Future T-38 replacement?

[brabus]

Still not worth it - it'd be a sortie spent doing very low yield training...guys can't even fly tactical formation or not fuck up other basic admin shit out of IFF.  They need to unfuck those problems before even thinking about AR training.  In a perfect world where those problems are solved, then I think you have a good idea, but still doesn't require an AR system on the T-X.

[icohftb]

My guess would the AAR capability would be for red air missions not IFF.

[Homestar]

Boeing probably intends to sell the T-X to foreign nations as a basic fighter with basic fighter capabilities.  If that's the case then an AR system makes sense.

[brabus]

1 hour ago, icohftb said:

My guess would the AAR capability would be for red air missions not IFF.

Except the T-X doesn't fit the bill for ADAIR reqs. Firstly it doesn't have a radar, but even if it did, it's still a 4th gen adversary. We really need 5th gen ADAIR, or at least "4.5 gen" (e.g. more shit than this T-X could probably support).  But that said, if it had a decent radar and ability to legitimately rep adversary HMS and weapons, it wouldn't be a bad thing...doubt we'll see that happen.  Contract ADAIR is likely going to be the solution for a long time.

Edited October 8, 2018 by brabus

[Clark Griswold]

Except the T-X doesn't fit the bill for ADAIR reqs. Firstly it doesn't have a radar, but even if it did, it's still a 4th gen adversary. We really need 5th gen ADAIR, or at least "4.5 gen" (e.g. more shit than this T-X could probably support).  But that said, if it had a decent radar and ability to legitimately rep adversary HMS and weapons, it wouldn't be a bad thing...doubt we'll see that happen.  Contract ADAIR is likely going to be the solution for a long time.

Couldn’t there be a training mode for the 5th gens to treat a 4th gen ADAIR as a 5th gen opponent?

 

Not a perfect solution but thru software achieve low RCS, low EMCON opponents

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

I suppose anything is possible, but I'd say near 0% chance that'll happen, nor should money/time necessarily be spent on such an endeavor (in relation to other requirements).

[icohftb]

Theyve been talking about tx as red air for a while now. The AF is using 38s now so im sure they are considering a TX with some kind of embedded training mode.

 

Cheaper than a fleet of 16s or f35s as red air (of which we dont have enough). Wouldnt be surprised to one day see the tx as a tbird.

Edited October 8, 2018 by icohftb

[brabus]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the AF make the T-X ADAIR at some point, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. T-38 ADAIR is barely useful (i.e. better than nothing, but that's about it).  Now if those guys had jets with a respectable radar, better EA, and ability to legitimately rep adversary weapons/tactics, then it would be a lot better.  Still doesn't meet 5th gen adversary needs, but better than what currently exists.

[matmacwc]

11 minutes ago, brabus said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see the AF make the T-X ADAIR at some point, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. T-38 ADAIR is barely useful (i.e. better than nothing, but that's about it).  Now if those guys had jets with a respectable radar, better EA, and ability to legitimately rep adversary weapons/tactics, then it would be a lot better.  Still doesn't meet 5th gen adversary needs, but better than what currently exists.

One good centerline pod and suddenly it will work.

[Clark Griswold]

3 hours ago, icohftb said:

They've been talking about tx as red air for a while now. The AF is using 38s now so im sure they are considering a TX with some kind of embedded training mode.

Cheaper than a fleet of 16s or f35s as red air (of which we dont have enough). Wouldnt be surprised to one day see the tx as a tbird.

That was one of the reasons I was surprised by the Boeing T-X win as T-50 has a first cousin that is a light fighter (F-50) with legitimate fighter capes already.

File this under never gonna happen but the first F-35As (108 of them according to this article) might become "concurrency orphans" and not get upgraded to combat capable due to the cost being disruptive to the concurrency acquisition model and the models now in the current spiral for acquisition.

Instead of making them combat coded, these first gens could be candidates for a 5th gen ADAIR with some operational capability, just not the full on F-35 ALIS based capes.  We had F-16As for years with a CONUS sovereignty mission only, add the 5th Gen ADAIR mission with these tails distributed to ARC wings and you have a units that could specialize in simulating J-20s or Su-57s

Edited October 8, 2018 by Clark Griswold

[Ryder]

2 hours ago, matmacwc said:

One good centerline pod and suddenly it will work.

This.  We are way behind in technology as a whole   Instead of producting an aircraft to be able to effectively do all this , just build one or an attachment to effectively replicate these threats   We can’t even afford new fighters or trainers .  Do you really think we can afford a dedicated red air platform ?  The technology could be created to Mimic jamming , radar pictures ,  different groups , etc.    Any small plane could carrry this and play the role   As far as BFM/ ACM you’d have to use your own For that one set of skills   

 

[brabus]

There's far more to adversary rep than a nice EA pod.  You can't make good threat rep with just a pod - it takes several more components.  And that's why the T-X in it's current state is not a great ADAIR platform.  Perhaps contract ADAIR is the only good solution until solid LVC training is reality.

[icohftb]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

There's far more to adversary rep than a nice EA pod.  You can't make good threat rep with just a pod - it takes several more components.  And that's why the T-X in it's current state is not a great ADAIR platform.  Perhaps contract ADAIR is the only good solution until solid LVC training is reality.

What do you expect, a fleet of Flankers?

What is contract red air currently flying that's mo betta than a TX airframe wise? 

With an EA pod and a purple net type training mode it would be pretty useful to augment a few real 5th gen aircraft operating as red air.

