Change 5, 8-11—12.

3. Although the Fighter Lead-In Program is designed for both pilots and navigators (weapon systems officers), this article primarily addresses pilot training. The 465th TFTS began navigator training in August 1974.

4. Cost figures were computed for the author by Major Durwood Lewis, 49TFW Budget Officer, using 1 April 1974 figures in Table 24, AFM 173-10, USAF Cost and Planning Factors, for depot maintenance, material, labor, replenishment and spares, and the latest available figures (as of 14 August 1974) for jet fuel costs.

5. Comparison of fuel consumption as made in Talon Service News, Summer 1974, p, 3. 

6. Background of the program is outlined in Atch 1 to Ltr, TAC/XP to 49TFW et al., subj: T-38 Lead-In Training, 29 Apr 1974.

7. Hq TAC Movement Order No. 5, 22 Jun 1973.

8. TAC Programming Plan 13-73, T-38 Lead-In Training, 25 May 1973 (originally classified SECRET, later declassified and title changed to "T-38 Fighter Familiarization"), Annex R.

9. 49TFW Programming Plan 1-73, Implementation of 465TFTS Unit Beddown.

10. Msg TAC/LGM to ATC/LGM, subj: T-38 Acft for TAC Fighter Familiarization Program, 211545Z Sep 1973; TAC Program 3T-273. Delivery schedules and related message traffic are in 49TFW History Office files.

11. In accordance with Ltr, SAAMNMMC to TAC/LGMF, subj: T-38 Aircraft Usage Program Implementation, 26 Apr 1974.

12. Msg, TAC/LGMF to 12AF/LGMD, subj: T-38 Wing Life Time in TAC Environment, 172115Z Aug 1973.

13. Hq USAF Program Management Directive for Class V Modification of T-38A Aircraft, 6 Feb 1974, PMD No. R-Q 2507; Msg, CSAF/RPD to AFLC and TAC, subj: T-38 Aircraft for Lead-In-Fighter (LIF) Modification, 141308Z Jun 1974.

14. 49TFW Unit Detail Listings; Ltr, MMED-29 to 49TFW/DO/DP/LG, subj: Mission Support Manning for 465TFTS, 13 Jun 1973.

15. TAC PPlan 13-73, Annex B.

16. Msg, TAC/LGMS to 12AF/LGM, subj: J-85 JEIM Capability, 2217062 Aug 1973; USAF Host-Tenant Support Agreement, 78TFW and 49TFW, 21 Mar 1974.

17. Msg, 49TFWICC to 12AF/LG--IDOIDP, subj: T-38 Flying Capabilities 122302 Apr 1974; Msg, 12AFIDO/LG to TAC--DO/LG--DP, subj: T-38 Fighter Lead-In Capability, 232141Z May 1974. The advanced age of the Holloman T-38s has contributed to the NORS rate by making parts more difficult to obtain.

18. 465TFTS Historical Reports.

19. Ibid.

20.To allow more data bits for the AFMPC computer, the course numbering system was recently changed to a ten-digit number. Syllabi are now referred to by the first six of these characters. Of the courses discussed in this article, T3800A replaced 111502FL, T38001 replaced II 1502FI, and T3800Q replaced 1I1502FQ as syllabi designations.

21. Based on TAC Syllabus Course 1I1502FL, USAF Fighter Lead-In Course T-38, Jan 1974, 1-2.

22. Ltr, 3S5TFWIDOTS to DOT, DO, CC, in turn, subj: A-7 ISD Team Reports of Visit, 1 May 1974.

23. Ltr, 465TFTSIDO to 49TFWIDO, subj: IP Upgrade Training, 26 Sep 1973. The squadron's first two instructor weapon systems officers were assigned in June 1974.

24. Msg, 12AF to TACIDOO, subj: Dissimilar ACM, 0422012 Sep 1973.

25. Historical Reports, 465TFTS, Oct-Dec 1973.

26. Ibid.

27. Letter of Agreement, Albuquerque ARTC Center, 49th Tactical Fighter Wing and 1877th Communications Squadron, subj: Air Traffic Control Service to 49th Tactical Fighter Wing Aircraft, 4 Mar 1974.

28. TAC Programming Plan 6-74, Thunderbird Conversion, 14 Feb 1974.

29. Training data were extracted from records maintained by the 465TFTS School Secretary.

30. Excerpts from students End of Course Critiques collected by 165TFTS School Secretary. The most criticized aspect of the course itself was the lack of realistic ground attack due to the absence of practice ordnance and a sight reticle. The students also made some specific suggestions on streamlining course content and improving visual aids.

31. Telephone interview, author with Maj. J. D. Koehler, Lead-In Project Officer, TAC Directorate of Fighter Operations—Fighter Training Division, 15 Aug 1974.

32. Msg. 49TFW--DOV to 12AF--DO, subj: Evaluation of T-38 Fighter Lead-In Training Program, OS171OA Feb 1974; Ltr, 49TFWIDOT to 12 AF--DOO, subj: Trip Report of Lead-In Training Study, 13 May 1974. The complete plan, which the author summarizes in the following paragraphs, is attached to Ltr, TAC/XP to 49TFW--CC et al., subj: T-38 Lead-In Training, 29 Apr 1974.

33. Ltr, 49TFWIDOT to 465TFTS, subj: Data Collection of T-38 Evaluation Program, 23 May 1974, with sample grade sheets attached.

Contributor