Future T-38 replacement?

[matmacwc]

2 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

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.  

Because the follow on fighters do, and one needs to mind afterburner fuel consumption for the overall plan.

 

Will I see I should read before I post.

Edited November 26, 2017 by matmacwc
Mr Power agrees.

[HuggyU2]

5 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

Because the follow on fighters do, and one needs to mind afterburner fuel consumption for the overall plan.

So you believe other Air Forces... and the US Navy... are inadequately trained in minding fuel consumption through disciplined ops checks, because they don't have an afterburning jet in their syllabus?

 

 

Edited November 26, 2017 by HuggyU2

[Kenny Powers]

So you believe other Air Forces... and the US Navy... are inadequately trained in minding fuel consumption through disciplined ops checks, because they don't have an afterburning jet in their syllabus?    

 

 

 It has nothing to do with ops checks. Not to be a dick but it seems you've never flown anything that burns fuel like a 4th gen fighter (or earlier) in AB in a tactical sortie.

 

Ops checks tell you when to KIO and go home. Learning how to not use AB to stay in position is what allows your 4 ship to cover the entire Vul.

 

Honestly though, if the T-38 wasn't so old, this conversation wouldn't be happening. It's happening because our current trainer is 60+ years old, not because it's systems are inadequate for training future fighter pilots.

 

 

 

 

 

[VMFA187]

Throttle management should be a discussion for classes, chalk talks, and briefs. Every F-18 Cat 1 knows not to select Max to fix a sucked position, and they’ve never flown in an aircraft with AB prior. A trainer doesn’t need AB, awesome to have, sure. But certainly not required. 

I’d rather them get trained up on a synthetic GPS based radar to learn the proper division between form, sensor, and comm before showing up in a true fighter.

Edited November 26, 2017 by VMFA187

[Kenny Powers]

Throttle management should be a discussion for classes, chalk talks, and briefs. Every F-18 Cat 1 knows not to select Max to fix a sucked position, and they’ve never flown in an aircraft with AB prior. A trainer doesn’t need AB, awesome to have, sure. But certainly not required. 
I’d rather them get trained up on a synthetic GPS based radar to learn the proper division between form, sensor, and comm before showing up in a true fighter.

I've had a few drinks so, with all due respect, I'm calling bullshit.

It's a natural f#cking phenomenon that happens when young dudes fly something with AB.

[VMFA187]

4 minutes ago, Kenny Powers said:

 

I've had a few drinks so, with all due respect, I'm calling bullshit.

It's a natural f#cking phenomenon that happens when young dudes fly something with AB.

 

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but it’s an easy item to cover in the brief - “Don’t use your ing left hand to fix your position.” And they’re pretty decent about it. Sure, they’re always 800-1,000 lbs below lead, but that’s more on account of sawing the throttle throughout all phases of flight.

The Navy has 10 or 15 tacform flights in the T-45 devoted solely to... Tacform. The geometry is the same in the Hornet. 

[Kenny Powers]

Sure, they’re always 800-1,000 lbs below lead,

 

Copy. That's unacceptable for at least the Viper community.

 

But we don't carry a ton of gas...

[HuggyU2]

11 hours ago, Kenny Powers said:

 Not to be a dick but it seems you've never flown anything that burns fuel like a 4th gen fighter (or earlier) in AB in a tactical sortie.

Correct.  I'm purely an AETC instructor and Recce guy.  When I was teaching UPT studs, we weren't teaching them to be "fighter pilots" in 4th and 5th generation fighters.  We were giving them the foundation that would bring them success in their follow-on assignment... whether it was a 4+ gen fighter... or a B-1, B-52... or as a FAIP.  Our goal was to get them to earn their wings.  

