Future T-38 replacement?

[brabus]

I understand di1630's point, and it has merit.  That said, it's still important to be prepared for the other things that could flare up outside of our current conflicts, regardless of how many years it has been since X happened or what our opinions are of the probability the NoDAKs will cross the line this Friday night, 5 min before curfew starts ("which one of you is least drunk?") 

Would it be nice if guys knew more 9-level shit about bombs or were slightly better at X (i.e. the stuff we're doing right now)...sure it would, but until I see continuous, rampant fuckery downrange (not just isolated fuckups) or we're starting to lose the war due to aircrew inability to perform, I think we're doing alright with balancing current war with preparedness for potential threats that exceed ISIS, Taliban, etc.  

Last point, if you seriously think we are investing way too much effort/money into "other/possible war" stuff, you are woefully uninformed about what's out there.  We'd be fools to not do what we're doing right now, at least in a general sense (there are million things that could be done better, but the big picture approach/understanding and prioritization of the threat is not necessarily wrong).

[HU&W]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

Last point, if you seriously think we are investing way too much effort/money into "other/possible war" stuff, you are woefully uninformed about what's out there.  We'd be fools to not do what we're doing right now, at least in a general sense (there are million things that could be done better, but the big picture approach/understanding and prioritization of the threat is not necessarily wrong).

Spot on.  There's incredible deterrent value in readiness.  Readiness starts very early, and it includes acquisition priorities.

[matmacwc]

4 hours ago, Breckey said:

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.

We don't talk about fight club......for some reason.   (Psst, no one listens to di1636)

Edited November 28, 2017 by matmacwc

[di1630]

We don't talk about fight club......for some reason.   (Psst, no one listens to di1636)

Having to use shooting down drones as the baseline for your community A/A needs speaks for itself.

[Sprkt69]

22 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Said the A-10 guy.

C’mon dude, please let the A-10 pilot pontificate on all things A-A. He has probably been to ACSC in-residence, so you should all listen to him

[di1630]

C’mon dude, please let the A-10 pilot pontificate on all things A-A. He has probably been to ACSC in-residence, so you should all listen to him

Easy there Nancy, not knocking A/A so don’t get your feelings hurt by a few jokes about gun kills on blimps and drones.

I think it’s time our IFF updates from a 50+ year old jet and acknowledges some factual/statistic and likely realities.

[di1630]

C’mon dude, please let the A-10 pilot pontificate on all things A-A. He has probably been to ACSC in-residence, so you should all listen to him

Easy there Nancy, not knocking A/A so don’t get your feelings hurt by a few jokes about gun kills on blimps and drones.

I think it’s time our IFF updates from a 50+ year old jet and acknowledges some factual/statistic and likely realities.

[Hacker]

IFF has never sought to teach BFM tactics -- it teaches basics.

The concepts of control zone BFM are the same today as they were in WWI, and still just as valuable today regardless of changes in tactics, sensors, and weapons.

This is like saying it is no longer useful to teach fingertip formation since we have radars and datalink and in the "real world" only fly sit-visual detached mutual support and tac line abreast.

IFF-style BFM is learning a basic building-block concept that will be relevant as long as we are flying airplanes that turn in circles while fighting.

[Sprkt69]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

Easy there Nancy, not knocking A/A so don’t get your feelings hurt by a few jokes about gun kills on blimps and drones.

I think it’s time our IFF updates from a 50+ year old jet and acknowledges some factual/statistic and likely realities.

Easy there Tiger.  No need to get so defensive. Please go on, and tell everyone your amazing ideas

[matmacwc]

I'm with di on this one, IFF with a T-38 is a joke.

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

I'm with di on this one, IFF with a T-38 is a joke.

What would you use today instead?  

No agenda. Just curious. 

[matmacwc]

I'm a T-50 fan but what you need is something that doesn't fly F-4 BFM.  Digital FLCS, side stick, and L/M curve that doesn't spike but has a wide range.  Learning an instrument 12 degrees nose low and 410+-10 in AB for best rate is not how BFM is done anymore. 

[di1630]

Easy there Tiger.  No need to get so defensive. Please go on, and tell everyone your amazing ideas

Well there are foreign IFF students who do BFM plus Avionics simulated TI plus simulated TGP work all while dropping bdu’s.

I’ve gotten to work with them. It’s sad that the worlds greatest military is behind in training techniques and hardware due to bureaucracy and egos.

I’m NOT suggesting we do away with CZ BFM etc. just saying it can be done better because I’m seeing it.

[LookieRookie]

https://m.aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-reveals-t-x-cockpit-layout

 

BT-X cockpit is a huge touchscreen, like the T-50 and T-100.

[B52gator]

42 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

https://m.aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-reveals-t-x-cockpit-layout

 

BT-X cockpit is a huge touchscreen, like the T-50 and T-100.

You have to register to view that link, try this one.  You'll just have to ignore the dorks

https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/01/tx-cockpit-01-18.page

[LookieRookie]

2 minutes ago, b52gator said:

You have to register to view that link, try this one.  You'll just have to ignore the dorks

https://www.boeing.com/features/2018/01/tx-cockpit-01-18.page

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

James Drew

Jan 31, 2018

Boeing released this image of its BTX next-generation trainer proposal on Jan. 30: Boeing 

 

Boeing wants to confine knobs and switches to a bygone era.

