| Author |
Message |
|
1st503rdsgt
|
Posted: Apr 06, 2011 - 06:59 AM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Jan 23, 2011 - 01:23 AM
Posts: 1549
Status: Offline
|
Came across the article below. If the USAF replaces the T-38 (big "if"), what will they pick? I'm rooting for the T-50 (the Korean plane, not the PAK-FA) because it's one of the few advanced jet trainers being built that is supersonic. Any other ideas?
Quote:
USAF Will Likely Pick Off-The-Shelf Trainer
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 5 Apr 2011 15:07
The U.S. Air Force will likely pick an aircraft that is already in production for its nascent T-X advanced jet-trainer program to replace its geriatric fleet of the T-38 Talon trainers, the service's top civilian leader told reporters.
"In T-X, we are looking for probably a commercial derivative, something that's [already] being produced elsewhere," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said April 5 at a Defense Writers Group breakfast.
RELATED TOPICS
Americas
Air Warfare
Analysts said that the revelation comes as no surprise because the service simply does not have the research and development funds to design a clean-sheet aircraft design.
"I don't think anyone had the illusion they had the [research and development] cash," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va.
However, Aboulafia said, the Air Force might run into trouble with buying an off-the-shelf airframe if it cannot keep its requirements in check.
"The real danger is, you start with a simple off-the-shelf airplane and then start adding all sorts of bells and whistles, and you can get into real trouble especially in these times of limited budgets," he said.
Donley said one approach that might remedy the problem of ever-expanding requirements is to limit engineering change authority to the top levels of Air Force leadership, which is the how the service has said it plans to manage its KC-46A tanker program.
However, there are drawbacks to that approach, Aboulafia said.
"With a tanker, that's close to a commodity product, but with a tanker they might have more exacting specifications. But that's the approach to take," he said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Jun 19, 2013 - 6:23 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
madrat
|
Posted: Apr 06, 2011 - 12:38 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Mar 03, 2010 - 03:12 AM
Posts: 987
Status: Offline
|
| If they go the T-50 airframe route I hope they downgrade the engine requirement to an F125. The F404 and F414 are too much engine for the role. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Lightndattic
|
Posted: Apr 07, 2011 - 05:08 PM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Oct 06, 2005 - 01:43 PM
Posts: 498
Location: Dallas, Texas
Status: Offline
|
| I hope they do a T/F-50 version to fill the LIFT and ADF roles. Keep the cannon, use a small AESA or even a simple ranging radar since it'll only ever operate under ATC/NORAD control, hang a couple of sidewinders on it and you've got a cheap, fast aircraft that can escort a wayward Cessna or down a hijacked airliner if worst comes to worst. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
nusna_moebius
|
Posted: Apr 08, 2011 - 11:57 PM
|
|
|
Newbie

Joined: Mar 28, 2011 - 01:43 AM
Posts: 13
Status: Offline
|
T-50 is a good plane, and it can just be equipped with GE built F414s. If the USAF was to go the Honeywell route, I would only recommend it based on the assumption they would use a higher thrust variant like the F125X to preserve the supersonic capabilities and much of the plane's natural close in agility prowess for training in the ACM dogfight environment.
I like Lighndattic's attitude. It would make the basis of a great aircraft beyond advanced flight training including advanced weapons with a secondary combat role that extends from the advanced weapons training needs. Why send out a very expensive to operate aircraft, when you can send a cheap one that will be more that able to handle the job (hijacked airliner, misguided civie)?
My only beef with the plane is that if adopted it would be licensed built here and it would be Lockheed Martin most likely doing it (since they had a hand in the design), unless the government stepped in and forced LM to have a "partner", in which case the a/c cost would just go up. Great plane, I just foresee a bad political situation. At least GE would be happy getting a huge engine contract with them so sore over trying to get F136 involved (they just need to drop it!). End all, I think LM has enough of their hands in the American fighter and weapons building department. Maybe Boeing could get the end-all license to build a localized T-50? LM and Pratt & Whitney with the F-35, Boeing and GE with the T-50. Sounds like a good deal for everyone, since everyone will be plenty busy.
Current inventory on T-38s according to wiki is 459, so we could forsee a need for at least 400 T-50s (and probably upwards of 500), plus engines, spares etc. That's bankin' for whoever would get such a contract.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|