Jump to content

Future T-38 replacement?

flynhigh

By flynhigh
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

icohftb Crew Dawg

icohftb

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well the iff jets with 16000 hours are bent to sh!t. The c model hasn't helped with structural integrity, ie wingtips falling off and cracked longerons. So yeah i think the updated seat is well worth it of youre stuck flying them.

 

And no my original post did mean to imply that the decision should be hurried because of the crashes but that it was overdue from their constantly moving timeline.

Edited by icohftb
  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Standby
Standby
donkey
donkey

Planey McPlaneface

HuggyU2
HuggyU2

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 foun

Posted Images

AZwildcat Flight Lead

AZwildcat

Posted
Posted
On 8/25/2018 at 11:11 PM, HuggyU2 said:

While the T-38 is older than you want, don't try to make this an issue.  

AETC pushed the C-model.  Lots of "new shit" on the jet.  The got what they asked for.  The millions of $$$ spent on the PMP and the MB seat (how many millions???) would have been useful elsewhere.  

A-models with 21,000 hours are doing pretty well from a safety viewpoint.  

Yes, the fleet needs to be replaced.  No argument there.  

No:  Paul's jet having dual airframe-mounted gearbox failures is more a function of shitty maintenance than anything else.  As a retiree, I'm not "in the know" as much as I'd like to be on his death.  Yet.  But I'd gladly jump in ANY Beale T-38 and go fly it.  Because Beale has some quality guys working those jets.  

And I'll continue to fly the civilian T-38 without any qualms.  It's well maintained, and the seat is solid, in the unlikely event I need it.  

T-38 crashes should have no bearing on T-X timeline.  It should be based on the fact we need an upgraded trainer for our future F-22 and F-35 pilots. 

T-X projected for IOC 2024, with IFF getting the first jets, followed by AETC....contract award was supposed to be June, then July, now it's almost September...we'll see.  AETC has a real problem...the math doesn't work for them.  Trying to grow their way out of a pilot shortage by upping production, while balancing hours on the C model fleet.  The only answer is to cut the syllabus and fly less per student (aka lower standards), hoping that innovative things like VR training can make up the difference.

With the A model, I don't know Huggy, I think we're starting to hit the exponential snowball of failing components sooner that the SPO projected.  The MTBF is decreasing on lots of components, harder and harder to keep Code 1 jets on the line.  They (the SPO) have a plan on phasing the A models in for something called the TRIM mod.  Which is basically a light weight version of the Pacer Classic 3 mods on the C model to beef up the structure and extend their structural life.  A models have never been cracked open, only x-ray'd and other NDI during phase, so we don't exactly know how bad they are from a structural standpoint. 

Gearbox issues are becoming a problem for the As too...and the other elephant in the room is avionics.  We're laughable as an IFR platform.  Not on track to meet the 2020 ADS-B either (like everyone else).  Multiple jets down right now for HSI problems.  Dual UHF radio is a joke.  TACAN decommissioning all over the place, no ability to navigate point to point (Thank you Steve Jobs for iPads).

Meanwhile NASA is upgrading their avionics...again.  My time is being spent right now trying to convince the frozen middle at ACC that this is important and we need to spend a few dollars to make these things last for 10-15 more years.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
YoungnDumb Flight Lead

YoungnDumb

Posted
Posted

Would the idea be for ya'll to receive C models as the T-X comes online (if ever)?  Or would you just upgrade to the T-X?  Similarly does anyone have any insight as to the future ADAIR in regards to the A model future?  Just curious.

HuggyU2 Gray Beard

HuggyU2

Posted
Posted

AZ,

As usual, you are spot on.  And you bring up some solid points that trump my over simplification of the problem.  

I've been away from Beale for 4 years now, so I'll defer to those of you current in AF A-models.  

As for the ejection seat, it is plenty capable.  How much did the MB seat cost to install in the jet, after all of the delays and cost overruns? 

AZwildcat Flight Lead

AZwildcat

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, YoungnDumb said:

Would the idea be for ya'll to receive C models as the T-X comes online (if ever)?  Or would you just upgrade to the T-X?  Similarly does anyone have any insight as to the future ADAIR in regards to the A model future?  Just curious.

Yup that's ACC's plan for now.  As the T-X comes online, ACC will take over as lead command for the T-38.  CTPs will get C models, ADAIR will absorb the remaining A models (They don't want C models b/c the performance is worse due to PMP...18 deg NL to sustain 5G).  I don't think anyone at ACC really knows what the future of ADAIR will be.  There's lots talk of contract ADAIR too. 

