Replacement to the T-38

[Wolf424]

New trainer may refuel in air, fly 9-G turns

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer - Air Force Times

Posted : Wednesday Apr 15, 2009 16:18:27 EDT

Whatever airplane the Air Force settles on to replace the aging T-38C Talon training jet will do a better job preparing students to fly the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.

The new jet will fly 9-G turns and be refueled in the air, capabilities the T-38C lacks.

The Air Force set the wheels in motion for a new trainer last month when it went to manufacturers looking for suggestions about aircraft, simulators and other gear. The call-out lists 2017 as a possible operational date for a plane.

Companies have until April 30 to offer up their ideas. Then, the Air Force will digest the information and come up with options as early as 2010, said Dave McDonald, a former T-38 instructor pilot who is overseeing the advance trainer replacement program for Air Education and Training Command at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.

The options could include replacing the Talon, switching to a simulator or using both to train student pilots moving into fighters and bombers.

It has been 50 years since the Talon took on the role as the standard advanced training jet. Earlier this decade, the service upgraded all of its approximately 500 T-38 trainers with digital and glass cockpit displays, similar to those in operational jets. The improved aircraft were designated T-38Cs.

Related reading: Talon celebrates its 50th anniversary

Despite the improvements, the T-38Cs are showing their age.

“It’s well past its original design specifications,” McDonald said.

Intended to fly 7,000 hours, the typical T-38C has logged 15,000 hours. By 2017, the flight hours will be up to 17,500, McDonald said.

The wear and tear is taking a toll. A cracked lever inside a wing brought down a Talon last spring, killing the instructor and student pilots. The service immediately grounded all T-38Cs to replace the levers.

In addition to safety concerns, AETC officials believe a new trainer is needed to help student pilots make the transition from flying trainers to F-22s and F-35s, McDonald said.

A replacement may need to have aerial refueling capability, which the T-38C doesn’t. With the exception of the A-10, new fighter pilots fly their initial refueling missions in two-seat versions of their operational fighter. Students in the F-22 and F-35 won’t have that opportunity because there are no two-seat versions of the jets.

The new aircraft could also have a cockpit display similar to the F-22 and F-35, McDonald said. Even with its new avionics, the T-38C can’t prepare students for the deluge of target, reconnaissance and flight information that the fighters generate.

Officials also want a trainer that lets students match the 9-G turns of the fighters. The maximum stress a T-38 pilot experiences is 7.3Gs, but turns of 5-Gs to 5.5-Gs are more common because of performance limitations, McDonald said.

An interim solution for moving pilots from the T-38C to the F-22s is letting them fly in the two-seat F-16D Fighting Falcon for a few weeks before they go off to the F-22 school at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.

Three years ago, the Senate considered ordering the Air Force to compare T-38C costs with those of two other training jets in production at the time — the Boeing T-45 Goshawk flown by the Navy and the supersonic T-50 Golden Eagle, a joint project of Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries, destined for South Korea’s air force. Air Force officials objected to the proposed mandate, saying they were satisfied with the T-38C. The measure never became law.

A simulator? Ugh. Not a fighter guy, but this doesn't seem like a good idea, unless sims can simulate 9gs and I just haven't heard about it...

Edited April 16, 2009 by TheWolf424

[Guest MegaPieBoy]

A simulator? Ugh. Not a fighter guy, but this doesn't seem like a good idea, unless sims can simulate 9gs and I just haven't heard about it...

Its probably the first step in a new plan to replace manned fighters with the soon to come air to air predator variant!

[Toro]

The new jet will fly 9-G turns and be refueled in the air, capabilities the T-38C lacks....The options could include replacing the Talon, switching to a simulator or using both to train student pilots moving into fighters and bombers.

What an absolutely horrible set of polar opposites.

[163 FS]

Why does it need to have AAR capability? The Hog is single-seat and I didn't have any trouble. You F-15/16 guys could tell me if it is more difficult on your platforms, but it seems like a giant waste of money to me.

[jango220]

I've always been partial to the Lockheed/KAI T-50. ROKAF has had a lot of success with it. Code One magazine has a pretty good story for more info.

