Future T-38 replacement?

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

49 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

15% - that’s the total of SUPT that go to fighters?

If so, then it makes zero financial sense to synch Phase 3 with IFF by aircraft type - just make IFF longer and harder (sts) and get a more economical Phase 3 trainer which IMO should be a Scorpion

WAG and maybe a bit exaggerated, but figure average T-1 class is ~12-18 and the average T-38 class is 5-7 (not counting international) and you're looking at anywhere from 69-85% of graduated pilots coming out of the toner, not counting the couple guys who tracked to Rucker.  

[di1630]

when Chinese hordes launch

Ahhh, how many times have a heard this one.

I get it and agree that A/A cant be neglected but I’ve seen primary mission capes suffer because mis prioritization.

In the USAF I’ve worked with squadrons who are barely familiar with some A/G mission aspects that are far more likely to occur than A/A given their hardware/location but they hold onto their “heritage” to their detriment.

It gets worse with (many) the Europeans who over emphasize the A/A mission and have very little legit focus on A/G. Step into a European LFE and its A/A centric with all A/G simulating 1984 WW3....then laugh when they are unable to do anything resembling SCAR, opposed CAS, CSAR, work with a FAC or stray from the black line AI. And god forbid you ask the A/A to support the A/G mission.

Point being, this mis priority of training emphasis is all over the place from UPT skills up to and through huge NATO exercises.

Get a trainer that can train for the future. The T-38 was designed for century series fighter prep.

[SurelySerious]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

15% - that’s the total of SUPT that go to fighters?

If so, then it makes zero financial sense to synch Phase 3 with IFF by aircraft type - just make IFF longer and harder (sts) and get a more economical Phase 3 trainer which IMO should be a Scorpion

Your lobbying for the scorpion makes even less sense when you’re backing it up with that data.  

[hindsight2020]

T-X compliant retrofit to the Cessna SuperCitation, I mean Airland Scorpion, is not even in the T-X running anymore. So it's

 

My money is Lockmart gets the contract, though in an aggregate view I think the Leonardo DRS M-346 variant (T-100) offering is probably the most balanced option out there that meets the criteria. Current production, ground training systems as well, Israelis currently use it successfully to follow on into the F-35. I really don't know the reason Raytheon backed out of the partnership. Something tells me they probably knew something about LockMart that Leonardo chose to gamble with anyways.

[Clark Griswold]

2 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Your lobbying for the scorpion makes even less sense when you’re backing it up with that data.  

Alright, off the cuff data / public math then...

They want 350 on the initial buy of T-X but only 25% of T-X are truly needed for fighter pilot production and let's add 10% to that for a better ADAIR program, 10% for TPS and Chase Ship Programs and another 5% for attrition so in reality you need 50% or 350 that comes to 175 airframes on the initial buy.  At 30 million a tail that comes to 5.25 billion for purchase and figure sustainment for those tails at $6,000 per flight hour (WAG) and the 88 training tails fly 500 hours per FY and the other 87 tails 200 per FY so that is $264 million for 44,000 training hours + 104.4 million for 17,400 other hours = 368.4 million per FY for T-X in O&M cost, rough number but seems reasonable.  

So as the AF only bought the T-Xs actually required for the missions where called for it effectively saved in the purchase 175 x $30 million = 5.25 billion in purchase costs and instead of flying students not going to fighters in 175 T-Xs x 500 x $6,000 per flight hour at 525 million per FY and instead bought 400 Scorpion jets (divesting the T-1 and using the Scorpion) it spent 8 billion up front but per FY it replaced aging iron (T-1) and assuming the Scorpion is selected somehow from LAE it synchronizes logistics with that program also and has new, easily sustainable iron on the ramp for Stanley to abuse learning the ropes.  Per FY it saves by flying 175 Scorps vs T-X at 3K per hour versus 6K per hour about 262.5 million per FY that the training Scorps are on the flight line.

So after all that by going with a less expensive option for the dudes who are not actually going to fly fighters you save over a quarter of a billion dollars per FY, that pays for 12 Scorps per FY in savings plus some other large number I can't figure out right from retiring the T-1 fleet before it becomes a MX hog and is old, expensive iron to fly and the savings from hopefully synching up logistics with an operational Scorp fleet.  

All that is probably north of 500 million bucks, serious money for the AF to save every FY.

1 hour ago, hindsight2020 said:

T-X compliant retrofit to the Cessna SuperCitation, I mean Airland Scorpion, is not even in the T-X running anymore. So it's

My money is Lockmart gets the contract, though in an aggregate view I think the Leonardo DRS M-346 variant (T-100) offering is probably the most balanced option out there that meets the criteria. Current production, ground training systems as well, Israelis currently use it successfully to follow on into the F-35. I really don't know the reason Raytheon backed out of the partnership. Something tells me they probably knew something about LockMart that Leonardo chose to gamble with anyways.

