T-X getting interesting

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Zaphod58
Alright that answered my questions, current F-35 pilots fly the T-38 as of now but will get their F35 customized trainer plane later. Thank you for your patience explaining that to me.

Actually thats still not entirely correct. Here's what happens with air force pilots. First they go to pilot training (dont remember exactly what they are flying now but think cessna, for some reason im thinking the tweet). After UPT, pilots are ranked based off of their initial flight training, with the best pilots getting their pick of a future jet (i.e. best pilots usually are going to choose fighters). Then the rest are split up based off of necessity.

Pilots that are going to fighters and bombers will go off and fly the T-38. There they learn advanced stuff and basically learn to be a fighter pilot. Tanker, heavy, and mobility pilots will go off and fly the T-1 to learn their skills of becoming a heavy aircraft pilot.

Now for fighter pilots, after they graduate from the T-38 training, they will go and learn to fly the fighter they were selected for (F-16, F-15, A-10, F-22, etc.) For heavy pilots, after graduating from the T-1, they will go to their base to learn to fly the aircraft they were selected for (KC-135, KC-10, C-17, C-5, etc.)

All T-X is doing is replacing the T-38 with a new aircraft because its getting old and cant really duplicate a modern fifth generation fighter anymore. So while its correct that current F-35 pilots trained in the T-38, the talon replacement that T-X will decide is not an F-35 trainer. Its a fighter pilot trainer. The same guys that will fly the T-X will go on to fly the F-16, F-15, F-22, ect.

Simply put, they want a fighter trainer that can more realistically replicate what a fifth generation fighter can do for better training. Also, only recently did they allow first time fighter pilots to go from the T-38 to the F-22. Currently, no pilots are allowed to fly the F-35 without having done a tour of duty in another fighter first.

I thought BAE were still in the T-X race with the Hawk and Northrop?

They did a full glass cockpit as mentioned for the latest upgrade (think they did the US navy too??), BAe gave them hotas and MFDs for Australia, South Africa and India, they are used as front line multi role aircraft by some nations.

My money is on the Hawk, clean sheet design is too risky, proven and I would imagine being updated to be the UKs F-35 Trainer the US Marines will probably want it too.

a reply to: Forensick

The Hawk was done several months ago. It doesn't meet the needs so Northrop went with a clean sheet design.

originally posted by: Forensick
I thought BAE were still in the T-X race with the Hawk and Northrop?

They did a full glass cockpit as mentioned for the latest upgrade (think they did the US navy too??), BAe gave them hotas and MFDs for Australia, South Africa and India, they are used as front line multi role aircraft by some nations.

My money is on the Hawk, clean sheet design is too risky, proven and I would imagine being updated to be the UKs F-35 Trainer the US Marines will probably want it too.

The Marine use the Goshawk which is a modified Hawk. The Goshawk has be updated to be a lead-in trainer for the F-18s with the same MFD.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't know that, thanks. Was it because it isn't supersonic?

a reply to: Forensick

No, just about none of the initial offerings met the sustained G requirement, as well as a couple others.

The M-346 (T-100) was recently put back into the mix, and it, under the current configuration, can barely meet the sustained G requirement.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

No, just about none of the initial offerings met the sustained G requirement, as well as a couple others.

The M-346 (T-100) was recently put back into the mix, and it, under the current configuration, can barely meet the sustained G requirement.

Interesting, is that a new requirement amd do you know what led to this requirement or was the talon already capable of those Gs?

a reply to: Forensick

Trying to meet the abilities of a Fifth Gen and beyond fighter. I don't believe the Talon meets it, but I'm not positive. It's a pretty brutal requirement for just about anything.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So do you know it that more for the aggressor role than training or have they seen a flaw in training during high G?

Good job they didnt put a STOVL requirement in there too!

a reply to: Forensick

The Fifth Gen can pull more Gs than that previous aircraft, due to some of the maneuvers they can pull. They need something that can simulate some of the turns that they can do better than current trainers.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting, so why are some threads calling the F35 a pig, is that because of the software release packet and flight envelope limitation currently in place?

What's in the 5th gen, just the 22 & 35?

