Sparkchaser2010 24 Posted January 25, 2011 Air Force Times Article By Paul Koscak - Staff writerPosted : Sunday Jan 23, 2011 10:26:16 EST The versatile T-38, an aircraft that’s been in the Air Force arsenal since 1956, is taking on yet another role — the aggressor jet in training F-22 Raptor pilots. Best known as an advanced jet trainer for new pilots, the Talon will be giving F-22 jocks a workout in building their combat skills and meeting their monthly currency requirements. As aggressors, the T-38 will provide training at three locations — Holloman Air Force Base, N.M.; Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., and Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va. Squadrons at each base will get detachments of seven Talons by summer. At Langley, two T-38s will arrive each month beginning in March. The 21 T-38s were originally sent to South Korea in 1997 for pilot training, but were returned to the U.S. in 2009 and retired to the boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. But the Air Force had other plans, according to Lt. Col. Derek Wyler, who manages the T-38 adversary air program at Langley. The Talons were pulled from the desert and went through a 70-day “regeneration.” The aircraft were X-rayed, inspected and brought up to flight standards so they could fulfill their role as aggressors against the hugely advanced Raptors. Keeping pilots sharp While the T-38 is no match for the F-22, it offers the Air Force a relatively cheap way to keep fighter pilots sharp. “This program will provide some great opportunities at an economical price,” said Wyler, an experienced T-38 and F-15 pilot. To keep costs down, instructors — four at Langley — will be qualified in both aircraft. Using T-38s as aggressors saves fuel and gives F-22 pilots experience in being attacked by multiple aircraft rather than dueling among themselves, Wyler said. “It’s highly desired to be outnumbered,” he said. The T-38s are also providing jobs. At Langley, 14 contractors are being hired to maintain the jets. The Talons will engage the F-22s mimicking adversarial tactics and weapons, called Red Air flying, as well as simulating U.S. strategies and weapons, known as Blue Air flying. To ensure challenging scenarios, Wyler said, the training also permits pilots to improvise tactics in the sky. Wyler said the T-38 can be adapted to other missions within the Air Force. “It’s not exclusively an adversary air platform,” he said. The Talon is also a companion trainer for U-2 and B-2 pilots and introduces basic fighter-pilot skills for aviators selected for other operational fighter aircraft, Wyler said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derk 265 Posted January 25, 2011 Three cheers for the good old T 38 !!!!!!! I like it when there is a good use for older planes !!! Houdoe, Derk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted January 26, 2011 Maybe FC will be moving to Virginia? Always cool to hear of new squadrons standing up, versus being drawn down. -S Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted January 26, 2011 Interesting. I knew they were being used as companion trainers for the F-22s...but aggressors too? Well, for WVR combat, they could work pretty good. They're basically EM silent, and nose on, they're pretty much invisible at anything over about a mile. Also, they have some special equipment on some of the Holloman birds, so they could be used to simulate different kinds of threats for very cheap. Also, even in Fighter Lead In, anyone going to F-22s automatically gets 2v1 sorties as part of their syllabus training in T-38s. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted January 28, 2011 It's nice to see how they realize that you just don't need a new design to replace a perfectly good airplane... I wonder when the USAF is gonna realize that the A-10's replacement... is another A-10!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted January 28, 2011 What did you think the A-10C was? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gr.Viper 131 Posted January 28, 2011 The most expensive flight sim merchandise? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+EricJ 4,246 Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) It's nice to see how they realize that you just don't need a new design to replace a perfectly good airplane... I wonder when the USAF is gonna realize that the A-10's replacement... is another A-10!!! Dude seriously the A-10 is the cat's meow in Afghanistan, and while it was initially designed for anti-tank close support it's definitely the beast when it comes to supporting the grunts on the ground. But let's get back on topic... Seems an interesting idea for sure though... the more fun they can have the better... Edited January 28, 2011 by EricJ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted January 28, 2011 It's nice to see how they realize that you just don't need a new design to replace a perfectly good airplane... The thing is, the T-38 isn't a perfectly good airplane...not anymore. We are starting to get a lot of single point failures that were simply not anticipated by Northrop (imagine telling the original designer his aircraft would still be getting used at the same flight rate 50 years later). It's getting more and more expensive to continue to keep the aircraft flying, especially since the aircraft and parts production lines were shut down long ago. There are other aircraft that can do the job better (the USAF started evaluations a long time ago) and that already are in production, the problem is the high initial cost doesn't yet offset the savings generated by lower MTBF rates. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toryu 156 Posted January 28, 2011 What is the average flight-hour count of the T-38-fleet? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted January 31, 2011 The thing is, the T-38 isn't a perfectly good airplane...not anymore. We are starting to get a lot of single point failures that were simply not anticipated by Northrop (imagine telling the original designer his aircraft would still be getting used at the same flight rate 50 years later). It's getting more and more expensive to continue to keep the aircraft flying, especially since the aircraft and parts production lines were shut down long ago. There are other aircraft that can do the job better (the USAF started evaluations a long time ago) and that already are in production, the problem is the high initial cost doesn't yet offset the savings generated by lower MTBF rates. FC I meant it more like from the point of view that you don't have to reinvent the wheel, you can just build more according to the latest specs and improvements... But the trip to the drawing board would definitely be spared! