Warbird Information Exchange

And I'll agree that it's a shocker of a letter written in appaling bureaucratese.

I am only in my 20s but someday I will fly it at airshows. I am getting rich really fast writing software and so I can afford to do really stupid things like put all my money into warbirds.

Unfortunately, that's pretty typical of a lot of USAF written communication.

You can buy B-57's and F-111s ? Wow

I wonder about the other aircraft, T-28, P-51, etc?

Why were these relative few singled out. There are many more T-28's than F-4's or even O-2's out there, the same with the B-57.

The typo theory is a good one too.

Got to think like a grade 38 bureaucrat.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/ind ... crats-song

I wonder if the Collings Foundation got one of these letters because of the F-4 they operate. Doesn't the California Forestry Dept. operate some OV-10s or is that the US Forestry service? There is some USAF operation that uses a C-47 ( I think it is a Basler turboprop conversion) but why would they send the letter to themselves? I saw the NASA WB-57 in MA a few years ago.

The 508th Aerospace Sustainment Wing provides sustainment of existing systems as well as the acquisition of new and improved airpower capabilities. It serves all U.S. military services, civil agencies and multiple foreign countries. Support includes acquisition, modifications, modernization, engineering and technical, as well as maintenance, repair and planning. The ASW team directs, plans and manages the interface between domestic and foreign customers throughout the world. Programs include the F-16 Fighting Falcon, A-10 Thunderbolt II, T-37 Tweet, T-38 Talon, aerial targets, multiple mature and proven aircraft and training devices for nearly all aircraft in the Air Force inventory, as well as trainers for space systems control and air traffic control towers. The wing includes sustainment planning and preparation for the F/A-22 and F-35 aircraft.

The 508th Fighter Sustainment Group is the sustainment arm of the F-16 System Program Office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. The directorate provides a unified direction for F-16 production, sustainment, engineering and manufacturing development, modification and worldwide deployment for more than 3,900 F-16 A, B, C and D aircraft in various configurations for units of the combat air forces of the U.S. and 18 foreign nations. This includes extensive foreign co-production and is among the most complex acquisition program in the Department of Defense. In addition, the group coordinates with product group managers and materiel group managers across the command to ensure the F-16 weapon system is operationally sustainable in peace and war.

The 508th Mature Aircraft and Simulator Sustainment Group is responsible for the acquisition of new and improved capabilities as well as sustainment for 36 different aircraft weapon systems. Assigned management responsibility includes acquisition, modification, engineering, technical support, maintenance and repair. The group directs, plans and manages the interface between the directorate and domestic and foreign customers.

Mature aircraft are those systems that are out of production but still active in the Air Force inventory. These aircraft are the A-10, T-37 and T-38. Proven aircraft are those systems that are out of production and not in the active Air Force inventory. They are primarily flown by foreign countries or US agencies. Among proven aircraft are the F-4, F-5, C-47 and others.

.

Its a poorly drafted letter from any point of view - "Proven Aircraft (PA) are defined as aircraft that were formerly, or never, in the USAF active operational inventory."

Through the power of google comes:





It seems that the USAF has a "Mature and Proven Aircraft Directorate" which manages all mature and proven aircraft for the Air Force, several foreign countries, and U.S. federal agencies.

Obviously those US Federal agencies are the "domestic" owners, and this letter is to ensure remind that only those who have active MoU's or contracts with the USAF are covered under this arrangement, and if no MoU exists the agency must undertake its own certification and operational safety management.

You could imagine that if a type is out of production and no longer in the active USAF inventory, that the USAF would cease investing in a SPM program "unless" someone else was footing the bill through an "MoU"?

Although the letter does say "never", I am confident its a typo for "ever", as "never" would open up all types of legal interpretations and catch many types of little relevence to USAF operational responsibilities or SPM programs?, in fact based on the definition above that "Proven" relates to types no longer in the active inventory the letter may have intended to say b]"Proven Aircraft (PA) are defined as aircraft "types" that were formerly, but are no longer, in the USAF active operational inventory."[/b]

On that basis it is probably technically applicable to P-40, P-51 & B-17 owners even though not specifically mentioned or the true target, in that unless you have an MoU with them, the USAF is not responsible for supporting your certification, and operational safety management, regardless of any aircraft's former use in the USAF active operational inventory.

I suspect the USAF is withdrawing effort and support for types no longer in its active inventory, and simply covering its exposure or implied obligations to other government agencies still operating those types.

regards

Mark Pilkington

Or the "never" in the USAF inventory aircraft could be those of the same type as operated by the USAF, but were sold direct to another country, without having been in the USAF inventory, i.e., sold new directly from the manufacturer, not surplus.