Forum: General F-16 forum

I know the T-50 is not a F-16, but it is a derivative, so I though it could fall into this board.

My question/thought is as follows. the T-38 replacement is coming and it looks to be between the BAE Hawk, Alenia M-346 and the KAI/LM T-50. Looking at the Wiki articles on each the T-50 is cheaper and better in almost every catagory including max G Limit and Top Speed (two things I think would be important to fighter training).

So to me it seems like the T-50 should win hands down, now that said where will it be built?

LM Palmdale doesn't do production aircraft like that. LM Ft. Worth has its hands full with the F-16 and F-35, and Marietta, though finishing the F-22 has a lot of F-35 work and C-130J. So where does LM build the T-50 in country assuming the T-50 is selected as the T-38 replacement?

My personal thought is that Wichita, KS would be good, with Boeing pulling the KC-46 work out, there is a good work force and facilities in place.

What are your thoughts?

Sufa Viper

F-16.net Sponsor

South Korea for manufacturing the jet. How about assembly at LM's facilities in Marietta? Just my off the cuff thoughts.

@ Sufa - Love the title of this thread - "T-50 (not the Russian one)"

Cheers

TEG

PoAF has signed a deal with the south koreans for advanced jet training in Portugal using the T-50. Both countries pilots will be flying the jets, though none will be actually purchased by the later.

Having a commonality of some F-16 parts would also make the T-50 a better cost option.

Would the T-50 have a combat capability, rather than a dedicated trainer. In todays enviroment of multirole cost conscious equipment, a trainer that could be used in a low intensity war, would be prudent.

T-50 has no commonality with F-16. The overall layout is similar, except for two inlet ducts vs. one on the F-16, but zero parts are interchangeable.

A light attack version has been developed (A-50) and a light fighter version (F-50) is in development.

johnwill wrote:

T-50 has no commonality with F-16. The overall layout is similar, except for two inlet ducts vs. one on the F-16, but zero parts are interchangeable.

A light attack version has been developed (A-50) and a light fighter version (F-50) is in development.

Is the AF looking for more capability in the current trainer compitition?

Interesting factoid:
The first YT-38 prototypes flew in 1959; the T-38 entered service with the USAF in 1961.

Anyone care to bet on how long the next USAF trainer development program will take from American prototype to IOC? I'm guessing a minimum of 8 years and two congressional investigations.

I think that a mini T-50, using one F125 engine, is plenty of muscle for the new trainer. Perhaps they could afford to fly an F404-powered trainer, but why? It doesn't have the brute force of an F-16 because it doesn't need it.
In the past I brought up the idea of using the same jet as the USAF trainer for air policing. I've rethought about it and can only see it in ANG duty for point defense around major cities and intersecting major airways.

I am not avert to an F414-powered interceptor for the ANG. They could use something not an F-16 for basic CONUS protection. Not that I wouldn't rather see something more like an F-106A airframe using an F110 or F100 powerplant.

An F404 powered T-50 is plenty, putting in an F414 is overkill and both it and the F125 would require redesigns that would only complicate what needs to be as simple and quick an acquisition as possible. Will it be? Even an eternal optimist would need supreme effort to think it could possibly be easy. The T-50 is the best aircraft (IMHO) but the purse-string holders WILL balk at them being built in ROK and not here. Adding the assembly line here will only drive up the program costs but will be too much potential congressional pork not to insist on it.

I too have brought up the T/F-50 for CONUS air policing and don't think it would be cost prohibitive to station 4 aircraft (2 cocked and ready, with 2 for workup training/familiarity flights/alert bird swap-out) at airfields that already have facilities in place and just detaching IPs from the training squadrons between classes. I figure for every 2 classes of students run through the Phase 3 program, have some instructors spend 1 tour on alert. Since they would be senior pilots already (no FAIPs) the need to train for the mission could be handled by the outgoing alert team. Advanced training syllabus is 24 weeks, so the alert tour would be the same length, just overlapping the outgoing group on by 2 weeks for refresher training. Give the alert birds two sidewinders (you could even use the older stocks of -9M's) and the cannon and you're set.

What about a 2 seater F-20 Tigershark.
Proven airframe.
New engine.
Low development cost as most is done and ready.
But? Tilt the seats for better G-tolerance.

Lightndattic wrote:

... don't think it would be cost prohibitive to station 4 aircraft (2 cocked and ready, with 2 for workup training/familiarity flights/alert bird swap-out) at airfields that already have facilities in place and just detaching IPs from the training squadrons between classes.... .... .... Give the alert birds two sidewinders (you could even use the older stocks of -9M's) and the cannon and you're set.

Not a chance.

vilters wrote:

But? Tilt the seats for better G-tolerance.

G-tolerance is a function of pilots being in good shape, primarily.
I don't know if designers design a seat angle for G tolerance. It's such a small amount of time you're flying that you're at high G. It would seem more important to design the seat for good "ergonomics" to allow the pilot to employ all of the systems his jet has to offer.
And, in the case of the F-16, the seat wasn't tilted for G-tolerance.
Plus, if you're reclined 30 degrees, realize that your head is tilted forward 30 degrees more than normal. Now try yanking 7+ G's. Gee, I wonder why Viper drivers all have chiropractors?

huggy wrote:

I don't know if designers design a seat angle for G tolerance. It's such a small amount of time you're flying that you're at high G. It would seem more important to design the seat for good "ergonomics" to allow the pilot to employ all of the systems his jet has to offer.
And, in the case of the F-16, the seat wasn't tilted for G-tolerance.

Maybe you should submit a correction to Wikipedia if you can provide an accurate source: "The Fighting Falcon is a fighter with numerous innovations including ... a seat reclined 30 degrees to reduce the effect of g-forces on the pilot ..."

Quote:

Gee, I wonder why Viper drivers all have chiropractors?

I don't have one, but I have considered Viagra. Very Happy

Forum: General F-16 forum

T-50 (not the Russian one) as the T-38 Replacement