Fact or fiction?
Frumby said:
The T-6 is a beautiful bird. Ironic, the Navy started the program and it got shoved down the Air Force's throat in the name of "Jointness." What a turnaround. I'm sure the Navy is backing out in the name of funding but my personal opinion is they want the Air Force to work the bugs out. Last I heard the Air Force has lost 5 already. The Navy is still licking her wounds from the worthless T-45A "Chickenhawk," I'm sure she's not ready to test fly another Training Command aircraft. Frumby
Attack Pilot
Major USMC
Hi.
If you want a few facts to mix in with your speculations . . .
Based on such "wisdom" as the 1986 Goldwater Nichols Act and Sec Def Aspin's instructions to the Services regarding Joint Procurement policies, the Congressional and SecDef mandate was for USN and USAF to buy a common airframe and training system (sorta like how the T-45 was done) to replace the T-37 and T-34, which forced both services to join efforts for their "new primary trainers." Thus was "JPATS" born, Joint Primary Aircraft Training System. (Oh joy, more acronyms.) USAF wanted a jet, USN a turbo prop. The turbo prop is way cheaper to operate (T-34 ~ $400 per hour the T-6A ` $750 bucks per hour, the Tweet about $1200 per hour.)
The USAF forced the ejection seat issue and defeated the reverse thrust/Beta requirement. They have 10,000' runways, never have to stop quickly. The Navy recently gave up the beta fight, and is trying to get anti lock brakes on the T-6 to avoid blowing tires the way the AF has been. There are significant MILCON issues tied to lengthening runways to allow the T-6 to operate safely with SNA's at the wheel.
By default, not by desighn, the AF is bleeding to find out where the T-6 bugs are, but to attribute that to deliberate Navy policy is a stretch. It was a money thing. Sing "row row row your boat . . . "
AF lost a T-6 when the IP's at Randolph, on short final, killed the engine instead of, IIRC, dropping the flaps. The ejection seat is now op-tested, and it works good.
Not aware of any other losses, maybe a Randolph savvy guy who reads here can elaborate.
During the 90's, the staffing fights were long and many. A Joint Syllabus was bought with the airplane, (the TS in JPATS = Training System) and disagreements on that still exist, to include the AF being reluctant to teach AoA approaches unless the Navy leans on them, not to mention their reluctance to train at night to the extent the Navy put into the Joint Requirements Document.
In 1999 or 2000, Big Navy chose to buy anything else than the T-6A: F-18E/F, Subs, Ships, all sorts of stuff. They pulled out of T-6, and deferred the buy. This ended up costing the USAF about 100K extra per aircraft. How nice and Joint, eh? They were understandably displeased. Hope all you Super Hornet Drivers are enjoying your birds, SNA's for the next 6 years are paying the bill for it by not flying a T-6.
(Likewise the gents in the subs, hope you like your new boats.)
Somehow, via Congressional plus ups and some forced buys already laid down on the production line, a few dozen T-6's still got bought.
Here was the choice: Park brand new airplanes in the desert until about 2007 when the Whiting stand up is allegedly going to happen, or put the T-6 to work. CNATRA at the time (RADM Boyington) chose to "make lemonade" when handed a lemon, and what you see today is TW-6 using the T-6 to train NFO's rather than a bunch of nice new Navy Buno planes in preservation in the desert.
Navy Primary in the T-6 will depend on how clever NAVAIR and CNATRA are in accelerating the T-6 buy.
"Test fly a new aircraft?" TW-6 is already operating it, what are you talking about?
As to the T-45 "Chickenhawk," if you remember correctly, part of that buy was a NATO payoff to the Brits in trade for some other program back in the early 80's-90's, I forget which. It came around the same time as the Norwegian Penguin missile buy for the Shoes and the Lamps guys. I still remember articles in Naval Aviation news in the early 90's about "the five things we are still trying to fix on the T-45." Last I heard, the ground handling is still squirrely.
May your CEP be small.
Demento
After that we jump into the backseat and start doing air navs... and... uhhh, I haven't really looked to much further ahead in the syllabus, but as I understand it, I'm never PIC in the T-6 again, though we probably do get stick time. Once I get into the T-1/T-39 then the T-2, maybe, but I'm not sure. Hope that answers your question.