• 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

Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lawman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lawman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
ChuckMK23 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah so we both F’d up, and don’t understand how unsuitable our training pipelines have been at adapting to a future of tilt rotor and other types which aren’t Hueys…


Ok Air Foce, you’re up… show us a better way because in no way do I think Rucker is going to produce a “better standard quality aviator” with a less capable platform focused on stick and rudder non FMC equipped flight controls.
 
Lawman said:
Yeah so we both F’d up, and don’t understand how unsuitable our training pipelines have been at adapting to a future of tilt rotor and other types which aren’t Hueys…


Ok Air Foce, you’re up… show us a better way because in no way do I think Rucker is going to produce a “better standard quality aviator” with a less capable platform focused on stick and rudder non FMC equipped flight controls.
Click to expand...
I wanted to write the same thing, but feel like I’ve crapped on the Robinson’s enough. In a few years we’ll be right back to this conversation.
 
Remember - AF has contracted with CAE Dothan and the contract specifies Bell 505. AF Advanced Helo training in in the TH-1H at Rucker
 
sevenhelmet said:
Can you elaborate on that a little bit? Is this rumor mill, or direct experience?
Click to expand...
Announced a few weeks ago, at least 1 Strike student from each class is going back to the boat. Strike studs have still been doing the exact same amount of FCLP's as their E2 counterparts (180 min to start phase 1 FCLP's, 250 min to start CQ in Phase 2), but CQ for Strike students has been concluding at the field while the E2 folks head off the next day for their 10 passes that count. It was explained to us that the logic of having 1 per class (randomly assigned, won't know who until right before flyoff) is to motivate both paddles and strike studs to give a shit more during the CQ phase.
 
Showbiz said:
Announced a few weeks ago, at least 1 Strike student from each class is going back to the boat. Strike studs have still been doing the exact same amount of FCLP's as their E2 counterparts (180 min to start phase 1 FCLP's, 250 min to start CQ in Phase 2), but CQ for Strike students has been concluding at the field while the E2 folks head off the next day for their 10 passes that count. It was explained to us that the logic of having 1 per class (randomly assigned, won't know who until right before flyoff) is to motivate both paddles and strike studs to give a shit more during the CQ phase.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, thanks. I have long waxed poetic about the psychological effect (raising the stakes, rite of passage, confidence-building) of going to the ship in advanced, but the answering argument is always accusing me of "legacy thinking" in the PLM era.

Leaders take note: the psychology of an evolution is important. I get that the money and material condition won out, and the USN has waited so long to buy a T-45 replacement, I doubt the real ship will be included in its replacement training system. (It's certainly not in any of the RFIs we've reviewed so far). I hope leaders can find something to replace the high-stakes capstone that CQ represented.
 
Swanee said:
I really don't think anything else can, or will, compare.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the USN is far enough down the path, I think any change to bring back CQ in a T-45 replacement will end in disaster in terms of cost, schedule & performance, to say nothing of the resultant gap left when the T-45 dies completely, which is already a huge problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top