Not to be a dick, but it seems you don't have 7 years in AETC, 4000 hours in the T-38, a solid understanding of what the UPT syllabus is supposed to do, and how to execute it with a 22 year old with less than 100 hours of flying time when you get him.  When teaching said 22 year old how to fly the T-38 in formation, we worked on basic station keeping, the rock-bottom-basics of maneuvering, and a myriad of other basic tasks that would have you rolling your eyes in boredom.  But those building blocks are what the CAF has asked AETC to give them in the product that we graduate.  Stanley understands that when he parks the throttle(s) in the northwest quadrant, the fuel flow goes up.  When he becomes your FTU student or MQ wingman, you can emphasize just how much he actually loses in his afterburning fighter.  

In UPT, we are also unable to teach him about 20 mile tactical spread using a data link.  Or anything that has to do with using a radar.  YOU will have to do that.  I'm busy teaching him how to put the thing-on-the-thing-on-the-thing; do a loop; master a 30 knot rejoin; have the SA to monitor his jet; and... yes... do Ops Checks.  You see, those Ops Checks are a building block item, and the FTU will no doubt add more to that regimen of discipline.  

As BeerMan says, we don't use the afterburner much in UPT.  And certainly not enough to make a difference in their follow-on FTU performance... no matter if it is a fighter, attack, or bomber platform.  I have no idea how you derive that the fact we have an AB in the T-38 changes the quality of the UPT graduate.  

But let's say the T-50 gets selected as our follow-on trainer:  do you think the UPT syllabus will have them tapping burner regularly because they need 17,000 lbs of thrust on a student sortie?  

One final point.  The French fly the Rafale, the Brits fly the Typhoon, and the Canadians and Aussies fly the Hornet.  None of them use an AB-equipped aircraft in their UPT syllabus.  Somehow, they manage to make it work.   I'm thinking that, if DoD gives us a great trainer with no AB, we will do just fine.   

Edited November 26, 2017 by HuggyU2

[di1630]

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.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Don't get your hopes up on this.  Last info I received (>1 year old, so take it for what it's worth) is they're only looking to buy 350 jets at a 2:3 replacement for the SUPT T-38 spread out over a 10 year buy during the 2020s.  No current plans for IFF replacement or replacement for other T-38s (adair, CPT, etc).  Given the current budget and procurement forecasts I doubt this plan has changed much.  This leaves UPT more or less in its current form.  Even if there is the desire to go to a single track UPT, the iron simply won't be there to do it and that discussion won't take place until AFTER the T-38s are all gone some time in the late 20s or 30s.  It then comes down to "do we go single track by buying more of a $20+ million jet, or keep it two track by buying another $5-10m off the shelf business jet?"  The T-1 is already on its ass right now.  Not only does it have significant MX issues, but also is in desperate need of an AMP to stay relevant, and the same argument (preparing students for the more advanced aircraft they will be flowing to) comes into play.  By the late 20s/early 30s the T-1 will be 30-40 years old and students will be flowing into C-5Ms, C-17s (likely having received an AMP by then), C-130J, KC-46, next-gen JSTARS, etc-- all of which will have avionics and capabilities that far exceed that which the T-1 is currently capable of adequately preparing students for.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Napoleon_Tanerite

[LookieRookie]

@Napoleon_Tanerite As of now, IFF will get the T-X first then UPT.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Just now, LookieRookie said:

@Napoleon_Tanerite As of now, IFF will get the T-X first then UPT.

Interesting.  This is 180 off from the plan I was briefed on.  Previous plan was to consolidate the remaining T-38 fleet around IFF due to the lower throughput.  The "IFF first" plan makes sense since the entire selling point for buying a new super-trainer is "to prepare students for the fifth generation fighters they will be flying".  That argument loses a lot of steam if your grads AREN'T going to those aircraft.

[di1630]

T-1 solution is (maybe) extend T-6’s for airmanship then direct to the heavy b-course with extra sims.

I always felt the T-1 program was 2 months extended to 6 to match the T-38 timeline.

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

Just now, di1630 said:

I always felt the T-1 program was 2 months extended to 6 to match the T-38 timeline.

