Jump to content
Baseops Forums
flynhigh

Future T-38 replacement?

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Couldn’t there be a training mode for the 5th gens to treat a 4th gen ADAIR as a 5th gen opponent?

 

Not a perfect solution but thru software achieve low RCS, low EMCON opponents 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By combining "live" and "constructive" training I think you'd be able to combine 5th gen adversary support constructively by mating that to the TX 4th gen platform, then gain the live training with the actual platform once you get WVR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, icohftb said:

What do you expect, a fleet of Flankers?

What is contract red air currently flying that's mo betta than a TX airframe wise? 

With an EA pod and a purple net type training mode it would be pretty useful to augment a few real 5th gen aircraft operating as red air.

For starters, Draken's L-159 is better than a Viper in a few ways (and way better than a T-X).  At a very basic level, an ADAIR jet without a good radar has limited effectiveness.  ADAIR companies are already putting together 4th gen fighters with radar, datalink, EA suites.  They will do it cheaper/more effective than the government could ever dream to do. Again, I think the government itself will be very limited in providing good ADAIR support until the LVC concept is actually useful (and that's a long time from now).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By combining "live" and "constructive" training I think you'd be able to combine 5th gen adversary support constructively by mating that to the TX 4th gen platform, then gain the live training with the actual platform once you get WVR.

Copy that

Another reason why I was surprised LM/KAI didn’t win as from their propaganda they demonstrated LVC and as they make the only two 5th gens currently flown by the USAF, integrating 5th gen Training threat/capes emulation for a potential ADAIR version for their offering seemed like another reason to go with them

 

Easiest as they own the systems the AF would likely want to integrate new tng capes into

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of Advanced Trainers...

Aeralis (UK aerospace startup) is proposing a modular training system concept:

https://aeralis.com/

http://aviationweek.com/military-trainers-light-attack/aeralis-envisions-new-british-jet-trainer

aeralis-header-1080x675.jpg

Basic, Advanced and Aero Team variants based off one airframe, one or two engines customers choice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s see...

UK aerospace startup...

Proposing a concept...

Hmmm....

I’m sure Boeing isn’t sweating this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

Let’s see...

UK aerospace startup...

Proposing a concept...

Hmmm....

I’m sure Boeing isn’t sweating this.

Not saying they are just interesting concept related to the thread subject.  

The most interesting idea of this (IMHO) is the modular approach to the family of aircraft offered, airframe/engines/avionics are all selectable to try to specialize for roles while simultaneously minimizing operational/logistics costs by specifically designing the concept to have 85% parts commonality among the variants.  If they can deliver this feature (unlike what the F-35 program promised but didn't), they could chop those life cycle operational costs, money talks.

It's not a bad sales pitch:  Fly several of your basic missions/functions with one base model aircraft and customize those tails as you want for your primary trainer, advanced trainer, aggressor and demo teams.  Save money on logistics and buying only what you need for each of those tails for their missions.

It is an interesting idea but I'm realistic/jaded; unless a lot of investors put up a ton of money then several nations agree to a serious purchase, this will remain vaporware.  Probably..

 

Edited by Clark Griswold
wordsmithing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sales pitch does not matter. Efficiency does not matter. This would make less money for the top defense contractors therefore it is not viable.

I worked in simulator research for a while when we created the first high fidelity simulator based on commercial off-the-shelf parts. We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants. We created ours from scratch, in one year using active duty labor. Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M. We were ordered to cease and desist. A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skibum said:

The sales pitch does not matter. Efficiency does not matter. This would make less money for the top defense contractors therefore it is not viable.

I worked in simulator research for a while when we created the first high fidelity simulator based on commercial off-the-shelf parts. We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants. We created ours from scratch, in one year using active duty labor. Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M. We were ordered to cease and desist. A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense.

^this

it rubs many the wrong way but realize all this is tied together. The DoD, the economy, defense manufactures, contractors. It’s all part of the same effort in the end. It doesn’t always make sense and certainly isn’t built/intended to be the most efficient. As crazy as it seems on the surface the SESs you spoke of are right. Doing something that could potentially hurt Lockheed isnt smart. It’s all tied together. It isn’t just the military alone that makes up the defense strategy. If ever we’re in a near-peer war the country would need not only the military but the entire defense industry functioning at its highest level. Defending the country means keeping that industry, in addition to the military, as strong as possible. The unfortunate part is it certainly creates a degree of waste and inefficiency in the meantime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skibum said:

We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants.  Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M.  A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense.

