Future T-38 replacement?

[flynhigh]

Anybody heard of this aircraft and it's potential for replacing the T-38?

AvTechGroup Advanced Jet Trainer

I'm sure the company is just living a pipe dream, but I couldn't resist.

[ 29. October 2004, 09:47: Message edited by: flynhigh ]

[Guest goirishgo]

i don't know about the nickname "javelin."

might as well call it the "jart."

[Guest repo]

With the new T-38Cs coming online, I wouldn't expect any replacement for a number of years. Looks like a cool jet, though. Like a mini-hornet...maybe it will replace the Goss Hawk or whatever the Navy uses....

[flynhigh]

Yeah, the Javelin is actually the predecessor, and civilian version, of the Advanced Jet Trainer and is targeted at wealthy businessmen/pilots who want to be able to get places quickly and have fun doing it! I know if I could afford it I would look into one.

[UPT-hopeful]

I saw this airplane on Discover Wings, a small blurb about how the designers wanted to use this as a supersonic bizjet-esque type replacement. Hardly seems reasonable to me (at least at this point).

[LJDRVR]

They are also attempting to market it to the DoD as a low-cost homeland defense interceptor.

Interesting.

[ 29. October 2004, 14:23: Message edited by: LJDRVR ]

[Guest ecutch]

Retired Brig. Gen and Vietnam Ace Steve Ritchie is a consultant for this company. He spoke at my ROTC Detachment my junior year and had brochures for the plane.

[Hacker]

I've seen the mockup for this aircraft (in the pits at the Reno Air Races this year) and spoken at length with one of their sales guys. The designer, and the president of ATG, is a former T-38 UPT instructor, so there at least seems to be some sort of rational basis of experience at ATG.

Personally, I wasn't impressed with what I saw, and I don't see that it offers anything that the T-38C does not outside of some engine commonality with commercial bizjets. There are, of course, advanced aerodynamics and construction methods, but I don't really see how that can enhance student training. It seems like a smaller T-38 to me, and that's about it.

I would be interested to see how the airplane actually flies before I comment on how it would be able to fill the IFF/LIFT role. Based on how the sales guy was talking, he didn't seem to have much experience with teaching fighter pilot basics and couldn't answer many of my questions regarding the airplane's advanced handling qualities. He also didn't seem to have any concept of what was important in teaching budding fighter pilots, going on at length about the airplane's amazing digital scoring system for bomb dropping and weapon shots (it essentially seemed the same capability all ready fielded in the T-38C).

[Clark Griswold]

Relight on cold thread:

Alright, I've been following the "F-16 students skip Phase III" thread and there have been several good sidebars on going back to UPT vs. SUPT with a single advanced trainer, are the requirements set for T-X really necessary for training in SUPT, etc...

Thinking on those a bit and stepping back a few feet, ultimately what is the purpose of phase III?

To introduce advanced military flying training/concepts to reduce training in the first MDS of the studs?

Or primarily a final evaluation exercise to see how quickly they grasp a new aircraft, new concepts, etc... while integrating the base of knowledge acquired in IFS, Phase I and II of SUPT and then rank the class accordingly?

Probably both so what tasks of advanced military airmanship are we looking to emphasize?  Mission / Spatial / Temporal SA, Comm Management & Prioritization, System Management & Maximization, etc..

@ClearedHot brought up the Scorpion as a trainer (in the other thread) and I am thinking now that is the better choice for its open architecture, low cost of operation, reliability, etc... with those traits you could probably emulate all aspects of challenging, dynamic modern military missions but you would probably not get the high aspect BFM performance you get with an afterburner jet, but is that necessary in SUPT?

Thoughts?

[matmacwc]

T-45 or T-50, already exist, supply chains in place.

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, matmacwc said:

T-45 or T-50, already exist, supply chains in place.

For a jet that costs $30M plus each...

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, matmacwc said:

T-45 or T-50, already exist, supply chains in place.

True but I don't think the Scorpion would have a problem matching them in logistical costs as part of the overall system design it was designed to leverage Cessna's proven parts and MX supply chain.

Break - Break...

But what is it exactly we want to be produced and sorted based on merit from Phase III and then assigned best to meet the needs of the AF?

I would posit that we need a shift back to UPT with the goal of the overall process (selection, screening, training and evaluation) to produce a Military Pilot.  Differentiating that from a pilot (private or commercial) as one that is well trained in basic airmanship and skills but a sizable portion of his/her training is focused on developing traits, habits and experience in maintaining Situational Awareness, Prioritization, Effective Communication and Team Leadership (leading the formation, crew, supporting the GFC, etc...).

For me, to do this we would extend IFS to build the very basics of airmanship and aviation GK economically, Phase II would be longer with more instrument / cross country (retaining aero and form) to build experience in aviation operations generally and then to Phase III with only instrument work coincidental with military mission concept introduction.  This would probably stretch UPT out a bit further than a year but the product supplied to the AF will advance faster in training (my theory) in their assigned MDS and ultimately cost less to reach the required proficiency prior to reporting to the actual line squadron.

