T-45s in Primary?

[Fly Navy]

I heard a rumor yesterday that the Navy is going to start using T-45s for primary and that the new T-6s are only going to be used for NFOs? If thats true, what will be the advanced strike trainer? Just curious as to if anyone knows if this is true or not.

We'll chock this up to the "No Way In Hell" category. The T-45 was a big leap from the T-34. Flying the T-45 as an initial aircraft? No way.

 

[llnick2001]

Shortest OLF in vic NASWF is roughly 4000' (2 fields) with all remaining 5000', and homefield being 6000'. I don't see what the problem would be with doing full stops at the OLFs in that case...

I don't see a problem either.

 

[skidkid]

We'll chock this up to the "No Way In Hell" category. The T-45 was a big leap from the T-34. Flying the T-45 as an initial aircraft? No way.

I dont buy this argument. Im not saying it is a good idea but no where near a "no way in hell". Imagine what your average civilian flight instructor would say if you came to them saying you wanted to start in something like a T-34 probably about what you said and yet hundreds of people each year took their first flight in one (I know now there is IFS but that wasnt always there. You create limitations based on experience.
The human mind and body have an amazing ability to adapt to a situation. If a T-45 was all you knew you would adapt, in some ways the jump for you was due to the fact that you cut your teet in a T-34 and had to retrain to think faster etc. Imagine how good you would be if from day one all you flew were Rhinos-day one in a dual control bird and that was all you flew, the only reason we have trainer aircraft is not for ease of operation so much as low cost.

A little devils advocate but I think a valid point. Remember not that long ago everyone in primary CQ'd, you adapt to what is expected of you.

 

[e6bflyer]

I attended a CNATRA brief about 6 months ago and this was the company line wrt the T-6:
The original aquisition was not enough planes and all the planning required was not in place. Whoever CNATRA was at the time decided to pass on the T-6 for pilots and give it to the NFOs who needed less planes and were at a base that would be effected little by the change. Was this a good decision? That is still being debated, but probably so.
The T-6B should (not a shall) be at Whiting in '09 and not a bit sooner. The sh!tty brakes and landing gear will be fixed, it will have a true glass cockpit with a MFD based system, and I have heard (not confirmed) a HUD. It will not, however, have beta. I don't know what the plan is concerning OLFs and split field ops.
My opinion: The T-34 is still doing a great job training pilots, but it is a tiny bit antiquated when compared to newer aircraft (60R-S, Osprey, F-18) that are currently in use. I will say, however, that anyone who has ever made the leap from steam to a MFD based display system will tell you that it is not as difficult as you may think.

 

[Jay]

Original group that was set on acquiring the T-45 at the Pentagon, according to an ex-Captain I talked with, wanted a stripped down Hornet for Advanced and promised they could make it and operate it cheaper than the Goshawk, that would've been a ride!

 

[Fly Navy]

Yep, no afterburner, take a lot of systems out.

 

[SemperGumbi]

Imagine what your average civilian flight instructor would say if you came to them saying you wanted to start in something like a T-34 probably about what you said and yet hundreds of people each year took their first flight in one (I know now there is IFS but that wasnt always there. You create limitations based on experience.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. It could be done, but it would take a LOT more hours than the 100 or so from primary. And the attrition rate would probably be a lot higher.

 

[nittany03]

Yep, no afterburner, take a lot of systems out.

At least then you could still have gotten your multiengine ticket w/ wings . . .

 

[Fly Navy]

I dont buy this argument. Im not saying it is a good idea but no where near a "no way in hell". Imagine what your average civilian flight instructor would say if you came to them saying you wanted to start in something like a T-34 probably about what you said and yet hundreds of people each year took their first flight in one (I know now there is IFS but that wasnt always there. You create limitations based on experience.
The human mind and body have an amazing ability to adapt to a situation. If a T-45 was all you knew you would adapt, in some ways the jump for you was due to the fact that you cut your teet in a T-34 and had to retrain to think faster etc. Imagine how good you would be if from day one all you flew were Rhinos-day one in a dual control bird and that was all you flew, the only reason we have trainer aircraft is not for ease of operation so much as low cost.

A little devils advocate but I think a valid point. Remember not that long ago everyone in primary CQ'd, you adapt to what is expected of you.

I agree with some of what you're saying, but after a certain point it become information overload. The speed of the T-45 wasn't as bad to get used to, it was the sheer volume of information that you're seeing all at once, and it's just a trainer. Same thing with the Rhino. It wasn't mind blowing flying it as far as speed goes, I'd flown a jet before, but it was the systems management aspect of it. In truth, the Rhino is easy to fly... hard to manage though.

 

[scoober78]

Fly, is this true even in a VFR, no tactical utilization environment? Are these weapons systems that you are managing? Navigation? Just curious.

Keep in mind this question is coming to you from a very ignorant POV. Me and my Turboweenie are just starting to like one another.

 

[Fly Navy]

Fly, is this true even in a VFR, no tactical utilization environment? Are these weapons systems that you are managing? Navigation? Just curious.

Keep in mind this question is coming to you from a very ignorant POV. Me and my Turboweenie are just starting to like one another.

Pages and pages of information, combined with 5 different displays, makes you busy. Depends on the phase of flight of course.

 

[nittany03]

Thats a great way to describe it.


WRT to the stripped down F-18 as a trainer. I thought that would be a great idea too, until you factor in that it would quadruple the fuel consumption and cost. In hind sight, the T-45 was a good replacement for the T-2/A-4, it would benefit from a little more capability and gas though.

And less pitch buck.

 

[Jay]

and less fowler flap.

 

[usnabill]

Has anyone else heard about a newer D model Goshawk with ~8000# thrust and a moving color map (like Hornet?) Not sure where I read this (or heard it)- might have been a sim instructor...

 

[Fly Navy]

Has anyone else heard about a newer D model Goshawk with ~8000# thrust and a moving color map (like Hornet?) Not sure where I read this (or heard it)- might have been a sim instructor...

There is a T-45D in the works. I have no idea what it's going to have.