T-X Program R44856

Advanced Pilot Training (T-X) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress
Jeremiah Gertler
Specialist in Military Aviation
May 21, 2018
Congressional Research Service

7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44856
Advanced Pilot Training (T-X) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Summary
NOTE: This report was originally written by Ceir Coral while he was an Air Force Fellow at the
Congressional Research Service. Since his departure, it has been maintained by Jeremiah Gertler
of CRS.
On December 30, 2016, the United States Air Force (USAF) issued a final solicitation and request
for proposal (RFP) to industry to replace the USAF trainer fleet of T-38C Talon aircraft and
associated ground-based training systems. The USAF intends to buy 350 Advanced Pilot Training
(APT T-X) aircraft and 46 Ground-Based Training Systems (GBTS), a contract valued at roughly
$1.5 billion for the research, design, test, and evaluation phase of the program and estimated $18
billion in future procurement.
The FY2019 Administration budget request included $265.465million for the T-X.
Contract award was anticipated in December 2017. However, the FY2019 defense budget
submission now projects an award sometime in FY2018.
According to the USAF, the T-38C trainer fleet is old, costly, and outdated. It lacks the
technology to train future pilots for fifth-generation fighter and bomber operations. Based on Air
Education Training Command’s evaluation of the required capabilities to train future pilots for
fifth-generation fighters and bombers, the T-38C falls short in 12 of 18 capabilities, forcing the
USAF to train for those capabilities in operational units where flying hours are costly and can
affect fleet readiness.
Based on the requirements set forth in the USAF’s RFP, the APT T-X aircraft may shift training
from Field Training Units, where expensive fifth-generation aircraft are used, to less expensive
trainer aircraft. Also, the higher fidelity GBTS could improve training for student pilots and move
many tasks from aerial flight training into simulators.
Industry has worked closely with the USAF in shaping the requirements to facilitate better
understanding and improve acquisition effectiveness. Some analysts believe the source selection
plan is focused on price as the dominant factor. A field that started with five viable offerors has
been reduced to three.
The APT T-X acquisition strategy poses potential oversight issues for Congress, including the
following: Is the number of planned aircraft purchases sufficient? Given the reported pilot
shortage, should the procurement be accelerated? What effects do increased F-35A and KC-46
purchases, along with development of the new Long Range Strike Bomber, B-21, have on the
USAF budget and the feasibility of an additional Major Defense Acquisition Program?

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
U.S. Air Force Trainer Aircraft.................................................................................................. 1
Roles and Missions ............................................................................................................. 1
Current USAF Trainer Fleet................................................................................................ 1
Advanced Pilot Training (APT T-X) Program Basics ............................................................... 6
Trainer Aircraft System Requirements................................................................................ 8
Ground-Based Training System Requirements ................................................................... 9
Acquisition Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 10
Request for Proposal (RFP) .................................................................................................... 10
Contracting Plan ...................................................................................................................... 10
Source Selection Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................ 11
Prospective Offerors................................................................................................................ 13
Boeing-Saab T-X .............................................................................................................. 13
Northrop Grumman-BAE-L-3 Model 400 ........................................................................ 14
Lockheed Martin-Korean Aerospace Industries T-50A .................................................... 15
Leonardo T-100 ................................................................................................................ 15
Sierra Nevada Corp.-Turkish Aerospace Industries T-X .................................................. 16
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 16
Figures
Figure 1. T-6A Texan II ................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. T-1A Jayhawk .................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3. PACER CLASSIC III Program ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 4. T-38C Talon ..................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 5. APT T-X Operational View.............................................................................................. 7
Figure 6. APT Source Selection Strategy ...................................................................................... 12
Figure 7. Boeing-Saab T-X ........................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8. Northrop Grumman/BAE/L-3 T-X Prototype ................................................................ 14
Figure 9. Lockheed Martin-KAI T-50A ........................................................................................ 15
Figure 10. Leonardo T-100............................................................................................................ 16
Figure A-1. Diamond DA20-C1 .................................................................................................... 19
Tables
Table 1. AETC Main Trainer Fleet .................................................................................................. 1
Table 2. Air Force RDT&E Budget Request FY2017 ................................................................... 25
Table A-1. Follow-on Fighter Aircraft Training Bases .................................................................. 20

Table A-2. Follow-on Airlift, Tanker, Helicopter, Reconnaissance Aircraft Training Bases ......... 21
Appendixes
Appendix A. Air Force Pilot Training ........................................................................................... 18
Appendix B. Prior Legislative Activity ......................................................................................... 25
Appendix C. APT Capability Gap Summary................................................................................. 27
Appendix D. System Specification for the Advanced Pilot Training Program Aircraft
System ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 31

Introduction
The APT T-X acquisition strategy poses potential oversight issues for Congress. The addition of a
new Major Defense Acquisition Program as the Air Force continues to purchase F-35As and
KC-46s and develop the new Long Range Strike Bomber, B-21, will affect the USAF budget
requests going forward, and the T-X contract award has already been delayed several times in
light of budget issues. Specific to the APT T-X acquisition, Congress may wish to consider the
correct number of trainer aircraft and ground-based training systems along with timing of their
procurement and fielding.
Background
U.S. Air Force Trainer Aircraft
Roles and Missions

For the purpose of this report, a trainer is defined as an aircraft primarily designed to facilitate
aircrew or pilot flight training. Trainer aircraft features include tandem flight controls, simplified
cockpit arrangements, and other elements that allow student pilots to operate the aircraft safely.
US Air Force trainer aircraft are assigned under the Air Education and Training Command’s
(AETC’s) 19th Air Force, which includes 19 training locations, 10 regular Air Force wings
supported by 6 Guard and Reserve wings, approximately 32,000 personnel, and more than 1,350
aircraft of 29 different models.1 Currently, the trainer fleet is in use at Joint Base San Antonio-
Randolph, Texas; Laughlin Air Force Base (AFB), Texas; Vance AFB, Oklahoma; Columbus
AFB, Mississippi; and Sheppard AFB, Texas
The current US Air Force (USAF) pilot trainer aircraft fleet consists mainly of the T-6 Texan II,
T-1A Jayhawk, and the T-38 Talon. Pilot candidates will generally begin in the T-6, moving to
the other aircraft depending on the type of aircraft (fighter, cargo, etc.) to which they will
ultimately be assigned.
Current USAF Trainer Fleet
Table 1. AETC Main Trainer Fleet

T-1A Jayhawk T-6 Texan II T-38 Talon Total
Numbers of Aircraft 178 444 430 1,049
Source: HQ AETC/A5RX Email dated December 6, 2016.

Note: AETC maintains other trainer aircraft in addition to T-1, T-6, and T-38; however, these three models
comprise almost 80% of the trainer fleet.
T-6 Texan I
The T-6 Texan II trainer aircraft is a single-engine, two-seat, turboprop aircraft designed to train
student pilots in basic flying skills common to both USAF and U.S. Navy (USN) pilots in Joint
1
U.S. Air Force, “19th AF activates under AETC,” September 29, 2014, at http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/
tabid/223/Article/502946/19th-af-activates-under-aetc.aspx.
Congressional Research Service 1

Primary Pilot Training. A military version of the Beech/Pilatus PC-9 Mk II, the T-6 was originally
manufactured by Raytheon Aircraft, later Beechcraft. The USAF acquired the T-6 in May 2000
and began training with it that same year. In 2001, the USAF and USN began using the T-6 as the
primary trainer in the Joint Primary Pilot Training program at Moody AFB, GA. The aircraft has
tandem seating (one pilot behind the other) with interchangeable instructor/student seating. The
aircraft features a pressurized cockpit, an anti-G force system, an advanced avionics package,
ejection seats, and fully aerobatic flight controls.2 The T-6A is the aircraft portion of the Joint
Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS), and is currently in use at Columbus AFB, Mississippi;
Vance AFB, Oklahoma; and Laughlin AFB and Sheppard AFB in Texas.
Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS)

The JPATS acquisition program is a system-of-systems for primary flight-training devices to meet USAF and USN
initial pilot training requirements. The principle JPATS mission is to train entry-level student pilots in primary flying
skills to a proficiency level that will allow them to transition to advanced pilot training tracks. The program was
initiated in 1994 and designed to replace the USAF T-37B and USN T-34C aircraft and associated ground-based
training systems. The JPATS program consisted of the T-6 Texan II aircraft, simulators, ground-based training devices,
a Training Integration Management System, instructional courseware, and contractor logistics support. The original
JPATS program called for production of 452 T-6A aircraft for the USAF and 249 for the USN. Raytheon was awarded
the acquisition and support contract in 1996.
The Training Integration Management System is a computer-driven system used to manage student progress through
the Joint Primary Pilot Training program. It contains all the academic modules, tracks student events and grades,
performs aircraft scheduling, and assists in overall training management.
Source: http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY1999/pdf/af/99jpats.pdf, http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/
FY2007/pdf/navy/2007jpats.pdf, and http://slideplayer.com/slide/9358758/.
Figure 1.T-6A Texan II
Source: http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104548/t-6a-texan-ii.aspx.
2
U.S. Air Force, “T-6A Texan II,” March 28, 2003, at http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/
Article/104548/t-6a-texan-ii.aspx.

