Boeing unveils its T-38 replacement

[Blue]

2 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Go with reason

I thought that being able to go supersonic was one of the original requirements for the T-X?  

[HerkPerfMan]

6 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said:

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

 

 

4 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

Go with reason

T-38 is a supersonic advanced trainer, so I made the leap that T-X would have to be supersonic as well. But going back through the T-X requirements matrix, speed is not even mentioned. The closest thing I can find is: "25. Maneuverability - flight characteristics - Remain in controlled flight while conducting all APT syllabus maneuvers."  Are there any supersonic maneuvers in the APT syllabus? If not, then I stand corrected and a transonic jet fits the bill.

[dannoc]

Back when I was a 38 IP (ages ago) there was only one flight where supersonic flight was intentionally flown and that was more a "wow" event and "been there, done that".  Very little training value in watching the mach indicator tick over 1.0.

[Sprkt69]

They have taken that flight out of the syllabus a long time ago. 

[Toro]

They have taken that flight out of the syllabus a long time ago. 

It's still in the ENJJPT syllabus, but it's a completely worthless ride.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Jaded]

I thought that the point of the ride was deincentivizing solo studs from going supersonic during solo area rides. 

[Toro]

I thought that the point of the ride was deincentivizing solo studs from going supersonic during solo area rides. 

The supersonic ride is after most of the solos in the program, definitely in contact.

[Jaded]

I would bet that fewer studs go supersonic at Sheppard than the other bases. Those solo rides are the only opportunities that many people have to break that barrier and people take advantage of the opportunity.

Regardless of the timing in the syllabus, there's no reason to do it on your own if you know you're going to do it eventually. 

[Clark Griswold]

11 hours ago, HerkPerfMan said:

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

Wiki says 560 at altitude, seems reasonable.  The Wiki on the T-X program also said NG was originally going with the BAE Hawk (with NG as the prime contractor and partnering with BAE Systems) but after wind tunnel testing went with a clean sheet design as the Hawk didn't fare as well and they were concerned with affordability.  

No elaboration on the fear of costs creeping up as the T-45 program would likely offer some economy of scale savings but whatever.

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Clark Griswold
minor

[Kenny Powers]

As others have pointed out, the only real reason I know I'm supersonic is because there's a number in my HUD that tells me so. Sometimes I look at it to ensure I'm complying with airspace regs, but usually not even then...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Razor666]

Sheppard still has the supersonic ride in the syllabus. As others have mentioned that have earned their "mach crush" it is literally watching a needle that goes from .99M to 1.0M. You notice nothing different in the jet. I would like to see afterburner on the new TX though. That extra boost of power has saved many of a student and IP from a seriously terrible landing or emergency low to the ground. Plus if the whole program of flying the T-X is to produce fighter and bomber dudes, all of our fighters have AB. So in my humble opinion, train the way you fight. 

[Sprkt69]

My favorite quote from a UPT instructor was "AETC - Ain't Even Thinking Combat"

[billy pilgrim]

I say it's LO to get studs ready for their fifth gen follow on.  I nominate LM to build it!

Kidding aside, it would make a lot of sense to have a fly-by-wire with similar wing-loading to current fighters.

[Tonka]

Mod note: 2 other T-X threads, one linked below and here.

AVtech (thread) went bankrupt and Stavatii picked up there design (link).  Planning on making a run for the T-X.

link

The Stavatti Javelin maintains many exterior characteristics of the original Javelin design but benefits from structural improvements to increase maximum load factor to 9-Gs, more powerful engines, greater internal fuel capacity, increased maximum external warload, higher maximum takeoff weight, a cockpit designed for the T-X mission that satisfies JPATs flight crew accommodation cases 1-8, and a maximum level speed of Mach 1.36. The result is a very affordable, next generation supersonic trainer.

[LookieRookie]

In other news, Raytheon and Northrop both dropped out.

[VMFA187]

On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 4:53 PM, matmacwc said:

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

There was an Air Force dude years back that flew with us when I was a student in Kingsville who said he was tasked to evaluate the T-45 as a potential replacement. That was probably back in 2010...

[Clark Griswold]

Just grist for the mill but found another concept for a Lead in Trainer / Light Attack aircraft:

Rud Aero RA-6

https://rud.aero/our-aircraft/ra-6-multipurpose-jet-aircraft/

[LookieRookie]

The T-100 is back in the mix.

https://www.defensenews.com/articles/leonardo-goes-it-alone-on-tx-bid

[Majestik Møøse]

"It's not T-38-y enough!" Why don't we just build some new T-38s and get it over with. Bigger wings, bigger tires, more efficient motors; whatever it takes to keep Stanley Student from killing himself. No datalinks or any of that bullshit. Then send the old ones to CAF/MAF bases for CPT programs since they're cheaper and harder to fly than every other Air Force jet. Fuel budget down, morale up, and NG gets thrown a bone.

[Day Man]

2 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

The T-100 is back in the mix.

https://www.defensenews.com/articles/leonardo-goes-it-alone-on-tx-bid

That's a good looking plane (from that angle)...like the love child of an F-16, F-18, and A-4.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Day Man

[BashiChuni]

47 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said:

"It's not T-38-y enough!" Why don't we just build some new T-38s and get it over with. Bigger wings, bigger tires, more efficient motors; whatever it takes to keep Stanley Student from killing himself. No datalinks or any of that bullshit. Then send the old ones to CAF/MAF bases for CPT programs since they're cheaper and harder to fly than every other Air Force jet. Fuel budget down, morale up, and NG gets thrown a bone.

seriously. it shouldnt be this hard.

[Robo]

"It's not T-38-y enough!" Why don't we just build some new T-38s and get it over with. Bigger wings, bigger tires, more efficient motors; whatever it takes to keep Stanley Student from killing himself. No datalinks or any of that bullshit. Then send the old ones to CAF/MAF bases for CPT programs since they're cheaper and harder to fly than every other Air Force jet. Fuel budget down, morale up, and NG gets thrown a bone.

If anyone needs to be thrown a bone it's Boeing.

[Dynamite]

I'm sure Boeing will have something to say if the contract goes to some other company.

[HU&W]

3 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

"It's not T-38-y enough!" Why don't we just build some new T-38s and get it over with. Bigger wings, bigger tires, more efficient motors; whatever it takes to keep Stanley Student from killing himself. 

Good point.  Why's it so hard to build modernized versions of stuff we figured out 30-50 years ago?

[Lawman]

Good point.  Why's it so hard to build modernized versions of stuff we figured out 30-50 years ago?

You mean like getting a glass cockpit and modern navigation in what is essentially an airliner so old it's been retired from US carrier service?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk