hawgdriver

Its not a misprint. I have some very good friends who fly the F-35 and its years behind. They have had a lot of problems with the jet and they aren't even flying it tactically. Many many problems with the program 9 (cant/won't elaborate). I would want to be anywhere near that program and at the end of the day, its a stealthy F-16 with 150 rounds of 20mm. Epic failure for the DOD and at this point the government is just trying to save face.

Pavedickey

(Uh...the AFSOC at Hurlburt is still flying DC-3s there (although re-engined with PT-6s). They are also flying Mi-8 Hips, and 1947 technology An-2 Colts).

Well not exactly. AFSOC stopped flying all of these over three years ago. We got completely out of the rotary wing CAA mission in 2010, and now only fly the C-145 Skytruck as part of the CAA mission. We should get the A-10's.

propfails2FX

T-34C is a better ab initio military trainer than the T-6B. The military chose a more expensive, less effective option on this one. Did the T-34C in their current state need to go……yes. But don't think for a minute that the Weenie isn't a better trainer. So is a CT4-E by the way.

propfails2FX

Disregard……………….

E2CMaster

USAF Wanted a Jet.
USN Wanted Turboprop (TP and Helo is 75% of Naval Aviation)

We got a TP that acts like a jet. No reverse. Not able to use a lot of older OLFs.

Lets not forget it is constantly broken, more than the -34s and the Weeners were OLD.

Oh, and because of it's cockpit size/ejection seat, a lot of guys who could have flown for the Navy in years past, no longer can.

I would not be able to fly for the Navy now, as I can't fit in it's primary trainer. But have flown all other T/TH birds the Navy owns with no problem.

Spur

YGBSM. I don't know, maybe for the way the Navy does primary the T-34 was better. If that's the case you should have just gotten DA20 Katanas and let us get a jet...

Seriously if the T-34 was a better aircraft for Navy primary than the T-6 you guys are WAY underutilizing it.

E2CMaster

It can't operate out of a lot of our OLFs.

It doesn't have a TACAN. VERY FEW NASs have an ILS. Even fewer a VOR (there is probably one, never seen it)

It has no beta/reverse (the root of the OLF problem)

It has weight restrictions on the pilot beyond any of our other planes

It is always broken or down for some inspection because X became a chronic problem this month.

Need I go on?

E2CMaster

I forgot..

Remember, half the USN/USMC/USCG pilots are going to be helo guys. The extra speed/altitude isn't really helpful to their training.

Also, fuel consumption. The Navy operates on a tighter budget the the AF. Just look at our bases and the creature comforts vs a normal AFB. The extra fuel per flight hour makes a difference when you don't really have a need of a lot of the extra capabilities it brings.

That and "Let us get a jet".. Are you not aware that for 90% of all things "joint" it is usually defined as "the USAF gets their way unless a case can be made to congress" right? Partially due to the Navy not having career tracks that stay in DC solely to deal with the politicians.

Spur

FWIW, I think these joint acquisition programs are a bad idea. The T-6 was no exception and I have my laundry list of complaints as well. But...

1. The seat. It will save lives. If the price for that is the inability to accommodate a 90th percentile male so be it.

2. The TACAN. If its that important I'm sure you can add one. The thing initially came with your POS NACWS system and we replaced it with TAS. Replace the ILS if you want.

3. The Helo/TP/OLF/speed/altitude issue. It sounds to me like you want a flight screener rather than a primary trainer. If that's the case, then I agree. The T-6 is too expensive and capable to be used for flight screening. But it is hands down a much better primary flight trainer than the T-34. Perhaps it is your syllabus that needs reworking to take advantage of it.

4. 90% the AF wins. This wasn't one of them.

E2CMaster

Not arguing the seat saves lives. But why is that seat rated so low, when I can fly most other ejection seat aircraft but not the T-6? It's not that it has a seat, but that the seat, from a weight and ejection envelope standpoint sucks. That, and WHO THE HELL MADE IT WHERE THE ONLY SAFETY IS THE PIN (not directed at you, directed at Beech)


ADS-B would be better than NACWS. No argument. Part of the problem is the contracts are written so far out, that crap is obsolete by delivery in the electronics realm.

There is no need for the USAF and USN to have a common trainer. Look at USAF Track Select vs USN Selection. You guys send 90% of your pilots to some form of a jet, and 10% to Herks or Helos. We send 25% of our pilots or less to jets.

Now, the T-6 is a better platform if you go jets, since it's not a huge speed jump and you have some experience going prett fast. (we used to have an intermediate jet, T-2s and the advanced jet TA-4, T-45, now it is 45s only)

AF may not have won, but neither did we.. Beta/Reverse would not have been that hard to add. And it would save tires, money, and allow smaller fields in an emergency if not for training.