The company this week released the first images of its T-X cockpit, revealing a 21st century knobless and switchless touchscreen large-area display.

The “BTX” aircraft Boeing designed with Saab for the U.S. Air Force’s Advanced Pilot Training, or T-X, competition has identical displays and symbology in the front and rear cockpit. In a training flight, the instructor pilot can see exactly what the student sees, and which inputs are selected.

If Boeing’s offering for T-X is selected, this new cockpit design would become standard for all airmen preparing to fly Air Force fighters and bombers. Large-area touchscreen displays are also featured in the cockpits of Boeing’s main rivals, the Leonardo T-100 and Lockheed Martin T-50A.

Boeing says when designing the cockpit it had today’s youth in mind—a generation raised with smartphones and tablets that have few, if any, physical buttons. It has tried to eliminate as many knobs and switches as possible by consolidating them into a virtual touchscreen architecture.

“Brand-new features include the avionics large-area display, the up-front control, and the touchscreen technology,” Boeing T-X Chief Test Pilot Steve Schmidt says. “We’ve really tried to put as much functionality on there as we could and take as many mechanical switches out of the cockpit.”

Boeing first unveiled its T-X proposal in September 2016 but waited until now to reveal the cockpit configuration. It has not named the supplier.

The BTX is up against the T-100 and T-50A for the $16 billion trainer procurement program. The Air Force needs at least 350 trainers to replace its 1961-vintage Northrop T-38 Talon. The Talon’s avionics were last updated beginning in 2001.

The service issued its much-anticipated T-X request for proposals in December 2016 and has taken longer than expected to announce a winner. The selection is now expected this spring or summer.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said recently that T-X evaluators have requested additional technical details from each of the competitors. Boeing would build its BTX in St. Louis.

[FourFans]

16 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

Boeing wants to confine knobs and switches to a bygone era.

...and they probably want to call it a flight deck, not a cockpit. 

How progressive. 

Autocorrect is gunna double my data inputs times.

[Naviguesser]

19 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

Boeing says when designing the cockpit it had today’s youth in mind...

But, apparently, not today's airplanes...

[Hopefulflyer389]

I’m not a military pilot, but I’m in the “youth” spectrum that may use these aircraft and I’ve been using touch screen GPS in various aircraft lately. Most recently, used a Garmin GTN 650 in my multi engine training. Trying to simply tune in a radio frequency on a touch screen GPS, while single engine, in turbulence, under the hood, and in congested airspace doesn’t make life easier. 

[HU&W]

On 2/7/2018 at 4:12 PM, LookieRookie said:

 

Boeing says when designing the cockpit it had today’s youth in mind—a generation raised with smartphones and tablets that have few, if any, physical buttons. It has tried to eliminate as many knobs and switches as possible by consolidating them into a virtual touchscreen architecture.

“Brand-new features include the avionics large-area display, the up-front control, and the touchscreen technology,” Boeing T-X Chief Test Pilot Steve Schmidt says. “We’ve really tried to put as much functionality on there as we could and take as many mechanical switches out of the cockpit.”

Sounds exactly like lockheed's brief during the F-35 factory tour I went on 10 years ago.  They were bragging that they wanted a 'virtual gear handle' to go with all the other touchscreen tech, but DOD made them put in a real handle so pilots would feel better about it...

[Prozac]

My airline recently started installing touch screens in place of physical CDUs. They suck donkey balls. My opinion is that touch screens have very limited applications in aviation, if any. Boeing, I’m sure, sees it as a cost saving measure. If you have to have a display anyway, why not incorporate the buttons into the screen vs installing physical keys. I think the trend is probably here to stay. 

[TreeA10]

The 787 has a cursor control like a touchpad on a laptop but it has a hand rest so your hand isn't bouncing around excessively.  Some are touch sensitive and therefore very quick and skittish and you can find yourself zipping over 4 screens quickly.  If they could dampen that out, it would be more user friendly, particularly in rough air.  Screen displays are nice.  If you don't need it, you don't see it.  For instance, once the gear is up, no more gear indicator, same for flaps.  Cabin pressure, etc. not displayed unless abnormal.  I think a touch screen would be a pain in the ass.

[Day Man]

full touch screen seems like a bad idea for a smoke & fumes situation

[SurelySerious]

10 hours ago, Hopefulflyer389 said:

I’m not a military pilot, but I’m in the “youth” spectrum that may use these aircraft and I’ve been using touch screen GPS in various aircraft lately. Most recently, used a Garmin GTN 650 in my multi engine training. Trying to simply tune in a radio frequency on a touch screen GPS, while single engine, in turbulence, under the hood, and in congested airspace doesn’t make life easier. 

Bingo. You want some things to be tacticle and always available at a moments notice, not buried in a screen. Reference professional SLR cameras. Still have a bunch of buttons because it’s good human factors. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

Bingo. You want some things to be tacticle and always available at a moments notice, not buried in a screen. Reference professional SLR cameras. Still have a bunch of buttons because it’s good human factors. 

Ditto.

Saw a video on the Orion spacecraft system and it was designed specifically with plenty of dials, switches, physical buttons, etc. for human factors and with touchscreen capacity for reversion capability.

20 lb. brains working on a multi-billion dollar spacecraft think keeping a conventional control system is a good idea, it probably is.