You are probably right but I rage (pointlessly) never the less.

I am a Scorpion cultist but y'all are probably right on the T-50 / T-100, Boeing's offering seems less viable as it is not as established.  Only saw the vendor booths for those two systems in 2015 at the AFA convention, both impressive, but I would probably go with T-50 for a better lead in to the F-35A.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[SurelySerious]

2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Nsplayer magnitude words words words

I meant: if only 18% of dudes are going to fly fighters, then why would you advocate for any single track two seat maneuverable trainer?  If you’re going for cost-effective training, it’s illogical to argue for the Scorpion when the vast majority of dudes in the advanced phase are never going above 60 degrees of bank. 

[Clark Griswold]

2 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

I meant: if only 18% of dudes are going to fly fighters, then why would you advocate for any single track two seat maneuverable trainer?  If you’re going for cost-effective training, it’s illogical to argue for the Scorpion when the vast majority of dudes in the advanced phase are never going above 60 degrees of bank. 

Exactly and what I should have put in is we still need SUPT but SUPT with three advanced trainer options: Scorpion, T-X and Helos.

Consolidated T-X (fighter) at 2 to 3 bases and have their syllabus in two parts:  Phase 3 and earning wings then roll straight to IFF.  

The majority of studs go to Scorps and do a new Phase III syllabus to develop Mobility, SOF, ISR, RPA, OSA, etc... pilots.  True the majority of dudes will not be maneuvering tactically but the new Phase III will be to grow a cadre of non fighter but tactically minded aviators who will more naturally flow between Mobility, ISR, SOF, etc... assignments in their careers.

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

T-X compliant retrofit to the Cessna SuperCitation, I mean Airland Scorpion, is not even in the T-X running anymore. So it's

So lets stay with the same broken model that can't surge to the needs of a breaking force?

The OAX experiment was an effort to help shape the purchase of 300 aircraft for Light -Attack...Congress is doing it at their own direction since the Air Force can't even seem to properly fuck a football.  I would not be surprised to see that 300 morph into a mixed mission acquisition that provides light attack and a manned ISR replacement. 

EVERYONE on here is screaming for more flight time...buy a couple hundred of these for phase III UPT or light attack or manned ISR or fucking companion trainers.  Fly the SHIT out of them at $5k per hour and build a base of pilots with flight time and air sense.  So basic CAS and BFM (yes the new version of the Scorpion can do 7G BFM), put a 5th Gen OFP and build muscle memory...break the paradigm that is helping put the AF in this corner of the envelope.

[ClearedHot]

5 minutes ago, BeerMan said:

Oh, and Scorpion sounds cool but it’s far from a production ready, COTS or proven concept. It’s akin to going to Maytag and asking them to build you a new HDTV. Can they do it? Probably. Maybe? But it ain’t going to be tomorrow, and it ain’t going to be cheap.

100% disagree.  And no I don't work for Textron, but I can tell you first hand, the jet is farther along and has more capability than any of the other OAX applicants.

[hindsight2020]

11 minutes ago, BeerMan said:

No argument from the OA-X standpoint, not my lane and honestly from outside my lane, twin engine, range, payload, and basically fitting into “how we operate as an Air Force” makes sense to me, especially over a turbo prop. Light attack, ISR, whatever...go nuts!

But this is the T-38 replacement thread. Are you arguing that it should be the T-38 replacement?

Exactly my thoughts.

[hindsight2020]

10 minutes ago, BeerMan said:

And no offense but you and Clark sound like you’re on the payroll! 

glad I'm not the only one who noticed...

[Kenny Powers]

Everyone is shouting about which jet is better when we really need to be talking about what the requirements are. Find the jets that meet those requirements, buy the cheapest one.

 

 

[hindsight2020]

2 minutes ago, Kenny Powers said:

Everyone is shouting about which jet is better when we really need to be talking about what the requirements are. Find the jets that meet those requirements, but the cheapest one.

We did. The T-100. 

That in no way means it will be the choice. Again, those of us who live in the land of what things are and understand the nuances of politcs, understand that the T-50 is all but on rails here, unless Boeing can dig up dirt on Lockmart and stall it out.

Edited November 27, 2017 by hindsight2020

[Clark Griswold]

19 minutes ago, BeerMan said:

And no offense but you and Clark sound like you’re on the payroll! 

