Max climbing takeoff, T-38

[davparlr]

This is an impressive takeoff, used for show. Takeoff, hold altitude to not remember speed, and hold attitude going up, and performed vertical recovery at 10k. Real time to time max is to accelerate to climb speed and hold. The T-38 first flew in 1959 and will continue to train pilots till 2040.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWuC-a7QQ

 

[Torch]

Thats a sweet looking bird....

 

[The Basket]

The civil reg is a novel thing on a fast jet.

Hope these are not the same ones the Apollo astronauts used for transport and training!

 

[Matt308]

Likely so. US is looking to replace them in the next 10yrs. If they are still used in 2040, I would be REAL suprised. They are underpowered and analog. Not exactly a real world trainer for our modern platforms.

 

[davparlr]

The civil reg is a novel thing on a fast jet.

Hope these are not the same ones the Apollo astronauts used for transport and training!

NASA jet is not military.

Yes they are but I don't understand the reason for your concern. I'll bet they love flying that bird.

Likely so. US is looking to replace them in next 10yrs. If they are still used in 2040, I would be REAL suprised.

I was incorrect in saying they will be used as a trainer until 2040, although I would not be surprised if they were.

They are underpowered and analog. Not exactly a real world trainer for our modern platforms.

Well, it does not have one-to-one thrust as the latest fighters, but seldom has trainers met the performance of contemporary fighters, in fact the T-38 was probably the only one designed as a trainer that did perform as well as most contemporary fighters at the time. You can pretty well bet that new AF trainers will not either. In the new T-38C they have incorporated a glass cockpit with HUD and increased engine takeoff thrust with an inlet redesign and engine upgrade. This is the configuration that will go to 2020. From personal experience, I do not understand the reason to upgrade thrust, maybe that more thrust is always better. The original plane is quite a "white rocket", and was only 1 sec slower to 10k in a record setting run than the F-4 did in a record setting run slightly later. The F-4 was never known as an underpowered aircraft.

The T-38 is a delight to fly and to watch. When they do retire her, there will be a long line of buyers waiting to scarf up any with time left on the airframe. I suspect they will not retire her until she just falls apart.

 

[Matt308]

I was incorrect in saying they will be used as a trainer until 2040, although I would not be surprised if they were..

I don't think they will likely be around as a US govt front line trainer for USAF. Your quote below is absolutely accurate though in my opinion.

Well, it does not have one-to-one thrust as the latest fighters, but seldom has trainers met the performance of contemporary fighters, in fact the T-38 was probably the only one designed as a trainer that did perform as well as most contemporary fighters at the time. You can pretty well bet that new AF trainers will not either. .

I never said anything about 1-to-1 thrust, but rather it is underpowered to replicate modern fighter sustained turns and dash speed necessary for modern operational concepts training.

From personal experience, I do not understand the reason to upgrade thrust, maybe that more thrust is always better.
The T-38 is a delight to fly and to watch. .

No arguments. She is a beauty.

When they do retire her, there will be a long line of buyers waiting to scarf up any with time left on the airframe. I suspect they will not retire her until she just falls apart.

I suspect that is a fact. And the same reason that NASA still flies her. Likely you will find many private firms offering second-tier jet training with upgraded digital avionics and open architecture to capture those niche markets for F-16, Mirage, MiG and perhaps Indian/Chinese airframe customers. Most like those firms that are fielding A-4s in training/adversarial roles. Like those today who offer training/adversarial roles via the A-4.

 

[davparlr]

I don't think they will likely be around as a US govt front line trainer for USAF. Your quote below is absolutely accurate though in my opinion.

Probably not but I would not be surprised to see base flight with a bunch just to keep the Generals on flight pay with a private little hot rod.

I never said anything about 1-to-1 thrust, but rather it is underpowered to replicate modern fighter sustained turns and dash speed necessary for modern operational concepts training.