T-1A Jayhawk
The T-1A Jayhawk is a medium-range, twin-engine jet used in the advanced phases of
Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT). Students selected to become airlift or tanker
aircraft pilots will train in the T-1A after completing Undergraduate Pilot Training. The T-1A was
manufactured by Raytheon, later Hawker Beechcraft, and derived from the commercial Beechjet
400A aircraft.3 The USAF first acquired the jet in 1992 and students began using the aircraft for
training in 1993.4 The main differences between the military aircraft and civilian version are
structural enhancements for bird strike resistance and an additional fuel tank. The cockpit is
configured to support an instructor pilot and two student pilots. The T-1A is currently used for
pilot training at Columbus AFB, Mississippi; Laughlin AFB, Texas; Vance AFB, Oklahoma; and
Randolph AFB, Texas; and for combat systems officer training at Naval Air Station Pensacola,
FL.
Figure 2.T-1A Jayhawk
Source: http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104542/t-1a-jayhawk.aspx.
T-38C Talon
The T-38C Talon is a twin-engine, high-altitude, supersonic jet trainer used for Joint Specialized
Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT). It is used to train pilots selected to fly fighter and bomber
3
Airforce-Technology.com, “T-1 Jayhawk Trainer Aircraft, United States of America,” at http://www.airforce-
technology.com/projects/t1-jayhawk/.
4
U.S. Air Force, “T-1A Jayhawk,” September 14, 2005, at http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/
Article/104542/t-1a-jayhawk.aspx.

aircraft. Other versions of the T-38 are assigned to Air Combat Command, Air Force Materiel
Command, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in various roles. The
T-38 has a history of economy of operations, ease of maintenance, high performance, and
exceptional safety.5 The T-38 was manufactured by Northrop Grumman Corporation and first
flew in 1959. Over 1,100 T-38s were delivered to the USAF between 1961 and 1972. The aircraft
has swept wings, tricycle landing gear, and a steerable nose wheel. It incorporates a glass cockpit
and integrated avionics displays and tandem seating similar to the T-6A. More than 60,000 USAF
pilots have trained in the T-38 since entering service.6 In addition to U.S. forces, the T-38 is in
service in Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey.7
Numerous design improvements have been retrofitted into operational T-38s. In 2007, Boeing
completed a major avionics suite upgrade to the T-38A/B models, converting 463 T-38s to T-
38Cs. Also, Northrop Grumman developed and delivered replacement wing sets to extend the life
of the T-38C. In 2015, the USAF embarked on a structural modernization program known as
PACER CLASSIC III (see Figure 3). The program procures 180 structural upgrade modification
kits to ensure the structural integrity of the T-38C aircraft that were at high risk of grounding. The
structural work includes replacement of the ejection seat, longerons, landing gear, brakes, flight
controls, and canopy, among other structural work. USAF maintainers perform the modifications,
extending the aircraft’s life to 2029.8 The USAF’s Ogden Air Logistics Complex at Hill AFB,
Utah, is charged with executing the modification program. However, the actual modification of
the aircraft takes place at Randolph AFB, Texas.9
5
U.S. Air Force, “T-38 Talon”, September 23, 2005, at http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/
Article/104569/t-38-talon.aspx.
6
Air Force-Technology.com, “T-38 Talon Twin-Jet Trainer Aircraft, United States of America”, at
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/t-38/.
7
Ibid.
8
Flightglobal, “Boeing wins 10-year T-38C contract as USAF looks to T-X”, January 5, 2016, at
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/.
9
Email communication with Maj. Joseph Clapsaddle, Trainer Program Element Monitor, Global Reach Directorate,
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, March 7, 2017.

Figure 3. PACER CLASSIC III Program

Structural Modifications to T-38C
Source: http://defenseinnovationmarketplace.dtic.mil/resources/T-38_Pacer_ClassicIII.pdf.
The T-38C is used to train USAF, USN, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) pilots.
In addition, USAF and USN test pilots and flight test engineers are trained in the T-38A. The T-
38C is the current trainer used to prepare front-line fighter and bomber pilots to operate all USAF
fighters except the F-35. In addition, NASA uses the T-38C to train future astronauts.10
Figure 4.T-38C Talon
Source: http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104569/t-38-talon.asp.
10
U.S. Air Force, “T-38 Talon Fact Sheet,” May, 2, 2008 at https://web.archive.org/web/20130801121407/http:/
www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=126.

Advanced Pilot Training (APT T-X) Program Basics

The USAF identified and documented gaps in its ability to meet advanced pilot training
requirements in 2018 and beyond in an October 2009 initial capabilities document (ICD). Within
the ICD, the USAF identified 12 shortfalls, out of 18 mission tasks set forth in SUPT and IFF
courses, of the T-38C Talon aircraft. (See Appendix C.)11 Based on the ICD, the USAF
commissioned an analysis of alternatives (AOA) in 2011 to determine potential solutions to meet
the identified shortfalls in training. In 2014, as a result of a change in the initial operational
capability (IOC) date from 2017 to 2023, the USAF published an update to the original 2011
AOA document. The results of the AOA recommended a materiel solution to the issue, and the
USAF developed a capabilities development document (CDD) to describe the requirements of the
materiel solution, now known as the APT T-X program. The Joint Requirements Oversight
Council approved the CDD in October 2015. According to the USAF, the current planned IOC for
the APT T-X is 2024 and full operational capability (FOC) in 2034.12
What Are Capability Requirement Documents?

Capability requirement documents are used to articulate deliberate or urgent capability requirements and associated
information to support review and validation through the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System
(JCIDS). Review and validation through the JCIDS process assures compliance with Title 10, U.S.C. Section 181, “Joint
Requirements Oversight Council” statutory requirements.13
Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)—Capability requirements, with significant capability gaps, documented in an
ICD can lead to development of capability solutions. These solutions can be materiel, nonmateriel, or a combination
of both.
Capability Development Document (CDD)—Capability requirement document that is tailored toward a
particular materiel solution to capability gaps.
The stated mission of the APT T-X system is to prepare student pilots to operate fourth- and fifth-
generation fighters and bombers. The USAF plans to integrate the APT T-X within the advanced
phase of the fighter/bomber track of SUPT as well as IFF. The scope of the acquisition program is
to acquire an advanced trainer aircraft and ground-based training system to be used by the Air
Education and Training Command (AETC) in the pilot training pipeline.14 The purpose of the
trainer aircraft is to bridge the UPT primary phase in the T-6 Texan and fifth-generation Formal
Training Unit (FTU) aircraft.
The APT T-X is comprised of multiple systems working together to enable advanced pilot
training. The major components include the aircraft, ground-based training systems, virtual
training systems, electronic classrooms, aircraft maintainers (personnel), maintenance training
systems, and support infrastructure. Figure 5 provides a high-level graphical view of the APT
mission and associated architecture capabilities.
11
Air Education and Training Command, “Advanced Pilot Training (APT T-X) Concept of Operations,” at
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=99751ca4edfc3d8c6260cb6a65f62276.
12
Ibid.
13
CJCSI 3170.01, January, 23, 2015, at https://dap.dau.mil/policy/Documents/2015/CJCSI_3170_01I.pdf.
14