Do you think it's interesting that they are building (potentially) a new trainer just for the 35 and 5th gen? To me it signals all this (last manned aircraft) is a bit premature and there is likely a few gens yet before we take out the pilot if ever?

I mean if you thought f-35 was last one it may have been cheaper to build a two seat variant rather than a fleet of trainers? Actually if you took the B it might be fairly easy (lol) to put a trainer where the fan was. Typhoon has twin seaters for training as did the Harrier.

I think we will be seeing pilots in the loop for awhile longer and some fantastic next gen fighters!

Isn't it all about air superiority? Can you win without it?

a reply to: Forensick

The debacle with AF-2 and the F-16 has got a lot of people crowing about what a pig the F-35 is without looking at the realities of the situation.

Eventually the new trainer is also going to be Red Air, so it needs to be as maneuverable as possible from the start. Then when it starts the Red Air mission there's minimal modification required.

I'm not sure it's a G problem. Currently, those fighter jets are software limited to 9G's or less. The Goshawk is 7.5G rated. 9G's is not sustainable in any aircraft in any fleet that I"ve heard of. They can plant 9 on for instantaneous turn, but it's gonna bleed speed pretty quick so that you'll be on the AOA limit and can't get 9 G's anymore. And that argument is really predicated on a heavy reliance on BFM versus total system ingration, which is likely a bigger training challenge.

Interestingly, the F-22 and F-35 vary so much in the WVR arena, that I'd argue that you can't use the same trainer for both. The F-35 will be taught in a fairly conventional way (1 circle, 2 circle, energy conservation, nose position, LV position). The F-22 due to the vectored nozzles, can maneuver with 0 airspeed and pivot on it's own axis. So turn radius/turn circle discussions are vastly different.

However, both aircraft are heavily reliant on total battlefield sensor integration (Ground, AWACS, Elint, buddy radars). The info processing while maintaining stealthiness is the game here and I don't think the T-38, T-45 can be fitted with that much training electronics equipment.

Honestly, the best trainer would be something easy to fly, single engine that can be packed with avionics/electronics. Allow me to introduce you to the TF-16. But seeing how the AF needs a new trainer, the T-X makes sense.

a reply to: cosmania

All the entrants met the G requirement. Only one met the sustained G requirement, and that barely.

Both the F-22 and F-35 have the same energy bleed and recovery problem.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The Raptor bleeds energy as badly as the 35? I thought that it could fight in a sustained turn knife fight type scenario pretty well like the Eagle. The only energy management issues I've heard that they've run into is when the pilots get greedy and try to pull past 9Gs.

a reply to: justwanttofly

Not as bad as the -35, but that's one thing that has been commonly pointed to when they were playing with the Typhoons. They bleed and are slow to recover.

a reply to: Zaphod58
That will be fixed with training and they will probably put a lot of work into it at Top Gun.Its not a new thing with dissimilar energy fights,tactics and training is what its all about.Trainers are mimics to their fighter cousins so all specs must be fairly close.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The T-X might also replace the T-1 and a single track "advanced phase" is probably coming back.

4th vs 5th gen and G's are not an issue. They both can go to 9g's. You sustain what you can sustain and you work with what is given to you. The T-38 is just fine in that department and under powered appropriately as a trainer and for costs.

The T-38C is considered a high-g onset aircraft. Also, the seat isn't reclined and you don't get the FCAGs. 9g's in another aircraft actually feels better than straight to 7g's in the Talon.

The T-X is needed strictly because of the pilot to aircraft interface. From the FLCS to managing displays. The T-38 is old and requires ground equipment that can be a nuisance in flight planning.

As for the aggressor role, you can be a valid training platform as an aggressor at 1.0g or at 7.0g. Believe it or not, you aren't pulling 9g's every flight.

I understand what is being said though about them having to meet requirements for G's. I was just trying to explain that the T-38 is fine in that department, and the reasons for the T-X and next gen aircraft interface requirements the Talon may not meet.

The more you read into the requirements the ta-50 is the only one that walks through this easily. If they want to incorporate advanced sensor training that might be needed for the 35/22 wouldn't a real limitation be the electrical system on all these birds? Hard to see anyone but Lockheed winning this: it is mostly their product that needs a trainer.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

That's why they're building clean sheet designs.