Long time ago, in a land far away, when I was in training all pilots were trained to fly all AF aircraft so everybody got to fly the T-38. Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) did not provide tactical training. T-38 training was basically two ship and four ship, high speed acro, and high wing load, fast patterns and landings, and instruments. Tactical training was supplied post graduation at the receiving command organizations. The AF now breaks it down into fighters and multi-engines but I would be surprised if they did any combat training at UPT, as you suggest.

 

[The Basket]

Trainers don't have the performance of their fighter counterparts. T-6 Texan was not a Mustang. Cost would be higher if pilots were trained like for like.

Yes NASA is civilian.

There is a forum on the internet I recall which had all the reg of the Talons NASA had during the 1960s. So can see if this one is included.

 

[krieghund]

The T-38C fills a training role that no other purpose built trainer can fill - the supersonic syllabus for transition to fast jets.
The Bahrain AF changed their minds on retiring the F-5F because the Hawk could not provide the required training to transition to the F-16.
Here is an article from the AFA on the current USAF T-38 training with the new Glass cockpit..also some pictures of before and after.
Also there is a shot of the NASA T-38N sim with their current cockpit.

 

[Matt308]

And notice how dated that looks compared to F-35, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and Pak FA.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Trainers don't have the performance of their fighter counterparts. T-6 Texan was not a Mustang. Cost would be higher if pilots were trained like for like.

Yes NASA is civilian.

There is a forum on the internet I recall which had all the reg of the Talons NASA had during the 1960s. So can see if this one is included.

There are also several civilian ones being operated out of Van Nuys airport in Southern California.

Thornton Aircraft Company

 

[krieghund]

And notice how dated that looks compared to F-35, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and Pak FA.

Agreed However there isn't any other solution in the offing for the USA other than to buy foreign or use a two-seat version of the fighter its self but that is cost prohibitive.

The only mach+ trainers that come to mind are the KAI T50, Aeromacchi M346 and the Chinese L-15 Falcon.

Question is to upgrade an existing design or design anew.

 

[Matt308]

The DoD has issued RFPs for a trainer. Most of the insider info I have read is that it likely will a new design.

 

[davparlr]

And notice how dated that looks compared to F-35, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen and Pak FA.

Actually, I don't see much difference. Take out functionality of the weapons system, defensive management system and offensive sensor systems, which a trainer will not have, and you would get what he T-38C has. What is important is being familiar with the data driven display logic and paging system of a glass cockpit and flying a high performance aircraft at the same time. Simulators can handle most of these task but it is not the same a doing it while learning to fly at the same time. I remember that one of the most difficult tasks I had to learn was to talk on the radio at the same time I was executing a high altitude penetration. I don't see any problems with the avionics in the T-38C for teaching latest operational logic.

I would guess that Northrop should dust off plans for the F-20B (two-seater F-20?) and that plane could more than handle all the needs of the latest fighters. Most of the syllabus could be done without the afterburner, including takeoff. G limits would need to be programmed in as I have a friend who lost her husband in an F-20 when he passed out pulling too many gs.

 

[davparlr]

There are also several civilian ones being operated out of Van Nuys airport in Southern California.

Thornton Aircraft Company

I knew of one flying. I saw that Thorton had another at its site, and two F-5s. I can understand the F-5s but where did they get the T-38? I wonder how much they sale for.

 

[Matt308]

Actually, I don't see much difference. Take out functionality of the weapons system, defensive management system and offensive sensor systems, which a trainer will not have, and you would get what he T-38C has. What is important is being familiar with the data driven display logic and paging system of a glass cockpit and flying a high performance aircraft at the same time. Simulators can handle most of these task but it is not the same a doing it while learning to fly at the same time. I remember that one of the most difficult tasks I had to learn was to talk on the radio at the same time I was executing a high altitude penetration. I don't see any problems with the avionics in the T-38C for teaching latest operational logic.

