After ~18 months of delay there's finally a replacement for the aging T-38 in the works.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/09/27/reuters-air-force-awards-9b-contract-to-boeing-for-next-training-jet/

Not a pilot, but can you hang any ordnance on these trainer aircraft?

UTExan said:

---

Not a pilot, but can you hang any ordnance on these trainer aircraft?

---

Where there's a will, there's enough duct tape to make it happen.

UTExan said:

---

Not a pilot, but can you hang any ordnance on these trainer aircraft?

---

Think the F5 is the fighter version of the T38 with some foreign air forces flying it. Or did.

Yes and no.

Almost all T-38s are not weapons capable. Some were outfitted for weapons training but I don't believe for live munitions.

The F-5 and T-38 are basically akin to a Ford and Lincoln version of the same car.

I don't believe the T-X is weapons capable but wouldn't be surprised if there's eventually a weapons variant.

A variant of the T-6 Texas ii, a turboprop trainer used by the Navy, is a big player in several air forces around the world. In places like Afghanistan, the Afghani air force really doesn't need an air superiority fighter. They just need a low cost, reliable plane to bomb the Taliban and do strafing runs.

And this plan looks very similar to the Textron Scorpion, which was floated as a replacement for the A10.

Looks like a fun plane to fly, that's for sure.

I think the main driver, besides aging airframes, and aging avionics, is the T-38s lack of performance at high angles of attack, and the lack of air-to-air refueling capability. They want to teach refueling in SUPT, rather than follow-on.

And while it's hard to beat the T-38 for looks, these look pretty good.

Air Force trains in the Texan II as well. It replaced the T-37.

The A-29 Super Tucano is a similar turbo prop being used in the same way as the AT-6.

The T-X was my favorite to win solely based on looks.

Disappointed they won't be remotely online until 2023. Maybe circle back through UPT as an old guy to fly one.

If they make it into the fleet in time, my pilot will be hitting the end of her 11 year obligation about that time. Don't know if she will go back to SUPT for one last hurrah then, or stay in for 20. Time will tell.

One thing she said about the -38 was that the radio and other buttons were unreadable, the labels having long ago worn away.

Do you have a class assignment yet?

2023 is when they're scheduled to make it to PIT. The releases all just say Randolph AFB then but I'm assuming that means PIT so we have IPs ready for the full rollout.

When I left to head to IFT a bit back I was 20-05. We'll see if that's still true when I get home

Hate to say it but the single engine means these things are going to be the new lawn darts...

Quote:

---

They want to teach refueling in SUPT, rather than follow-on.

---

I have never seen a time where I thought a pilot needed more training air refueling... pretty easy to do. Seems like an unnecessary expense. It be nice for cross countries.

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Yes and no.

Almost all T-38s are not weapons capable. Some were outfitted for weapons training but I don't believe for live munitions.

The F-5 and T-38 are basically akin to a Ford and Lincoln version of the same car.

I don't believe the T-X is weapons capable but wouldn't be surprised if there's eventually a weapons variant.

---

The T-X does come with external hardpoints to carry pods and captive missiles, but it's not yet known if those are also designed to eventually be weapons-capable. Huge win for Boeing. T-X

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Snooter said:

---

Hate to say it but the single engine means these things are going to be the new lawn darts...

---

Your aviation knowledge is as limited as your political knowledge.

Quote:

---

between FY1990 and FY2004, the single-engine F-16 suffered 80 Class A engine-related mishaps for a rate of 1.31 per 100,000 flight hours.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33390.pdf

---

The "lawn dart" label on the early F-16s was related to g-loc, not engine failure

---

Lol if only you knew my background...

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Citations:lawn_dart

Solid article. Hadn't seen that much detail in most pieces about it yet.

CharlieBrown17 said:

---

Solid article. Hadn't seen that much detail in most pieces about it yet.

---

WarZone is an informative, sometimes provocative, site.

StrangeLuv said:

---

Quote:

---

They want to teach refueling in SUPT, rather than follow-on.

---

I have never seen a time where I thought a pilot needed more training air refueling... pretty easy to do. Seems like an unnecessary expense. It be nice for cross countries.

---

Was actually talking to a major about the T-X today. He thinks the Air Force is "close" to going back to one advanced trainer. Supposedly the T-1 is getting discountined.

If that is true, it's a big plus for it to have refueling imo

That will be interesting. I have heard that the "Tones" were getting a little tired. The jets really weren't designed for the number of cycles they do in SUPT.

I assume the reason for the T-one is the buzzzword Cockpit Resource Management. Perhaps they will just shove that training into the follow-on type training.

Pilot Training Next

If this proves successful, there won't be T-1s or a T-X.

I can see a move to virtual training, but you're still going to have to get up there and see if you can pull some Gs and not get airsick

They're already headed that way. The beginning of the new T-6 course is double digit sim rides before you even touch the aircraft

I thank God every day for my time in the 38...

Also, in the airlines, it's all sim time. First time you land a plane is with pax on board...

Southlake said:

---

Also, in the airlines, it's all sim time. First time you land a plane is with pax on board...

---

A little different based on the pilots being trained.

UPT has pilot trainees with the 15 or so hours they get at IFT or guys with PPLs that don't have to go to IFT but haven't flown in months and sometimes years as the majority.

Still think there's room for more sim hours but still need the real stick time.

Quote:

---

UPT has pilot trainees with the 15 or so hours they get at IFT or guys with PPLs that don't have to go to IFT but haven't flown in months and sometimes years as the majority.

---

Are you certain about that?

When my pilot went through, everyone had to go through the initial flight training at Doss in the little Diamond aircraft. There were stories of civilian pilots with CFII ratings that failed out of IFT. It wasn't that they couldn't fly, but they couldn't adjust to the Air Force way of flying. Too many bad habits, and an attitude problem, I assume.

This is all second- and third-hand, so I could be wrong.

Yeah it's a recent change due to pipeline backup.

I believe your daughter went through IFS (screening vs training) and it was considerable more difficult per the rumor mill.

A bro of mine was an IP at UPT-N.They did some neat stuff and definitely proved the concept that more focused repititions of a task leads to, shocker, more proficiency in that task. The studs they produced were mostly pretty good but remains to be seen if any of them make it all the way through FTU. Still, UPT-N will only ever be a small supplement to current style UPT because the technology demand isnt scaleable yet.

Word was the TX was going to be the single advanced trainer but theyre buying less of them than we have 38's, so hard to see that becoming the case when our number of 38's is being identified as a limfac for pilot production. Also the air refueling is intended for IFF use, not for SUPT.

Just put my name in the hat for UPT-N rd 2

There's more stick time than I had been led to believe before but still very VR focused.


Some of the guys from the first try got washed out of their fighter B course but got sent back to phase 3 in T-38s to get spun up and sent back to fighters. But others are holding their own, haven't heard any issues about the guys that went heavy.

This the thing where they put a simulator in your dorm room?