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.
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.
