Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bustr on October 02, 2019, 12:41:09 PM
-
The USAF has phased out the T-38 for the new T-7A Red Hawk.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a29108820/air-force-jet-tuskegee-airmen/
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Two_parked_Boeing_T-Xs_%28181005-F-PO640-0021%29.JPG)
-
Those T-38s had some years on them, there my be upgrades needed as far as technology, the T-38 couldn't handle. Not every airframe has the endurance of a B-52.
-
The T-38 really has reached the end of it's useful life. It's been extended several times with structural fixes, avionics upgrades, and even a new ejection seat. But there's only so much you can do to an aircraft designed so long ago that it creates negative training and is unable to prepare student pilots to fly modern aircraft.
I won't fall into the trap of pointing fingers, but it's also reasonable to point out that the mishap and fatality rate of the T-38 is not awesome. That by itself has rarely been enough to justify an entirely new weapon (or training) system in the military but in the case of the T-38, the fact that they knew darn well the airframes were too old contributed to the decision to integrate new ejection seats, a very costly band-aid that let them delay the T-38 replacement program until the F-35 was into production. Run-on sentences were also a consequence.
The T-38 was a great trainer and it remains one of the most fun to fly aircraft I ever flew, but it's utility as diminished well past the point where replacing it is a reasonable cost once you add up all the factors including mishap rate, maintenance costs, and the cost for additional systems that have to make up transition programs before T-38 graduates can effectively train in modern aircraft. Every single sortie off-loaded from F-35 upgrade training down to the advanced UPT syllabus probably saves $10,000 or more. That adds up bigly.
-
Yes. The T-38 is long in the tooth and relatively inefficient.
(https://api.thedrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/kakdk242424.jpg?quality=85)
-
What Eagl said.
The Talon served long and well but it's time has passed.
Modern Avionics alone are enough reason to move to a new airframe.
-
Looks like fun. :aok
(https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/defense/t7a/wallpaper/WideScreen/317982_MSF19-0040-296_Retouch_Wallpaper_1920x1200.jpg)
-
YES :salute
-
Absolutely, I'm getting tired of trying to fix an airframe that should have been retired decades ago.
Try rigging canopy drive and locking mechanisms on old longerons after a canopy has been torn apart and reassembled.
It'll take anywhere between 8 hrs to a few days depending on assembly and measurements after canopy rebuild. heaven forbid the canopy comes back short, to long or to wide... .
-
It's worth it if none of the parts or systems were built/Designed in China, and if none of these coward traitors sells the plans to China.
-
Looks like it can also be exported as an inexpensive ground attack aircraft to developing countries.
-
After seeing some of the other options...I'm glad they went with the T-7A. Man some of these are ugly!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-X_program
-
After seeing some of the other options...I'm glad they went with the T-7A. Man some of these are ugly!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-X_program
I think this one or the T-50 would have been great. The greatest effect on USAF readiness will end up depending on how robust all the "extras" turn out to be. Like what kind of training management system comes along, integration with simulator training, etc. The airframe is important but all the other stuff is super important. The T-6 came along with an investment in TIMS, and that revolutionized the training management process and probably long-term saved millions every year while improving accountability and reducing student management errors.
-
One of, if not the biggest cost is maintaining these airframes.
If the airframe is not put together in a logical fashion, parts are not available and tech data is written poorly, they will sit on the ground and be pretty much worthless.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
After seeing some of the other options...I'm glad they went with the T-7A. Man some of these are ugly!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-X_program
The T-7 isn't exactly a prize. LOL :neener:
I think this one or the T-50 would have been great. The greatest effect on USAF readiness will end up depending on how robust all the "extras" turn out to be. Like what kind of training management system comes along, integration with simulator training, etc. The airframe is important but all the other stuff is super important. The T-6 came along with an investment in TIMS, and that revolutionized the training management process and probably long-term saved millions every year while improving accountability and reducing student management errors.
I thought the same thing.
-
The T-7 isn't exactly a prize. LOL :neener:
I thought the same thing.
Compared to the T-38 it's a porche
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Compared to the T-38 it's a porche
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:rofl
-
Yak-150 looks better imho.
-
Yak-150 looks better imho.
Do you mean the Yak-130? Nice plane but underpowered. Based on the Su-25 platform.