Figure 5. APT T-X Operational View
Source: Advanced Pilot Training (APT T-X) Concept of Operations, Air Education and Training Command, Directorate of Plans, Programs, Requirements and
Assessments.
Note: The Operational View shows the interdependencies with support services such as air traffic control, as well as the interoperability between the ground-based
training systems.
CRS-7
According to the USAF, the APT T-X system will close the 12 capability gaps identified in the
ICD and better prepare student pilots for operations in fifth-generation fighters and bombers.
Based on the stated requirements found within the CDD, the APT T-X will provide more effective
high-G and high-angle-of-attack training than the T-38C and will more closely resemble fifth-
generation operational environments.15 AETC leaders believe the improved fidelity and
aerodynamic modeling required in the Ground-Based Training System (GBTS) will enable better
training and allow some tasks to be moved from flight training to the simulators. Also, the more
capable aircraft will provide better opportunity to move training from the FTUs into SUPT and
IFF, thereby reducing the high cost of flight hours in fifth-generation aircraft normally required to
develop experienced pilots.16
In addition to the operational training gains projected with the APT T-X system, the planned
sustainment concept envisioned by the USAF seeks to reduce ownership, operation, and system
support costs, while increasing system readiness and operational capability. According to the
USAF, the current T-38C fleet has an operational availability of 60%, which continues to fall
yearly while maintenance costs continue to rise.17 The USAF requirement for the APT T-X is an
operational availability of 80% or greater.18
Trainer Aircraft System Requirements

The USAF contends that by 2031, 60% of all combat air forces will be fifth-generation aircraft
and therefore the force will require a modern aircraft to train future fighter and bomber pilots.19
The USAF’s 2009 ICD showed that the current T-38C fleet cannot accomplish 12 of the 18
mission tasks required for advanced pilot training. These tasks include high-G training, advanced
air-to-air skill sets, and advanced cockpit/crew resource-management tasks such as data fusion
using modern sensors.20 Currently, FTUs fulfill the 12 tasks; student pilots train using actual
fourth- and fifth-generation fighters and bombers at a higher operating cost. Before 2014, the
F-16 bridge course mitigated the risk of sending student pilots directly into the cockpit of an F-22
with students operating a fourth-generation fighter under instructor pilot tutelage before moving
to the fifth-generation fighter. However, AETC deemed the bridge course inefficient and ended
the course.21
Beginning in the 1950s, the original mission of the T-38 fleet was to serve as the advanced pilot
trainer for the Century Series fighters (F-100, F-104, etc.). Based on USAF projections, the 430
T-38C aircraft remaining in active inventory have a projected service life through 2034, when the
APT-T-X reaches FOC.22
15
Angle of attack is defined by Britannica as the angle of the aircraft wings relative to the wind or oncoming flow.
According to NASA analysts, modern fighter aircraft that can maintain controlled flight at high angles of attack provide
the fighter pilot the ability to turn rapidly and enhance his or her nose-pointing capability, forming the basis for
superior handling qualities. For more detailed information see NASA Technical Memorandum 104322 at
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88437main_H-2128.pdf.
16
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=99751ca4edfc3d8c6260cb6a65f62276. CRS has been unable to find views
dissenting from AETC assertions.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.

The APT T-X System Specifications (see Appendix D) detail the specific system requirements
for the new trainer aircraft to meet the USAF’s 18 identified mission tasks. The USAF’s
December 30, 2016, final RFP solicitation includes the system specification document.
The current USAF plan is to recapitalize five existing T-38C bases with APT:
 Columbus AFB, Mississippi (SUPT/IFF)
 Laughlin AFB, Texas (SUPT)
 Vance AFB, Oklahoma (SUPT)
 Sheppard AFB, Texas (ENJJPT/IFF/Pilot Instructor Training)
 Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas (IFF/Pilot Instructor Training).
Ground-Based Training System Requirements

The Ground-Based Training System (GBTS) includes simulators, training devices, computer-
based training systems, and academics. The largest portion of the GBTS is the simulator and is
referred to as Aircrew Training Devices (ATDs). The ATDs are further broken down into three
categories: Unit Training Devices (UTDs), Operational Flight Trainers (OFTs), and Weapons
Systems Trainers (WSTs).23
The most basic ATD is the UTD. It provides training in normal procedures, instruments, and
emergency procedures. Its primary use is to train basic flying tasks such as instrument and
navigation training, ground and systems procedures, and emergency procedures.24
OFTs provide a networked simulator capability to train more advanced flight profiles and IFF
course tasks. The OFT provides a greater training capability than the UTD, enabling visual flight
patterns and landings, basic formation flying, and low-level operations.25 The ability to link the
OFT simulators provides the capability to train formation flying in a virtual battlespace.
The WST is also a linked simulator network similar to the OFT. In addition to OFT capabilities,
the WST’s greater field-of-view capability allows students to train in basic fighter maneuvers.
WSTs are critical to training fighter formation flight and tactical maneuvering.
The GBTS will include all Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI) to include instructor-based
training and computer-based training. Also, the USAF requires that all aspects of aircraft
maintenance training be integrated into IMI. The IMI system must be web-based and provide
seamless communication with student management systems.26
According to the USAF, a high-fidelity GBTS that can replicate advanced sensors as well as
actual aircraft handling characteristics will enable more accurate simulated flying training to
facilitate more offloaded training (training moved from an aircraft into a simulator). The desire to
evolve simulator training from traditional stick-and-throttle flying to sensor-driven tactics is a
direct result of fifth-generation fighter capabilities such as advanced data links, multispectral
sensor fusion, and Advanced Cockpit/Crew Resource Management.27 The level of performance
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid. Advanced Cockpit/Crew Resource Management means the ability to prioritize mission tasks and operate on-
board sensors and systems to maximize situational awareness and mission effectiveness.

provided by the GBTS will be a driving factor in determining how much training can be offloaded
into the simulator.
The current inventory of T-38C ATDs is 36 total systems. The USAF’s ATD requirement for T-X
is 46 total systems.28
Acquisition Strategy
Request for Proposal (RFP)
In March 2015, the USAF began its pursuit of the APT family of systems through release of a
request for information (RFI) to industry. The RFI focused on soliciting industry comments and
questions on the draft requirements.29 In addition to the industry comments, the USAF announced
a presolicitation conference at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, home of the APT System Program
Office. The conference was an opportunity for prospective offerors to engage with the system
program office and discuss early requirements in relation to the upcoming APT source selection.
During the following year, numerous engagements between the government and industry
occurred to ensure clear communication and transparency throughout the solicitation process. All
written communication was initiated through the FedBizOpps.gov internet-based e-business
tool.30
In July 2016, the USAF issued a draft request for proposal (RFP) and encouraged prospective
industry bidders to provide comments, questions, concerns, and requests for clarification in
preparation for a final RFP release in 2016.31 Interactive dialogue continued after release of the
draft RFP to improve the clarity of the system specifications, program schedules, and contract
documentation and eventually update the complete draft RFP in September 2016.32 Following the
release of that updated draft RFP, the USAF made minor corrections to solicitation documents
and responded to industry questions. The USAF proceeded through final reviews and approvals
of the RFP, culminating in the release of the final solicitation RFP on December 30, 2016.33
Contracting Plan
The statement of work (SOW) associated with the APT solicitation includes all engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD), production, and sustainment activities. In addition, the SOW
calls for Field Service Representatives and Interim Contractor Support for the APT aircraft in
28
Ibid.
29
FedBizOpps.gov, “Request For Information FBO Notice,” March 17, 2015, at https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=
1d96db580a132adaaed1961d2f64dcf3.
30
FedBizOpps.gov is a single government point of entry for Federal government procurement opportunities that exceed
$25,000. Government buying agents can publicize their business opportunities by posting information directly on the
site. Vendors seeking Federal markets for their products and services can search for opportunities solicited by Federal
contracting agencies. The portal can provide transparency when communicating with potential vendors and ensure all
interested parties have access to the same information.
31
FedBizOpps.gov, “Draft RFP,” July 2016, at https://www.fbo.gov/?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&
tabid=9143b12ef30590a154ed155e427fe784.
32
FedBizOpps.gov, “Updated Draft RFP,” Sep 2016, at https://www.fbo.gov/?tab=documents&tabmode=form&
subtab=core&tabid=73ec7b43fdfb914eed96078b65d1150a.
33
FedBizOpps.gov, “Final Solicitation RFP,” Dec 2016, at https://www.fbo.gov/?tab=documents&tabmode=form&
subtab=core&tabid=ce37a15c1aa4f8d81a60ea2e88ed63d9.

