Jump to content
Baseops Forums
Sign in to follow this  
flynhigh

Future T-38 replacement?

Recommended Posts

Advertised empty weight of 7000 lbs, mto 12000 lbs. Mil thrust 11000 and max thrust 17000.

 

Should be a fun plane to fly!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

What book?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


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


What book?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

image.png.f5fc285b20beb4a278498794c62bf2d6.png

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the obsession with clamshell canopies? Well at least we’ll have continuity with the T-6 for a canopy that’s finicky to close and a CFS that will melt your face if it goes off...but hey just leave it pinned right.

81CDC092-3C74-4ED1-AA74-39F8916FDDC9.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What is the obsession with clamshell canopies? Well at least we’ll have continuity with the T-6 for a canopy that’s finicky to close and a CFS that will melt your face if it goes off...but hey just leave it pinned right.

81CDC092-3C74-4ED1-AA74-39F8916FDDC9.jpeg

Makes it easier for mx to swap seats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 12:11 PM, Danger41 said:

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. 

I love the Hornet more than most, but having a deck full of a single TMS (MDS for you AF types) limits capabilities fairly significantly, even as flexible of a strike-fighter as the F/A-18 is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

I love the Hornet more than most, but having a deck full of a single TMS (MDS for you AF types) limits capabilities fairly significantly, even as flexible of a strike-fighter as the F/A-18 is.

Concur.  Plus the fact that range took a huge step back once the Hornet (baby or Super) hit the flight deck.  I'll just end my comments now to avoid emotion or spillage on this topic.

ATIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You have to assume the clamshell canopy just hinges on one side without a motor to open and close it, if that’s correct,  you’d save a lot of weight and Mx issues by eliminating the motor and heavy struts that a normal opening canopy requires.  Is the T-6 canopy motorized or is it manually operated. I know the -38 was a manual system, never flew a T-6.  The  TX canopy is huge and it looks damn heavy for a manual operation, even with struts helping out.

Edited by Vito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vito said:

 You have to assume the clamshell canopy just hinges on one side without a motor to open and close it, if that’s correct,  you’d save a lot of weight and Mx issues by eliminating the motor and heavy struts that a normal opening canopy requires.  Is the T-6 canopy motorized or is it manually operated. I know the -38 was a manual system, never flew a T-6.  The  TX canopy is huge and it looks damn heavy for a manual operation, even with struts helping out.

T6 is manually operated. I don't recall it being terribly difficult to open solo. The biggest PIA with it was the hooks not latching properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What he said, the T-6 canopy was never an issue except the stupid hooks.  If I recall correctly it weighed in the vicinity of 400lbs, never had anyone struggle to open it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys all realize the first post in this thread was like 14 years ago?  We are at least 3 lawsuits and 4 government shutdowns away from the first piece of sheet metal being stamped out.  Shit gonna change 

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, matmacwc said:

You guys all realize the first post in this thread was like 14 years ago?  We are at least 3 lawsuits and 4 government shutdowns away from the first piece of sheet metal being stamped out.  Shit gonna change 

Marines will add VTOL before it's over and then it won't be able to fly within 35 miles of a thunderstorm.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2018 at 9:13 PM, LitzJ said:

I have some analysis here

 

Fig1.thumb.JPG.f0a8d718026eea2f475ed3d62e957005.JPGFig2.thumb.JPG.265c103616291172203e79294ae1db6a.JPGFig3.thumb.JPG.bc1f390ee10613acc593dee1967bbdfe.JPG

I like it tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scooter14 said:

Is that an air refueling receptacle on top?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes


I deserved that answer for that stupid question.

Follow on stupid questions...

Why does it have an AR receptacle? Is there actually a UARRSI installed?

Is there a light attack version planned?

Will these double as a light attack plane like the Alpha Jet?

They aren’t planning on adding actual AR into the UPT syllabus...are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scooter14 said:

 


I deserved that answer for that stupid question.

Follow on stupid questions...

Why does it have an AR receptacle? Is there actually a UARRSI installed?

Is there a light attack version planned?

Will these double as a light attack plane like the Alpha Jet?

They aren’t planning on adding actual AR into the UPT syllabus...are they?

 

I was just being matter of fact, no slight.  It will have actual onload capes from what I remember reading, and the AR would be in IFF. Or IFF-Next, whatever we have in 6-9 years. 

 

Corrections from those with real knowledge welcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just being matter of fact, no slight.  It will have actual onload capes from what I remember reading, and the AR would be in IFF. Or IFF-Next, whatever we have in 6-9 years. 
 
Corrections from those with real knowledge welcome. 


Hopefully someone bothered to look at the feasibility of adding AR requirements to IFF. I hear our tanker force is quite robust with lots of availability on their hands.
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have guys who get to the CAF that never tanked in the B-course and it works out fine. I'm not sure why they would waste time teaching it in IFF.

Having the option to AR would be awesome though for all the other gigs we are currently using T-38s for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just being matter of fact, no slight.  


No offense taken.

I’m a tanker instructor pilot that asked if that was an AR receptacle. That’s about as dumb as it gets.

Champ, oh yeah plenty of tankers. We aren’t busy at all, the KC-46 is way ahead of schedule, the UPT timelines are being exceeded and the IFF bases are all really close to tanker bases.

Let’s add more to the syllabus. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the AAR was supposed to be added in IFF with the T-X, mainly because they didn't want the first time a new F-22 or F-35 wingman to do AAR be solo.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have guys who get to the CAF that never tanked in the B-course and it works out fine. I'm not sure why they would waste time teaching it in IFF.
Having the option to AR would be awesome though for all the other gigs we are currently using T-38s for.


As for AR in IFF, wouldn’t you want to fight tank fight or do you need the break between sorties for debrief?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scooter14 said:


Champ, oh yeah plenty of tankers. We aren’t busy at all, the KC-46 is way ahead of schedule, the UPT timelines are being exceeded and the IFF bases are all really close to tanker bases.

Let’s add more to the syllabus. What could possibly go wrong?
 

 

Don’t forget about those 14 new Tanker squadrons. Since the -46 works great and is ready now there’s gonna be plenty of AR for everyone! If you increase the squadrons the manning will follow. Problem solved.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/09/17/air-force-calls-for-74-more-squadrons-to-prepare-for-possibility-of-war-against-major-power/

 

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...