[Guest Vettepilot]

I think this is just another case of the media being told something and not fully understanding it before they write their article. If they were considering just going to a sim then half the rest of the article wouldnt matter. I didnt fly the 38, but I'd bet you could pull 9Gs and put it behind a tanker in the already existing sim. All you'd do is get someone to write a bit of software to make the Over-G stuff activate later and tell the student where they need to pretend the AR port is.

[Jughead]

it seems like a giant waste of money to me.

Since when has that been an impediment to our acquisition process...?

[Dupe]

Realize that the simulator is just an option. Any time there's a need for a new capability, there's a massive effort to analyze all the options and alternatives availible to meet that need. the lengthy Analysis of Alternatives (and how only some of the alternatives get leaked / pushed) is just one facet of how screwed up the acquisitions process really is.

Are sims the 100% answer? Hell no. However, as sim fidelity increases, sims will play an increasing part in any training program. Here's an example: the T-38 doesn't well prepare guys to enter 5th generation fighters (hence the mini-viper B-course for those few selected for F-22s straight from UPT). A possible solution is to have a future jet trainer incorporate a simulated radar to get guys used to radar intercepts.

[war007afa]

The requirements document sounds like they want to keep the Viper around as a trainer...

[Steve Davies]

A possible solution is to have a future jet trainer incorporate a simulated radar to get guys used to radar intercepts.

Indeed.

Having a simulation running in the jet is an excellent way of getting the best from both worlds.

There are already a number of Air Forces and number of advanced jet trainers that are already using this technology to great effect, taking the T-38C concept and expanding on it dramatically.

For example:

Hawk Mk.128 LIFT

I believe that the IP can use a little joystick in the back to control the movements of Red Air on the radar screen in the front cockpit. There are some very cool possibilities to all this simulation stuff...

[Stuck]

Wow, even the cockpit on that little T-50 looks like a Viper.

Cheers!

- Stuck

[jango220]

Wow, even the cockpit on that little T-50 looks like a Viper.

From what I can gather from reading the Code One article and a bunch of other things online, it was designed as a lead-in trainer for the Viper. Korean studs would go from the Il-103 to the KT-1 (similar to the T-6) to the T-50 and then ultimately the KF-16. It's a whole package deal too, including the electronic classroom (which from various youtube videos appears to essentially be mass death-by-powerpoint), basic and 360 degree sims, and the jets themselves.

A possible solution is to have a future jet trainer incorporate a simulated radar to get guys used to radar intercepts.

Or how about an actual one? The wiki claims that the Koreans have an Israeli EL/M-2032 for their fighter lead-in models, but the design prefers an AESA system (either the AN/APG-67(V)4 or SELEX Vixen 500E).

As for producing a brand new aircraft to replace the T-38, I think it's just plain stupid to spend large amounts of money on R&D developing something else when there is a great product already in production - something the DOD acquisition process is infamous for doing. And I think there is a Lockheed plant in Marietta, GA, that might have some extra production capacity soon...

Edited April 17, 2009 by jango220

[polcat]

Would this sound crazy? How about new D-model F-16s as a T-38 replacement? Proven design, has the capabilities and performance, could "dumb" the systems down for SUPT studs, etc. Sounds like a good idea since we already have em, and eventually the 16s will be retired and replaced by F-35s...which leads me into the thought of remanufacturing old aircraft designs (like C-5 for example) using the technology of today to have a brand new and even more capable aircraft without the hassle of implementing a totally brand new aircraft. But hey, what do I know, I just fly old airplanes.

[Danny Noonin]

The reason dudes go to the pork falcon for a topoff prior to the F-22 has zero to do with running intercepts and working a radar.

It has everything to do with pulling a lot of G's in a 2-seater to make sure dudes don't G-loc and mort going from an airplane that hardly pulls Gs, to an airplane that pulls and sustains more Gs than any other on earth. I can tell you that that is the biggest fear in the general's minds about putting B-coursers through the F-22 and exactly the reason it took so long to start that up. There is zero chance we will replace a weak-G pulling trainer with a 1-G pulling sim. We will literally kill dudes as a result.

