Boeings Proposed T-38 Replacement
#52
Interesting question.
In the late 50s, North American offered a "stripped-down" F-100F to meet the supersonic trainer requirement.
Their argument was that while fuel costs would be higher, the logistic costs would be lower, since it was already in-place.
The T-38 was the winner of that competition. (Interestingly, Edgar Schmued was a VP of Northrop in charge of the T-38 program....the same Edgar Schmued who had headed the P-51 and F-86 programs at North American...)
I digress. Lockheed did offer to refurbish B and D model F-16s (not sure what Blocks) under the same idea as the F-100F.
Rejected as in 60 years previous.
The difference: the T-38 cost about 20% of the cost of a century-series fighter to buy or operate. For the T-X, when you add everything to a trainer except radar, ECM, and chaff/flares, you have an airplane that is 50% the cost of a new fighter....or the same cost as a refurbished fighter. Operational costs will be about 40% of a fighter (fuel about half, but parts probably lower without combat avionics to repair).
The problem:
You've spent half the cost of a fighter.....but you can't actually use it as a fighter.
Since the fundamental premise of having an advanced jet trainer is to reduce overall costs (ie, you could teach a guy to fly from first-sortie in an F-16), if the trainer starts to approach the cost of the fighter.....are you really saving money?
In the late 50s, North American offered a "stripped-down" F-100F to meet the supersonic trainer requirement.
Their argument was that while fuel costs would be higher, the logistic costs would be lower, since it was already in-place.
The T-38 was the winner of that competition. (Interestingly, Edgar Schmued was a VP of Northrop in charge of the T-38 program....the same Edgar Schmued who had headed the P-51 and F-86 programs at North American...)
I digress. Lockheed did offer to refurbish B and D model F-16s (not sure what Blocks) under the same idea as the F-100F.
Rejected as in 60 years previous.
The difference: the T-38 cost about 20% of the cost of a century-series fighter to buy or operate. For the T-X, when you add everything to a trainer except radar, ECM, and chaff/flares, you have an airplane that is 50% the cost of a new fighter....or the same cost as a refurbished fighter. Operational costs will be about 40% of a fighter (fuel about half, but parts probably lower without combat avionics to repair).
The problem:
You've spent half the cost of a fighter.....but you can't actually use it as a fighter.
Since the fundamental premise of having an advanced jet trainer is to reduce overall costs (ie, you could teach a guy to fly from first-sortie in an F-16), if the trainer starts to approach the cost of the fighter.....are you really saving money?
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Posts: 352
You could also offload more of the initial flight training portion, allowing civilian contractors to provide more advanced training than the 18 hour IFT program.
For example, students could undergo IFT and then specialization (either ME or High Performance/Aerobatic training) in significantly cheaper aircraft before moving to Air Force owned T-X.
For example, students could undergo IFT and then specialization (either ME or High Performance/Aerobatic training) in significantly cheaper aircraft before moving to Air Force owned T-X.
#54
You could also offload more of the initial flight training portion, allowing civilian contractors to provide more advanced training than the 18 hour IFT program.
For example, students could undergo IFT and then specialization (either ME or High Performance/Aerobatic training) in significantly cheaper aircraft before moving to Air Force owned T-X.
For example, students could undergo IFT and then specialization (either ME or High Performance/Aerobatic training) in significantly cheaper aircraft before moving to Air Force owned T-X.
#55
No, you can't offload more onto IFT. Navy has a fair amount of data to support this after washing out a ton of CFI/CFII/MEI from the FRS. Bottom, line, CIV flight time in no way shape or form = MIL flight time after a certain point in the training, somewhere about mid stage in Primary(navy). If that was the case we'd be flying C-172s in primary flight training rather than T-6s (formerly T-34/T-37). At some point as we have transitioned to more complex and capable aircraft we have to accept the fact that training to fly those aircraft are going to require more complex and capable trainers. The more we sit back and say "well, back when I taught in the T-38 or T-2 we did this and the new trainer is way too much airplane" we ought to check our history/ego at the door and find ways to train our next generation of Military aviators to do what they are expected and asked to do.
As to the Advanced Trainer: not about ego and history, but an honest assessment of "What is the appropriate level of complexity at this stage?"
I taught in both the steam-gauge T-38A and the "more aligned with 4-gen fighters" psuedo-glass cockpit T-38C. While the C-model had some fancy toys (GPS, TCAS, VHF radio, and a HUD), it was FAR easier to teach a guy to fly---and become one with the jet---in the A-model versus the C.
