What do you guys think?  

I think we should buy the Korean trainer or the T-45.

Baby Superhornet.  

Still a good looking jet.

6 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

I think we should buy the Korean trainer or the T-45.

Especially since it's already flight tested minus the AR receptacle

2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

I think we should buy the Korean trainer or the T-45.

Nah - let's get a Russian mail order ride

Fwd swept wing trainer SR 10

https://theaviationist.com/2016/01/02/new-russian-fsw-trainer-makes-first-flight/

Edited September 14, 20169 yr by Clark Griswold
minor fix

Looks wise: T-X-decent, T50A-baby fighting falcon and T-100-baby hornet. Hopefully the AF doesn't give when it comes to capes just to save a buck. Curious to see a side by side comparison of each of the 4 competitors. 

Looks a lot like the Textron Scorpion.  

Another close up.  

Haven't heard it mentioned as a requirement or idea for the T-X program but has it been discussed (informally) to have an "Adversary Model" or options/features baked in for that training mission?

 

Current brief (as of a few months ago) stated that this is EXCLUSIVELY a UPT/IFF T-38 replacement.  There is no current plan to replace ADAIR, CPPT, or other T-38 roles.  This of course may have already changed, but they're not planning a big buy on this airplane for now.

 

And jesus tapdancing christ in a birchbark canoe.... what idiot decided to paint it camouflaged?  Was it the same idiot who decided to paint the current T-38s camouflaged?  They deserve to get their pecker kicked in.

Hmm. Doesn't look like forward visibility from the rear is any better.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

I'd fly that.

46 minutes ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

what idiot decided to paint it camouflaged?  Was it the same idiot who decided to paint the current T-38s camouflaged?  They deserve to get their pecker kicked in.

Why do you say that?

3 hours ago, Vito said:

What do you guys think?  

I think Boeing is going to win, if only to keep their St Louis plant open.

52 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Why do you say that?

Because it is impossible to clear for friggin T-38s.  I get it "hurt durr fighter pilot" but the T-38 is not a fighter.  It's a trainer flown by students who have no idea where they are, where they're going or what they're doing.  When you congest the airspace with dozens of students in similar states of mental dysfunction it would be nice to at least be able to SEE the other airplanes.

4 minutes ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

Because it is impossible to clear for friggin T-38s.  I get it "hurt durr fighter pilot" but the T-38 is not a fighter.  It's a trainer flown by students who have no idea where they are, where they're going or what they're doing.  When you congest the airspace with dozens of students in similar states of mental dysfunction it would be nice to at least be able to SEE the other airplanes.

So, something more like this?

2 hours ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

Current brief (as of a few months ago) stated that this is EXCLUSIVELY a UPT/IFF T-38 replacement.  There is no current plan to replace ADAIR, CPPT, or other T-38 roles.  

How about for the Thunderbirds?

6 hours ago, matmacwc said:

I think we should buy... ... the T-45.

Whoa!

Are you a drug addict? 

I've heard good things about the AM T-346. Could fill adv trainer into an armed version for light attack like the Israelis did with it.

But who we kidding. Our inept leadership and system will ensure we get the most costly, best looking if only moderately capable trainer 10yrs from now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

  "Are You A drug addict"

 

I agree,  I got to fly a T-45 sim two years ago and was not impressed.  

Edited September 14, 20169 yr by Vito

9 hours ago, HU&W said:

So, something more like this?

 

The 'ole white rocket paint job would be a nice improvement-- or something along the lines of what the T-6 has.  I think that paint job looks professional and military without being a hazard in a congested student training environment.  Or-- say what you will about the Navy, but they know what color to paint trainers.

 

8 hours ago, F16Deuce said:

How about for the Thunderbirds?

No mention of that.  Brief I got was an AETC centric one.  They briefly addressed the other T-38 functions, but the scope was limited beyond that.  The Thunderbirds haven't flown the T-38 in decades, and I don't think the F-16 is going anywhere any time soon (CAF or T-birds).  No good reason to program what is likely to be a VERY limited number of tails to fill slots in a flying show choir.  

9 hours ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

Because it is impossible to clear for friggin T-38s.  I get it "hurt durr fighter pilot" but the T-38 is not a fighter.  It's a trainer flown by students who have no idea where they are, where they're going or what they're doing.  When you congest the airspace with dozens of students in similar states of mental dysfunction it would be nice to at least be able to SEE the other airplanes.

No it's not.

9 hours ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

Because it is impossible to clear for friggin T-38s.  I get it "hurt durr fighter pilot" but the T-38 is not a fighter.  It's a trainer flown by students who have no idea where they are, where they're going or what they're doing.  When you congest the airspace with dozens of students in similar states of mental dysfunction it would be nice to at least be able to SEE the other airplanes.

I agree, of course Rookie I only have 800 hours IP in type and 20/20, you?

Loved watching cross turns when 2 was tight on lead... Well... Here we go again...


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

3 hours ago, matmacwc said:

I agree, of course Rookie I only have 800 hours IP in type and 20/20, you?

Personal opinion.

So, something more like this?

There's a reason we paint all our TH helos Orange and White. Even then it's still like talking to retards some days trying to get a guy to spot traffic.