A couple years back I went to a conference as the F-22/F-15 rep where AETC announced plans to introduce synthetic targets on one of the T-38C MFDs and have students run intercepts against ghosts during IFF. You would be able to switch scope types to make it look like an Eagle or falcon tube depending on the student.

Dumbest thing I ever heard of and I said no. They were floored as they thought it was a brilliant idea. I even called back to run it by the bosses to make sure I wasn't on crack and they were so profanely opposed I cannot fully describe it here. The AETC bubbas could not understand why that was not a good idea.

There is no reason in the world to pay for fuel and maintenance costs on an airplane to teach a guy the basics of how to set intercept geometry. That is EXACTLY why we have simulators.

Edited April 17, 2009 by T-Bone

[war007afa]

Would this sound crazy? How about new D-model F-16s as a T-38 replacement? Proven design, has the capabilities and performance, could "dumb" the systems down for SUPT studs, etc. Sounds like a good idea since we already have em, and eventually the 16s will be retired and replaced by F-35s...which leads me into the thought of remanufacturing old aircraft designs (like C-5 for example) using the technology of today to have a brand new and even more capable aircraft without the hassle of implementing a totally brand new aircraft. But hey, what do I know, I just fly old airplanes.

Kind of what I was eluding too...

The requirements document is basically stating that they either need a 9G airplane like the viper for a trainer or they need a simulator, and you know how the argument is going to progress on that issue.

[HiFlyer]

I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to the idea. First, you don't buy either an airplane or a sim...you buy both. The sim rides teach you procedures and switchology sitting still where you and the instructor can talk about what you did right or wrong. Later, you fly the airplane to learn how to do it in a flying environment where you have to deal with the tactical aspects of flying while operating the aircraft. It was done that way in the SR-71 for years and was very effective for training, while reducing overall cost by not having to maintain multiple training aircraft. That is a different concept than simply replacing operational flying and continuation flying with sims...I'm not suggesting that...but as a UPT training asset, a well designed sim can be a great asset for both the IP and the student. High def sims can fly AR sims so the student understands what he will be doing while he's the receiver, they can fly basic flight maneuvers...enough to introduce basic procedures, and of course, basic instrument procedures. After the stud knows the procedures, then you put him in the cockpit and learn techniques in the air.

[Danny Noonin]

I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to the idea.

Why not go sims only? Because its impractical and absurdly expensive. It costs $7K an hour to run an F-15 sim. No that's not a typo. It's cheaper to fly a trainer.

Why no F-16 trainer in UPT? Seriously? How bout it's expensive to buy and operate. Trainers are cheap. No amount of "dumbing down" an F-16 will make it cheap. I'll leave it at that instead berating you like I really want to.

Edited April 18, 2009 by T-Bone

[HiFlyer]

Why not go sims only? Because its impractical and absurdly expensive. It costs $7K an hour to run an F-15 sim. No that's not a typo. It's cheaper to fly a trainer.

Why no F-16 trainer in UPT? Seriously? How bout it's expensive to buy and operate. Trainers are cheap. No amount of "dumbing down" an F-16 will make it cheap. I'll leave it at that instead berating you like I really want to.

Excuse me for my poor explanation, but I certainly do not support the sim-only approach. I guess my second sentence, which said "First, you don't buy either an airplane or a sim...you buy both.", wasn't clear enough. The point I was trying to make is that when you go out to buy a T-38 replacement, you ought to look at all the requirements and try to acquire a complete system, not just an aircraft. If the T-X is primarily intended to support UPT instruction, you can assume most of the flying time will not be spent doing ACM and ARs. If you buy an airframe capable of doing those things you may be "overbuying" for the UPT environment (the 8-9 "G" capability would probably be a legitimate need in the UPT environment). All I'm saying is that a lot of very basic procedureal knowledge can be taught in a reasonably equipped sim these days...and it doesn't have to be a full ACM 360 degree fighter sim. Also, if you do buy an AR equipped trainer for the UPT environment, where to you think you're going to get all those tankers? We only had a dozen or so SR-71s, of which only a few were OR on any given day, and we had to have two full squadrons of KC-135Qs to satisfy the AR requirements for those missions..maybe 3-4 sorties a day. For the UPT environment, it ain't gonna work. A sim, however, can put the student in a situation where he can learn the steps and procedures safely and inexpensively (but not free), and reduce the sortie load on other operational platforms. If you could save just one sortie for each student on all the fighter, bomber, and transport training programs, you can save a lot of money. As for the aircraft, one possibility might be to design an "A" and "B" version...one for basic UPT flying and one for operation upgrade training similar to the AT-38 program, with more complex avionics (the functional radar, for instance) and aircraft systems to teach basic procedures in the air to those people who need the training.