Why?
Despite sims meant to prepare them to program the box, they spent significant time in the chocks (with engines running) trying to program the avionics. That would cost them time and fuel...possibly enough to make the sortie incomplete.
Worse still, the HUD made patterns/landings worse. It gave them tunnel-vision....they would only look through the HUD, completely ignoring what they should have been seeing out of the side of the canopy.
Ironically, I always found I could teach the kid to land better with the HUD de-emphasized. Once that was done, I could teach him how to use the HUD.
In short, the complexity was a hindrance, not an asset, at least until about 4 months into the 6-month course.
When I was new to the Phantom, I had a Flight Commander (F-4 Patch) that said "The best Viper guys I've fought have all been previous F-4 guys."
I asked why.
"Because they learned to do BFM the hard way." And, I believe he was right.
I think all the TX jets are very impressive. The question is, when do you need to give them heater training, Air Refueling, simulated weapons and countermeasure modes, etc? Since everything is over budget now, how much do you spend to do the right thing at the right time in their training?
Yeah, the T-38 is long in the tooth, and where it really is negative training for 4th or 5th-gen fighters is in turn radius, turn rate, energy bleed-rates, lousy vis to 6, buffet in turns, sortie endurance, range, and difficulty in landing. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, maintainability. And it can't fly in icing. And the air conditioner is terrible, but at least all the UPT bases are in horribly hot and humid locations.
I just think they are considering a jet more appropriate for Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (first course AFTER earning your wings, if going to fighters) than for every swingin' g-suit hose that gets their wings for the next 50 years.
#56
Concur with the civilian offload....doesn't help after about the first month of Primary training.
As to the Advanced Trainer: not about ego and history, but an honest assessment of "What is the appropriate level of complexity at this stage?"
I taught in both the steam-gauge T-38A and the "more aligned with 4-gen fighters" psuedo-glass cockpit T-38C. While the C-model had some fancy toys (GPS, TCAS, VHF radio, and a HUD), it was FAR easier to teach a guy to fly---and become one with the jet---in the A-model versus the C.
Why?
Despite sims meant to prepare them to program the box, they spent significant time in the chocks (with engines running) trying to program the avionics. That would cost them time and fuel...possibly enough to make the sortie incomplete.
Worse still, the HUD made patterns/landings worse. It gave them tunnel-vision....they would only look through the HUD, completely ignoring what they should have been seeing out of the side of the canopy.
Ironically, I always found I could teach the kid to land better with the HUD de-emphasized. Once that was done, I could teach him how to use the HUD.
In short, the complexity was a hindrance, not an asset, at least until about 4 months into the 6-month course.
When I was new to the Phantom, I had a Flight Commander (F-4 Patch) that said "The best Viper guys I've fought have all been previous F-4 guys."
I asked why.
"Because they learned to do BFM the hard way." And, I believe he was right.
I think all the TX jets are very impressive. The question is, when do you need to give them heater training, Air Refueling, simulated weapons and countermeasure modes, etc? Since everything is over budget now, how much do you spend to do the right thing at the right time in their training?
Yeah, the T-38 is long in the tooth, and where it really is negative training for 4th or 5th-gen fighters is in turn radius, turn rate, energy bleed-rates, lousy vis to 6, buffet in turns, sortie endurance, range, and difficulty in landing. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, maintainability. And it can't fly in icing. And the air conditioner is terrible, but at least all the UPT bases are in horribly hot and humid locations.
I just think they are considering a jet more appropriate for Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (first course AFTER earning your wings, if going to fighters) than for every swingin' g-suit hose that gets their wings for the next 50 years.
As to the Advanced Trainer: not about ego and history, but an honest assessment of "What is the appropriate level of complexity at this stage?"
I taught in both the steam-gauge T-38A and the "more aligned with 4-gen fighters" psuedo-glass cockpit T-38C. While the C-model had some fancy toys (GPS, TCAS, VHF radio, and a HUD), it was FAR easier to teach a guy to fly---and become one with the jet---in the A-model versus the C.
Why?
Despite sims meant to prepare them to program the box, they spent significant time in the chocks (with engines running) trying to program the avionics. That would cost them time and fuel...possibly enough to make the sortie incomplete.
Worse still, the HUD made patterns/landings worse. It gave them tunnel-vision....they would only look through the HUD, completely ignoring what they should have been seeing out of the side of the canopy.
