Jump to content

Boeing unveils its T-38 replacement

Vito

By Vito
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Stitch Gray Beard

Stitch

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, di1630 said:

f2b1968487f1d4e154fb007f03419ee8.jpg

I've heard good things about the AM T-346. Could fill adv trainer into an armed version for light attack like the Israelis did with it.

But who we kidding. Our inept leadership and system will ensure we get the most costly, best looking if only moderately capable trainer 10yrs from now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Ten years?  Where do you get that number?  Given Mother Blue's procurement track record all of these aircraft/manufacturer's will be out-of-production/business by the time a contract is awarded and the first jets hit the ramp at the UPT bases.  Perhaps they could time the arrival of the new jet to coincide with the T-38's 100th birthday ceremony. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HuggyU2
HuggyU2

I would disagree with you. It is so much more than just a trainer.  Designed in the 1950s, it has done a fantastic job for 50 years in transitioning pilots to supersonic fighters, and a myriad of

sqwatch
sqwatch

Some people can figure it out in a .8. For others, it takes a 3.1 hour sortie and an additional person to lower the gear. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

di1630
di1630

For F-cks sake, You fatty drivers are only reacting to TCAS anyway when anyone gets within 6.9nm so you can file your HATR and bust someone's balls. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Fo

Posted Images

Clark Griswold Gray Beard

Clark Griswold

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

Current brief (as of a few months ago) stated that this is EXCLUSIVELY a UPT/IFF T-38 replacement.  There is no current plan to replace ADAIR, CPPT, or other T-38 roles.  This of course may have already changed, but they're not planning a big buy on this airplane for now.

Copy that - too bad they didn't or couldn't afford to build that into the T-X.  

19 hours ago, di1630 said:

f2b1968487f1d4e154fb007f03419ee8.jpg
I've heard good things about the AM T-346. Could fill adv trainer into an armed version for light attack like the Israelis did with it.
But who we kidding. Our inept leadership and system will ensure we get the most costly, best looking if only moderately capable trainer 10yrs from now.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Too much common sense and 10 years is kinda quick, 15 maybe if we can get it coord'd in TMT.

 

Follow on:

BAE Hawk AJT website.  

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hawk

The Hawk AJT with a small-medium sized buy of Hawk 200's for a Light Fighter / ADAIR would not be a terrible COA.  

2FBBB28F_1143_EC82_2EB0C266FCE3D243.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Clark Griswold
extra credit
Lawman Gray Beard

Lawman

Posted
Posted

Completely on the ground of aesthetics....

They screwed up not locking the tails in a neutral position. Doesn't really mean anything to people familiar with aircraft but from a showmanship standpoint it dirties up that "going fast while standing still" look that a marketing department would be wanting to push.

Sorta the same reason you park airplanes with missiles and cool stuff not just wing tanks hanging all over them at arms fairs. It appeals to subconscious elements in potential customers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Upvote 1
matmacwc Gray Beard

matmacwc

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Vito said:

  "Are You A drug addict"

 

I agree,  I got to fly a T-45 sim two years ago and was not impressed.  

The T-38 isn't impressive either, it's a trainer, that is all.

  • Upvote 1
Napoleon_Tanerite Gray Beard

Napoleon_Tanerite

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, matmacwc said:

The T-38 isn't impressive either, it's a trainer, that is all.

But it's fast!  Truly the flagship of any UPT base (just ask the T-38 guys).

Anything that doesn't involve going fast (you know, things like turning within one county, landing at anything other than ludicrous speed, etc) means nothing to the T-38.

And let's not forget...

71728318.jpg

sqwatch Flight Lead

sqwatch

Posted
Posted
But it's fast!  Truly the flagship of any UPT base (just ask the T-38 guys).

Anything that doesn't involve going fast (you know, things like turning within one county, landing at anything other than ludicrous speed, etc) means nothing to the T-38.

And let's not forget...

71728318.jpg



Some people can figure it out in a .8. For others, it takes a 3.1 hour sortie and an additional person to lower the gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Upvote 14
HuggyU2 Gray Beard

HuggyU2

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, matmacwc said:

The T-38 isn't impressive either, it's a trainer, that is all.  

I would disagree with you. It is so much more than just a trainer. 

Designed in the 1950s, it has done a fantastic job for 50 years in transitioning pilots to supersonic fighters, and a myriad of high-performance heavies and bombers.  NASA astronaut trainers, USAF and Navy TPS usage, test squadron aircraft for chasing cruise missiles on low levels.  And most recently, a jet used to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in its F-22 adversary support role.  Versatile... and impressive. Did you know it briefly held the time to climb record in 1963?   And be thankful:  had the T-38 not been selected, it would have been an F-100 variant.  I'd bet we wouldn't be flying those anymore.

When it came to getting out of Del Rio, Randolph, or Beale on the weekend, the "two-engine, twin-turbine, JP-8 slurpin', dual afterburnin', supersonic bar hopping machine" was the perfect steed. I met a lot of people as a result of the T-38.  Even flew six sorties with Steve Ritchie.  

I got 5 rides in the T-38 in college; solo'd it in 1985; flew it all over the U.S. in some very challenging conditions, and on gorgeous VFR legs through the Sierra and the Rockies; flew my fini flight on 24 Sept 2014.  Some trips were solo, some were with my favorite people. Loved it every time I got in it.  And I am a substantially better pilot today because of all the sorties I flew in that jet.  

