I am confused..... The USAF T-X competition for the replacement of the T-38

[Teamski]

I am really confused. The USAF is tendering a requirement to replace the T-38 after 50 years of service. However, all of the aircraft offered right now to replace the aircraft are all subsonic. Why the hell would you go with an advanced trainer that doesn't even break the sonic barrier? Am I missing something? The aircraft up right now are being offered by Lockheed Martin (T-50), Textron (Scorpion) and BAE (Hawk). I know the aircraft have to mesh into the F-22 and F-35, and these aircraft have the avionics to do it. But to lack the flight envelop to subsonic speed is asking for accidents. Comments?

 

-Ski

[Teamski]

Correction, the T-50 is supersonic. The others not so much.....

 

-Ski

[Longbranch]

I don't believe the Scorpion was ever originally conceived to be a replacement training aircraft. In fact, it was Textron themselves that came up with the design requirements, and it was never built to any government contract specification. It is primarily designed to be a low-cost tactical jet, not a supersonic trainer.

[Waltz41]

Honestly it doesn't make sense, but I presume this is all about $$. Look at the A-10 debacle. You would think that having the trainer be able to fly supersonic is a must in the 'check' list, but apparently it's not. That is one thing you definitely can't get in the simulators!

 

I stopped asking questions about what our military and government leaders are deciding a long time ago.......the last couple of BRAC decisions were clear cases of them not thinking with their heads but with something else. When they closed NAS JRB Willow Grove in 2011, they moved a USN VT and VR squadron (along with USMC HMH squadron) to McGuire/Lakehurst/Ft. Dix. They had put money into not only moving the squadrons, but redoing/building new hangers and areas over at McGuire since they were getting more aircraft. Less than a year later, the Navy shut the VT unit down. A similar thing happened up in NAS Brunswick, after rebuilding/renovating hangers for the P-3 units there, they closed the base.

[Waltz41]

BTW, never heard of the T-50...is that the first picture there?

[Teamski]

Third one. The first one on the left is the Scorpion, the second is the Hawk an the last the T-50.

 

-Ski

[Teamski]

Honestly it doesn't make sense, but I presume this is all about $$. Look at the A-10 debacle. You would think that having the trainer be able to fly supersonic is a must in the 'check' list, but apparently it's not. That is one thing you definitely can't get in the simulators!

 

I stopped asking questions about what our military and government leaders are deciding a long time ago.......the last couple of BRAC decisions were clear cases of them not thinking with their heads but with something else. When they closed NAS JRB Willow Grove in 2011, they moved a USN VT and VR squadron (along with USMC HMH squadron) to McGuire/Lakehurst/Ft. Dix. They had put money into not only moving the squadrons, but redoing/building new hangers and areas over at McGuire since they were getting more aircraft. Less than a year later, the Navy shut the VT unit down. A similar thing happened up in NAS Brunswick, after rebuilding/renovating hangers for the P-3 units there, they closed the base.

 

 

When it comes to the military, a lot of things don't make sense. Some of it comes from contractual obligations. A lot of these bases you see closing will have buildings and infrastructure that millions were just spent to build. Since the contracts for those buildings were already signed, they got built anyways. Really pisses me off when that happens. When I left Alconbury, they had at least two buildings that were constructed on the base itself built within a year of closing. It is a huge piling waste of money. Mildenhall is closing next and there have been a lot of big ticket projects on that base that have yet to have the paint dry on......

 

-Ski

[hink441]

Just curious, but why is there an absolute need for a supersonic trainer?

 

I don't think the US Navy has ever had a supersonic trainer and they have gotten along without them rather well.

 

Chris

[Teamski]

Just curious, but why is there an absolute need for a supersonic trainer?

 

I don't think the US Navy has ever had a supersonic trainer and they have gotten along without them rather well.

 

Chris

 

 

Point taken!

 

-Ski

[Vahe Demirjian]

On 1/7/2016 at 5:29 AM, hink441 said:

Just curious, but why is there an absolute need for a supersonic trainer?

 

I don't think the US Navy has ever had a supersonic trainer and they have gotten along without them rather well.

 

Chris

The T-X competition won by the Boeing/Saab team (who design became the T-7 Red Hawk) called for an advanced jet trainer, although the T-7, like the T-38 Talon, is not designed for speeds of Mach 2 despite being supersonic.

 

In the 1960s the US Navy had a competition for an new advanced jet trainer to replace the TF-9J (F9F-8T prior to 1962) and Northrop submitted the N-285 supersonic jet trainer derivative of the T-38 to this requirement, but the subsonic TA-4F Skyhawkdesign was eventually chosen for this role. The US Navy has initiated the Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) program for a new advanced jet trainer to replace the subsonic T-45 Goshawk, and the T-7B navalized variant of the T-7, the TF-50N derivative of the T-50 Golden Eagle, and the M-346N variant derivative of the Leonardo M-346 jet trainer have been submitted for this requirement. If either the T-7B or TF-50N is selected, then the Navy would have a supersonic jet trainer for the first time in its history.

 

References:

• https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/us-navy-steaming-ahead-new-trainer
• https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41935/these-contenders-are-vying-to-replace-the-navys-t-45-goshawk-with-a-new-jet-trainer
• Chong, T., 2016. Flying Wings & Radical Things: Northrop’s Secret Aerospace Projects & Concepts 1939-1994. Forest Lake, MN: Specialty Press.