Disagree.  We're seeing the fruits of that bear out with the T-1 syllabus being reduced.  FTUs are reporting an overall drop in ability of current T-1 products due to the lack of flight time they're getting.  I'll agree that the type of aircraft and even the type of flying isn't super important, but flight time in and of itself is precious when it comes to building the required proficiency.  T-1 mission fam is of debatable validity, but losing those 16 hours of flight time is a big hit.

[Kenny Powers]

Words 

I don't disagree with you. In fact, in a few posts back I even said "Maybe you don't need one" and gave a few reasons why you would want one.

I don't know what it does to the cost of an engine to design it with the performance characteristics of an AB without actually having an AB but my guess is costs goes up.

[ClearedHot]

5 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.

Amen!

[VMFA187]

5 hours ago, di1630 said:

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.

 

Piss away. Everyone pull out your #skyart and let's get to measuring.

While I agree, the benefits of training to A/A are magnitudes greater than any other type of mission set when it comes to developing all aspects of a pilot in fighter aviation. So while some communities may be on the B-team (or C-team if you look at USMC legacy Hornets) when Chinese hordes launch, training to that level and mission set has immeasurable benefits.

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

Disagree.  We're seeing the fruits of that bear out with the T-1 syllabus being reduced.  FTUs are reporting an overall drop in ability of current T-1 products due to the lack of flight time they're getting.  I'll agree that the type of aircraft and even the type of flying isn't super important, but flight time in and of itself is precious when it comes to building the required proficiency.  T-1 mission fam is of debatable validity, but losing those 16 hours of flight time is a big hit.

Sidebar: Do you think that more time in the T-6 (a bit cheaper to fly) would be better for studs tracking heavies then a shorter but more focused T-1 syllabus on crew management, multi-eng ops, etc..?

Looking back on SUPT, I have always thought (especially for studs tracking heavies) that more extensive x-country work with RONs at OST locations would have enhanced training.

Dispatching yourself and then having the experience of leading a formation on the road with little to no support is where the mind of a capable, adaptable aircraft commander is made.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Clark Griswold
too quick on the submit button

[SurelySerious]

4 hours ago, Napoleon_Tanerite said:

Disagree.  We're seeing the fruits of that bear out with the T-1 syllabus being reduced.  FTUs are reporting an overall drop in ability of current T-1 products due to the lack of flight time they're getting.  I'll agree that the type of aircraft and even the type of flying isn't super important, but flight time in and of itself is precious when it comes to building the required proficiency.  T-1 mission fam is of debatable validity, but losing those 16 hours of flight time is a big hit.

Solid. It’s the same problem with the URT syllabus, for instance; some airmanship skills only mature with flight time, and the Air Force is negligently not providing it. It’s almost like we had a pretty good idea what made a safe aviator to send to follow-on training, and then totally ignored it. 

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

9 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Sidebar: Do you think that more time in the T-6 (a bit cheaper to fly) would be better for studs tracking heavies then a shorter but more focused T-1 syllabus on crew management, multi-eng ops, etc..?

Looking back on SUPT, I have always thought (especially for studs tracking heavies) that more extensive x-country work with RONs at OST locations would have enhanced training.

Dispatching yourself and then having the experience of leading a formation on the road with little to no support is where the mind of a capable, adaptable aircraft commander is made.

Moving the preponderence of the current T-1 syllabus to the T-6 is viable, though not ideal (just like moving the majority of the T-38 syllabus would be).  You could probably accomplish 90% of what is currently done in the T-1 nav syllabus using the T-6, and then the student moves to the T-1 and does basically the equivelent of trans to familiarize themselves with the handling characteristcs of a [preceptually] larger, faster, swept wing, multi engine jet.  As it stands now not counting waivers the T-1 syllabus is 77.5 hours, 89.5 max.  You could probably shift 50-60 of those hours to the T-6 with less of a negative impact than cutting 20 hours out of the current T-1 syllabus with no backfill on the T-6 side.  Just spitballing here of course, don't take my opinion as anything but.