support of transitioning to a government organic supply chain management and maintenance

concept. The GBTS devices will be supported by a contractor logistics support contract.
The USAF plans to award a 16-year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract as allowed
by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 C.F.R. 16.504). According to the USAF’s planned
contract award, the maximum quantity of aircraft the government may order is 473 and the
maximum quantity of GBTS is 120. The minimum quantity of aircraft the government must order
is 5 (test articles) and the minimum quantity of GBTS is 7.34 The contract types include both
fixed-price incentive firm and firm fixed-price.35
The acquisition strategy calls for mature, demonstrated technologies as opposed to a new,
developmental system. The EMD portion of the contract will be limited and focused on
developmental work to incorporate capabilities to meet the system specifications. The current
program schedule identifies the IOC date in FY2024.
Some analysts argue that the fixed-price elements of the contract place new designs at a
disadvantage compared with vendors offering a modified existing platform.36 This is based on the
fact that the vendor offering a new design must invest corporate funds to cover design costs.
Other analysts argue that the decision to offer a new design is a corporate business decision and
not a requirement; therefore, the risk and investment is purely a business consideration when
deciding to compete for the contract award.
Source Selection Evaluation Plan

According to the USAF APT solicitation, the competition is a best value source selection
conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15, Contracting by
Negotiation.37 A contract award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to offer
the best value to the government based on an assessment of evaluation factors and subfactors
identified in the solicitation’s Section M—Evaluation Factors for Award. According to the USAF,
lessons learned from the KC-X source selection have been incorporated into the source selection
strategy employed for the APT competition.38 Figure 6 represents the evaluation factors and
subfactors that will be used to evaluate offeror proposals.
Based on the evaluation plan, an offeror’s proposal must be less than $16.3 billion in order to be
evaluated. This is the first measure for a proposal to be considered as a viable offer. This gate is
considered an affordability measure based on the USAF program office estimate.
According to the USAF solicitation, in order for a proposal to be considered awardable, offerors
must meet the affordability gate,39 and receive a Low or Moderate technical risk rating for
34
FedBizOpps.gov, “RFP Model Contract Sections A-M,” December 30, 2016, at https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=
c9c098127f89fa2e70a83d6a88bbaf27.
35
For further details on contract specifics see the RFP Model Contract at https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=
c9c098127f89fa2e70a83d6a88bbaf27.
36
Schweizer, Roman, Competition Catalysts: T-X Field Tightens Ahead of March Bid Due Date, Cowen Washington
Research Group Policy Note, January 30, 2017, at https://cowen.bluematrix.com/sellside/EmailDocViewer?encrypt=
74e303fc-95ae-4476-98be-4d9656d89b8b&mime=pdf&co=cowen&[email protected]&source=mail.
37
FedBizOpps.gov, “Solicitation FA8617-17-6219, Section J – Attachment 18, Section M – Evaluation Factors for
Award,” December 30, 2016, at https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=d90ec3750a14ef0886e67ec289f84095.
38
For additional information on the KC-X program, see CRS Report RL34398, Air Force KC-46A Tanker Aircraft
Program, by Jeremiah Gertler.
39
The Affordability Gate is a cost cap on the total contract value of the vendor’s offer. In order to be considered as an
awardable offer the contract value must be less than or equal to $16.3B.

Subfactors 1.1-1.5, as well as an Acceptable rating for Subfactors 1.6-1.7. Also, if any nonprice
factor or subfactor is evaluated as High or Unacceptable, the entire proposal will be ineligible for
award.40 The offerors must meet all standard government solicitation requirements (e.g.
compliance with terms and conditions, intellectual property assertions, cost and data
requirements, and security compliance). Each subfactor will be evaluated individually and
assessed based on detailed criteria found in Section M of the solicitation.
Proposals from prospective offerors were submitted by the March 30, 2017, deadline, and the
USAF planned to award the contract in December 2017.41 Subsequently, the Administration’s
FY2019 budget submission projected contract award sometime in FY2018. More recent public
statements indicated a contract award by May 2019.42
Figure 6. APT Source Selection Strategy

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors
Source: Solicitation FA8617-17-6219, Section J – Attachment 18, Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award.
Notes: Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP). For a greater explanation of each subfactor and
evaluation criteria see Solicitation FA8617-17-6219, Section J–Attachment 18, Section M–Evaluation Factors for
Award.
40
Ibid.
41
FedBizOpps.gov, “Solicitation FA8617-17-6219, Section J–Attachment 17, Section L–Instructions, Conditions, and
Notices to Offerors,” December 30, 2016, at https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=ce217c3f392a69eac7c0d7b7d16ac2dc.
42
Remarks of Lt. Gen. Jerry Harris, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Requirements, Mitchell Institute,
May 7, 2018.

Prospective Offerors
Currently, five aerospace company partnerships have voiced intent to compete for the APT
contract. Details of each partnership’s offering are limited due to the nature of contract
competitions; however, some marketing information has surfaced in anticipation of the APT
solicitation. The following section will identify the prospective offerors and their intended
product offerings.
Boeing-Saab T-X
In December 2013, Boeing and Saab formed a partnership to develop a purpose-built trainer in
anticipation of the USAF APT program. According to Boeing, the T-X (see Figure 7) is a
production aircraft and not a prototype. As of December 2016, two T-X aircraft are built and have
already flown maiden flights.43 Boeing claims the purpose-built trainer was designed from the
ground up to include the Ground-Based Training System and support. The single-engine, twin-
tail, stadium seating trainer was unveiled on September 13, 2016, at Boeing’s St. Louis, MO,
facility. Parts of the aircraft were manufactured in Sweden and final assembly took place in St.
Louis, MO.44 Boeing has not announced where the aircraft will be built should they win the
contract.
Figure 7. Boeing-Saab T-X
Source: http://www.boeing.com/defense/t-x/#/gallery.
Note: According to the Boeing website, this picture was taken during T-X’s second flight.
43
Weisgerber, Marcus, A New Military Jet Flies Just One Year After It Was Designed, Defense One, December 20,
2016, at http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/12/new-military-jet-flies-just-one-year-after-it-was-designed/
134065/?oref=gbb-newsletter.
44
Ibid.

Northrop Grumman-BAE-L-3 Model 400

In late 2011, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems announced they would offer the single-
engine BAE Hawk as the replacement bid for the T-38C. However, in 2014 the companies
announced that they would offer a new purpose-built jet trainer system.45 According to Northrop
executives, the new design would better meet the USAF requirements than the Hawk offering.
The partnership with BAE Systems and L-3 would combine ground-based training systems and
training devices to form a complete training system.
In August 2016, a single-engine, single-tail, two-seat T-X prototype was seen performing high-
speed taxi tests at the Mojave Air and Space Port in California (see Figure 8).46 According to
aerospace analysts, the design resembles the Northrop T-38C it is intended to replace.47 On
February 1, 2017, Defense News reported that Northrop Grumman-BAE-L-3 Comm had decided
not to enter the competition for the T-X contract “as it would not be in the best interest of the
companies and their shareholders.”48
Figure 8. Northrop Grumman/BAE/L-3 T-X Prototype
Source: http://www.janes.com/article/63129/northrop-grumman-s-t-x-design-breaks-cover.
45
Weisgerber, Marcus, Northrop Secretly Building Jet for Air Force Trainer Competition, Defense One, February 6,
2015, at http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/02/northrop-secretly-building-jet-air-force-trainer-competition/
104739/.
46
Jennings, Gareth, Northrop Grumman’s T-X Design Breaks Cover, IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, August 22, 2016, at
http://www.janes.com/article/63129/northrop-grumman-s-t-x-design-breaks-cover.
47
Ibid.
48
Insinna, Valerie and Mehta, Aaron, Northrop Grumman Drops Out of T-X Trainer Competition, Defense News,
February 1, 2017, http://www.defensenews.com/articles/northrop-grumman-drops-out-of-t-x-trainer-competition.

Lockheed Martin-Korean Aerospace Industries T-50A

Lockheed Martin (LM) and Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) jointly developed the T-50A (see
Figure 9), a modernized T-50 aircraft, as the APT contender. According to company officials, the
block upgrade to the T-50 aircraft includes the addition of air refueling capability, embedded
training, open system architecture, and a fifth-generation cockpit.49 The T-50 aircraft was
designed by KAI and LM in 2002 and is used as a trainer in Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, the
Philippines, and Iraq.50
Figure 9. Lockheed Martin-KAI T-50A
Source: Lockheed Martin from Janes Defence Weekly article.

