Boeings Proposed T-38 Replacement
09-16-2016, 05:07 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: ERJ, CA
Posts: 718
With all this capability being built into a jet trainer, I suspect they are also going to position it as a replacement for aging F-16's and other aircraft for smaller countries. Didn't the T-38 become the F-5 in just the same manner? Actually, I just read the Philippines will be buying 12 TA-50 Korean made LM trainers as a front-line fighter. So Boeing that's the real reason for all the over-kill in the trainer. Foreign export possiblities.
09-16-2016, 10:06 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
Some T-6 FAIPs that were former students of mine "flew" the Lockheed T-50 Sim. They said it was awesome...and also WAY too much airplane for Phase III training. The complexity(and capability) of the avionics would be overwhelming.
09-16-2016, 11:18 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Before I left - they were talking about including NVG indoc in the Training Command.
I think that, and the aforementioned A/A refueling training, is overkill for our training programs.
I was not aware of the T-50 program - or the one mentioned in this thread.
I'm not saying the T-38 doesn't need replacing and both of these aircraft look like worthy replacements.
For those in the know of the T-50 - what is the difference in the two aircraft in this video - with and without the spinal hump?
T-50A for Advanced Pilot Training · Lockheed Martin
(Second video - T-50A: Train Like You Fight)
I think that, and the aforementioned A/A refueling training, is overkill for our training programs.
I was not aware of the T-50 program - or the one mentioned in this thread.
I'm not saying the T-38 doesn't need replacing and both of these aircraft look like worthy replacements.
For those in the know of the T-50 - what is the difference in the two aircraft in this video - with and without the spinal hump?
T-50A for Advanced Pilot Training · Lockheed Martin
(Second video - T-50A: Train Like You Fight)
09-16-2016, 12:29 PM
#14
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
USMC:
It appears the camel (Humpback) has air refueling capability, and the slick jet does not.
I watched the video, and can clearly see the markings for the AAR door on the humpback, but not the other.
There are 4 candidates:
1. Boeing's airplane in partnership with Saab.
2. Northrop's new airplane, seen in taxi tests at Mojave. Looks very T-38-ish, but with a single GE404. The prototype is composite; unknown about production airplanes.
3. The Lockheed/Korean T-50
4. The Alenia AermacchiM-46, which is really a Yak 130 with western avionics.
All capable machines, all more expensive than necessary, and probably all more complex than needed for introductory jet training.
It appears the camel (Humpback) has air refueling capability, and the slick jet does not.
I watched the video, and can clearly see the markings for the AAR door on the humpback, but not the other.
There are 4 candidates:
1. Boeing's airplane in partnership with Saab.
2. Northrop's new airplane, seen in taxi tests at Mojave. Looks very T-38-ish, but with a single GE404. The prototype is composite; unknown about production airplanes.
3. The Lockheed/Korean T-50
4. The Alenia AermacchiM-46, which is really a Yak 130 with western avionics.
All capable machines, all more expensive than necessary, and probably all more complex than needed for introductory jet training.
09-16-2016, 12:41 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
USMC:
It appears the camel (Humpback) has air refueling capability, and the slick jet does not.
I watched the video, and can clearly see the markings for the AAR door on the humpback, but not the other.
There are 4 candidates:
1. Boeing's airplane in partnership with Saab.
2. Northrop's new airplane, seen in taxi tests at Mojave. Looks very T-38-ish, but with a single GE404. The prototype is composite; unknown about production airplanes.
3. The Lockheed/Korean T-50
4. The Alenia AermacchiM-46, which is really a Yak 130 with western avionics.
All capable machines, all more expensive than necessary, and probably all more complex than needed for introductory jet training.
It appears the camel (Humpback) has air refueling capability, and the slick jet does not.
I watched the video, and can clearly see the markings for the AAR door on the humpback, but not the other.
There are 4 candidates:
1. Boeing's airplane in partnership with Saab.
2. Northrop's new airplane, seen in taxi tests at Mojave. Looks very T-38-ish, but with a single GE404. The prototype is composite; unknown about production airplanes.
3. The Lockheed/Korean T-50
4. The Alenia AermacchiM-46, which is really a Yak 130 with western avionics.
All capable machines, all more expensive than necessary, and probably all more complex than needed for introductory jet training.
Once again then - having only certain jets capable for training a/a refueling limits the scheduling availability.
Any word from AETC bubbas about which one has caught their attention?
09-16-2016, 01:58 PM
#16
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
The slick doesn't seem to have it, and any shot that might have shown the door---or the traditional markings---was quickly panned away.
The USAF AAR receptacle takes up a fair amount of room---I'd guess 20-24 inches length, 12-14 wide, and 10-12 deep. I think the hump was the only way to make it fit in the airplanes, plus the plumbing to get it to the tanks.
The last time this came up, roughly 12-15 years ago, the T-50 (Big fiberglass model) was shown at every major symposium of USAF folk...from the AFA, to congregations with Generals. And the AFA is mostly composed of retired USAF big-wigs with political connections....
I think as such, it has curried favor. We'll see if the competition can sway that.
The USAF AAR receptacle takes up a fair amount of room---I'd guess 20-24 inches length, 12-14 wide, and 10-12 deep. I think the hump was the only way to make it fit in the airplanes, plus the plumbing to get it to the tanks.
The last time this came up, roughly 12-15 years ago, the T-50 (Big fiberglass model) was shown at every major symposium of USAF folk...from the AFA, to congregations with Generals. And the AFA is mostly composed of retired USAF big-wigs with political connections....
I think as such, it has curried favor. We'll see if the competition can sway that.
09-16-2016, 03:39 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 305
Here is the link to the Lockheed Martin T-X T-50A first test flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQhFJjgWWq0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQhFJjgWWq0
09-16-2016, 03:41 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 305
09-17-2016, 08:34 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Center seat, doing loops to music
Posts: 825
I for one want to instruct in something other than what people my mother's age did the year I was born, before my anti-climatic AF tenure comes to an end. I think the T-50A will be the winner in the end, merely considering the politics of our acquisition programs, and if the history of the JPATS program is any indication. Buddy of mine has flown it in Korea. It's a sweet baby Viper. Should be a nice upgrade to the 38.
As to the old guard in here. Sliceback's post already summed up the real subtext, so I'll just add....
As to the old guard in here. Sliceback's post already summed up the real subtext, so I'll just add....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
