Future T-38 replacement?

[ATIS]

1 hour ago, VMFA187 said:

I love the Hornet more than most, but having a deck full of a single TMS (MDS for you AF types) limits capabilities fairly significantly, even as flexible of a strike-fighter as the F/A-18 is.

Concur.  Plus the fact that range took a huge step back once the Hornet (baby or Super) hit the flight deck.  I'll just end my comments now to avoid emotion or spillage on this topic.

ATIS

[Vito]

 You have to assume the clamshell canopy just hinges on one side without a motor to open and close it, if that’s correct,  you’d save a lot of weight and Mx issues by eliminating the motor and heavy struts that a normal opening canopy requires.  Is the T-6 canopy motorized or is it manually operated. I know the -38 was a manual system, never flew a T-6.  The  TX canopy is huge and it looks damn heavy for a manual operation, even with struts helping out.

Edited October 2, 2018 by Vito

[LiquidSky]

8 hours ago, Vito said:

 You have to assume the clamshell canopy just hinges on one side without a motor to open and close it, if that’s correct,  you’d save a lot of weight and Mx issues by eliminating the motor and heavy struts that a normal opening canopy requires.  Is the T-6 canopy motorized or is it manually operated. I know the -38 was a manual system, never flew a T-6.  The  TX canopy is huge and it looks damn heavy for a manual operation, even with struts helping out.

T6 is manually operated. I don't recall it being terribly difficult to open solo. The biggest PIA with it was the hooks not latching properly.

[YoungnDumb]

^What he said, the T-6 canopy was never an issue except the stupid hooks.  If I recall correctly it weighed in the vicinity of 400lbs, never had anyone struggle to open it.

[matmacwc]

You guys all realize the first post in this thread was like 14 years ago?  We are at least 3 lawsuits and 4 government shutdowns away from the first piece of sheet metal being stamped out.  Shit gonna change 

[Buddy Spike]

20 hours ago, matmacwc said:

You guys all realize the first post in this thread was like 14 years ago?  We are at least 3 lawsuits and 4 government shutdowns away from the first piece of sheet metal being stamped out.  Shit gonna change 

Marines will add VTOL before it's over and then it won't be able to fly within 35 miles of a thunderstorm.

[matmacwc]

On 10/2/2018 at 9:13 PM, LitzJ said:

I have some analysis here

 

I like it tho

[Scooter14]

Is that an air refueling receptacle on top?

[SurelySerious]

5 minutes ago, Scooter14 said:

Is that an air refueling receptacle on top?

Yes

[Scooter14]

Yes

I deserved that answer for that stupid question.

Follow on stupid questions...

Why does it have an AR receptacle? Is there actually a UARRSI installed?

Is there a light attack version planned?

Will these double as a light attack plane like the Alpha Jet?

They aren’t planning on adding actual AR into the UPT syllabus...are they?

[SurelySerious]

3 minutes ago, Scooter14 said:

 

I deserved that answer for that stupid question.

Follow on stupid questions...

Why does it have an AR receptacle? Is there actually a UARRSI installed?

Is there a light attack version planned?

Will these double as a light attack plane like the Alpha Jet?

They aren’t planning on adding actual AR into the UPT syllabus...are they?

 

I was just being matter of fact, no slight.  It will have actual onload capes from what I remember reading, and the AR would be in IFF. Or IFF-Next, whatever we have in 6-9 years. 

 

Corrections from those with real knowledge welcome. 

[Champ Kind]

I was just being matter of fact, no slight.  It will have actual onload capes from what I remember reading, and the AR would be in IFF. Or IFF-Next, whatever we have in 6-9 years. 
 
Corrections from those with real knowledge welcome. 

Hopefully someone bothered to look at the feasibility of adding AR requirements to IFF. I hear our tanker force is quite robust with lots of availability on their hands.

[Kenny Powers]

We have guys who get to the CAF that never tanked in the B-course and it works out fine. I'm not sure why they would waste time teaching it in IFF.

Having the option to AR would be awesome though for all the other gigs we are currently using T-38s for.

[Scooter14]

I was just being matter of fact, no slight.  

No offense taken.

I’m a tanker instructor pilot that asked if that was an AR receptacle. That’s about as dumb as it gets.

