T-45C Replacement

[Llarry]

I know this is heresy, but if you delete the ball flying requirement, I suspect it would be cheaper to piggyback off the Air Force's T-7A with a Navy/Marine T-7B. Same F404 engine and relatively inexpensive development costs.

 

[MIDREGS]

I know this is heresy, but if you delete the ball flying requirement, I suspect it would be cheaper to piggyback off the Air Force's T-7A with a Navy/Marine T-7B. Same F404 engine and relatively inexpensive development costs.

I don’t think the Navy wants another trainer program tied to the Air Force

 

[ChuckMK23]

I don’t think the Navy wants another trainer program tied to the Air Force

In this budgetary climate I doubt it can a avoided.

 

[Skywalker]

Curious how well it flies at high alpha with those little horizontal stabs? But perhaps, like other things in life, it's not the size, but rather how they're used......so to speak.

If their marketing sim is anything to go by, below ~170 knots George starts to fight you. Hard to picture flying the ball like that in my limited experience.

 

[SynixMan]

In this budgetary climate I doubt it can a avoided.

The T-7 is a dumpster fire of a program.

If they Navy ordered T-50Ns today they'd probably get them before the Air Force got their T-7s.

 

[ea6bflyr]

I know this is heresy, but if you delete the ball flying requirement, I suspect it would be cheaper to piggyback off the Air Force's T-7A with a Navy/Marine T-7B. Same F404 engine and relatively inexpensive development costs.

But the cost of dealing with a DQ SNA is cheaper than dealing with an FRS DQ Winged NA. So deleting the CQ requirement based on training airframe selection is not smart.

 

[KODAK]

I know this is heresy, but if you delete the ball flying requirement, I suspect it would be cheaper to piggyback off the Air Force's T-7A with a Navy/Marine T-7B. Same F404 engine and relatively inexpensive development costs.

We do not want to be associated with that airplane at all.. So many issues and even with the Air Force’s deep pockets they are struggling to fix it. Lord hopes we are smart enough to go after the T-50!

 

[Faded Float Coat]

If their marketing sim is anything to go by, below ~170 knots George starts to fight you. Hard to picture flying the ball like that in my limited experience.

I wasnt thinking about ball-flying, but rather a higher alpha slower speed radius fight - often referred to as 1 circle, but there's probably a patch around to tigthen me up on that. I was thinking about CNATRA BFM training objectives.

 

[Python]

I wasnt thinking about ball-flying, but rather a higher alpha slower speed radius fight - often referred to as 1 circle, but there's probably a patch around to tigthen me up on that. I was thinking about CNATRA BFM training objectives.

You don't need to be in a specialized "high alpha" airplane to train to a 1-circle fight. The T-45 is not a high alpha airplane. It's a trainer.

 

[Faded Float Coat]

You don't need to be in a specialized "high alpha" airplane to train to a 1-circle fight. The T-45 is not a high alpha airplane. It's a trainer.

Thanks for chiming in. Here's to hoping the replacement comes with an artificial pitch-buck feedback mechanism - for nostalgia's sake

 

[Faded Float Coat]

But the cost of dealing with a DQ SNA is cheaper than dealing with an FRS DQ Winged NA. So deleting the CQ requirement based on training airframe selection is not smart.

But, what's the FRS DQ rate these days.....? My float coat is, as the name suggests.....faded. But, I suspect the FRS DQ rate is very very low (not zero), now that all Cat I CQ is done with PLM.

For context: old Paddles here, flew T-2s, T-45, AFCS/DFCS, PA CAS, and PLM. I have no significant issues removing CQ from CNATRA syllabus.

 

[JustAGuy]

But, what's the FRS DQ rate these days.....?

I don't have the hard data but still connected to the community. With that I would say the DQ rate has not significantly changed compared to the pre-PLM days.