I wish

20 minutes ago, BeerMan said:

No argument from the OA-X standpoint, not my lane and honestly from outside my lane, twin engine, range, payload, and basically fitting into “how we operate as an Air Force” makes sense to me, especially over a turbo prop. Light attack, ISR, whatever...go nuts!

But this is the T-38 replacement thread. Are you arguing that it should be the T-38 replacement?

Partially

Out of Phase II (which IMO should be a tad longer sts) studs would track one of three ways with the guys/gals tracked for fighters going to T-X at Bases X,Y and Z.

Dudes going to track ACC heavies, AFGSC bombers, RPAs, etc... based on the economic realities we face need not be trained in an expensive to buy, fly and maintained AB jet.  If this were the mid-80s where the JP was cheap, the DoD budget was fat and the mission(s) more clear then sure T-X for all the studs but it is not.  We face high ops tempo, flat budgets, aging equipment and a genuine need to have people with a breadth of experience in several missions (or at least a basic exposure to them) so that a greater portion of our pilot force is more flexibly assignable during their career

Edited November 27, 2017 by Clark Griswold

[BashiChuni]

Someone needs to make a god damn decision with conviction and big brass ones and make it happen....their career be damned .

Too much talk and studies and talk and more studies. 

Act. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by BashiChuni

[matmacwc]

20 hours ago, di1630 said:

Huggy is 100% correct...many people have successfully flown AB fighters having never been in an AB trainer. Some foreign F-35 IPs have never touched an AB until the F-35 TX and they can manage fine

A lot of people are holding onto the past because they want to do things the way it’s always been done.

The USAF wastes a ton of time and resources training the old way for things that statistically won’t happen in future combat.

I don’t want to piss on specific airframes here but there are entire communities (US and allies) that don’t realize they are backup to backup in the A/A realm but they spend 69%+ of their resources training to it.






 

The F-4 doesn’t need a gun.

[ClearedHot]

8 hours ago, BeerMan said:

No argument from the OA-X standpoint, not my lane and honestly from outside my lane, twin engine, range, payload, and basically fitting into “how we operate as an Air Force” makes sense to me, especially over a turbo prop. Light attack, ISR, whatever...go nuts!

But this is the T-38 replacement thread. Are you arguing that it should be the T-38 replacement?

My argument is for some innovative thought from our leadership (perhaps a bit much to ask).  I don't see the current construct as affordable or effective.  Again if I was king for a day I would use Scorpion (or equivalent), for the second half of UPT.  Anyone going B/F would fly get 100 hours (or more at $5,000 per hour), to build airmanship and learn how to fly a more advanced aircraft.  I would give the T-100 to the IFF folks and expand the program (at $20,000 per hour), to make steely eyed killers ready to fly advanced from and BFM in their 5th gen aircraft (at $50,000+ per flying hour). 

I am not on the Scorpion payroll, but I have seen it up close and personal.  The performance, reliability and economics make sense (especially for a country $20 Trillion in debt and facing an endless war).

I honestly think if you change the UPT construct you could train more pilots, with more hours and airmanship, for less money.

[ClearedHot]

6 hours ago, matmacwc said:

The F-4 doesn’t need a gun.

The F-4 also had two afterburners...how'd it do at BFM? 

[Clark Griswold]

9 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

The F-4 also had two afterburners...how'd it do at BFM? 

What?  It was awesome...

[Standby]

[di1630]

The F-4 doesn’t need a gun.

Right up there with “just wait until China!”

 

The USAF leaders said no gun necessary less than 5 years after we were dogfighting in Korea with F-86’s = mistake.

 

Here we are what, 40 years+ since the last USAF gun kill? Not counting blimps and hogs shooting helos.

 

Time to train smarter.

 

 

[Breckey]

The last A/A kill was in June. Last FW SAM kill was a MANPAD against an A-10 in 2003. Last US RF SAM kill was HAMMER 34.

[hindsight2020]

20 minutes ago, BeerMan said:

Control Zone BFM...then Fox 3?

A kill is a kill, and good on him, but a golden opportunity to use the gun...

No kidding, especially considering it took him two shots! That guy owes money at the bar for almost missing that turkey twice.

[matmacwc]

4 hours ago, di1630 said:

Here we are what, 40 years+ since the last USAF gun kill? Not counting blimps and hogs shooting helos.

 

Time to train smarter.

 

 

Said the A-10 guy.

[Breckey]

1 hour ago, BeerMan said:

Control Zone BFM...then Fox 3?

A kill is a kill, and good on him, but a golden opportunity to use the gun...

The F-15E should have used a gun shooting down those Iranian drones. To update the above post: there was an F-16 that shot down an Iranian drone in 2009 with a gun kill.