Ironically, I always found I could teach the kid to land better with the HUD de-emphasized. Once that was done, I could teach him how to use the HUD.
In short, the complexity was a hindrance, not an asset, at least until about 4 months into the 6-month course.
When I was new to the Phantom, I had a Flight Commander (F-4 Patch) that said "The best Viper guys I've fought have all been previous F-4 guys."
I asked why.
"Because they learned to do BFM the hard way." And, I believe he was right.
I think all the TX jets are very impressive. The question is, when do you need to give them heater training, Air Refueling, simulated weapons and countermeasure modes, etc? Since everything is over budget now, how much do you spend to do the right thing at the right time in their training?
Yeah, the T-38 is long in the tooth, and where it really is negative training for 4th or 5th-gen fighters is in turn radius, turn rate, energy bleed-rates, lousy vis to 6, buffet in turns, sortie endurance, range, and difficulty in landing. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, maintainability. And it can't fly in icing. And the air conditioner is terrible, but at least all the UPT bases are in horribly hot and humid locations.
I just think they are considering a jet more appropriate for Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (first course AFTER earning your wings, if going to fighters) than for every swingin' g-suit hose that gets their wings for the next 50 years.
To your points about students spending so much time in the line with avionics and what I would consider admin/tacadmin setup. The jets we fly today are dependent upon pre-flight mission planning. For instance, in the F/A-18C/E/F, nearly every preset and avionic input is planned in JMPS and loaded into the jet via PC card prior to every hop. It's not perfect and to some extent we are training students to be slaves to the system, but there just isn't enough time on deck to do all the avionics set up that is required for a tactical mission. The issues you faced in the T-38 with students taking that time, perhaps were a product of retrofitting new capabilities into an older airframe and the user interface was more cumbersome and laborious than we'd expect for updated software suites in advanced 4th and 5th gen fighters? If we can design a trainer that mirrors that interface, then we can spend more time on teaching someone to fly/employ the jet in the FRS/UPT rather than watching them load Radar presets/HAVEQUICK/Waypoints (as an example) from the backseat. Food for thought...
I agree that maybe not all type/model/series need to fly the same jet trainer but we all know that's a question of money and how much the services are willing to spend on individual training systems by platform. Unfortunately or fortunately I think we're well past the fiscal environment where each manned community (Fighter/Bomber/MPRA/AEA) get their own training aircraft prior to the FRS/UPT.
I have been instructing in the F/A-18A-F since 2005, I have seen a lot of FRS students come and go and the aviator vs tactician split ebb and flow not only in the fleet but in the FRS as well. We owe it to our students to take the training platforms/systems we're given and adapt our own skillsets so that we can hone those skills in our next generation of aviators and teach them how to fly and employ their respective weapons system. Its not easy, that's for sure.
Your discussion on the HUD, well I won't even go there, I'm a HUD cripple and have been since I started flying Navy jets behind the boat...can we do it without? Sure, why would we want to.
Good discussion(s)!
#57
My post wasn't a bash on the T-38 but rather discounting what some of the older (myself included) instructors in the crowd have said in terms of a new trainer being too much airplane for students. I'd venture to say the same discussions were had when the Tweet was introduced way back when as well as the T-45 to replace the T-2/TA-4. My point is simply that we as military aviators have to evolve across the board.
I remember the T-45A being view much like the T-X is in this thread. A more representative trainer for the **majority** of the fleet; now the T-45C was a mini-Hornet when it came to the cockpit, but soon after I left about the only airplane that it wouldn't have seemed to have helped (been a true step back in time) was the Prowler.
To your points about students spending so much time in the line with avionics and what I would consider admin/tacadmin setup. The jets we fly today are dependent upon pre-flight mission planning. For instance, in the F/A-18C/E/F, nearly every preset and avionic input is planned in JMPS and loaded into the jet via PC card prior to every hop. It's not perfect and to some extent we are training students to be slaves to the system, but there just isn't enough time on deck to do all the avionics set up that is required for a tactical mission. The issues you faced in the T-38 with students taking that time, perhaps were a product of retrofitting new capabilities into an older airframe and the user interface was more cumbersome and laborious than we'd expect for updated software suites in advanced 4th and 5th gen fighters? If we can design a trainer that mirrors that interface, then we can spend more time on teaching someone to fly/employ the jet in the FRS/UPT rather than watching them load Radar presets/HAVEQUICK/Waypoints (as an example) from the backseat. Food for thought...
