Tyndall to Gain T-38 Detachment

[Guest]

I love it. This isn't the place to get into that argument, you say, but now lets' discuss it some more.

The point is, the Raptors have some valid reasons for wanting to have 38s on hand to use as adversaries, and they're perfectly aware what limitations a T-38 brings to that training. I think they're pretty well set in the "Mike Tyson" department, not to worry.

Shack.

[EvilEagle]

They are using F-4s as practice right now. I am guessing this is to act as a replacement for some of those.

Nope, the F-4's are there as part of the WEG, they don't fly with/against the 22s.

[RTB]

I'm bettin on the Tyndall guys being dual qual'd 22/38.

Apparently that's not going to happen at Tyndall due to IP workload with sims, flights, academics, etc. They're looking at other options.

Shouldn't be too hard to scrounge up 10 T-38's considering 2 out of the 5 IFF squadrons are closing. Maybe a few lucky Smurf drivers can move from the hinterlands to sunny Florida.

C models would be nice but they'll all be A model T-38s. The initial 15 jets (7 for Langley and 8 for Tyndall) will come from 15 Korean jets that were returned last year from long term 'lease'. Tyndall will get 2 additional jets from Beale to make the 10 total.

[Kelvin]

Flew through Holloman last weekend and was talking to a crew chief about this. The Korean -38's are going to go through Holloman to get upgraded to C-model status, then get redistributed to Tyndall/Langley.

I also know at least some of the pilots who fly the Talons are full time at it. I knew of a T-38 FAIP who got offered the job to lead the "aggressor" group at Holloman, but wouldn't be flying Raptors (and wasn't guaranteed to on his next tour) so he turned the job down.

[ram02]

I wonder if these guys would also end up doing some work with the ABM schoolhouse. Unless things have changed since I left, I know the first live aircraft students control is the mighty MU-2; perhaps the T-38s could be worked into the syllabus somewhere even though they don't have a radar.

[Whitty]

I wonder if these guys would also end up doing some work with the ABM schoolhouse. Unless things have changed since I left, I know the first live aircraft students control is the mighty MU-2; perhaps the T-38s could be worked into the syllabus somewhere even though they don't have a radar.

So far no word on if that is going to happen. Initial live control is still done with the MU-2 contractors. They've been sending people TDY to Oregon to finish up fighter control missions at the tail end of the course ever since the Eagles left for Klamath.

They've had some students controlling Raptor v Raptor but it has supposedly been a real shit show.

[RTB]

Flew through Holloman last weekend and was talking to a crew chief about this. The Korean -38's are going to go through Holloman to get upgraded to C-model status, then get redistributed to Tyndall/Langley.

True that Holloman is doing the refurbishment on the jets but unfortunately, they'll still be A models when they're done. The refurb will tear them down for a detailed inspection, TCTO compliance and a dual radio mod but that's it. Same old school cockpit. The only other addition will be Garmin GPSMAP 696s that will be carried to the jet each sortie and snap into the map light bracket on the canopy rail. It's actually a pretty good setup, all things considered. BL for this program - min cost.

[Karl Hungus]

They've had some students controlling Raptor v Raptor but it has supposedly been a real shit show.

So basically just like real world AWACS.

[Chuck17]

So basically just like real world AWACS.

Excellent! Well played...

Chuck

[brabus]

Excellent! Well played...

2.

[HuggyU2]

... but unfortunately, they'll still be A models when they're done.

Based on my limited experience in the C-model, I'd say "fortunately".

I find it to be a poor execution on the glass cockpit concept.

But, I'm probably in the minority.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Huggyu2

[Hacker]

Based on my limited experience in the C-model, I'd say "fortunately".

I find it to be a poor execution on the glass cockpit concept.

But, I'm probably in the minority.

I actually think the C model is pretty nice. It certainly slaughters the basic navigational abilities of the Strike Eagle, although everything about it is dumbed down and simplified for use in the training environment. It's pretty nice to be able to simply go GPS-direct to any ICAO point, as well as have 3 different bearing pointers going to three different NAVAIDs. It makes the ol "Widowmaker" out at Roswell so much easier without that TACAN-to-ILS-DME switch.

[SurelySerious]

I actually think the C model is pretty nice.... It's pretty nice to be able to simply go GPS-direct to any ICAO point, as well as have 3 different bearing pointers going to three different NAVAIDs.

2.

[Dupe]

I actually think the C model is pretty nice. It certainly slaughters the basic navigational abilities of the Strike Eagle, although everything about it is dumbed down and simplified for use in the training environment. It's pretty nice to be able to simply go GPS-direct to any ICAO point, as well as have 3 different bearing pointers going to three different NAVAIDs.

I don't quite understand why the T-38C has FMS-type avionics in it when none of the Air Force fighters that T-38 studs will follow on to have that capability. Why didn't they save the money on some of the avionics and put it towards an ejection seat that won't kill you or figuring out a way to calculate TOLD that doesn't take a degree in theoretical mathematics to understand?

[HuggyU2]

It certainly slaughters the basic navigational abilities of the Strike Eagle,...

I never expected that.

And while the A-model is basic, I'm pretty good with a Garmin 396/496/696.

[Seriously]

I don't quite understand why the T-38C has FMS-type avionics in it when none of the Air Force fighters that T-38 studs will follow on to have that capability. Why didn't they save the money on some of the avionics and put it towards an ejection seat that won't kill you or figuring out a way to calculate TOLD that doesn't take a degree in theoretical mathematics to understand?

