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.

Of course new standards will be developed. If you asked USN T-6 IPs the same thing I'm sure they'd give the same answer, probably too much airplane. If you ask a bunch of F-35 IPs at Egelin the same question, I bet they'd offer some solid feedback as to what needs to be in the jet balanced with input from the A-10/F-16/F-15/F-18 communities and their wish list(s). At some point we'll need to advance the bar in what we teach and expect our student aircrew to know/learn prior to jumping in a gray jet.

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)

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.

I did see in the video that they open/closed the air refueling door and it was on the hump-back, but I didn't know if the slick back lacked the door.

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?

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.

Here is the link to the Lockheed Martin T-X T-50A first test flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQhFJjgWWq0

meh, looks like the rear cockpit forward-looking vis is terrible, again...:rolleyes:

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....




https://s21.postimg.org/c85mkkypj/je...gonna_hate.gif :D:D