• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Flight School backed up

umijs

umijs

Member
Dboom85 said:
Do you have any idea how much trouble they're having keeping the T38 engines airworthy? A lot of them are past their design life time
Click to expand...
I've heard t-38s are also very unforgiving and dangerous. But I also don't know what I am talking about so don't quote me on that
 
insanebikerboy

insanebikerboy

Internet killed the television star
pilot
None
Contributor
T-38 dangerous? Not at all, but can be unforgiving, particularly if you get slow in the final turn. The -38 is an absolute blast and actually somewhat straightforward to fly, but it takes work to fly it really well.

It would be a mistake for the Navy to go to the -38, the plane is 60 years old and while it flies well, it suffers with the problems that comes with being an airframe 6 decades old.

The T-7, in my opinion, would take a ton of work to beef up the gear to take the beatings of carrier landings. Not impossible, and perhaps cheaper than creating a completely new trainer. I think solving the engine blade issues is a helluva lot cheaper for the Navy than creating an entirely new trainer or Navalizing a T-7
 
Swanee

Swanee

Cereal Killer
pilot
None
Contributor
cjwinton01 said:
this might be a stupid question but why didn’t the navy just go in with the USAF on the t-7a? Aside from navalizing, the t-7a at least visually looks a lot like a super hornet, not to mention both are made by Boeing.
Click to expand...
You mean the whole point of a Navy/Marine intermediate/advanced training jet?

That's like saying, "Aside from the ice skating, why don't the Pistons play for the Red Wings from now on? They both look like athletes."


If you take that requirement away, it may happen.
 
HSMPBR

HSMPBR

Retired!
pilot
Give it bigger gear and call it a T-7C. Make a STOVL variant and call it T-7B for the crayon connoisseur. Same planes, just different!

Another idea! How about, instead of giving these planes tougher gear to navalize them, we just give them softer pilots?
 
Bad_Karma_1310

Bad_Karma_1310

Well-Known Member
pilot
The next trainer isn’t going to be carrier capable, that is essentially already decided. The T-45 is going to stop going to the boat in the nearish future as well, the first CQ-E studs are already through FRS CQ.

The problem with procuring the T-7 is the production line will just not be capable of providing the numbers of aircraft required to replace the T-45 in the near future. The Navy/RR need to figure out the engine issues as there are really no other solutions.
 
C

carviator

SNA
Bad_Karma_1310 said:
The next trainer isn’t going to be carrier capable, that is essentially already decided. The T-45 is going to stop going to the boat in the nearish future as well, the first CQ-E studs are already through FRS CQ.

The problem with procuring the T-7 is the production line will just not be capable of providing the numbers of aircraft required to replace the T-45 in the near future. The Navy/RR need to figure out the engine issues as there are really no other solutions.
Click to expand...
Why won't the next trainer be carrier capable?
 
C

carviator

SNA
MIDNJAC said:
The Navy is moving in the direction of offloading initial CQ to the FRS level. As bad karma mentioned, the first test cases of this (no T-45 CQ) went through the FRS syllabus recently. So in theory, the next trainer will not need to do it.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I'm guessing that would make time at the FRS a bit longer then?
 
Mouselovr

Mouselovr

Well-Known Member
Contributor
bjbarrett said:
A month ago, they started sending people home for like a year of OHARP before reporting back to pensacola.
Click to expand...
OHARP was such a sweet gig coming out of OCS.

For those down in Pcola, at first, it was voluntary but not enough people wanted to move.

Then they started giving folks the option to either stay but had to work some of the more..... undesirable ..... stash jobs OR take OHARP. Too many people have now jumped shipped, and they've now cut off the option to take OHARP, ha.
 
Hopeful Hoya

Hopeful Hoya

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
It'll be interesting to see how the attrition numbers change as they shift initial CQ to the FRS. It's certainly easier to fly a good pass in a fleet jet with PLM, but having to do that for the first time, while dealing with all of the admin of getting to/from the boat (as opposed to being dropped off in the pattern as you are in T-45 CQ) will definitely be a challenge.
 
Doback

Doback

Well-Known Member
Mouselovr said:
OHARP was such a sweet gig coming out of OCS.

For those down in Pcola, at first, it was voluntary but not enough people wanted to move.

Then they started giving folks the option to either stay but had to work some of the more..... undesirable ..... stash jobs OR take OHARP. Too many people have now jumped shipped, and they've now cut off the option to take OHARP, ha.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen people opine on both sides as things have changed but do you know if someone takes OHARP does that delay classing up in Pensacola?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top