Boeings Proposed T-38 Replacement
09-19-2016, 03:27 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757/767 Capt
Posts: 642
I agree Tom, but part of the reason they split the tracks was to extend the life of the T-38 fleet and also to stem the washout rate. There is an interesting paper written about this. If I can find it I'll cite it for you. I flew heavies and sometimes I'd explain something to a student and tell them to just "think about pressure on the rudder pedals, like a T-38 in formation" and the young guys would have to remind me that they never flew a -38!
09-19-2016, 05:05 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by Vito
Tom,
The Air Force went to a dual track system in 1995 I believe. All students fly the T-6 now, then depending on how well they do in T-6's they get FAR'ed or TTB'ed (old term, I know) the fighter guys fly T-38's and the heavy drivers fly the T-1. The different part is all bomber assignments come out of the T-38 track...going on 21 years now.
The Air Force went to a dual track system in 1995 I believe. All students fly the T-6 now, then depending on how well they do in T-6's they get FAR'ed or TTB'ed (old term, I know) the fighter guys fly T-38's and the heavy drivers fly the T-1. The different part is all bomber assignments come out of the T-38 track...going on 21 years now.
09-20-2016, 05:30 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Walmart Greeter
Posts: 694
Originally Posted by rickair7777
CRM/Crew coordination can be learned in the sim IMO.
09-20-2016, 08:48 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,193
Originally Posted by BDGERJMN
To a point yes...but at some point the sim ceases to yield results in the CRM/Crew Coordination environment that are learned in the jet. Same reason we still bounce at the field prior to going to the boat, flying the sim vs flying the jet regardless of mission/training objectives is just not the same.
09-20-2016, 03:43 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Center seat, doing loops to music
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
Allow me to be the naysayer and public enemy #1.
Do we need a new trainer? Much of the fighter mission will be pushed to the UAV world in the next decade or two.
Do bomber pilots need to fly the T-38? This could reduced the number of pilots flying the T-38.
Yes I'm an ignorant tanker bubba and there's probably a lot I don't know. But dollars are tight and I don't trust the industrialized military war machine anymore. They're not working for our best interests. I'm not some Rand Paul or liberal zealot either.
Do we need a new trainer? Much of the fighter mission will be pushed to the UAV world in the next decade or two.
Do bomber pilots need to fly the T-38? This could reduced the number of pilots flying the T-38.
Yes I'm an ignorant tanker bubba and there's probably a lot I don't know. But dollars are tight and I don't trust the industrialized military war machine anymore. They're not working for our best interests. I'm not some Rand Paul or liberal zealot either.
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. That's hardly a reason to stonewall recapitalization of the trainer fleet. We've already had fatalities due to fly-to-fail mx policies in the past in the 38; we don't need to add to them just because of some misplaced schadenfreude regarding belated recapitalization of non-fighter MWS. The argument of "fighters are a dead game" is not tractionable with Congress and DOD, so people need to stop jousting at that windmill already. This is about recapitalization of the mission being accomplished today, let alone the mission of tomorrow. We're long overdue on it, civilian contractor waste, abuse and pork barrel dynamics notwithstanding.
09-20-2016, 03:50 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Center seat, doing loops to music
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
C-130s fly C-12s -- but that can vary. C-130s can also fly the T-1 depending on throughput down at Corpus Christi.
09-20-2016, 05:03 PM
#38
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
When I was in UPT, everybody needed to fly T-38s. The AF wanted the ability to assign any pilot to any airplane, even though they might never have to do it. Have they decided to return to the single-track system?
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).
09-21-2016, 03:01 AM
#39
Standing by to Stand By
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Position: Holding
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by Vito
He was an AF guy and loved working for the Navy....
.I flew the T-34, but everyone I know who flew the T-6 say it's a lot of plane for a trainer, I would imagine the same for the T-38. Personally I agree with having split tracks.
I'm not as familiar with AF training, but I like how the Navy has a primary trainer for everyone, then you split off into your different types. You select/are placed into tailhook/jets, multi-engine/heavy, or helo.
I loved flying helos, but I am grateful for my fixed wing training; besides the extra rating on my license, it also gave me some perspective into that side of flying (and something to fall back on as I look toward the airlines).
09-21-2016, 03:33 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Vito
Thanks Hindsight2020,
I thought that was the case, as a good bud of mine instructed in T-44's around 03-05 timeframe. He was an AF guy and loved working for the Navy....
I thought that was the case, as a good bud of mine instructed in T-44's around 03-05 timeframe. He was an AF guy and loved working for the Navy....
VT-35 was established on 29 October 1999 under the leadership of an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel�the first time that a U.S. Navy command was established under the leadership of a U.S. Air Force Commanding Officer. Through April of 2012, VT-35 also trained USAF students selected to fly the C-130. The squadron was the only advanced flight training squadron in the military with joint leadership (USN and USAF).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
