T-45C Replacement

[Lawman]

Same could be said for the M-346, and to say that Lockheed assisted with the design of the T-50 would be a bit of an understatement. It's not like we are adverse to foreign designs either, with the T-6 basically a license-built Pilatus PC-9 and the TH-73 an AW119.

I’m really curious for the behind the scenes justifications that must be going on with the Navy wanting its own separate jet trainer when we have a “common” front line platform currently in service.

Didn’t you guys play around with the idea of getting rid of trainer carrier quals all together? That seems like if we go that far there is no real excuse for the Navy to not have to just adopt what the AF bought (though given how F’d that timeline has been I can see good argument as to not doing that).


And before anybody goes that way, I’m fully on board with forcing the Army to take a joint approach to a common RW training program and wrestle the decision making away from Rucker after the last ten years of wtf were you thinking. The fact we are saying we are pacific oriented when Rucker refuses to even consider the need for an FDLP at its flight school is maddening.

 

[sevenhelmet]

I’m really curious for the behind the scenes justifications that must be going on with the Navy wanting its own separate jet trainer when we have a “common” front line platform currently in service.

Didn’t you guys play around with the idea of getting rid of trainer carrier quals all together? That seems like if we go that far there is no real excuse for the Navy to not have to just adopt what the AF bought (though given how F’d that timeline has been I can see good argument as to not doing that).


And before anybody goes that way, I’m fully on board with forcing the Army to take a joint approach to a common RW training program and wrestle the decision making away from Rucker after the last ten years of wtf were you thinking. The fact we are saying we are pacific oriented when Rucker refuses to even consider the need for an FDLP at its flight school is maddening.

CQ is gone, and FCLPs are basically gone.

Despite my employer’s best efforts, I would not be surprised if the USN does exactly what you’re suggesting with the jet trainer and adopts the T-7.

I could be wrong, and we’re still in the hunt. But it won’t be an easy one, that’s for sure.

 

[ChuckMK23]

I’m really curious for the behind the scenes justifications that must be going on with the Navy wanting its own separate jet trainer when we have a “common” front line platform currently in service.

Didn’t you guys play around with the idea of getting rid of trainer carrier quals all together? That seems like if we go that far there is no real excuse for the Navy to not have to just adopt what the AF bought (though given how F’d that timeline has been I can see good argument as to not doing that).


And before anybody goes that way, I’m fully on board with forcing the Army to take a joint approach to a common RW training program and wrestle the decision making away from Rucker after the last ten years of wtf were you thinking. The fact we are saying we are pacific oriented when Rucker refuses to even consider the need for an FDLP at its flight school is maddening.

If you look at my post on “Helo News” thread, it seems Army and Navy are both all in on Robinson R66 and instruction delivered by the same contractor - although separate sites. The point was made by the contractor that Bell is out of the training game and the Bell 206 is no longer sufficient.