I am probably preaching to the choir as I think everyone sees that UPT needs to produce but for the given current realities of the AF (high ops tempo, flat budgets, aging equipment) we need to actually not reduce training / standards in SUPT but modestly increase it and focus training in Phase III not on doing a fix to fix (Hitler video was funny) or instrument approaches ad nauseum but on the skill sets (SA; ability to manage chaos, recover and prioritize; cool nerves developed from some stress induced in training) as IPs / ACs / Flight Leads / etc... we value in our co-pilots and wingmen.  

This new Phase III would look somewhat similar to the Navy's T-45 program just as a reference.

More rides, hours and training scenarios calling on multiple skills I believe is more economically and realistically achievable in a system like the Scorpion and ultimately better for the AF.  Just my two cents.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[LookieRookie]

IMHO, the T-50 and T-100 are the only jets that can be procured quickly, although DRS said they will be building a new factory in Alabama. All the other jets will need a lot more time/testing change the "production example" prototype into an actual mission ready variant.

Which is why I don't understand all the Scorpion craziness.

[matmacwc]

I just don't understand the scorpion love, you guys getting paid?  It looks underpowered (from reading the specs, A-10 sort of power) and just butt ugly.  If we are going to train the next gen of fighter pilots, we need something that will blow the doors down when you go AB.

[Clark Griswold]

23 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

IMHO, the T-50 and T-100 are the only jets that can be procured quickly, although DRS said they will be building a new factory in Alabama. All the other jets will need a lot more time/testing change the "production example" prototype into an actual mission ready variant.

Which is why I don't understand all the Scorpion craziness.

Not sure about if the Scorpion that was at LAE was the final configuration but given it's open architecture design and use of COTS for the basics (and just the standard configuration as it exists now) configuring it to a SUPT Phase III configuration should not be a big deal.  That's just from me with no formal connection to Textron Air-Land or the AF offices testing / evaluating it but I don't think that guess is too far from the mark.

18 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

I just don't understand the scorpion love, you guys getting paid?  It looks underpowered (from reading the specs, A-10 sort of power) and just butt ugly.  If we are going to train the next gen of fighter pilots, we need something that will blow the doors down when you go AB.

Unfortunately I receive no internet Scorpion fan boy money I just do it for free (sts).  

No argument that it will not be a BFM monster but I will focus on one part of what you said, "if we are going to train the next gen of fighter pilots", and I would argue that Phase III is not the place to do that specifically.  Phase III, IMO, is for teaching how to generically accomplish and manage a variety of military missions.  From that syllabus and the order of merit for the studs, dudes could select fighters and the training to get there.

A better IFF program with a rock solid modern LIFT jet like the T-50, T-00 or Boeing T-X is what is called for.  If moi were king for a day, IFF and ADAIR would be one program and before dudes showed up to fly Vipers, Eagles, Raptors, Lightings they would complete IFF and get more seasoning in a less expensive jet fighting the planes they are going to fly.  They show up with more air and more tactical training time.

[hindsight2020]

37 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

For a jet that costs $30M plus each...

Noted, but JPATS/JSF demonstrated the multiple-platform position has been largely bypassed by Big Blue going forward. The bottom line is that the T-X requirements are set, both the T50 and the T100 are already in production, with the T-100 having a cost advantage at below $20M based on the M-346 (not far from the Super-Citation, which doesn't even meet the T-X specs in the variant they had before they dropped out). 

ScorpionJet's T-X version is vaporware at this point. Cessna openly gave up the effort to tweak the motors and make the aerodynamic mods required to make the superCitation anywhere near a contender (mainly, cut the hell outta that glider ISR wingspan). 

I understand your call for austerity based on your apparent regard for the "small-fry" "low-performance" mission set of phase III, but your darling IFF is neither on the path to institutional expansion in present fiscal circumstances, nor getting a dedicated jet that phase III doesn't get to play with. The outcome will be a one aircraft solution, just like it exists currently. The IFF old guard just needs to get with the program. I believe they will.

To your point regarding costs, I think the T-100 is the best choice going forward, though I would love to finish my career in a baby Viper on a purely PFA basis.  You and I both know that the T-X, just like JSF, KC-X and JPATS before it, will blow the top off their stated budget. But that has nothing to do with the merits of the hardware, so we're crying over spilt milk on that one. I just want the IOC streamlined before more 38s inflight hull losses due to both the experience and mx fronts. 

[MooseAg03]

I think the point with the Scorpion is the positive economics for UPT. In a single track UPT we are just training pilots, let an expanded IFF course in a more advanced afterburning trainer like the T-50 teach high performance maneuvering. I’m just a heavy guy, what do I know, but we are broke. We’ve been trying to buy a new tanker for decades and still don’t have a single tail, and if our trainers suffer similar delays we will break our ability to produce pilots which the Air Force is apparently betting the farm on. It makes sense to me to find an economical advanced trainer and to simplify UPT back to a single phase III jet.

