Airline Pilot Central Forums - View Single Post - Boeings Proposed T-38 Replacement

09-24-2016, 04:51 AM

#56

BDGERJMN

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Nov 2006

Position: Walmart Greeter

Posts: 694

Quote:

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer

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.

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.

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)!

Reply