• 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

T-45C Replacement

ChuckMK23 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Python said:
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.
Click to expand...
I expect to see these fielded with all due haste….probably 2056.
 
TacticalTater said:
Reduced landing gear requirement??

View attachment 42291
Click to expand...
FCLP Only??

giphy.gif
 
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. :cool:
 
Python said:
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.
Click to expand...
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….
 
Duc'-guy25 said:
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….
Click to expand...
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
 
ChuckMK23 said:
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
Click to expand...
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..
 
FLGUY said:
Still think that the T-50 wins in the coolness contest.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top