I have been instructing in the F/A-18A-F since 2005, I have seen a lot of FRS students come and go and the aviator vs tactician split ebb and flow not only in the fleet but in the FRS as well. We owe it to our students to take the training platforms/systems we're given and adapt our own skillsets so that we can hone those skills in our next generation of aviators and teach them how to fly and employ their respective weapons system. Its not easy, that's for sure.
Your discussion on the HUD, well I won't even go there, I'm a HUD cripple and have been since I started flying Navy jets behind the boat...can we do it without? Sure, why would we want to.
Good discussion(s)![/QUOTE]
Good points BDGERJMN
#58
Come do this job and tell me with a straight face you're kosher with an airplane whose airframe stated lifetime has been exceeded by 200% and still being Gx'ed like it's a new rental. And before you tell me your tanker has the same problem, I made the exact same criticism of the bomber I flew. Except I wasn't pulling 6Gs on it. So we're all innocent in Shawshank.
I agree the USAF's fly to failure for maintenance is no bueno. I had an engine failure on takeoff in the KC10 because of this. The takeoff before that failure was at an airfield where we took off at maximum gross weight and had zero margin for error due to runway length.
Banana380,
What impressed my friend the most about the difference between the AF and Navy system of pilot training was, He said the Navy treated student pilots like humans. I went through UPT in 1986 and we were expected to all wash out, and only the ones who went through the wringer would graduate. I understand nowadays, they actually try to get you through the program. When Imwent through, we all felt that their priority was to try to wash you out. I can tell you stories of how students who were doing fine, did one thing to **** off the IP's and within a week or two were gone!
What impressed my friend the most about the difference between the AF and Navy system of pilot training was, He said the Navy treated student pilots like humans. I went through UPT in 1986 and we were expected to all wash out, and only the ones who went through the wringer would graduate. I understand nowadays, they actually try to get you through the program. When Imwent through, we all felt that their priority was to try to wash you out. I can tell you stories of how students who were doing fine, did one thing to **** off the IP's and within a week or two were gone!
However, at Vance, besides three instructors who I still call friends today, most were incredibly arrogant and ash hole ish. We were kept on formal release until after aircraft MWS selection. The instructors would do everything to try and trip you up during "stand up" where they would ridicule and laugh at you. It was generally a big haze program.
I initially track selected C-12s out of Whiting Field because I didn't want to go through the bs up at Vance. Many of my peers did the same because of the stuff we heard about USAF UPT. Getting a C-12 slot became difficult to procure. Later I changed my mind and experienced USAF UPT first hand.
We need a new trainer. The T-38 is at the end of its useful service life, and the T-1s are rapidly wearing out. Economics will dictate a return to single track pilot training. The number of fighter planes we are not going to buy or have in the future cannot justify buying a $30 mil plus high performance trainer and then turning around and replacing the T-1. Go back to a single logistics support train for one airplane.
The heavy bubbas need a trainer with long legs, FMS and glass cockpits, that can do multiple types of IFR approaches. The T-1 has been a very good trainer for heavy pilots.
The fighter bubbas need a high performance aircraft for aerobatics and fighter maneuver training. If you could build a high performance trainer with longer legs and FMS cockpit, it could work. And it wouldn't be a bad thing for heavy bubbas to experience the same track which could make them eligible for fighters in the future -- should this fighter shortage remain.
#60
I have been told that was an intentional design feature:
The sister F-5 does NOT have a wingtip that is only held on by the skin (as in the T-38). This is because they have AIM-9s out there; they needed spar all the way out for those loads.
In any airplane, you only build strong enough "to do the job;" otherwise, it's dead-weight. For the T-38, the skin (without spar) was supposed to do the trick (and usually does).
But I was also told it was designed that way so as to afford "break-away" protection if a student dragged a wingtip (seen it done; we had one mounted in the squadron bar), or, to prevent whole wings from ripping off at the root in a massive over-g...the wingtip was supposed to go first.
Don't know if those are true, but this Mythbuster would rule it plausible.
You're assuming a new jet would not have an Achille's Heel. Early Hornets had vertical fins that were in danger of breaking off at the attach bulkhead; early Block 50 Vipers (the first 100 jets or so) had to be re-winged, because it turned out the wing wasn't torsionally strong enough to carry two HARMs at speeds higher than 375 knots. Guys who did it said the wings were twisting so bad, they thought they were going to break off. (They were right...if they had continued, they would have).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post