Notes: First flight of the T-50A by Lockheed Martin.
Leonardo T-100
The T-100 (see Figure 10) is a variant of the M-346 trainer that is currently in use in Italy, Israel,
Poland, and Singapore.51 If chosen, Leonardo says the T-100 will be built at a new facility in
Tuskegee, AL. Leonardo had originally partnered with General Dynamics and then with
Raytheon to offer the T-100.52 In February, 2017, Leonardo announced plans to enter the
competition on its own with its U.S. subsidiary DRS as the prime contractor.
49
Malenic, Maria, Lockheed Martin flies first T-50A aimed at USAF T-X competition, IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly,
June 3, 2016, at http://www.janes.com/article/60936/lockheed-martin-flies-first-t-50a-aimed-at-usaf-t-x-competition.
50
Ryall, Julian, South Korea’s T-50 clocks up 5,000 test flights, IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, November 28, 2016, at
http://www.janes.com/article/65793/south-korea-s-t-50-clocks-up-5-000-test-flights.
51
Ibid.
52
Insinna, Valeria and Mehta Aaron, Raytheon, Leonardo End partnership for T-X Trainer Program, Defense News,
January 25, 2017, http://www.defensenews.com/articles/raytheon-leonardo-end-partnership-for-t-x-trainer-program.

Figure 10. Leonardo T-100
Source: https://milaviate.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/t-100-alenia-aermacchi.jpg.
Notes: The T-100 is a variant of the Leonardo M-346. Leonardo has been previously known as Finmeccanica
and Alenia Aermacchi.
Sierra Nevada Corp.-Turkish Aerospace Industries T-X

An offering from Sierra Nevada Corp. and Turkish Aerospace Industries was announced as a late
entrant into the T-X competition. According to Aviation Week, “the two businesses have quietly
set up shop in Centennial, Colorado, as Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC, to develop a lightweight,
all-composite trainer.”53 Additional information on this offering has not been released, and the
team is not known to have submitted a bid.
Issues for Congress

DOD’s APT T-X acquisition strategy poses a number of questions for Congress, including the
following:
 Given the USAF’s position on the looming pilot shortage, the anticipated
purchase of 350 T-X aircraft, and the current fleet size of 430, what are the
minimum and optimum recapitalization levels needed? Should the number of
new aircraft increase, would a corresponding increase in GBTS be appropriate?
53
Drew, James, Sierra Nevada Corp., TAI Team To Offer Freedom Trainer For T-X, Aviation Week, December 16,
2016. http://aviationweek.com/defense/sierra-nevada-corp-tai-team-offer-freedom-trainer-t-x.

 Is there an opportunity to consolidate the USAF’s five pilot training locations

into fewer bases? Is a study warranted at this time to further consolidate pilot
training?
 Given the ramp-up in F-35A purchases, additional KC-46 lots, and development
of the B-21 bomber, what is the impact of a fourth major defense acquisition
program to the USAF budget? Should the training fleet be recapitalized sooner to
accommodate the increase in the number of fifth-generation platforms?
 What, if any, acquisition reform initiatives need to be in place to facilitate faster
procurement of the T-X?
 Should the USAF consider the selected T-X platform, with modification, as a
light-attack fighter to take advantage of the fifth-generation capabilities required
in the T-X system?
The USAF source selection process is underway. Originally scheduled to end with a contract
award in December 2017, the FY2019 budget submission projected contract award sometime in
FY2018. The FY2019 Administration budget request included $265.465million for the T-X.

Appendix A. Air Force Pilot Training

How Does the USAF Produce Pilots?
The USAF uses a deliberate, competitive process to select pilot candidates. Once chosen,
candidates undergo a lengthy academic and flight training program.
Pilot Candidate Selection

The USAF pilot selection process begins with a battery of academic and psychomotor tests;
candidates must also meet flight physical requirements and anthropometric standards. The USAF
uses a Pilot Candidate Selection Method (PCSM) tool to predict the ability of a prospective
candidate to complete pilot training. The PCSM score is a combination of performance on the
Test of Basic Aviation Skills (TBAS) and Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) and the
total number of flying hours the candidate has already accumulated from civilian flight training. A
pilot selection board, composed of senior USAF aviators, uses the PCSM score along with other
whole-person concept factors to select candidate pilots.54 According to some researchers, higher
scores on the PCSM may predict
 greater probability of successfully completing training;
 reduced flight hours needed to complete training;
 a higher class rank; and
 greater likelihood of being fighter aircraft qualified.55
The TBAS is a computerized psychomotor test to measure a candidate’s motor skills, cognitive
aptitude, and attitude toward risk. The candidate manipulates a joystick, throttle, and rudder
pedals to accomplish tasks to measure directional orientation, listening skills, horizontal tracking,
aircraft tracking, and combining all actions at once.56
The AFOQT is a standardized test similar to the Scholastic Aptitude Test. It measures applicants’
aptitudes for various officer commissioning programs and includes a specific portion dedicated to
measuring aptitude for pilot and combat systems officer career fields. Regardless of the desired
field, the AFOQT is mandatory for application for a commission in the USAF. The AFOQT has
been used for officer selection since 1957 and has been updated about every seven years.57 The
pilot composite, another test for pilot selection, measures a candidate’s knowledge of aviation and
mechanical systems, his or her ability to determine aircraft attitude from a flight instrument
graphic, his or her spatial ability and knowledge of aeronautical concepts, and his or her ability to
interpret and read tables and scales.58
54
The whole person concept considers the individual’s performance, leadership potential, breadth of experience, job
responsibility, professional competence, specific achievements, and education.
55
Carretta, Thomas, “US Air Force Pilot Selection and Training Methods,” 2000, at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/
GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430320.
56
Baseops.net, “Test of Basic Aviation Skills,” at https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/tbas.html.
57
Carretta, Thomas, “US Air Force Pilot Selection and Training Methods,” 2000, at http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/
GetTRDoc?AD=ADA430320.
58
Ibid.

Flight Training
Pilot candidates enter flight training by attending the Introductory Flight Training (IFT) course.
IFT is a civilian flight instructor-led program administered in Pueblo, CO.59 The course provides
a pilot candidate the opportunity to complete flight ground school and a 25-flight-hour screening
program. Doss Aviation administers the IFT program for the USAF. IFT prepares USAF students
to enter Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT), Undergraduate Combat Systems
Officer Training, or Undergraduate Remotely Piloted Aircraft Pilot Training. According to Doss
Aviation, the two primary objects of IFT are to
 provide the Air Force an opportunity to screen aviation candidates prior to
undergraduate flight training attendance; and
 begin the development of the student’s aviation skills in order to enhance his/her
ability to succeed in undergraduate flight training.60
Doss Aviation operates Diamond DA20-C1 aircraft (see Figure A-1) to execute the IFT program.
Figure A-1. Diamond DA20-C1

Doss Aviation IFT Aircraft
Source: http://www.dossifs.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=83.
Following IFT, student pilots attend either the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT)
program or the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) program. ENJJPT is located at
59
Baseops.net, “Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training,” at https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot.
60
Doss Aviation IFT website, “USAF Initial Flight Training,” at http://www.dossaviation.com/usaf-ift.

Sheppard AFB, Texas, and is a three-phase, 55-week training program taught by USAF and Euro-
NATO country instructor pilots. Upon graduation, the new pilots will attend follow-on training on
their assigned aircraft at various bases around the country. There are eight ENJJPT classes per
year with six-week entry/graduation cycles. Each ENJJPT class has 20-25 students.61
Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Phases62

Phase I—Academic Classes and Preflight Training:
 Aerospace Physiology and Altitude Chamber sessions
 Ejection Seat/Egress Training and Parachute Landing Falls
 Aircraft Systems Course
Phase II—Primary Aircraft Training (T-6)
 26-Week, 125-hour flight training instruction
 Basic flying skills to include contact, instruments, low-level navigation, formation (2-ship)
 Basic and Advanced Instruments Course
 Mission Planning/Navigation Course
 Aviation Weather Course
Phase III—Advanced Aircraft Training (T-38)
 26-Week, 135-hour flight training instruction
 Prepares graduates for fighter/bomber assignments
 Contact, Instruments/Navigations, Formation-Basic and advanced (2/4-ship), Low-level (1/2-ship)
 Follow-on aircraft assigned based on merit and instructor recommendation
Pilots selected to fly fighter aircraft attend the Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF) course
at Sheppard AFB, Texas. There are 15 ENJJPT IFF classes per year, and the course lasts
approximately eight weeks. Following IFF, the pilots transition to training on their assigned
aircraft at bases throughout the United States, depending on aircraft assignment. Table A-1
identifies the respective aircraft and training base.
Table A-1. Follow-on Fighter Aircraft Training Bases

Aircraft Training Base
F-15C Eagle Kingsley Field, OR

F-15E Strike Eagle Seymour Johnson AFB, NC
F-16 Fighting Falcon Luke AFB, AZ
A-10 Thunderbolt II Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ
B-52 Stratofortress Barksdale AFB, LA
B-1B Lancer Dyess AFB, TX
T-38 Talon Sheppard AFB, TX
Source: https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/enjjpt.html.
Notes: Pilots may be assigned as a First Assignment Instructor Pilot (FAIP) in the T-38. FAIPs selected for
ENJJPT will only be assigned to instruct at ENJJPT and attend Pilot Instructor Training at ENJJPT.
61
Air Education & Training Command, “Advanced Pilot Training (APT T-X) Concept of Operations,” at
62
Baseops.net, “Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training,” at https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/enjjpt.html.