I've got over 100 types of aircraft in my logbook, including 8 sorties in the Viper (one from the front seat), a smattering in the Eagle, two in the T-45, three in the A-4,... F-18B, F-18F... and plenty more.  From my perspective, looking at those other 100 types I've gotten stick time in, the T-38 is pretty impressive.

F16 capabilities?  Nope.  But just because you're married to a Brazilian supermodel doesn't mean every other woman is a let down.  

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

Edited by HuggyU2
  • Upvote 17
Napoleon_Tanerite Gray Beard

Napoleon_Tanerite

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, sqwatch said:

 


Some people can figure it out in a .8. For others, it takes a 3.1 hour sortie and an additional person to lower the gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

.8 and 6-9 calls to the SOF.  Too lazy to get the Kermit image macro made up, but you get the picture.

  • Downvote 2
Jaded Gray Beard

Jaded

Posted
Posted

How long does it usually take to resolve the lawsuit after the USAF screws up the bid process? 

For an organization that buys a lot of airplanes, we sure are bad at buying airplanes. 

  • Upvote 1
Sprkt69 Flight Lead

Sprkt69

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Jaded said:

How long does it usually take to resolve the lawsuit after the USAF screws up the bid process? 

For an organization that buys a lot of airplanes, we sure are bad at buying airplanes. 

I'm sure the lawyers are already drawing up the war plans and foaming at the mouth

  • Upvote 1
Clark Griswold Gray Beard

Clark Griswold

Posted
Posted (edited)

NG proposal sighted at Mohave in taxi tests.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/northrop-t-x-breaks-cover-mojave

ngtx.jpg

northrop-tx-prototype.jpg

and an article listing pros and cons of all the prospective entrants, written before the Boeing T-X was reveled but enjoy...

https://aviationweek.com/defense/who-has-edge-us-air-force-t-x-trainer-competition#slide-8-field_images-1494601

10 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

 ...two in the T-45...

What was your take on it as an advanced trainer?

Edited by Clark Griswold
found another picture
Boomer6 Flight Lead

Boomer6

Posted
Posted
On 9/13/2016 at 11:00 PM, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

Because it is impossible to clear for friggin T-38s.  I get it "hurt durr fighter pilot" but the T-38 is not a fighter.  It's a trainer flown by students who have no idea where they are, where they're going or what they're doing.  When you congest the airspace with dozens of students in similar states of mental dysfunction it would be nice to at least be able to SEE the other airplanes.

Lets not kid ourselves, SPs aren't looking outside anyways.

On 9/13/2016 at 9:38 PM, pcola said:

Hmm. Doesn't look like forward visibility from the rear is any better.


Sent from my iPad using Baseops Network Forums

Yeah...apparently being able to see the RWY wasn't in the specifications.

AdiosAETC SNAP

AdiosAETC

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

But it's fast!  Truly the flagship of any UPT base (just ask the T-38 guys).

Anything that doesn't involve going fast (you know, things like turning within one county, landing at anything other than ludicrous speed, etc) means nothing to the T-38.

And let's not forget...

71728318.jpg

 

image.jpeg

  • Upvote 2
Napoleon_Tanerite Gray Beard

Napoleon_Tanerite

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Lets not kid ourselves, SPs aren't looking outside anyways.

I know-- that's why it sucks for me!  I've got my SP with his head in his ass, my jumpseat with his head in his ass, and the T-38 student with his head in his ass.  That's 3-1 against me, a more advantageous paint job would be nice!

  • Downvote 1
M2 Gray Beard

M2

Posted
Posted
On 9/14/2016 at 8:57 PM, Lawman said:

Completely on the ground of aesthetics....

They screwed up not locking the tails in a neutral position. Doesn't really mean anything to people familiar with aircraft but from a showmanship standpoint it dirties up that "going fast while standing still" look that a marketing department would be wanting to push.

Sorta the same reason you park airplanes with missiles and cool stuff not just wing tanks hanging all over them at arms fairs. It appeals to subconscious elements in potential customers.

Maybe it's its resting bitch face... :darkcloud:

 

HerkPerfMan Crew Dawg

HerkPerfMan

Posted
Posted
On 9/13/2016 at 6:53 PM, matmacwc said:

I think we should buy the Korean trainer or the T-45.

What's the max speed on a T-45? If it's not supersonic then forget it.

 

matmacwc Gray Beard

matmacwc

Posted
Posted

What he said, it's just a number in the training environment.  We need something durable, and a plane designed to land on carriers would probably count.  I do think it needs and afterburner though, so studs can learn the value of left hand placement.

  • Upvote 1
Lawman Gray Beard

Lawman

Posted
Posted
What he said, it's just a number in the training environment.  We need something durable, and a plane designed to land on carriers would probably count.  I do think it needs and afterburner though, so studs can learn the value of left hand placement.



I wonder if you could do with the Hawk what the Navy did with the A-4s with the big hot rod motor. It wasn't after-burning, but it allowed that plane to be a perfectly good ACM training adversary.

If possible that seems like it would make the Hawk the low risk option for a trainer since they already have a logistics system in place in the US.

Won't help Boeing or Lockheed maintain market stock prices or constituency jobs though so that's probably out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...