To me your point is exactly what is missing from from the avionic suite of the T-38. It is not just a matter of exercising the human-machine interface while piloting the airplane. Rather it is also learning the repetative cockpit flow with displays that are highly reconfigurable in real-time and interfaces that allow the fusion of system status, flight management, and netcentric information flow via data link (not just own airplane sensor fusion). All of these are necessary for basic cockpit/crew resource management. On top of this put a modicum of weapon/mission capability for both advanced air-to-air and advanced air-to-gnd and you have a completely different animal than the T-38. Remember, that this is necessary because there are no two-seat F-22 and F-35 airplanes.

Now to top this off, DoD is not seeking just a new airframe. Rather they are seeking a "family of systems" that includes both simulated and virtual training systems to supplement airplane flying.

And finally maintenance. We are looking at an airframe that was designed in 1962. Maintenance efficiency gains will play a huge part in selection, that the T-38 could just never compete with.

 

[davparlr]

To me your point is exactly what is missing from from the avionic suite of the T-38. It is not just a matter of exercising the human-machine interface while piloting the airplane. Rather it is also learning the repetative cockpit flow with displays that are highly reconfigurable in real-time and interfaces that allow the fusion of system status, flight management,

I am quite sure the T-38C architecture includes the latest in reconfigurable avionics for system status and flight management and upgrade capability for advanced communications equipment.

and netcentric information flow via data link (not just own airplane sensor fusion).

Again, this is traditionally a receiving command training not UPT. There will probably be no sensor nor data link at level. If it so, the "C" architecture will be adaptable.

On top of this put a modicum of weapon/mission capability for both advanced air-to-air and advanced air-to-gnd and you have a completely different animal than the T-38.

This is not a UPT task. Perhaps the AF is changing training philosophy. I suspect the "C" had this in mind too.

Remember, that this is necessary because there are no two-seat F-22 and F-35 airplanes.

I suspect flying both the F-22 and F-35 are easier than the T-38 to fly so the transition will be easy. Chances are, all the advanced trainer contestants will also be easier to fly than the T-38, and it is an easy aircraft to fly. The real task is tactical systems management and, unless there has been a complete change in AF planning, I suspect this will be left up to command. Remember, one of the contestants is the lesser performing Hawk.

Now to top this off, DoD is not seeking just a new airframe. Rather they are seeking a "family of systems" that includes both simulated and virtual training systems to supplement airplane flying.

This is not a big deal. In fact, this is probably an advantage for an extended life upgrade to the T-38 since I am sure Boeing had to do this as part of the "C' upgrade to the T-38, therefore it already exist.

And finally maintenance. We are looking at an airframe that was designed in 1962. Maintenance efficiency gains will play a huge part in selection, that the T-38 could just never compete with.

Actually pre-1959, but then so is the B-52.
The "C" addressed these issues.

T-38 Talon

And finally, it appears that there is no rush. Trainers are never a high priority and I suspect the AF believes the T-38 will continue to do a great job until it is replaced.

USAF Braces For Fiscal Bombardment | AVIATION WEEK

 

[Matt308]

Okay. Perhaps a more definitive source is in order.

DoD RFI -

"Due to the age of the T-38C, as well as the long lead time required for a major aircraft acquisition program, Air Education and Training Command (AETC) began the acquisition process for replacement of the T-38 training FoS in the fall of 2003. The T-38 training FoS is currently expected to be the Advanced Trainer for the Fighter/Bomber (F/B) APT track until at least 2017.

United States Air Force (USAF) pilot training in 2017 will be tailored to support USAF missions identified in the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review Report (January 2009). Moreover, the APT FoS will ensure pilots are trained to transition to operational aircraft with the core competencies necessary for safe and efficient follow-on weapon system mission-ready training. Examples of these competencies include: basic aircraft control, airmanship, formation, instrument and navigation, advanced air-to-air, advanced air-to-ground, and advanced crew/cockpit resource management.

USAF pilot training programs will utilize a broad range of ground and flight training systems as part of an integrated family of systems. The introduction of 5th generation aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 will not require new piloting skills; however, increased complexity, especially in terms of information management will make Cockpit/Crew Resource Management skills and advanced skills even more important than they are today. Having the right balance of simulation/virtual and aircraft flying training within the APT FoS is essential.

