Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
flynhigh

Future T-38 replacement?

Recommended Posts

Nah, proper engine out procedures/emergency handling can be learned at FTU where it's cheaper right?  And why do we need this new aircraft anyways?  Pilot Training Next showed that you can just do VR and a T-6. /sarcasm

Share this post


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

Nah, proper engine out procedures/emergency handling can be learned at FTU where it's cheaper right?  And why do we need this new aircraft anyways?  Pilot Training Next showed that you can just do VR and a T-6. /sarcasm

You certainly do live up to your name, don’t you?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Standby said:

You certainly do live up to your name, don’t you?

Did I not layer the sarcasm on think enough for you?

I'm actually very excited the AF is finally replacing the -38, and also very curious to watch its development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, YoungnDumb said:

$10 says it's IOC is closer to 10 years, any takers?

Does it generally take as long to field for less complex aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love that we put all of our eggs in one basket time after time. T-6 for both Navy & AF, F-35 for everyone, T-X for all advanced/IFF training. There’s something to be said for diversification of equipment, and I wish we could buy more than one advanced trainer. That way OBOGS or maintenance issues don’t wind up grounding the entire trainer fleet and halting pilot production.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be refreshing to see this program stick to a timeline and not incur years long delays aka KC-46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
It would be refreshing to see this program stick to a timeline and not incur years long delays aka KC-46

It’s Boeing, so good luck with that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T-50 or T-X, all the same MIC-laden potato, same engine even. I'm just glad they got it on the board. . I'll still be in by IOC so def look forward to flying it. We need to retire the 38 right yesterday

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

I just love that we put all of our eggs in one basket time after time. T-6 for both Navy & AF, F-35 for everyone, T-X for all advanced/IFF training. There’s something to be said for diversification of equipment, and I wish we could buy more than one advanced trainer. That way OBOGS or maintenance issues don’t wind up grounding the entire trainer fleet and halting pilot production.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop using common sense and lessons learned over the history of military aviation.

Was surprised by Boeing / SAAB's win, seemed LM / KAI had the lowest risk option (jet with years of flying vs. new kid on the block) and from the released propaganda, pretty much all the bases covered for the requirements for T-X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually disagree with those looking for fleet diversity. It simplifies your maintenance a ton and reduces the end cost in hours and $$. Reference the Navy when they had A-7, A-6, F-14, S-3, E-2, F-18 and helos on the carriers. All but the Hornets and the E-2 are now gone with the only real loss in capability the F-14 Phoenix and S-3 ASW. The reinvestment allowed for newer Super Hornets and Growlers and reduced the MX hours per flight hour fleet wide. I’ll admit, a bit of an apples to oranges comparison but I think that’s a great example of consistency in MDS vice diversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually disagree with those looking for fleet diversity. It simplifies your maintenance a ton and reduces the end cost in hours and $$. Reference the Navy when they had A-7, A-6, F-14, S-3, E-2, F-18 and helos on the carriers. All but the Hornets and the E-2 are now gone with the only real loss in capability the F-14 Phoenix and S-3 ASW. The reinvestment allowed for newer Super Hornets and Growlers and reduced the MX hours per flight hour fleet wide. I’ll admit, a bit of an apples to oranges comparison but I think that’s a great example of consistency in MDS vice diversity.

All true but a mono fleet also leads to a mono industrial base - fewer companies fewer innovative/different solutions to missions.

We have to distribute contracts to give us more options than Big B or Lockmart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Anybody know what the name of the new TX is going to be .T-8? T-11?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting write up from Tyler Rogoway on Boeing's T-X win:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23898/boeings-t-x-win-is-really-much-bigger-than-just-building-a-replacement-for-the-t-38

He speculates on aggressor, light fighter and a naval variant.  All possible I assume in later contracts but referencing my earlier two cents (on arguing for buying from different vendors occasionally as it promotes a health industrial base IMHO), I would still argue not for a one airplane to do it all plan...

If I ran the USAF and could appropriate money VFR direct for acquisition:

T-X for advanced trainer, eliminate T-1 and buy more T-X.  IFF in T-X and a multi-engine trainer for UPT grads going to heavies (an "IFF" post grad course to cover crew concept, AR, NVG LL, T/O, Landing, short field landings), probably a C-12 or CJ4 with an NVG flight deck, UARRSI and hard points for pods to allow threat replication for an additional mission in some specialized dets at some fighter bases (as Cobham does for the RAF with Falcon jets).  0.69% chance of that happening.

T-50 for aggressor & light fighter (allocate to ARC units tasked with ACA/ASA mission).  1.69% chance of that happening.

Edited by Clark Griswold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

T-X for advanced trainer, eliminate T-1 and buy more T-X.  

 

Why do you think the original proposal was for 350 T-X and now there is a contract for 475 total?  Convenient that 125 was the magical number to replace all T-1s with T-X and return to GUPT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

He speculates on aggressor, light fighter and a naval variant.  

This. 

Just finished a book about the 6-day war, Israel armed up their Fouga Magister training jets and had retirees and airline pilots in flying 'em blowing up arab tanks. Talk about being war fighters, we should* in a perfect world be able to arm up everything, not just as a "Hey you Canada, don't even think about it" but also I think it could aid in retention/morale.

Sucks as an 11F that you're at UPT/IFF and not in the CAF, but once or twice a month we'll arm you up and send you to the range with your bros, screw NDBS and FEDS, drop some bombs, shoot some rockets, fire a gun pod, maybe have a stud sandbag, fire them up too. Refocus UPT on the job of killing people and breaking their shit. And also if the mounties press south, we have more armed stuff to kill their moose IEDs or whatever. 

Pipe dream over. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...