T-45's in P-Cola?

[TheBubba]

Sim City baby!! There is still time to reverse this colossal mistake. I propose a letter writing campaign and petition. Calling Masterbates.

Good idea. If its something that we feel needs to be done, it needs to come from the VTs and the FRS's.

 

[wink]

Good idea. If its something that we feel needs to be done, it needs to come from the VTs and the FRS's.

RAGs are the "customer". If they pushed back about the expected quality or cost shift to them, it might get a hearing.

 

[Flash]

You have hit on the reason why the AF is not smitten with the idea and still mad at the Navy for letting the T-X fall by the wayside. AF wants the multi-place WSO trainer. Period. They're not keen on the T-45 only approach. I would bet the T-1 will still be in Sherman for the AF, if I were a betting man.

Had a brief for the AF folks here a couple months ago on the eventual conversion. Right now they are looking at moving to a T-6/T-1 syllabus and leaving the Navy to sort out the T-39/45 issues. The higher up AF brass were apparently very adamant about having INFOs/WSOs teaching a good portion of the curriculum instead of only IPs and canned the idea of using the 45 for AF studs when the -39 goes out.

I would not give the USAF too much credit with the whole INAV/INFO's flying with studs in the T-1. I was there when the USAF shut down their primary Nav training in San Antonio and moved it to Pensacola and brought the T-1's with them, there were some real growing pains. The USAF started out by insisting that there be two pilots in the front seats and the SNFO/SNAV would sit in the jumpseat where the ISNFO's sit in the T-39. They could not fathom why the Navy would let a SNAV/SNFO in one of the pilot seats. It was a big fight and I remember it distinctly, ea6bflyer might know more since he had to go through the silliness back then.

On a side not, the C-130 Nav's out of Randolph when I went through got about 4-8 L/L VNAV flights at the end of flight school before they went to the FTU to give them a feel for it. It was them sitting in the jump seat with two pilots, apparently a lot of fun but not very useful.

So the USAF came around to the Navy way of doing things, and are doing the right thing by sticking with it. The Navy on the other hand is doing the stupid thing, yet again (Bubba and wink are dead on), without thinking about the long-term consequences. I would hope an ADM NFO sees this and changes it, but money savings might win out the day yet again. Probably cheaper just to buy a handful more T-45's than go through the whole procurement process for 20-something exec jets with radars.

Sigh.......

 

[wink]

Probably cheaper just to buy a handful more T-45's than go through the whole procurement process for 20-something exec jets with radars.

Sigh.......

I'm not so sure of that. The newer small exec jets are very fuel efficient and far cheaper to maintain. Don't you still run two studs through at a time? There has to be a savings there. Two nav/intercept syllabus completes and two airmanship/copilot completes in one sortie. I'd be more then willing to drop the radar for the same synthetic thing that will go into the T-45.

 

[Flash]

I'm not so sure of that. The newer small exec jets are very fuel efficient and far cheaper to maintain. Don't you still run two studs through at a time? There has to be a savings there. Two nav/intercept syllabus completes and two airmanship/copilot completes in one sortie. I'd be more then willing to drop the radar for the same synthetic thing that will go into the T-45.

I was thinking of the procurement (the tendering of requirements, the competition, the protest, etc), not the long term costs like one should.......Come On! Think like a bureaucrat!!!!

 

[wink]

I was thinking of the procurement (the tendering of requirements, the competition, the protest, etc), not the long term costs
like one should.......Come On! Think like a bureaucrat!!!!

Sorry, that makes my head hurt. Much easier to think logically.

 

[DangerousDan]

Sorry, that makes my head hurt. Much easier to think logically.

I agree with you there!

 

[jfulginiti]

That would be pretty damn dumb, I thought there was a lot of value in being taught by NFO's in the T-39. A simulated radar ain't going to domuch to make it up either, how the heck are you supposed to run intercepts?

Maybe one of the NFO Inst's can chime in, I think we got one or two here.

It is true.... the T-39 is eventually going away. Training for Navy and, I'm assuming, International studs will be T-6 and T-45. AF will do whatever. Marines won't be doing anything because there won't be Marine NFOs in 10 years. The synthetic radar will allow a single T-45 to run intercepts on nobody (like a flying simulator, so I've heard) or on another T-45 using some combo of GPS/INS/PFM.... but no actual radar. Believe it or not, there will still be NFO instructors down here but they will be mostly sim instructors and teaching class. Also, in theory, they will also be instructing the flights from the ground.... they will sit with the Gritrock (GCI) controllers, have two way comms with their student in the jet and, possibly, have a repeat of what their student is seeing in the cockpit (ie, "radar" picture). Oh, and there is supposed to be a provision in there too for the NFOs to get their 50 hours of flight time per year (or whatever the NATOPS requirement is) so they don't get F'd in the A and lose their flight pay. It all seems pretty redonkulous to me but what do I know, I'm just a JO.