Edited October 9, 2018 by icohftb

[Sprkt69]

1 hour ago, icohftb said:

What do you expect, a fleet of Flankers?

What is contract red air currently flying that's mo betta than a TX airframe wise? 

With an EA pod and a purple net type training mode it would be pretty useful to augment a few real 5th gen aircraft operating as red air.

Contract ADAIR companies are starting to pick up F-16s for one.

[icohftb]

Ive heard the rumors. Yet to see it. Its gonna cost 5-10x per flying hour of a TX to operate.

Doubt an old apg 66 and beat up rwr on a A model viper is gonna provide any better threat replication for 5th training.

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by icohftb

[Sprkt69]

They are MLUs

[VMFA187]

17 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Couldn’t there be a training mode for the 5th gens to treat a 4th gen ADAIR as a 5th gen opponent?

 

Not a perfect solution but thru software achieve low RCS, low EMCON opponents 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

By combining "live" and "constructive" training I think you'd be able to combine 5th gen adversary support constructively by mating that to the TX 4th gen platform, then gain the live training with the actual platform once you get WVR.

[brabus]

10 hours ago, icohftb said:

What do you expect, a fleet of Flankers?

What is contract red air currently flying that's mo betta than a TX airframe wise? 

With an EA pod and a purple net type training mode it would be pretty useful to augment a few real 5th gen aircraft operating as red air.

For starters, Draken's L-159 is better than a Viper in a few ways (and way better than a T-X).  At a very basic level, an ADAIR jet without a good radar has limited effectiveness.  ADAIR companies are already putting together 4th gen fighters with radar, datalink, EA suites.  They will do it cheaper/more effective than the government could ever dream to do. Again, I think the government itself will be very limited in providing good ADAIR support until the LVC concept is actually useful (and that's a long time from now).

[Clark Griswold]

By combining "live" and "constructive" training I think you'd be able to combine 5th gen adversary support constructively by mating that to the TX 4th gen platform, then gain the live training with the actual platform once you get WVR.

Copy that

Another reason why I was surprised LM/KAI didn’t win as from their propaganda they demonstrated LVC and as they make the only two 5th gens currently flown by the USAF, integrating 5th gen Training threat/capes emulation for a potential ADAIR version for their offering seemed like another reason to go with them

 

Easiest as they own the systems the AF would likely want to integrate new tng capes into

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LookieRookie]

No protests

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/11/lockheed-leonardo-wont-protest-t-x-handing-program-to-boeing/

[Clark Griswold]

On the subject of Advanced Trainers...

Aeralis (UK aerospace startup) is proposing a modular training system concept:

https://aeralis.com/

https://aviationweek.com/military-trainers-light-attack/aeralis-envisions-new-british-jet-trainer

Basic, Advanced and Aero Team variants based off one airframe, one or two engines customers choice...

[HuggyU2]

Let’s see...

UK aerospace startup...

Proposing a concept...

Hmmm....

I’m sure Boeing isn’t sweating this.

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

Let’s see...

UK aerospace startup...

Proposing a concept...

Hmmm....

I’m sure Boeing isn’t sweating this.

Not saying they are just interesting concept related to the thread subject.  

The most interesting idea of this (IMHO) is the modular approach to the family of aircraft offered, airframe/engines/avionics are all selectable to try to specialize for roles while simultaneously minimizing operational/logistics costs by specifically designing the concept to have 85% parts commonality among the variants.  If they can deliver this feature (unlike what the F-35 program promised but didn't), they could chop those life cycle operational costs, money talks.

It's not a bad sales pitch:  Fly several of your basic missions/functions with one base model aircraft and customize those tails as you want for your primary trainer, advanced trainer, aggressor and demo teams.  Save money on logistics and buying only what you need for each of those tails for their missions.

It is an interesting idea but I'm realistic/jaded; unless a lot of investors put up a ton of money then several nations agree to a serious purchase, this will remain vaporware.  Probably..

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Clark Griswold
wordsmithing

[skibum]

The sales pitch does not matter. Efficiency does not matter. This would make less money for the top defense contractors therefore it is not viable.

I worked in simulator research for a while when we created the first high fidelity simulator based on commercial off-the-shelf parts. We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants. We created ours from scratch, in one year using active duty labor. Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M. We were ordered to cease and desist. A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense.

[MooseClub]

1 hour ago, skibum said:

The sales pitch does not matter. Efficiency does not matter. This would make less money for the top defense contractors therefore it is not viable.

I worked in simulator research for a while when we created the first high fidelity simulator based on commercial off-the-shelf parts. We created a C-130 simulator that out-performed all existing variants. We created ours from scratch, in one year using active duty labor. Total cost (including the value of the labor) was under $1M. We were ordered to cease and desist. A group of SESs sat us down and explained that we cannot have this because it would hurt Lockheed who was selling sims for $45M per, and we needed Lockheed to be strong for overall defense.

^this

it rubs many the wrong way but realize all this is tied together. The DoD, the economy, defense manufactures, contractors. It’s all part of the same effort in the end. It doesn’t always make sense and certainly isn’t built/intended to be the most efficient. As crazy as it seems on the surface the SESs you spoke of are right. Doing something that could potentially hurt Lockheed isnt smart. It’s all tied together. It isn’t just the military alone that makes up the defense strategy. If ever we’re in a near-peer war the country would need not only the military but the entire defense industry functioning at its highest level. Defending the country means keeping that industry, in addition to the military, as strong as possible. The unfortunate part is it certainly creates a degree of waste and inefficiency in the meantime