SUPT is a joint USAF and USN pilot training program conducted at Vance AFB, Oklahoma, and
Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Florida. The program lasts approximately 54 weeks. Upon
graduation, the new pilots attend follow-on training in their assigned aircraft at bases throughout
the United States, known as Formal Training Units (FTUs). There are 15 SUPT courses per year
at each SUPT base. A class enters and graduates SUPT every eight weeks. SUPT classes are
typically 8-10 student pilots.63
USAF and USN students complete primary flight training on the T-6 aircraft. Some USAF
students complete their primary flight training at Columbus AFB, Mississippi, or Laughlin AFB,
Texas, flying the T-6. Following primary flight training, students assigned to the fighter/bomber
track will go on to train on the T-38, concentrating on low-level tactics, instrument procedures,
formation flying, and navigation training. Pilots selected for airlift and tanker aircraft complete
their advanced training on the T-1A at Columbus AFB, Mississippi; Laughlin AFB, Texas; or
Vance AFB, Oklahoma. Airlift and tanker pilots are introduced to crew resource management
techniques, air-to-air refueling, airdrop missions, and radar positioning and navigation.64 Students
selected to fly multi-engine turboprop aircraft train on the Navy’s T-44 or Air Force’s C-12
turboprop trainers at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas, and are introduced to C-130
training mission profiles. Very few students are selected to fly helicopters; however, their
advanced training is conducted at Fort Rucker, AL, in the UH-1 Huey. Table A-2 identifies the
respective airlift, tanker, and helicopter training bases. SUPT graduates assigned to a
fighter/bomber aircraft attend IFF at Randolph AFB, Texas, or Columbus AFB, Mississippi.
There are 12 IFF courses per year with a four-week entry/graduation cycle.65
In addition to academic classes and flight instruction, students are also required to train in aircraft
simulators to apply learned techniques and to be prepared for the cockpit. Experts agree that
simulators provide a cost-effective means of instruction to help reduce the burden and cost of
aircraft operations and maintenance. Also, simulators allow instructors to introduce a variety of
emergency conditions that pilots may confront during flight operations in a safe and controlled
environment. The emergency simulations are critical to enhance the student pilot’s awareness and
skills in preparation for encountering similar emergencies in flight.
Table A-2. Follow-on Airlift, Tanker, Helicopter, Reconnaissance Aircraft Training

Bases
Aircraft Training Base
KC-135 Stratotanker, C-17 Globemaster III Altus AFB, OK
KC-10 Extender Travis AFB, CA, and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst,
NJ
C-5 Galaxy Joint Base San Antonio, TX
C-130 Hercules Little Rock AFB, AR, and Dobbins ARB, GA
MC-130 Combat Talon, HC-130, UH-1N, HH-60 Pave Kirtland AFB, NM
Hawk, CV-22 Osprey
C-21 Keesler AFB, MS
U-28A Hurlburt Field, FL
MC-12 Meridian, MS
Source: https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot.
63
USAF Air Education & Training Command, “Advanced Pilot Training (APT T-X) Concept of Operations” at
64
Baseops.net, “Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training,” at https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot.
65
Air Education & Training Command, “Advanced Pilot Training (APT T-X) Concept of Operations,” at

Advancements in Pilot Training

A 1996 USAF research project demonstrated that advancements in aircrew training methods and
technologies allow ground-based pilot training to move beyond training procedural skills to
training wartime mission skills.66 As training resources become scarce, analysts agree that more
realistic and advanced synthetic training environments have evolved to support more complex
training requirements. One of the major advancements is the ability to link a variety of training
simulators, constructive models, and live aircraft in a wide area network to accomplish mission
training. According to USAF researchers, modeling and simulation increase scope and realism of
warfighter training at an affordable cost.67 Simulator networking allows construction of large
confederations of disparate simulators which permit multiservice and allied country joint
combined training in a variety of military mission sets. In addition, simulated combat
environments provide instructional advantages, such as avoiding range constraints like electronic
warfare restrictions and enabling real-time kill removal during an air battle.68
One major consideration in using simulators for aircrew training is spatial awareness
development. Spatial awareness is the ability to comprehend the spatial parameters of an air-
combat or flight-training mission. The challenge lies in the difficulty the pilot has mentally
visualizing a three-dimensional (3-D) environment while using two-dimensional displays.69
Technology has advanced to supply more realistic 3-D views through virtual reality, allowing
pilot trainees to experience spatial situations in a computer-generated virtual battlespace. Spatial
cognition trainers augment academic instruction by allowing the trainee to practice visualization
skills that mimic in-flight spatial problem-solving situations.70
Past aircrew training relied heavily on actual aircraft flight training to provide realistic mission
training. Aircraft training devices were used to prepare the aircrews to use limited flying hours
effectively. The increase in training requirements due to fourth- and fifth-generation71 fighter
aircraft, coupled with the high cost of flight hours, reduced both the quality and quantity of
available aircrew training.72 USAF analysts agree that the advent of distributed mission training
(DMT) and advanced distributed simulation technology can significantly improve aircrew
training. DMT allows multiplayer, multisite training scenarios from individual and team
participation to full-theater battles.73 USAF analysts believe that expanding on-demand, realistic
training opportunities will significantly improve aircrew training and help overcome limited
training resources.74 According to the USAF, the planned T-X program includes state-of-the-art
Ground-Based Training System (GBTS) requirements to take full advantage of the advancements
in pilot modeling and simulation training.75
66
Andrews, Dee H. and Carroll, Lynn A., “R&D Advances in USAF Pilot Training,” September 1996, at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235193358_RD_Advances_in_USAF_Pilot_Training.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid.
71
Fifth-generation aircraft incorporate the most modern technology and are considered to be more capable and
advanced than earlier generation aircraft.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
75
USAF Air Education & Training Command, “Advanced Pilot Training (APT T-X) Concept of Operations” at

According to a Defense Media Network article, the cost to train a USAF fighter pilot is $2.6
million and the cost to train an airlift pilot is $600,000.76 USAF analysts argue that the increased
use of simulators is a cost-saving imperative. Simulator use reduces flight-hour costs, airframe
flight hours, and maintenance. AETC commented that
current Air Force live flight/simulator training balance varies from pipeline to pipeline.
Primary training that all USAF pilots go through in the T-6 Texan II demonstrates the
current emphasis on live flight. The division between live flight and simulation events is
65 percent/35 percent. That equates to about 87 hours in the aircraft and 46 hours in the
simulator.
For the airlift/mobility pipeline where students fly the T-1 Jayhawk, the current balance is
similar, 71 percent of events occurring in the aircraft and 29 percent in the simulator.
This will shortly change, however. The USAF is working its way through a “tech refresh”
of its T-1 simulation devices, which will grow significantly in capability. With T-1 flight
training total time scheduled to drop to 130 hours, the pipeline will move toward a 60/40
percent live flight/simulator split by 2013.77 This represents 76.5 hours of aircraft time
and 53.5 hours of simulator time.
As the Air Force’s upgrade to the TH-1H Iroquois helicopter with its new engine and
glass cockpit progresses, the live flight/simulator balance for rotary-wing students will go
from 77 percent/23 percent to 74 percent/26 percent. The fighter-bomber track sees
students in the venerable T-38C Talon 71 percent of the time, comprising 96 hours, and
in the simulator 29 percent of the time or 39 hours. 78
According to AETC, all flying training programs have seen a drop in flight times of
approximately 15% and a move to integrate more simulator time. However, the USAF maintains
that although simulation is complementary to live flight across all training programs, this is not
true for new pilots. Undergraduate pilot training is biased to live flight training to ensure the
student pilot experiences enough live flight that he or she can appreciate what occurs in
simulation.79 Analysts agree that simulators can help reduce the costs of pilot training; however,
the extent of the reduction is unknown. According to financial analysts, the global flight simulator
market, both military and commercial, is expected to grow 4.5% by 2022 as a result of the need to
cut costs associated with pilot training while ensuring aviation safety.80 High-fidelity full-motion
simulators are very expensive and require energy, maintenance, and personnel to operate and
maintain. The initial cost of the system along with continuous maintenance, upgrades, and
operation costs must be considered in making comparisons to live flight operations. Analysts have
yet to define all the variables that go into calculating costs associated with simulator versus live
flight training costs.81
The Navy is also planning to progressively boost simulator fidelity to improve full-immersion
mission experience for its pilots and sensor operators. The Navy’s aviation simulation master plan
76
Tegler, Eric, “Air Force Flight Simulators May Help Cut Training Costs, Defense Media Network,” at
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/virtual-bargain/.
77
CRS was not able to confirm if the 60/40 percent live flight/simulator split was accomplished by 2013.
78
Tegler, Eric, “Air Force Flight Simulators May Help Cut Training Costs, Defense Media Network,” at
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/virtual-bargain/, p. 1.
79
Ibid.
80
EINPresswire.com, “Flight simulator market to Grow at CAGR of 4.5% According to Forecast from 2017 to 2022,” ,
April 27, 2017, at http://brazilbusiness.einnews.com/pr_news/378150197/flight-simulator-market-to-grow-at-cagr-of-4-
5-according-to-forecast-from-2017-to-2022.
81
Ibid.

