USN's T-45 fleet grounded

[Dawes]

On the surface at least, the T-45 fleet appears to be aging less gracefully than the USAF's prehistoric T-38's.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/t-45-navy-jet-trainer-194407523.html

[TrustMe]

Engine problems is one of the known defects of the Hawk. Blame Royals Royce.

[DB]

The Goshawk is a version of the original Hawk, which first flew in 1974, making it over 50 years old, compared to the T-38's 61 years.

It's going to inevitably be subject to similar engine problems as the similar generation engine in the T-38, but the T-38 has two of them, which would all else being equal mean twice as many problems, but much less likely to lose the aircraft as a result.

I'm not sure where the interminable and inexcusable shitfest that has been UKMFTS ends up, but unfortunately the RAF almost certainly decided that they didn't want a training aircraft that might cut their Gucci first-line fighter numbers down, so there was no chance of something modern and multi-role.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda a couple of squadrons of the sexy Korean instead.

[Dawes]

With the T-7's issues, the USAF may be wishing they'd selected the T-50. 

[Ivanhoe]

17 hours ago, DB said:

I'm not sure where the interminable and inexcusable shitfest that has been UKMFTS ends up, but unfortunately the RAF almost certainly decided that they didn't want a training aircraft that might cut their Gucci first-line fighter numbers down, so there was no chance of something modern and multi-role.

The fighter mafia has surely worked bravely to undercut jet trainer programs. For X dollars, a modern trainer a/c could perform a lot of useful roles; patrol, CAS, etc. And nations with limited assets could send their 1st line fighters to a medium/high intensity conflict in Hajistan and still have quite a bit of domestic defense via armed trainers.

The USAF swallowed its pride and deployed A-7s and A-37s to the garden party in RVN to put metal on meat, then turned around and damn near sent Mafia hitters against the A-10 project. The very concept of hi/lo is anathema to the silk scarf brigade, despite happiness with the F-22/F-35 mix. Amusingly, the Congress wisely overrode the USAF generals time and again to keep the A-10 alive, I imagine similar political machinations will be needed in several other NATO countries.

 

 

[Dawes]

During the Cold War didn't RAF Hawks fill a sort of point defense role?

[TrustMe]

1 minute ago, Dawes said:

During the Cold War didn't RAF Hawks fill a sort of point defense role?

 

The idea was for Hawks equiped with AIM9's to buddy up with F4's or Tordado F3's in a sort of composite flight. But, it was found out that the missiles were too heavy and created a lot of drag for the Hawk and would never keep up with the front line jets due to their small range and speed.

The real reason why the project was created was due the British MOD wanting to get rid of the Red Arrows (RAF flight demo team) who flew Hawks as a part of a cost reduction measure. Then all of a sudden the whole "yeah the red arrows can go up against USSR fighters 🤩" appeared and the proposed red arrows funding was retained.

RAF internal politics basically.

That being said over the last 50 years the Hawk has been a big win for the Defence industry, with nearly 1000 built including local manufacturing in the US and India.

[Ivanhoe]

It would be interesting to see the stats on fighter jockeys' post-training accident rate with/without the Hawk.

 

[DB]

The accident rate *in* the Hawk is almost certainly commensurate with it being a 1960s single engine jet.

Mostly good ejector seats, with a very notable blip blamed on Martin Baker, but almost certainly due to MOD incompetence wrt distribution of safety-related tech bulletins.

[Dawes]

Did the Hawk require much structural reinforcement for the USN training role?

[Ivanhoe]

7 hours ago, DB said:

The accident rate *in* the Hawk is almost certainly commensurate with it being a 1960s single engine jet.

Trainers are always going to have an accident rate, but my thing is how well they prepare the stick jockeys for a high performance ride. In my mind, if the trainer is too close to fighter performance, its too much too soon, but if its too Cessna-like, too big of a jump from trainer to fighter. Where's the optimum?

The USAF's T-6A to T-38 to fighter sequence seems pretty good. Even though the T-6A had an attack variant, it doesn't have the available payload to do much other than bore holes in the sky. The T-38, OTOH, has a bulletproof record of tearing up Philippino jungle.  😉

[Ol Paint]

From what read over the years, the T-38 is now considered to be one of the most difficult aircraft to fly in the USAF with the modern fighters being less demanding of stick-and-rudder skills.  Which is ironic, since it was considered easy to fly compared to the Century Series fighters that were in service when it arrived on the scene.

I believe it's one of the things being emphasized for the T-7A--to be more of a lead-in for pilots as systems managers.

Doug