T-38 replacement??

[AlbieF15]

I knew some good pilots killed in the T-38....rudder hardover and aileron failures. No "screw ups" there...just a good plane with a few fatal non-recoverable failure modes. Another buddy walked away after letting a student take him too far and burning up brakes prior to going into a departure end cable. The airplane demanded your attention all the time. My Eagle, on the other hand...I could nap on the way to the MOA. Good bless those great engineers who made it such a pleasure and reliable jet to fly...

 

[BeeVee]

F-16 not a good replacement for the T-38

a recent air force magazine article said the AF is looking to replace the T38 starting 2018. My question is instead of designing a new aircraft wouldn't a 2 seat f-16 be a good replacement?

While the ANG is saying they need fighters (because their current are worn out) why not just make a run of say 600 block 50 or 60 F-16's. Wikipedia shows we have 462 t38's in service.

600 new f-16's could be 400 D models engineered/moded for training as t38 replacements and the other 200 C models to go to the guard as general combat f16's complementing the F-35.

I bet it would be way cheaper than designing/testing/starting production on a new aircraft.

In my humble opinion, replacing the T-38 with a single-engine fighter (like the Vipor) would be a poor choice. #1) a single-engine jet is not a good fit for a "pilot training" atmosphere, and #2) the jump from a T-6 to a Vipor, in terms of power and performance (and G's, etc), may be just a little too much to handle for a young 22 year old with little airmanship and experience.

BeeVee

 

[CAL to T-1A]

Any of those aircraft would be a challenge for the bottom feeder T-1 student. There is a lot of talk of when the T-X comes on line getting rid of the T-1 and going back to a universally assignable pilot.

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

There will not be a replacement for the -38. UAVs are growing exponentially and the need for F-22/F-35 pilots decreases as production levels are cut. We'll never see another new bomber, tanker, and certainly not another supersonic fighter pilot trainer IMO. You'll see all of SUPT done in a T-6.

 

[Huggyu2]

#1) a single-engine jet is not a good fit for a "pilot training" atmosphere,

Like the RAF and Canadian Hawk, A-4, US Navy T-45, L-39 (flown by a bunch of countries), L-29, Iskra, IAF's Kiran, Italian AMX and MB339, and the S211?
Having flown in 5 of the aircraft listed above, I'd disagree with you.

 

[SIG600]

Why is a single engine jet not a good "pilot training" atmosphere? You know how many people out there have never flown anything with two engines?

As far as the "non-missionized" version of a Hornet or Viper... the Navy looked at this prior to the aquisition of the T-45. You could pick up a stripped down Hornet for the cost of the T-45. However the Hornet burns 10-12K #'s of gas per evolution as opposed to the 2500 that the T-45 burns in the same amount of flight time. When you add up that alone over the life of the program the cost savings are mind boggling. Add to that the cost of maint and up keep, and you get the picture.

The T-45 is a great airplane for what it does... fill the void between a primary a/c and the fleet jet. If the USAF was smart they'd buy the British version and ignore the Navy one. Our suffers from a lack of gas due to the beefed up structure that's required to slam it into the boat. That said however, it teaches a student to hawk their gas, which is not a lesson to learn later.

 

[propsarebest]

The aussies have the hawk we need... the LIF.

 

[Scrapdog]

There will not be a replacement for the -38. UAVs are growing exponentially and the need for F-22/F-35 pilots decreases as production levels are cut. We'll never see another new bomber, tanker, and certainly not another supersonic fighter pilot trainer IMO. You'll see all of SUPT done in a T-6.

This from a KC-135 pilot. Thanks for the fighter pipeline insight.