Structurally, pilot training will probably look much like today's pilot training: a combination of aircraft and virtual training in an integrated training FoS environment. While the makeup of Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) and Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) may change over time, the screen, primary, and advanced phases will likely be retained, with the following exception: the fighter piece of the Fighter and Bomber Track (Advanced Phase) and the Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF) segment will address the Formal Training Unit (FTU) challenges resulting from a lack of two-seat F-22 and F-35 aircraft. As previously stated, there are five fighter flying training requirements that lend themselves to two-seat instruction prior to performing them solo: sustained high-G operations, air-refueling, night vision imaging systems operations, air-to-air intercepts, and data-link operations. In the current training model, sustained high-G operations and air-refueling are accomplished in two-seat aircraft for safety reasons while the other three are introduced in two-seat aircraft for training efficiency purposes. Risk mitigation and training efficiency are the operational drivers for the 2017 pilot training model"

 

[davparlr]

"Due to the age of the T-38C, as well as the long lead time required for a major aircraft acquisition program, Air Education and Training Command (AETC) began the acquisition process for replacement of the T-38 training FoS in the fall of 2003. The T-38 training FoS is currently expected to be the Advanced Trainer for the Fighter/Bomber (F/B) APT track until at least 2017.

It is interesting to note that the AF says the reason for the RFI is not that the T-38C is not meeting training requirements or expected training requirements but rather because of age. The T-38 is indeed old and while the wings have been replaced, the fuselage has taken a lot of stress and needs to be replaced. If push comes to shove, I suspect it could last beyond 2020.

United States Air Force (USAF) pilot training in 2017 will be tailored to support USAF missions identified in the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review Report (January 2009). Moreover, the APT FoS will ensure pilots are trained to transition to operational aircraft with the core competencies necessary for safe and efficient follow-on weapon system mission-ready training. Examples of these competencies include: basic aircraft control, airmanship, formation, instrument and navigation, advanced air-to-air, advanced air-to-ground, and advanced crew/cockpit resource management.

This is definitely a change in syllabus for the AF. I suspect most of this training will be in simulators and possibly simulation on the air vehicle. I certainly would be surprised if the trainer will have an active radar but the data link would eliminate a need for that. I have no idea if the RFI had a requirement for an active radar or weapons system. This would certainly drive cost. This is an RFI and not an RFP so the AF is still fishing and pondering.

;

however, increased complexity, especially in terms of information management will make Cockpit/Crew Resource Management skills and advanced skills even more important than they are today. Having the right balance of simulation/virtual and aircraft flying training within the APT FoS is essential.

I am sure the T-38C could fit right into this training with its new HUD and multipurpose display, although, by looking at it, it appears Boeing didn't do a great job with the layout. That HUD has way too many buttons and indicates poor logic analysis and paging, I could be overly critical here. I am really guessing about the architecture. I am assuming Boeing updated the avionics to the latest adaptable architecture.

the fighter piece of the Fighter and Bomber Track (Advanced Phase) and the Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF) segment will address the Formal Training Unit (FTU) challenges resulting from a lack of two-seat F-22 and F-35 aircraft.

The only areas where I think the T-38 would be insufficient in would be live fire and aerial refueling. However, certainly simulated live fire and weapons release could be accommodated, sufficient, and a lot safer, and I would guess that this would meet all the AF needs. Aerial refueling could be approximated in flight and simulated but I think the real thing would be needed here.

The T-38 is an old airframe and I do think it needs replacement. However, with the new military budget coming, I suspect that the AF will have to answer a question like "do you want a new trainer, or another squadron of F-35s." If it comes to that, I suspect the AF will decide T-38 will do just fine. You know maybe that airframe could be stretched to 2035.

And remember, the AF is full of pilots whose first aviation love was found in the cockpit of a T-38. And first loves are hard to forget.