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted February 1, 2011 Why does everyone assume that? Folks, as anyone in the aircraft industry can tell you, regenerating a brand new aircraft, even if based on and old design, is EXPENSIVE. Ask the Russians about restarting the An-124 production line..estimated to cost 50 billion dollars. And that's for an aircraft with commercial applications, making several dozens of them, and still having the plans, production jigs and available facilities. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted February 3, 2011 Why does everyone assume that? Folks, as anyone in the aircraft industry can tell you, regenerating a brand new aircraft, even if based on and old design, is EXPENSIVE. Ask the Russians about restarting the An-124 production line..estimated to cost 50 billion dollars. And that's for an aircraft with commercial applications, making several dozens of them, and still having the plans, production jigs and available facilities. FC Still less expensive than having to design a new one, building a mock-up, having it go through the windtunnel and other tests, test-flying it etc, and ironing out the kinks, I guess... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 3, 2011 Surprisingly, not by that much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted February 3, 2011 Surprisingly, not by that much. JM is correct. Even if you manage to reproduce the aircraft exactly, rebuilding the jigs, milling machines, etc, I guarantee they would still have to flight test it and recertify it. And if you decide to incorporate modern technologies in construction and/or capabilities, it is now considered a whole new aircraft and must be put through the entire envelope and certification process. Why do you think they spent the money to pull the old T-38s out of the boneyard, after they had refurbished them when they got them back from the Taiwanese? I remember seeing those aircraft on blocks when we got them from the Taiwanese...they were in BAD shape. If you had seen a car in as bad a shape, you would have thrown it in a crusher and called it a day. But it was still cheaper to tear them down completely, inspect, clean, rebuild them and all the various parts, verses starting a whole new production line...because they were not considered brand new aircraft. Why also due you think companies campaign hard to keep production lines open...because once they shut down, they are expensive to restart. It's real friggin simple. It isn't that it is less expensive to start production on brand new old aircraft, it is that it is not cost-effective. Any savings you have is not worth the loss of capability compared to a clean sheet plane...it's better to start with a brand new aircraft that can incorporate the new technologies from the ground up verses trying to put them in an airframe not designed for them. Now, note this is different from retrofitting technologies into airframes you already have because you are not trying to restart (or build from the ground up) a production line. So, do you get it yet? If you look at the entire life-cycle cost of an aircraft, from first drawings to being cut up for scrap, the only difference in cost between a brand new old aircraft and a new aircraft is the initial R&D cost. And the more new technologies you incorporate into the new old aircraft, the smaller the savings gets. And if that new old aircraft gives you less capabilities than the new aircraft, it may in fact cost you more money on the operational side of things...further whitting down your savings. A real world example...the USAF is looking for a next generation replacement for the T-38, verses restarting the production line. One of the aircraft being strongly considered is the T-50 Golden Eagle. It looks sort of like a baby F-16, powered by a single F404. Anyway, one of our T-38 IPs went over to SK to evaluate it personally, including getting checked out to operate it and fly it. He came back extremely impressed: 1. It's MTBF rates are extremely low compared to current T-38s and even new model T-38s didn't rate as good. 2. Modern and integrated avionics similar to 4th/5th generation fighters. Results in smoother training transition. 3. Range and duration (plus capability to add drop tanks...to a dedicated trainer). Higher utilization rates...you can turn a T-50 faster because it does not need refueling between sorties unlike a T-38. 4. Flight envelope much larger than T-38. 5. Flight characteristics much more forgiving than T-38 in low speed regime. A T-38 takes almost 10 flights before you are considered good enough to not kill yourself landing. A T-50 will take about 3 flights...if that. The IP commented that he was 'greasing them on' on sortie 1...it was that easy to handle. The only reason the USAF hasn't already started replacing the T-38 with the T-50 is because of the high initial cost of each airframe verses the T-38s which are paid for and built. And that's pretty much it...I guarantee we get to a crunch point where the current T-38 will not be cost effective anymore because it keeps coming up with new ways to break, and it's out of here. Don't get me wrong...I love the T-38...I flew it for most of my USAF career. But it's like driving an MG. Imagine if you drove a brand new MG verses a brand new Mazda Miata...which would you want? What's going to be more reliable? Handle better? And not cost that much more (if any) than your brand new old MG. And if folks don't believe a new old build can cost just as much as a clean sheet vehicle...price out the parts to build a new old car (like a Ford Mustang) from scratch. You'd be surprised how much it costs...and that's doing most of the work yourself. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557 Posted February 4, 2011 It`s funny you are comparing a MG and a Miata, I would choose the Miata ;) But back to topic, interesting airplane, never seen it before! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sparkchaser2010 24 Posted February 16, 2011 It surprised me that they didn't make another F-15 or F-16 Aggressor Sq. as it looks the Aggressor glory days are coming back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