T-X seems like a fantastic platform for ADAIR...cheap, relative to F-22 or F-35 flight hours...can simulate just about anything you want on the avionics, so 5th gen guys could train to their respective platforms.  But...I predict ACC will, as per usual, shoot themselves in the dick and not buy it.

24 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

AZ,

As usual, you are spot on.  And you bring up some solid points that trump my over simplification of the problem.  

I've been away from Beale for 4 years now, so I'll defer to those of you current in AF A-models.  

As for the ejection seat, it is plenty capable.  How much did the MB seat cost to install in the jet, after all of the delays and cost overruns? 

Let's get that contract or reserve CTP IP force going...get you back in the game!

I love the A model...but she just needs some attention.  At least we're putting up sunshades at Beale to stop them from baking in the sun.

Not sure on the final cost of the MB seat...rough number I heard was $1 million / jet.  At the end of the day though that seat has saved 4 dudes in the past year.  Should've been 5 unfortunately.  But that's the stupidity of it all...we'll spend all kinds of money on stupid shit, and then refuse to do simple things, like put in a seat armed light, or an ISS position light...or a speed brake light in the A model.

  • Upvote 2
SPAWNmaster Crew Dawg

SPAWNmaster

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, AZwildcat said:

A-models with 21,000 hours are doing pretty well from a safety viewpoint.  

Pointy noses are not in my wheel house so I have to ask - what is the intended service life hour limit for the T-38A's? I ask because in the H-60 world we are flying 12,000+ hour machines that were designed for 6,000 hours and are now showing structural cracks, etc. We also fly them 5,000+ lbs (30%) over the original max gross weight and max perform our E-M charts every day so it's a real wonder we aren't seeing worse issues IMHO.

Edited by SPAWNmaster
Breckey Gray Beard

Breckey

Posted
Posted (edited)

*points to 308 beam crack*

SPO: "That little guy? I wouldn't worry about that little guy"

Edited by Breckey
  • Like 2
hindsight2020 Gray Beard

hindsight2020

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, SPAWNmaster said:

Pointy noses are not in my wheel house so I have to ask - what is the intended service life hour limit for the T-38A's? I ask because in the H-60 world we are flying 12,000+ hour machines that were designed for 6,000 hours and are now showing structural cracks, etc. We also fly them 5,000+ lbs (30%) over the original max gross weight and max perform our E-M charts every day so it's a real wonder we aren't seeing worse issues IMHO.

Northrop had it pegged at 8k hours iirc. We're circa 18K in most of the PIT/UPT fleet. IFF as mentioned before, are bent to sH@t.

About the only thing that appeases me about my career airframe, is that seat.

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
matmacwc Gray Beard

matmacwc

Posted
Posted
On 8/27/2018 at 8:20 PM, hindsight2020 said:

Northrop had it pegged at 8k hours iirc. We're circa 18K in most of the PIT/UPT fleet. IFF as mentioned before, are bent to sH@t.

About the only thing that appeases me about my career airframe, is that seat.

Career airplane?

 

war007afa Flight Lead

war007afa

Posted
Posted
On 3/2/2018 at 7:24 AM, ThreeHoler said:

 


You can get a DFC for teaching UPT if the situation is right. Just ask Johnny Weida.
 

 

Am I the only one anxiously awaiting this story? 🍿 

  • Upvote 1
TreeA10 Gray Beard

TreeA10

Posted
Posted
On 3/1/2018 at 8:54 PM, ThreeHoler said:

 


You can get a DFC for teaching UPT if the situation is right. Just ask Johnny Weida.
 

Yeah, we want to here about this. 

HuggyU2 Gray Beard

HuggyU2

Posted
Posted (edited)

I need to hear this story, please. 

Weida was my OG many years back when I was a T-38 PIT IP.  

First AF guy I met that was frocked to O-6.  

Edited by HuggyU2
Hacker Gray Beard

Hacker

Posted
Posted
On 3/1/2018 at 8:54 PM, ThreeHoler said:


You can get a DFC for teaching UPT if the situation is right. Just ask Johnny Weida.
 

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2
  • 3 weeks later...
YoungnDumb Flight Lead

YoungnDumb

Posted
Posted

Nah, proper engine out procedures/emergency handling can be learned at FTU where it's cheaper right?  And why do we need this new aircraft anyways?  Pilot Training Next showed that you can just do VR and a T-6. /sarcasm

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...