 

9 minutes ago, MooseClub said:

If ever we’re in a near-peer war the country would need not only the military but the entire defense industry functioning at its highest level. Defending the country means keeping that industry, in addition to the military, as strong as possible. The unfortunate part is it certainly creates a degree of waste and inefficiency in the meantime

"A degree of waste and inefficiency" is one thing.  Paying Lockheed ~$45M for a capability than can be had for ~$1M isn't "a degree of waste and inefficiency."  It's fraud, and it's obscene.

If we were actually concerned about keeping the defense-industrial base healthy, we'd be deploying those $1M sims, and using the $44M of savings on other things.  What military capabilities could we have added with that extra money?  How could we have expanded our industrial base, instead of just feeding the bloat at a few behemoths (Lockheed, Boeing, etc)?

If we're really concerned about keeping the defense industrial base healthy for a near-peer war, we would be a lot better off spreading the money around to different, smaller companies, rather than shoveling it all into Lockheed's cash furnace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue said:

 

"A degree of waste and inefficiency" is one thing.  Paying Lockheed ~$45M for a capability than can be had for ~$1M isn't "a degree of waste and inefficiency."  It's fraud, and it's obscene.

If we were actually concerned about keeping the defense-industrial base healthy, we'd be deploying those $1M sims, and using the $44M of savings on other things.  What military capabilities could we have added with that extra money?  How could we have expanded our industrial base, instead of just feeding the bloat at a few behemoths (Lockheed, Boeing, etc)?

If we're really concerned about keeping the defense industrial base healthy for a near-peer war, we would be a lot better off spreading the money around to different, smaller companies, rather than shoveling it all into Lockheed's cash furnace.

I hear you and don’t disagree. But the arguement is the model has worked for a long time. Not saying it’s perfect or right. Bottom line is keeping those “behemoths” strong has worked for the country since WWII. When things work in national defense for that long nobody in a position to change things is going to be quick to change the model

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MooseClub said:

I hear you and don’t disagree. But the arguement is the model has worked for a long time. Not saying it’s perfect or right. Bottom line is keeping those “behemoths” strong has worked for the country since WWII. When things work in national defense for that long nobody in a position to change things is going to be quick to change the model

The "model" changed with the so-called "peace dividend" of the 90's, and the associated waves of consolidation in the defense industry.  Whereas previously you had many realistic competitors for any contract, post-90's you're down to just 2-3 companies competing for any business.  This lack of competition stifles innovation, and drives up costs.  Hence $45M for a capability that could realistically be accomplished for a fraction of that cost.  

It'll never be perfect, and we'll never have a defense-industrial base that's free of all waste and inefficiency.  However today, we have a monster that consumes more and more treasure, while producing less and less for the national defense.

consolidation-chart1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, skibum said:

The sales pitch does not matter. Efficiency does not matter. This would make less money for the top defense contractors therefore it is not viable.

I worked in simulator research for a while when we created the first high fidelity simulator based on commercial off-the-shelf parts. We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants. We created ours from scratch, in one year using active duty labor. Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M. We were ordered to cease and desist. A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense.

You've got a point but mainly for the US Defense Establishment, our Allies are far more price conscious than we are. Paradoxically though they have mission systems that have a second role as jobs programs too, particularly with the Euros, no slight at them just an observation.

This modular system to a light jet(s) fleet might attract buyers from nations with little to no margin for pork.

Good anecdote and I see the point relayed to you by the SESs, defense contractors are subsidized in a non-acknowledged but open secret way with some validity to it.  The problem is that it has the second order effects of entitlement and complacency that keeps the industrial base alive but not healthy and innovative necessarily. 

IDK, I've had this discussion or ones like it over my career at various places and vantage points, now with a little perspective as I approach Old Fart status I think keeping the Industrial Base engaged and the AF adaptive and not stagnant we would do better to buy less "Silver Bullet" type platforms that are once in a generation or two purchases.  Diversify the portfolio with higher numbers of modest systems to compliment the high end, we say we do this (Hi Lo mix) but it just doesn't seem to actually work out that way.  

Strategically staggering purchases for the USAF, USN, USMC, USA, etc... could be a method to keep a steady stream of contracts but that's not the trend of the last 20 years or so.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, skibum said:

The sales pitch does not matter. Efficiency does not matter. This would make less money for the top defense contractors therefore it is not viable.

I worked in simulator research for a while when we created the first high fidelity simulator based on commercial off-the-shelf parts. We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants. We created ours from scratch, in one year using active duty labor. Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M. We were ordered to cease and desist. A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense.

My favorite part of this story is how the SES crowd waited a year/$1M to tell y’all to stop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea what the next “T” designation will be for the new TX?  T-8; T-9????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×