Champ, oh yeah plenty of tankers. We aren’t busy at all, the KC-46 is way ahead of schedule, the UPT timelines are being exceeded and the IFF bases are all really close to tanker bases.

Let’s add more to the syllabus. What could possibly go wrong?

[Homestar]

49 minutes ago, Kenny Powers said:

it works out fine.

It's also led to broken boom nozzles.

[jazzdude]

I think the AAR was supposed to be added in IFF with the T-X, mainly because they didn't want the first time a new F-22 or F-35 wingman to do AAR be solo.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

We have guys who get to the CAF that never tanked in the B-course and it works out fine. I'm not sure why they would waste time teaching it in IFF.
Having the option to AR would be awesome though for all the other gigs we are currently using T-38s for.

As for AR in IFF, wouldn’t you want to fight tank fight or do you need the break between sorties for debrief?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hermey]

3 hours ago, Scooter14 said:

Champ, oh yeah plenty of tankers. We aren’t busy at all, the KC-46 is way ahead of schedule, the UPT timelines are being exceeded and the IFF bases are all really close to tanker bases.

Let’s add more to the syllabus. What could possibly go wrong?
 

 

Don’t forget about those 14 new Tanker squadrons. Since the -46 works great and is ready now there’s gonna be plenty of AR for everyone! If you increase the squadrons the manning will follow. Problem solved.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/09/17/air-force-calls-for-74-more-squadrons-to-prepare-for-possibility-of-war-against-major-power/

 

[Kenny Powers]

28 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

As for AR in IFF, wouldn’t you want to fight tank fight or do you need the break between sorties for debrief?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Never been an IFF IP, but I would say no. You're probably at the point of diminishing returns after the first sortie for a student at that point in their training.

Also, tanking takes time. Fight tank fight is great in the CAF (almost as good as a fight tank fight tank fight) but that would reduce the number of students you could fly in one day, as opposed to getting the jets back to mx and throwing another stud in.

Plus, you probably need at least 1 dedicated  AR sortie in the syllabus. I guess there's always an IP in the back that can take the jet and get gas if the stud is struggling, but I dont think that's desirable.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Kenny Powers said:

Never been an IFF IP, but I would say no. You're probably at the point of diminishing returns after the first sortie for a student at that point in their training.

Also, tanking takes time. Fight tank fight is great in the CAF (almost as good as a fight tank fight tank fight) but that would reduce the number of students you could fly in one day, as opposed to getting the jets back to mx and throwing another stud in.

Plus, you probably need at least 1 dedicated  AR sortie in the syllabus. I guess there's always an IP in the back that can take the jet and get gas if the stud is struggling, but I dont think that's desirable.

Copy that

I can see the risk mitigation value for AR experience in the trainer model before doing it for real sts in the single seat but there is only so much time/events in a syllabus before it grows too much

[LookieRookie]

You all are missing the point for AR. Throw a couple bags of gas on then get a tanker bridge and CT XC to Europe for Oktoberfest.

[Sprkt69]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

As for AR in IFF, wouldn’t you want to fight tank fight or do you need the break between sorties for debrief?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There are also too many students that only have a 1.0-ish tactical mind at that point of development, as seen in the FTU. More problems than its worth IMO

[DEVIL]

2 hours ago, Sprkt69 said:

There are also too many students that only have a 1.0-ish tactical mind at that point of development, as seen in the FTU. More problems than its worth IMO

More then a 1.0 is asking a lot. What kinda of seat is in the T-X? Is the ejection handle the same as the -c model seats? Will I have to thread my junk through a partially displaced handle to use a piddle pack without ejecting myself?

These are the questions of our times. 

[brabus]

I hope it's not true they want to add AR to IFF...the AF has cut/is cutting horrendous amounts of training and producing lack luster products, but somehow we have time to add AR into the syllabus.  Even if we we're healthy and producing pilots like we did years ago, I'd still say AR in IFF is a waste of resources.  Not to mention the bigger question of which tanker units are going to support this...there are guys coming out of B-Course without AR because of tanker availability, now they think IFF will magically find tanker support?  Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Breckey]

Just pair the T-X IFF AR with the  T-1 AR sorties. Simulate "dry" hits. Profit.

It's not like helo AR where you actually have to work to make a plug.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Breckey