Boeings Proposed T-38 Replacement
[/IMG]
09-15-2016, 04:33 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,193
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
Looks expensive, but I am sure there is a PowerPoint presentation showing how much money it will save. Then the theoretical money saved can be spent on something else.
09-15-2016, 04:52 PM
#6
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
All the proposed airplanes look really cool, and as someone who taught in the T-38 for 15 years, I'm certain it will exceed the Talon in sortie duration, ease of Transition (especially landing), turn radius, acceleration, and an air conditioner that will not suck while blowing.
That being said: previous contenders (T-50 and M-346) were advertised in the $30 million each-range 8-10 years ago.
Cost to purchase is pretty high...but operating costs for fuel will probably exceed the Talon. While turbofans will be better than the J85s, the new engines are MUCH bigger. So, while SPC may be 4-5 times better, TOTAL burn will be higher.
Maintenance is a huge manpower cost on the T-38. Will the new kids be better? Almost certainly not, at least, initially, until mx learns the new jet.
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.
I would tend to agree...great IFF airplane, but no manufacturer wants to build just 50-70 airplanes.
I still think a cheaper airplane, more like an L-159, would be plenty to teach jet flying, aerobatics, formation, and tactical. Then, use a jet such as these proposals for the lead-in to Fighter Fundamentals.
The Air Force is going to stack the deck for Congress, though. They will say the T-1A is worn out, and they need to go back to a one-track system (which means they'll need 350 new trainers instead of 50).
That being said: previous contenders (T-50 and M-346) were advertised in the $30 million each-range 8-10 years ago.
Cost to purchase is pretty high...but operating costs for fuel will probably exceed the Talon. While turbofans will be better than the J85s, the new engines are MUCH bigger. So, while SPC may be 4-5 times better, TOTAL burn will be higher.
Maintenance is a huge manpower cost on the T-38. Will the new kids be better? Almost certainly not, at least, initially, until mx learns the new jet.
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.
I would tend to agree...great IFF airplane, but no manufacturer wants to build just 50-70 airplanes.
I still think a cheaper airplane, more like an L-159, would be plenty to teach jet flying, aerobatics, formation, and tactical. Then, use a jet such as these proposals for the lead-in to Fighter Fundamentals.
The Air Force is going to stack the deck for Congress, though. They will say the T-1A is worn out, and they need to go back to a one-track system (which means they'll need 350 new trainers instead of 50).
09-15-2016, 06:05 PM
#7
Retired.
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 414
The Air Force is looking at 350 of these. Jointly designed and built by Saab and Boeing.
My first jet was a DC-8 so I don't know much about small jet trainers but as mentioned above, a fancy trainer may not be needed for basic stuff: If a student is sharp he will perform in any kite, if he is a dog he will screw it up regardless.
If the US can't crank out a basic trainer, the Poles or the Brazilians surely have something on their drawing board.
My first jet was a DC-8 so I don't know much about small jet trainers but as mentioned above, a fancy trainer may not be needed for basic stuff: If a student is sharp he will perform in any kite, if he is a dog he will screw it up regardless.
If the US can't crank out a basic trainer, the Poles or the Brazilians surely have something on their drawing board.
09-15-2016, 10:52 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 305
My money is on the Lockheed Martin T-50 design. It is already flying in Korea and they are just modifying that design to fit the requirements for the USAF T-X competition. Heard from a reliable source that they are adding air refueling capability to the T-X, which is a complete and utter waist of money for an advanced trainer. Never had it before, don't need it now. Students from all airframes have done just fine during Air Refueling training in their follow on airframes. No need for that capability in an advanced trainer.....
Flying close trail does the trick pretty good to give them an idea of being behind and below another plane.
Flying close trail does the trick pretty good to give them an idea of being behind and below another plane.
09-15-2016, 10:53 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 305
"The requirements, posted on a federal website Wednesday, will drive the decisions of the five competing companies who hope to win the rights to build 350 advanced flight trainers and the associated systems to replace the legacy T-38 trainer. Interested parties must respond to the service by May 10.
The program is the first to issue requirements under the "Bending the Cost Curve" initiative, a major staple in Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James' plans for acquisition reform.
There are over 100 requirements included in the documents, but an Air Force news release said the emphasis is on three key components: sustained G, simulator visual acuity and performance, and aircraft sustainment.
Other capabilities include the need for in-flight refueling, a 10 percent reduction in fuel usage from the T-38, and a minimum of being able to take off at an 8000' runway length, 7400' density altitude and 10 knot tailwind."
http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ents/25080555/
The program is the first to issue requirements under the "Bending the Cost Curve" initiative, a major staple in Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James' plans for acquisition reform.
There are over 100 requirements included in the documents, but an Air Force news release said the emphasis is on three key components: sustained G, simulator visual acuity and performance, and aircraft sustainment.
Other capabilities include the need for in-flight refueling, a 10 percent reduction in fuel usage from the T-38, and a minimum of being able to take off at an 8000' runway length, 7400' density altitude and 10 knot tailwind."
http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ents/25080555/
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
