infiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 428 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2388 times:
The t-X competition to replace the T-38, i feel will be a blood bath. If you think the KC-X competition was bad I think this will 10x worst. Most of the largest US defense contractors want in on this competition and dont mind teaming up with others to do it. Once this competition officially opens up again (has been delayed for budget reasons) this should get very interesting. Here are the potential products and teams. What do you think? Who would have the upper hand?
-Alenia Aermacchi M-346 (Alenia, General Dynamics)
-BAE Hawk (BAE, Northrop Grumman, Rolls-Royce, L-3)........ USN operates the T-45 variant of the Hawk
-KAI T-50 (KAI, Lockheed Martin)
-T-X Gripen (Saab, Boeing)
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 871 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (4 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2299 times:
I think it will be the Hawk or the T-50.
The Hawk is an established platform and its only major drawback is that it is not supersonic and the USAF generally wants a supersonic trainer. One of the main benefits of it is that NG has a big hand in the F-35 sensor and sensor fusion so could help replicate that environment to a degree in there.
The T-50 is supersonic and has the obvious advantage of having the builder of the major USAF fighter of the future as part of the team. I personally think it is the favorite.
Gripen will be too expensive. I don't see the Aermacchi having much chance at all.
BigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 871 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (4 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2172 times:
Quoting Stoobie (Reply 2): With the estimated costs of the next-generation bombers, I think the F-35 will be an afterthought.
I am not sure why you are all that worried about the next bomber, I mean anymore than any other defense project I should say. It should actually benefit a lot from the F-35 program for skins and technology. It is almost assured to be some kind of flying wing as well. But I don't see them really stretching technological boundaries on the bomber project all that much because they really don't have to.
mechatnew From United States of America, joined May 2005, 99 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 months 20 hours ago) and read 2018 times:
As for the Hawk and its lack of supersonic capability. It sould not hurt it. The current T-38C had modified intakes and exhaust to improve its subsonic performance and is no longer supersonic. I believe the supersonic syllabus in USAF training was dropped in the 1990s.
larshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1330 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 months 19 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
How is training done in the US? Are Air force and Navy/Marine pilots seperated from the start or do they go through a common facility? Would it be an idea to put the 2 programs together if they are seperate? If so it might be an advantage to choose a Hawk version to ease transition to the T-45.
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1): Gripen will be too expensive. I don't see the Aermacchi having much chance at all.
Although it could be funny if both the USAF adn the Russian air force trainer aircraft were deveoped from the same aircraft.
evil8er2006 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 months 16 hours ago) and read 1954 times:
Quoting larshjort (Reply 5): How is training done in the US? Are Air force and Navy/Marine pilots seperated from the start or do they go through a common facility? Would it be an idea to put the 2 programs together if they are seperate?
The Air Force and the Navy/USMC pilot training programs are similar through the first two parts of training. The Air Force and Navy/USMC both have academics at the start. The Air Force calls it's academic portion Phase 1 (it's also nicknamed "slackademics" since it's the most relaxed portion); the Navy calls theirs API (aviation pre-indoctrination, I believe). After that phase is complete, student pilots hit the flight line (for the AF, it's called Phase 2), where they fly USAF T-6s for around five months at one of four AF bases. The Navy/Marine students fly T-34s or T-6s out of Pensacola, FL. Both services (lumping the Navy and the USMC together for this description) have exchange programs. Navy/Marine students can attend Phase 1/2 or Phase 3 of USAF Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) and USAF students can fly Navy T-34s/T-6s out of Pensacola and T-44s out of Corpus. When I went through UPT, I had three Navy and three Marines in my T-6 class. Once we hit Track Select (choosing whether to go fighters/bombers, heavies, helos, or C-130s), the Navy/Marine guys went to their respective follow-on training bases (T-45s at Meridian/Kingsville, T-44s at Corpus, helos at Whiting). We also sent several of my Air Force T-6 buddies to fly T-44s for their later follow-on to C-130s. When I tracked to T-1s, I had a Navy guy (who came from T-34s out of P-cola) in my class for the last half of UPT; his follow-on assignment was E-6s out of Tinker AFB, OK. Long story short, the training is similar in some ways, enough where you can go through parts of a sister service's training program. There are several USAF pilots I know who went through P-cola and flew Navy T-44s out of Corpus before going to fly C-130s at Little Rock AFB. However, there are still considerable differences in training that prevent the two programs from being completely interchangeable. For example, carrier qualifications in the T-45 would be pointless for USAF student pilots (but wicked awesome at the same time!!). Other differences mainly boil down to the services' training philosophies and regulatory approaches. In the end, I don't see the two programs ever merging into one big program.
NBGSkyGod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 719 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 months 8 hours ago) and read 1893 times:
Like Evil8er2006 says, it is doubtful the two sides would ever find themselves with a totally combined training program due to the differences between their operations, fleet compositions, procedures, etc. However, initial flight training could be combined, like evil said, there is already a lot of crossover that has been going on for years. I 2004 I bummed a ride on a T44 with two USAF Majors as the drivers. And with the T6 now the basic trainer in both fleets, it is likely to see more of a blending of the services in the early stages of training.
Latter training will always be different because why does a F-15 driver need to worry about landing on a carrier, or an F-18 pilot...well I can't think of anything an F/A-18 pilot doesn't need to learn that an USAF pilot doesn't know, plus carrier operations. Common fleet types like the C-130, C20/37, etc will always have mixed training classes since their procedures are pretty much the same.
I think where you will see a lot more combination of branch training is with the enlisted rates.
"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
infiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 428 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1515 times:
Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1): I think it will be the Hawk or the T-50.
I agree the T-50 has an edge by having Lockheed as partner. Especially seeing how Lockheed is producing two of the USAF newest fighters. The Hawk has an edge by being in the service with the Navy and BAE would use that as way to bring to down cost (it terms of parts and such as whole for the whole for DOD). What surprises me is why Boeing didnt partner with BAE for the hawk as they joint produce the goshhawk for the navy.
Quoting evil8er2006 (Reply 6): In the end, I don't see the two programs ever merging into one big program.
As cost saving measure I agree with the merger of the beginning phases of the flight training syllabus. But yes latter portion should remain service driven.
On side note there is to much separatism among our military in both aviation and other components and thus costing the taxpayer millions of dollars wasted.