[Danny Noonin]

Just what is it that you are talkin bout willis?

I guess my second sentence, which said "First, you don't buy either an airplane or a sim...you buy both.", wasn't clear enough.

Actually, nope, not clear enough. Not clear enough at all when paired with the first sentence:

I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to the idea.

The reason that is not clear enough is that there is NO resistance to buying an airplane AND a sim. Not anywhere in this thread. Not in the original article. Nowhere. There is only resistance to buying just a sim.

[HiFlyer]

Just what is it that you are talkin bout willis?

Actually, nope, not clear enough. Not clear enough at all when paired with the first sentence:

The reason that is not clear enough is that there is NO resistance to buying an airplane AND a sim. Not anywhere in this thread. Not in the original article. Nowhere. There is only resistance to buying just a sim.

Sorry for the confusion. I come from a community where you have to put down all the options, even the completely unacceptable ones, so that some political staffer who doesn't know dick can't accuse you of not looking at them all and delay your effort for months. Complaining about possible options (and "all sim" is at least theoretically a possible option, even if it is a terrible one and will never fly in the real world) struck me as pointless based on a newspaper article. But, I'm sorry for not being more clear. I'm a big fan of sims, but only in their proper place...as an adjunct to a good flight training program, not a substitute for one.

[magnetfreezer]

A couple years back I went to a conference as the F-22/F-15 rep where AETC announced plans to introduce synthetic targets on one of the T-38C MFDs and have students run intercepts against ghosts during IFF. You would be able to switch scope types to make it look like an Eagle or falcon tube depending on the student.

Dumbest thing I ever heard of and I said no. They were floored as they thought it was a brilliant idea. I even called back to run it by the bosses to make sure I wasn't on crack and they were so profanely opposed I cannot fully describe it here. The AETC bubbas could not understand why that was not a good idea.

There is no reason in the world to pay for fuel and maintenance costs on an airplane to teach a guy the basics of how to set intercept geometry. That is EXACTLY why we have simulators.

After the AF consolidates nav training at Pcola, the Navy is getting rid of the T-39s; to replace the training radars they are using virtual A/A and A/G radar in the T-45s: Press Release including the ability to fight another aircraft w/datalink off of TCAS etc or a ghost operated by a ground instructor; the A/G simulator pulling in a terrain database and GPS to generate a ground map.

Don't know how well this will work since part of the WSO training was learning how to deal with a real-world flaky radar instead of the predictable returns from the sim.

[PK...]

Interesting read...

Attachment: Preparing SUPT Students for F-35A Training.pdf

Apparently Big Blue plans on kicking this off with 15-XX / 16-XX UPT graduates. Ummm... Yeah... I don't even know what to say about that one.

Any recent word on the street on the Trainer-X proposal?

---

PK...

[Guest Tanker Driver]

There aren't enough tankers home-stationed to accommodate all the AR requests for the MWS guys. Unless they plan on gluing a boom to the T-1 I don't see how they can put AR in the syllabus for UPT.

[brabus]

Why the hell does AR need to be at UPT? It's been learned in B-Course "since the beginning of time" and produces the required result. And for all the new guys who suck at AR and fall off the boom 6-9 times, I can almost guarantee a couple hook ups (sts) during UPT is not going to change the overall result. IMO, it's a complete waste of time, money and other resources.

[BFM this]

First off, this is an ACSC paper. C'mon, how often do those get any traction?

Second, agree with Brother Brabus-Johnson: you'll get your AR intro in the B-course (MQT often enough). You won't remember what the big deal was two weeks into your first deployment. Two months into said deployment, you'll stay on the boom while using a piddle-pack.

In the last month of the deployment, you'll see which booms catch that you're giving the ops desk dsn every time they ask for your tail number.