... The T-38 just got a new seat and there are excel programs that can calculate the TOLD faster than you can type in the parameters.

[Hacker]

or figuring out a way to calculate TOLD that doesn't take a degree in theoretical mathematics to understand?

That was your bros out at TPS that came up with that gem.

[Dupe]

... The T-38 just got a new seat.

Great! Finally! How many bros morted during an T-38C ejection that wasn't sequenced or was out of limits for the seat? I can think of at least two dudes, and I have minimal T-38 historical knowledge. My point is that the program spent money on a nice-to-have system right away in the T-38C, but took better than a decade to update the seat. Sure...the GPS gadgetry was probably a cheaper mod. All it cost was a couple of lives.

... The T-38 just got a new seat and there are excel programs that can calculate the TOLD faster than you can type in the parameters.

The excell gonkers have been around for a while: calculating TOLD is a snap...but I really think that its pretty damn complicated. You've got NACS, MACS, RS-BEO, RS-EF, DS, SETOS, and CEFS. Those are alot of numbers for a young guy to keep track of all at once. For an trainer that is rediculously underpowered on a single engine, I really think there should be a more LT-proof TOLD scheme.

But hell...what do I know? Opinions are like ass-holes, and I don't have much T-38 time in my ARMS products.

[Slander]

Great! Finally! How many bros morted during an T-38C ejection that wasn't sequenced or was out of limits for the seat? I can think of at least two dudes, and I have minimal T-38 historical knowledge. My point is that the program spent money on a nice-to-have system right away in the T-38C, but took better than a decade to update the seat. Sure...the GPS gadgetry was probably a cheaper mod. All it cost was a couple of lives.

The excell gonkers have been around for a while: calculating TOLD is a snap...but I really think that its pretty damn complicated. You've got NACS, MACS, RS-BEO, RS-EF, DS, SETOS, and CEFS. Those are alot of numbers for a young guy to keep track of all at once. For an trainer that is rediculously underpowered on a single engine, I really think there should be a more LT-proof TOLD scheme.

But hell...what do I know? Opinions are like ass-holes, and I don't have much T-38 time in my ARMS products.

Disagree. The told is complicated, yes, but too hard for the students to deal with? Not a chance. There is a lot of discussion in the beginning of phase 3 on what the told means and what the different numbers mean. And lets be serious, there are really only 3 numbers that matter on the t/o roll and with the PMP the go/no-go decision is a lot easier. When I left sheppard in May there was 1 IFF jet and 6-9 UPT jets that weren't PMP. There's no need to go into what the abort criteria in the t-38 are, but I would submit that it's just not that tough. There are plenty of dangerous portions in the t-38 syllabus, single engine approaches and no flap landings come to mind. Do you recommend that the USAF mods all the t-38s with bigger wings so the approach speeds are slower too?

I think a big reason behind the c-model upgrade was to get budding tactical juggernauts potentially going to fighters some experience with a limited HOTAS, HUD, and UFC. I never flew the A-model -38 but I certainly liked the instruments in the c-model and having a HUD made learning to land a little less hair-raising I think. Compared to my hud-out approaches they were much better.

And by the way the new seat still won't work in the final turn if the motors both quit. Something about a -1600-1900 VVI for the first 1/2 makes it tricky to have a seat that works.

[HuggyU2]

...and having a HUD made learning to land a little less hair-raising I think. Compared to my hud-out approaches they were much better.

I think I'm going to have a heart attack... or a stroke.... or both.

Maybe I should just retire (again), and go away.

I know... I'll start my SNJ training next month. That will cheer me up.

[Hacker]

Disagree. The told is complicated, yes, but too hard for the students to deal with? Not a chance.

Just out of curiosity, which other single-seat multiengine jets do you have experience with?

Comparatively, the T-38C PMP TOLD is a friggin' nightmare next to what they'll need to know in real gray jets further down the line.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Hacker

[ClearedHot]

I think I'm going to have a heart attack... or a stroke.... or both.

Maybe I should just retire (again), and go away.

"Two"...No HUD...gasp, how did us old farts ever learn to fly or land the T-38? I never found T-38 TOLD to be that difficult, I guess because in the old days we did it with an abacus.

Edited December 17, 2010 by ClearedHot

[Hacker]

I never found T-38 TOLD to be that difficult, I guess because in the old days we did it with an abacus.

Actually, the old T-38 TOLD was simply not valid...that was the problem with it.

Edited December 17, 2010 by ClearedHot

[Guest]

Actually, the old T-38 TOLD was simply not valid...that was the problem with it.

It wasn't a problem for me.

TOLD in ATC (or Air etc. as it's now known) is for the douchebags in check section to jack off over.

Glad I never crashed because I didn't have a HUD. Or because the sun was in my eyes. Or because a rock was in my shoe.

Or...because of invalid TOLD.

[Slander]

Didn't say a hud was required, I said it was nice. And I didn't say I had boatloads of experience in multiengine fighters, I said the t-38 told isn't that complicated, and that comes from a dude who had no concept of what most of that meant before I got the the -38.

In the -38, there were 3 important numbers I cared about on the t/o roll, and the abort decision matrix was pretty simple. Not sure how well it translated to the next jet, but whatever. I'm not saying the a model is a bad jet, I'm saying the c model upgrades are nice and made my life easier.

Agree that told is for the check section chodes.