U.S. Navy T-45 Replacement Program

Sundog

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
2 August 2006
Messages
3,173
Reaction score
1,153
The U.S. Navy's new T-45 replacement program must be putting a premium on costs savings. I say that considering it won't be able to shoot cats and traps. According to the article they'll just be performing touch and goes on the carrier. I would be shocked if it wasn't the T-7 that gets chosen then, mainly due to compatibility with the USAF; i.e.-economies of scale.
 
So how do they plan to teach pilots to land and takeoff from carriers?
 
Sundog said:
The U.S. Navy's new T-45 replacement program must be putting a premium on costs savings. I say that considering it won't be able to shoot cats and traps. According to the article they'll just be performing touch and goes on the carrier. I would be shocked if it wasn't the T-7 that gets chosen then, mainly due to compatibility with the USAF; i.e.-economies of scale.
Click to expand...
Even without a hook, T-7's going to need beefier landing gear. