What/Where is the US next deneration Trainer Jet?

As I known US always go ahead of other countries at every programmes, esp. for aircraft navy etc.... But since T-38 has been being in flight for prox. 40 years. Other country like Russia has yak130 even Korea has T-50 has as new trainer jet programe with nice looking and pretty well capability that much close to a fighter or attacker. The T-38 really is a old dog I suspect it can adapt new performance as training pilot to drive some high-g fighter as F-22 and F-35.
I certainly knew some project such as Javelin or Pip 10, but it look like a superior toy of adult not a serious trainingjet to be weapon. Whether America would has been such rich to take FB-22 as trainer? You do think so but I dont:shk:
By the way, dont tell me too much, because I am spy work for China mainland to search some information here.....

If a spy needs to get intel on publicly available information I truly pity the Chinese intelligence services.

Anyway, the T-6 is already in the works as a new trainer for both the USN/USAF. And USAF SUPT jet training is done in a F-5 derivative.

The T-38 was developed first actually Orieguy, the F-5 was then derived from the T-38, not the other way round.

The ATG Javelin is a very new, hot-contender for the militray jet trainer role. Its design has been specifically geared to that market.

Javelin

Originally posted by ORIEguy
If a spy needs to get intel on publicly available information I truly pity the Chinese intelligence services.

Anyway, the T-6 is already in the works as a new trainer for both the USN/USAF. And USAF SUPT jet training is done in a F-5 derivative.

US spys and USSR spys searched informations from other side dustbin in cold war. Why I couldn't found some useful information here?

Yes there's the Texan II, but since there is no two-seater version planned for neither the F-35 nor the F-22, we can wonder how the transition from the T-6 to these planes will be done when the T-38s are retired. A T-50 derivative could be a good contender, or maybe just some older designs like the F-16B or the F/A-18B ?

The Javelin seems to be close to refitted by F-5E JUST fit twin fins

Who has more informations and pictures about ingbuero.xr1000.de..." target="_blank" class="postlink">this aircraft? this trainer seems to be US navy's next gen trainer after T-45 but showed so few?

[edit on 22-2-2006 by emile]

T-50 GOLDEN EAGLE JET TRAINER AND LIGHT ATTACK AIRCRAFT.

The T-50 is designed to provide pilot training for current and next-generation fighters like advanced F-16s, F-22s and the Joint Strike Fighter.
Funding 13% by Lockheed Martin and the rest by the Koreans.

www.airforce-technology.com...

Would be a great choice.

No what I mentioned not Korea T-50. It is a competitor of US navy's trainer jet I think maybe competite with T-45.

I can't get your link to work emile, can you post a picture of it instead?

Waynos:
Here is for your request.
DASA/Rockwell FR-6 Ranger2000

Ah, that looks more like a basic trainer rather than being like the T-45.

I do have pictures of the competing designs for the T-45 contract as well as fthe ones for the USAF T-46 which was cancelled.

Yes, but this one I posted isnot a T-46

Emile,

>>
As I known US always go ahead of other countries at every programmes, esp. for aircraft navy etc.... But since T-38 has been being in flight for prox. 40 years.
>>

The T-38C is the only aircraft officialy in the pipe as far as I know. New inlets (officially de-sonicing the jet apparently?) and a bra for the reprofiled nose plus glass cockpit.

The basic Talon/Freedom Fighter has a remarkably hardy design and J85's are relatively benign in their fuel consumption so the USAF foolishly assumes that nothing more is needed.

Obviously this is not the case but IMO, the difficulty lies with the way they come at the process.

Flight Screener
TProp
Navy-USAF Pipe
T-45 T-38 Heavy Helo Tracks
Operational Conversion

Is a foolishly extended process.

Though I don't believe in 'privatization' through public flight schools, IMO, the screener system (as a separate airframe in the T-41) was always a waste of time and the TProp teaches more bad habits than it provides basic flight skills for the coming stepup in speed.

With decent simulators, the route should be an 'air academy' (NOT the AFA) program whereby qualified students are given directed courses throughout highschool and then complete graduate technical skills /as/ they finish a basic four year program and flight candidacy. i.e. As the Israeli's do it with more flying years after a younger graduation date. All monitored within service bounds and on the Government's hook. Provided they continue to show proficiency and GPAs worth the effort.

During this period, the students should be given initial simulator and famflight rides in a variety of _high speed_ (biz jet would be my preference as it gives you 2-3:1 student:instructor ratio and /hours/ more navtraining and basic handling qualities as well as around-the-base performance checks) airframes.

Past which (fast-jet qualification track) entry point they should ab initio immediately go on to a high quality LIFT with all the bells and whistles.

Whether MAKO or T-50 or some as yet unnamed system, these would be the basis of all subsequent UPT and tactical training and indeed would form the conversion unit standard by which pilots _arrived_ at their squadrons ready to assume basic wingman qualifications (i.e. the tactical community needs to get off their asses and make the program high enough quality and standardized enough that there is no initial probation period).

Most importantly, with perhaps as few as 500 and no more than 1,100 F-35 replacing several thousand existing types, these jets would also form a significant percentage of the _line squadron's_ inventory, allowing for a much reduced effort to maintain the 'cherry six' (or 8) warjets which must be ready for deployment at all times. By effectively not putting hours on them.

If you have 10-12 combat capable jets and 8-10 'virtual' trainers with similar agility and required supersonic performance but _half_ the initial acquisition costs and 1/3rd the MMH:FH (no sensors or munitions, it's all datalink and onboard database stuff ala OBEWS) plus $$:flight hour costs, you can readily have all the sport wars you care to while maintaining basic home competencies and training curriculum.

Because the one time and continuing costs are minimal and there is little or no conversion to type beyond the initial tactical track.

Obviously, this would mean /some/ changes in terms of squadron trainers at least having a mirror image cockpit compareable to their F-22/35 operational platform. But again, _with out real sensors_ (excepting a seeker head, who needs'em when you are simulating BVR weapons drops and missile engagements anyway?) there should be a significant cost savings that translates directly into manning ratio (never under 1.7:1) and flight hours for a much smaller 'core force' of aviators.

i.e. Suck it up and even the pilots will come out happier than going in because they will not have to deploy as long and they will be able to fly more at home.

Btw. it was indeed a fools choice to reneg on the F-22B. Not only did they lose a PR hack for the Congressional Hawks to look silly-grinned standing in front of. They also lost a valuabe option as a strike/combat controller for UCAVs on Day-1. And they ensured that every checkride is going to be a twoship which DOUBLES your training expenses on a 'check the box' basis.

And before you ask: IMO, the F-35 cannot be a twincab because of the way the fuselage boxframe has to endcap the basically hollow areas around the plenum well/fuel cell and inlets.

And why should it be? CDL-X has the potential to make every fighter a multi kilowatt comms node which means you can LINK through to (useful) UCAVs from air or ground assets /without/ the pilot's 'permission'. Using his radar or a satellite.

Even as the notion of flying a stealth jet with high installed T/Wr goes right out the window when you look at the kinds of fuel states the F-35 will be operating on. And the constriction of U.S. range airspace around local bases is making running full up 'wargames' training every more difficult on allowable hours, emissions and even BDU/drill round carriage through safe corridors.

Make the signature (detection ranges, flyout modifiers etc.) 'rangeless'. Emulate munition weight and release through the FLCS (GBU-39 = 50nm or more). And synthesize the entire threat catalog and a radar/flir model that allows you to shoot images of a given target area, WITHOUT reference to the real world (i.e. no pilot jading factor due to known-range exploitation/cheating).

Do all these things and the only thing left is basic 'handling skills' as a function of pilot G tolerance and HOSAT manipulation under dynamic attitude constraints.

The latter of which should also be limited because VLO doesn't encourage radical maneuvering (though a lightweight T-50 could easily match the basics of the F-35 in most areas with an F414 installed, as could Mako with the EJ-200).

Given, it wouldn't work for the squids because they need to carqual and take more airframes to sea, more often (snicker). But they are such a pathetic contributor to total sorties that it doesn't really matter while, for the AF, it's a way to keep the old machine running on an economical basis until common sense takes over and we ditch the worthless bloodbags completely.


KPl.

The informations of trainer jet I want is Ranger, not others