[Clark Griswold]

Moving the preponderence of the current T-1 syllabus to the T-6 is viable, though not ideal (just like moving the majority of the T-38 syllabus would be).  You could probably accomplish 90% of what is currently done in the T-1 nav syllabus using the T-6, and then the student moves to the T-1 and does basically the equivelent of trans to familiarize themselves with the handling characteristcs of a [preceptually] larger, faster, swept wing, multi engine jet.  As it stands now not counting waivers the T-1 syllabus is 77.5 hours, 89.5 max.  You could probably shift 50-60 of those hours to the T-6 with less of a negative impact than cutting 20 hours out of the current T-1 syllabus with no backfill on the T-6 side.  Just spitballing here of course, don't take my opinion as anything but.

Cool I could see adding another 20-25 hours but keeping the T-1 syllabus in the 50-60 hour range.  Mission fam could be still be done in the jet but after a bunch of IAPs in the T-6 and the student graduating that Phase, I would lower the instrument requirements and use the jet for the skills I really wanted to develop.

Also, if the fighter dudes get a gold plated new trainer, we get one too (dream on) but I want the PC-24

 

That is if we don’t go back to a UPT model if that then go with a Scorpion in a training configuration

 

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

18 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Cool I could see adding another 20-25 hours but keeping the T-1 syllabus in the 50-60 hour range.  Mission fam could be still be done in the jet but after a bunch of IAPs in the T-6 and the student graduating that Phase, I would lower the instrument requirements and use the jet for the skills I really wanted to develop.

Also, if the fighter dudes get a gold plated new trainer, we get one too (dream on) but I want the PC-24

 

That is if we don’t go back to a UPT model if that then go with a Scorpion in a training configuration

 

HA!  You should know better.  The guys who account for 15% of pilot production will ALWAYS be the priority.

[AZwildcat]

This reminds me of the old F-117 story about painting the jet weird pastel gray colors because that was going to blend in best at night...but real men don't fly pastel jets, so paint it black!  Just give the thing a damn afterburner...dilly dilly!

------

No one's really brought up the concept of integrated simulator training.  I think that will play a large part in the discussion of how we move forward with requirements and how the syllabus is structured.  I believe some of the T-X competitors at least had demonstrated integrated sim capabilities, flying an actual mission next to a virtual wingman who's sitting in the sim on the ground or what have you.  I shudder at the thought of cutting large amounts of flights and hours out of the UPT or IFF syllabus in favor of sim time, but I've never had the privilege of using a state of the art gucci sim either, so I don't know. 

[Napoleon_Tanerite]

32 minutes ago, AZwildcat said:

This reminds me of the old F-117 story about painting the jet weird pastel gray colors because that was going to blend in best at night...but real men don't fly pastel jets, so paint it black!  Just give the thing a damn afterburner...dilly dilly!

------

No one's really brought up the concept of integrated simulator training.  I think that will play a large part in the discussion of how we move forward with requirements and how the syllabus is structured.  I believe some of the T-X competitors at least had demonstrated integrated sim capabilities, flying an actual mission next to a virtual wingman who's sitting in the sim on the ground or what have you.  I shudder at the thought of cutting large amounts of flights and hours out of the UPT or IFF syllabus in favor of sim time, but I've never had the privilege of using a state of the art gucci sim either, so I don't know. 

Sims NEVER are a suitable substitute for the airplane.  Even if they simulated the handling of the airplane EXACTLY, nothing can simulate the environment properly.  You simply can't simulate a 12 jet overhead pattern, or getting vectored off a STAR going into a Class B primary in the WX.  That's where you build airmanship.  Talk to any airline guy.  Those are some of the best sims in the business and I've never heard any airline guy describe their sims in much more favorable terms than we describe ours.  They're good procedural trainers and will get you ~80% there, but it's that last 20% that makes the difference between knowing what you're doing and just hoping you don't get an opportunity to show what you don't know.

[Clark Griswold]

HA!  You should know better.  The guys who account for 15% of pilot production will ALWAYS be the priority.

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