for 2020 “is designed to cautiously and progressively increase the amount of cost-saving virtual
training while maintaining enough in-aircraft practice to ensure safety.”82 According to Aviation
Week reporting, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that
the Navy as of 2012 was using simulators for 18-20% of Boeing F/A-18 Hornet training,
39% of Romeo training and 41% for Sikorsky MH-60 Sierra training. The Navy uses the
Romeo primarily for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare missions, while the
Sierra is used primarily for search and rescue, medevac, utility and vertical replenishment
missions.
With upgraded MH-60 Romeo and Sierra, F/A-18E and F, and EA-18G TOFTs [Tactical
Operational Flight Trainer], however, the Navy estimates it will be able to boost the
virtual training ratio to approximately 50% for the MH-60 fleet, and more than 30% for
the F-18s by 2020. Capt. Craig Dorrans, program manager of PMA-205 at the Naval Air
Systems Command says crews for the Boeing P-8A Poseidon, the replacement for the P-
3, will probably be able to perform as much as 70% of their training in a TOFT. The P-
8A is based on the Boeing 737-800, allowing the military to leverage commercial
simulation capabilities already developed.
Training for Fire Scout pilots is already moving to 100% synthetic training. “We're
Looking at 100% simulation to train aircrew for the Fire Scout and MQ-4 Triton,”
Dorrans says. “The cockpit is already separated from the aircraft. Everything that you see
on the ground in the cockpit, you can simulate.”83
82
Croft, John, “U.S. Navy Expanding Simulator Use to Cut Costs,” December 2, 2013, at http://aviationweek.com/
awin/us-navy-expanding-simulator-use-cut-costs.
83
Ibid.

Appendix B. Prior Legislative Activity

FY2018 Funding Request
The FY2018 Administration budget request included $105.999 million for the Advanced Pilot
training program. Congress authorized the full amount in the FY2018 National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 2810).
In Division C of the FY2018 Consolidated Omnibus Appropriations Act (H.R. 1625), Congress
appropriated the Advanced Pilot Training program $86.199 million, a reduction of $19.8 million,
citing “contract award delay.”

The Administration’s proposed FY2017 defense budget requested $12.377 million in Air Force
research and development funding to continue APT T-X development and acquisition.84 Table 2
represents the USAF’s portion of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) submission
dedicated to the T-X and the $12.377 million requested budget for FY2017.
Table 2. Air Force RDT&E Budget Request FY2017

Cost ($ in millions)
Prior Cost to Total
Years FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Comp Cost
APT
0.000 8.201 10.395 12.377 105.699 263.274 272.973 277.816 670.087 1,620.822
(T-X)
Source: Air Force FY2017 Budget Materials submitted to the DOD, http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/
documents/FY17/AFD-160208-051.pdf?ver=2016-08-24-102123-043.
Notes: This represents only the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation budget. Procurement, MILCON,
and Operations & Maintenance budget requirements will start in FY2020.
FY2017 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4909/S. 2943)

The Administration’s FY2017 budget request included $12.377 million for the Advanced Pilot
Training program.
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report accompanying H.R. 4909, recommended
funding the Advanced Pilot Training program at $12.377 million, the requested level.
Senate
The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report accompanying S. 2943, recommended
funding the Advanced Pilot Training program at $4.477 million, $7.9 million below the requested
level, finding that the funds were early to need given the current contract award schedule.
84
The requested funding is found in the Air Force’s research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) account in
program element (PE) 0605223F, Advanced Pilot Training.

Final Action
The conference report accompanying H.R. 4909, as passed, recommended $7.377 million, a
reduction of $5 million from the Administration’s request, finding the funds were early to need.
FY2017 Appropriations
Division C of the FY2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 244) appropriated $7.377
million for the Advanced Pilot Training program, reducing the requested amount by $5.0 million
as “early to need.”

The Administration’s FY2016 defense budget request included $11.395 million in Air Force
research and development funding to continue APT T-X development and acquisition.85
FY2016 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735/S. 1376)

The House Armed Services Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee both
recommended funding the Advanced Pilot Training program at $11.395 million, the requested
level.
FY2016 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2685/S. 1558)

The House Appropriations Committee recommended funding the Advanced Pilot Training
program at $10.395 million, a reduction of $1 million from the Administration’s request, with no
accompanying language. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended funding the
Advanced Pilot Training program at the Administration’s request, $11.395 million.
H.Rept. 114-139 accompanying H.R. 2685 funded the Advance Pilot Training program at $10.395
million, a reduction of $1 million from the Administration’s request.
FY2015 Defense Authorization and Appropriations (H.R. 4870)

H.Rept. 113-473 and S.Rept. 113-211 accompanying H.R. 4870 funded the Advance Pilot
Training program at $8.201 million, the Administration’s requested level.86 FY2015 was the first
year of funding to execute the program.
85
The requested funding is found in the Air Force’s research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) account in
program element (PE) 0605223F, Advanced Pilot Training.
86
Ibid.

Appendix C. APT Capability Gap Summary

Task Gap Description Category
1 Basic Aircraft Control The T-38 Family of Systems (FoS) does an Lack of existing
Basic aircraft control is the ability to adequate job in basic aerobatics and basic capability; need for
operate the aircraft throughout the flight aircraft control cognitive development. The recapitalization;
envelope within the course training basic aircraft control skill sets learned in an proficiency
standards. This includes advanced handling APT configured with the T-38 FoS will not
(e.g., aerobatics, high angle-of-attack readily transfer to the 5th-generation aircraft
[AOA] flight, high-speed flight and high-G Formal Training Unit (FTU). The T-38 FoS
awareness exercises). cannot replicate the fly-by-wire aircraft feel
and other 4th- and 5th-generation
performance such as high-AOA maneuvering,
high-altitude maneuvering, and higher thrust-
to-weight ratios. The T-38C life support
systems are also not representative of 5th-
generation systems (oxygen, pressure
breathing for G, etc.).
2 Emergency Procedures From a procedural perspective, the T-38 FoS Proficiency

Emergency Procedures means the ability does an adequate job enabling this task. The
to perform emergency operating basic tenets for handling emergencies are
procedures within the course training aircraft independent: maintain aircraft
standards. control; analyze the situation and take
proper action; and land as soon as conditions
permit. Nonetheless, each aircraft has unique
procedures for dealing with emergencies.
The 5th-generation aircraft will have more
computer-controlled systems with
emergencies diagnosed and manipulated via
these computer systems. Also, the F-35 is a
single-engine aircraft. Engine out emergency
training is more challenging without an
instructor in the same aircraft.
3 Operational Availability Although the current figures are positive, the Sufficiency
Operational Availability means the ability T- 38 FoS is beginning to show its age. The
to provide systems for operational needs. increasing non-mission-capable maintenance
Operational Availability consists of three (NMCM) rate and cannibalization actions
components: reliability, maintainability, and reflect areas of concern. There are issues
supportability. with engines, airframes, landing gear, and
avionics.
Also, fuel supplies and the cost of fuel
may affect Operational Availability, as well as
the cost per flying hour.

