T-45C Replacement

[Python]

I think procurement for Navy Air training aircraft only permits one bullet in the chamber at a time - first it was T-6, now its TH-73. T-45 can withstand a lot of maturity/upgrade in its lifecycle. Look how long it took USAF to get TX up to have a roadmap to replace T-38. There are half the number of T-45's than the number of TX (T-7A) to be procured by AF.

With the engines shitting themselves five times now, the T-45 definitely needs the accelerated timeline and priority. Numerous lengthy groundings of part of the fleet (or the whole fleet) have multiple downstream effects. And that is without even mentioning the obvious safety concerns.

 

[Griz882]

With the engines shitting themselves five times now, the T-45 definitely needs the accelerated timeline and priority. Numerous lengthy groundings of part of the fleet (or the whole fleet) have multiple downstream effects. And that is without even mentioning the obvious safety concerns.

I expect to see these fielded with all due haste….probably 2056.

 

[TacticalTater]

Reduced landing gear requirement??

 

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Reduced landing gear requirement??

View attachment 42291

FCLP Only??

 

[Swanee]

Reduced landing gear requirement??

View attachment 42291

It's been well discussed here already- SNAs will stop going to the boat soon.

 

[Python]

It's been well discussed here already- SNAs will completely stop going to the boat soon.

Many SNAs have skipped the boat and gotten wings for several years now.

 

[Skywalker]

When I went to the boat, the only strike studs were those who required a second look because of a failed boat or failed field check. The boat after mine didn't even send those. As far as I know now it's only the last of the ball flyers.

 

[Duc'-guy25]

With the engines shitting themselves five times now, the T-45 definitely needs the accelerated timeline and priority. Numerous lengthy groundings of part of the fleet (or the whole fleet) have multiple downstream effects. And that is without even mentioning the obvious safety concerns.

If only there was a product that was developed and ready to go… if we’re not worried about the boat, there’s plenty of products out there….

 

[ChuckMK23]

If only there was a product that was developed and ready to go… if we’re not worried about the boat, there’s plenty of products out there….

M345 for the win.

At 100 gal/hr it would be very economical. Williams turbofan. The powerplant is safe and robust - good enough For Cessna and Pilatus

 

[FLGUY]

M345 for the win.

At 100 gal/hr it would be very economical. Williams turbofan. The powerplant is safe and robust - good enough For Cessna and Pilatus

Still think that the T-50 wins in the coolness contest. The M346 looks like a cool airframe with dorky landing gear and an oversized vertical stab. Might be fun to fly, but you wouldn’t want to have your friends seeing you riding one..

 

[HuggyU2]

Still think that the T-50 wins in the coolness contest.

It's a great plane and trainer, I believe.
Friend of mine flew it during his test pilot days and loved it.

We wanted it at Beale... Lockheed apparently has some ready to go, I'm told... but that went nowhere about 3 years ago.

The Korean demo team has had them for about 15+ years.

I love the the T-38. But the one I flew last week has been flying for half of the history of powered fixed wing aviation. Yes, it is 60+ years old with 22,000 hours.... Hours earned 1.2 at a time. I'd love to go fly a new offering.