[hindsight2020]

40 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

I just don't understand the scorpion love, you guys getting paid?  It looks underpowered (from reading the specs, A-10 sort of power) and just butt ugly.  If we are going to train the next gen of fighter pilots, we need something that will blow the doors down when you go AB.

No love for the Slowtation here. I'm a T-50 guy all the way, but I'm warming up to the idea a T-100 would get the job done for less devil's money.Boeing's T-X is a concept car boondoggle compared to the former two, which is why I'm not really impressed by their chances.

[hindsight2020]

13 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

I think the point with the Scorpion is the positive economics for UPT. In a single track UPT we are just training pilots, let an expanded IFF course in a more advanced afterburning trainer like the T-50 teach high performance maneuvering. I’m just a heavy guy, what do I know, but we are broke. We’ve been trying to buy a new tanker for decades and still don’t have a single tail, and if our trainers suffer similar delays we will break our ability to produce pilots which the Air Force is apparently betting the farm on. It makes sense to me to find an economical advanced trainer and to simplify UPT back to a single phase III jet.

The T-100 economics are on par with the Citationjet, when viewed in the aggregate. We could even beat those economies of scale by going to Yakovlev (the M-346 is but a Yak-130 permutation), but no way the US awards a T-X contract to a peer adversary. Why are we talking about the Scorpion anyways? They're out. I have a better chance of winning bronze in female gymnastics than the T-X program is to down-write the RFP for the hardware.

This is coming down to T-50 and Boeing T-X, with Leonardo DRS (Raytheon stood them up at the prom) as the Cinderella underdog with the T-100 stand-alone pitch. As long as Boeing doesn't win I'm happy.  Because Fvck Boeing that's why. Their poorly coded MFD tries to kill me every week, and their tech support literally looks like they hired some laid off cable guys yokels from San Antonio to go give me the runaround while their field office contractors back in KSKF probably make more surfing the web than I do spinning the revolver chamber one more time down here...and I digress.

Edited November 26, 2017 by hindsight2020

[Kenny Powers]

 If moi were king for a day, IFF and ADAIR would be one program and before dudes showed up to fly Vipers, Eagles, Raptors, Lightings they would complete IFF and get more seasoning in a less expensive jet fighting the planes they are going to fly.  They show up with more air and more tactical training time.

This doesn't make any sense. Flying Red Air in a -38 will not make you a better fighter pilot in follow on platforms. If you want to make a guy good in a specific jet, put them in that jet and let them fly. Dudes are ready to fly fighters after they leave IFF as is (or at least should be).

As far as a replacement goes, it needs wings and an afterburner. Anything else is a nice to have.

[HuggyU2]

11 minutes ago, Kenny Powers said:

As far as a replacement goes, it needs wings and an afterburner.

 

Why insist on an afterburner?  How about simply some performance metrics?

I've got 13 hours in the Alpha Jet, and it out performs the T-38... with no burner.  

Edited November 26, 2017 by HuggyU2

[Kenny Powers]

Maybe you don't need one, but every follow on fighter is going to have it.

 

It'll start to teach them good fuel awareness and throttle usage during sorties, so they don't Bingo out the 4 ship 20 minutes into the Vul, which also makes them fly better formation.

 

If you're going to teach BFM in it, then you can teach when to be in AB vs Mil vs Idle when offensive, defensive, or high aspect.

 

It's probably also a good time to teach AB failures on takeoff, blowouts, AB fires, etc..

 

Last, but definitely not least, it's f#cking cool. Just like anything else in flying fighters, the feel/sound associated with pilot input is critical in teaching and assessing performance.

 

 

 

 

[HuggyU2]

If you want a gold-plated trainer, then just say so.  But do you need it to get your wings?

Many ways to skin the cat.

I don't know much about how the Israelis run their UPT syllabus... but maybe we should take a hard look at some of their methods and ideas.  

[Kenny Powers]

I agree, if you were asking me.

Let's put our money into our follow on Aircraft, not into some trainer. Guys go from flying -38s with no HUD to flying Raptors with all the bells and whistles. While task saturation is an issue initially, they figure it out. We don't need all this shit in a trainer.

[Clark Griswold]

44 minutes ago, Kenny Powers said:

This doesn't make any sense. Flying Red Air in a -38 will not make you a better fighter pilot in follow on platforms. If you want to make a guy good in a specific jet, put them in that jet and let them fly. Dudes are ready to fly fighters after they leave IFF as is (or at least should be).

As far as a replacement goes, it needs wings and an afterburner. Anything else is a nice to have.

 

Gotcha and will defer to your opinion (not an 11F) on Red Air.  

My main point is that the Phase III syllabus (if we return to UPT vs SUPT) should be changed to be less fighter lead in focused and more broad in scope.