September 19, 20169 yr 2 hours ago, Sprkt69 said: Go with reason I thought that being able to go supersonic was one of the original requirements for the T-X?
September 19, 20169 yr 6 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: What's the max speed on a T-45? If it's not supersonic then forget it. 4 hours ago, Sprkt69 said: Go with reason T-38 is a supersonic advanced trainer, so I made the leap that T-X would have to be supersonic as well. But going back through the T-X requirements matrix, speed is not even mentioned. The closest thing I can find is: "25. Maneuverability - flight characteristics - Remain in controlled flight while conducting all APT syllabus maneuvers." Are there any supersonic maneuvers in the APT syllabus? If not, then I stand corrected and a transonic jet fits the bill.
September 19, 20169 yr Back when I was a 38 IP (ages ago) there was only one flight where supersonic flight was intentionally flown and that was more a "wow" event and "been there, done that". Very little training value in watching the mach indicator tick over 1.0.
September 19, 20169 yr They have taken that flight out of the syllabus a long time ago. It's still in the ENJJPT syllabus, but it's a completely worthless ride.Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
September 19, 20169 yr I thought that the point of the ride was deincentivizing solo studs from going supersonic during solo area rides.
September 20, 20169 yr I thought that the point of the ride was deincentivizing solo studs from going supersonic during solo area rides. The supersonic ride is after most of the solos in the program, definitely in contact.
September 20, 20169 yr I would bet that fewer studs go supersonic at Sheppard than the other bases. Those solo rides are the only opportunities that many people have to break that barrier and people take advantage of the opportunity. Regardless of the timing in the syllabus, there's no reason to do it on your own if you know you're going to do it eventually.
September 20, 20169 yr 11 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said: What's the max speed on a T-45? If it's not supersonic then forget it. Wiki says 560 at altitude, seems reasonable. The Wiki on the T-X program also said NG was originally going with the BAE Hawk (with NG as the prime contractor and partnering with BAE Systems) but after wind tunnel testing went with a clean sheet design as the Hawk didn't fare as well and they were concerned with affordability. No elaboration on the fear of costs creeping up as the T-45 program would likely offer some economy of scale savings but whatever. Edited September 20, 20169 yr by Clark Griswold minor
September 20, 20169 yr As others have pointed out, the only real reason I know I'm supersonic is because there's a number in my HUD that tells me so. Sometimes I look at it to ensure I'm complying with airspace regs, but usually not even then...Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
September 22, 20169 yr Sheppard still has the supersonic ride in the syllabus. As others have mentioned that have earned their "mach crush" it is literally watching a needle that goes from .99M to 1.0M. You notice nothing different in the jet. I would like to see afterburner on the new TX though. That extra boost of power has saved many of a student and IP from a seriously terrible landing or emergency low to the ground. Plus if the whole program of flying the T-X is to produce fighter and bomber dudes, all of our fighters have AB. So in my humble opinion, train the way you fight.
September 22, 20169 yr My favorite quote from a UPT instructor was "AETC - Ain't Even Thinking Combat"
September 23, 20169 yr I say it's LO to get studs ready for their fifth gen follow on. I nominate LM to build it! Kidding aside, it would make a lot of sense to have a fly-by-wire with similar wing-loading to current fighters.
February 6, 20178 yr Mod note: 2 other T-X threads, one linked below and here. AVtech (thread) went bankrupt and Stavatii picked up there design (link). Planning on making a run for the T-X. link The Stavatti Javelin maintains many exterior characteristics of the original Javelin design but benefits from structural improvements to increase maximum load factor to 9-Gs, more powerful engines, greater internal fuel capacity, increased maximum external warload, higher maximum takeoff weight, a cockpit designed for the T-X mission that satisfies JPATs flight crew accommodation cases 1-8, and a maximum level speed of Mach 1.36. The result is a very affordable, next generation supersonic trainer.
February 6, 20178 yr On 9/13/2016 at 4:53 PM, matmacwc said: I think we should buy the Korean trainer or the T-45. There was an Air Force dude years back that flew with us when I was a student in Kingsville who said he was tasked to evaluate the T-45 as a potential replacement. That was probably back in 2010...
February 7, 20178 yr Just grist for the mill but found another concept for a Lead in Trainer / Light Attack aircraft: Rud Aero RA-6 https://rud.aero/our-aircraft/ra-6-multipurpose-jet-aircraft/
February 8, 20178 yr The T-100 is back in the mix. https://www.defensenews.com/articles/leonardo-goes-it-alone-on-tx-bid
February 9, 20178 yr "It's not T-38-y enough!" Why don't we just build some new T-38s and get it over with. Bigger wings, bigger tires, more efficient motors; whatever it takes to keep Stanley Student from killing himself. No datalinks or any of that bullshit. Then send the old ones to CAF/MAF bases for CPT programs since they're cheaper and harder to fly than every other Air Force jet. Fuel budget down, morale up, and NG gets thrown a bone.
February 9, 20178 yr 2 hours ago, LookieRookie said: The T-100 is back in the mix. https://www.defensenews.com/articles/leonardo-goes-it-alone-on-tx-bid That's a good looking plane (from that angle)...like the love child of an F-16, F-18, and A-4. Edited February 9, 20178 yr by Day Man
February 9, 20178 yr 47 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said: "It's not T-38-y enough!" Why don't we just build some new T-38s and get it over with. Bigger wings, bigger tires, more efficient motors; whatever it takes to keep Stanley Student from killing himself. No datalinks or any of that bullshit. Then send the old ones to CAF/MAF bases for CPT programs since they're cheaper and harder to fly than every other Air Force jet. Fuel budget down, morale up, and NG gets thrown a bone. seriously. it shouldnt be this hard.
February 9, 20178 yr "It's not T-38-y enough!" Why don't we just build some new T-38s and get it over with. Bigger wings, bigger tires, more efficient motors; whatever it takes to keep Stanley Student from killing himself. No datalinks or any of that bullshit. Then send the old ones to CAF/MAF bases for CPT programs since they're cheaper and harder to fly than every other Air Force jet. Fuel budget down, morale up, and NG gets thrown a bone.If anyone needs to be thrown a bone it's Boeing.
February 9, 20178 yr I'm sure Boeing will have something to say if the contract goes to some other company.
February 9, 20178 yr 3 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said: "It's not T-38-y enough!" Why don't we just build some new T-38s and get it over with. Bigger wings, bigger tires, more efficient motors; whatever it takes to keep Stanley Student from killing himself. Good point. Why's it so hard to build modernized versions of stuff we figured out 30-50 years ago?
February 9, 20178 yr Good point. Why's it so hard to build modernized versions of stuff we figured out 30-50 years ago?You mean like getting a glass cockpit and modern navigation in what is essentially an airliner so old it's been retired from US carrier service?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Create an account or sign in to comment