4 Normal Procedures The T-38 FoS does an adequate job enabling Proficiency
Normal Procedures means the ability to this task. Moreover, the T-38’s high airspeed
perform normal operating procedures enhances the pilot’s cognitive decision cycle
within the course training standards development. Nonetheless, the limitations
borne from a lack of 4th- and 5th-generation
aircraft capabilities in the T-38 FoS affect
portions of this area. First-time landings in
the F-35 will be challenging.
5 Advanced Cockpit/Crew Resource The T-38 FoS lacks the necessary 4th- and Lack of existing
Management (CRM) 5th-generation aircraft systems for adequate capability; need for
Advanced CRM means the ability to Advanced CRM training. The T-38 FoS has recapitalization;
prioritize mission tasks and operate on- no radar, sensors, or data-link capability. proficiency
board sensors and systems for maximum
situational awareness and mission
effectiveness. Advanced systems include
hands-on throttle and stick (HOTAS).
6 Advanced Air-to-air (A/A) The T-38 FoS lacks the necessary Lack of existing
Advanced A/A Mission Employment means performance, cockpit visibility, avionics, and capability; need for
the ability to perform advanced A/A sensors for 4th- and 5th-generation aircraft recapitalization;
mission employment within the course familiarization training in Advanced A/A proficiency
training standards. Advanced A/A mission Mission Employment. The T-38 FoS has no
employment supports the introduction of air refueling capability.
tactical A/A mission employment
fundamentals to include tactical offensive
and defensive maneuvering as it applies to
air-to-air (e.g., Air Combat Maneuvering
[ACM], Air Combat Training [ACT])
operational combat tactics; low altitude
employment challenges and hazards (e.g.,
Low Altitude Training [LOWAT]); night
vision device employment; and air refueling
operations.
7 Support Infrastructure USAF foresees airspace and range access Sufficiency

Support Infrastructure means providing challenges. Recent examples (Luke AFB, NAS
infrastructure to support effective and Oceana, and Nellis AFB) suggest airfield
efficient training operations. This task encroachment will continue to be an issue.
includes base facilities (e.g., academic Moreover, commercial air operations may
classrooms, briefing rooms, runway, air further erode access to training airspace and
traffic control, etc.). It also includes training ranges.
training airspace and compliance with
operational environmental policies (e.g.,
noise abatement, restricted over-flight,
etc.).
8 Instruments and Navigation Although the T-38 FoS does an adequate job Lack of existing
Instruments/Navigation means the ability enabling basic Instruments/Navigation, the capability; need for
to perform instrument/navigation trend away from “radio-type” navigation to recapitalization;
procedures within the course training the National Airspace Structure use of proficiency
standards and AFMAN 11-217. Global Positioning System (GPS) and micro-
wave capabilities creates limitations. Also, the
T-38C anti-ice deficiencies and high density
altitude takeoff and landing limitations inhibit
all-weather training.

9 Formation Although the T-38C aircraft does an Lack of existing

Formation means the ability to perform adequate job enabling basic formation, it is capability; proficiency
formation flight within the course training deficient in enabling autonomous formation
standards; this supports the performance operations. These operations include night,
of two-/four-ship operations from briefing all-weather, and beyond-visual-range
to debriefing as a wingman and lead. formation activities. The T-38 FoS lacks
lighting, radar, data-link, and Night Vision
Goggle (NVG) systems.
Also, the T-38 simulators lack the visual
clarity necessary to enhance advanced
formation activities.
10 Basic Air-to-Air (A/A) Although the T-38 FoS does a reasonable job Lack of existing
Basic A/A Mission Employment means the enabling BFM skills development using classic capability; need for
ability to perform basic A/A mission offensive and defensive maneuvers, the lack recapitalization;
employment within the course training of sustained high-G capability and 5th- proficiency
standards. Basic A/A mission employment generation fly-by-wire and computer-aided
supports the introduction of basic A/A maneuvering capabilities limits the T-38 FoS
mission employment fundamentals to BFM relevance and applicability in
include basic offensive and defensive comparison to 5th-generation aircraft. Also,
maneuvering (e.g., Basic Fighter Maneuvers the T-38 FoS lack of sensors, data-link, and
[BFM], sustained high-G maneuvering), as automation constrains the development of
well as low-altitude navigation this task.
environment challenges and hazards (e.g.,
Low Altitude Step Down Training
[LASDT]).
11 Advanced Air-to-Ground (A/G) The T-38 FoS lacks the necessary Lack of existing
Advanced A/G Mission Employment is the performance, avionics and sensors for 4th- capability; need for
ability to perform advanced A/G mission and 5th-generation aircraft familiarization recapitalization;
employment within the course training training in Advanced A/G Mission proficiency
standards. Advanced A/G mission Employment. The T-38 FoS has no capability
employment supports the introduction of to enable training with advanced weapons
tactical A/G mission employment such as J-series, laser guided, and data-link
fundamentals to include A/G (e.g., Surface versions.
Attack [SAT], Close Air Support [CAS])
operational combat tactics; low altitude
employment challenges; and hazards and
night vision device employment.
12 Pilot Throughput Although the definition states Pilot Lack of existing capability
Pilot Throughput means the ability to Throughput is independent of the T-38 FoS
provide the capacity to graduate capabilities, the analysis team wanted to
Headquarters USAF-tasked numbers of capture Cockpit Anthropometric
pilots on-time. Pilot throughput is a force Accommodation. The T-38 aircraft limits the
structure issue independent of the FoS’s population of potential pilots.
capabilities. The objective is to graduate a
sufficient number of pilots at a rate
adequate to meet USAF FTU pipeline
requirements as well as ensuring adequate
pilot production is maintained to sustain
operational unit requirements.
Source: United States Air Force Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems Analysis of Alternatives Update Final
Report, 21 August 2014, Version 3.0. Document is For Official Use Only and not available via electronic media.
Requests for source document copy must be referred to AETC/A5RX, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, 78148.

Appendix D. System Specification for the Advanced

Pilot Training Program Aircraft System
Source: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=646b86a7bd46af87a7fc69de9ed306fc.

Author Contact Information
Jeremiah Gertler
Specialist in Military Aviation
[email protected], 7-5107

T-X Program R44856

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

T-X Program R44856

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T-X Program R44856

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Pilot Training (T-X) Program:

Background and Issues for Congress

May 21, 2018

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Figure A-1. Diamond DA20-C1 .................................................................................................... 19

Table A-1. Follow-on Fighter Aircraft Training Bases .................................................................. 20

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Research Service

Roles and Missions

Current USAF Trainer Fleet

Table 1. AETC Main Trainer Fleet

Numbers of Aircraft 178 444 430 1,049

Source: HQ AETC/A5RX Email dated December 6, 2016.

Congressional Research Service 1

Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS)

Figure 1.T-6A Texan II

Congressional Research Service 2

Figure 2.T-1A Jayhawk

Congressional Research Service 3

Congressional Research Service 4

Figure 3. PACER CLASSIC III Program

Figure 4.T-38C Talon

Congressional Research Service 5

Advanced Pilot Training (APT T-X) Program Basics

What Are Capability Requirement Documents?

Congressional Research Service 6

Trainer Aircraft System Requirements

Congressional Research Service 8

Ground-Based Training System Requirements

Congressional Research Service 9

Congressional Research Service 10

support of transitioning to a government organic supply chain management and maintenance

Source Selection Evaluation Plan

Congressional Research Service 11

Figure 6. APT Source Selection Strategy

Congressional Research Service 12

Figure 7. Boeing-Saab T-X

Congressional Research Service 13

Northrop Grumman-BAE-L-3 Model 400

Figure 8. Northrop Grumman/BAE/L-3 T-X Prototype

Congressional Research Service 14

Lockheed Martin-Korean Aerospace Industries T-50A

Figure 9. Lockheed Martin-KAI T-50A

Source: Lockheed Martin from Janes Defence Weekly article.

Congressional Research Service 15

Figure 10. Leonardo T-100

Sierra Nevada Corp.-Turkish Aerospace Industries T-X

Issues for Congress

Congressional Research Service 16

 Is there an opportunity to consolidate the USAF’s five pilot training locations

Congressional Research Service 17

Appendix A. Air Force Pilot Training

Pilot Candidate Selection

Congressional Research Service 18

Figure A-1. Diamond DA20-C1

Congressional Research Service 19

Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Phases62

Table A-1. Follow-on Fighter Aircraft Training Bases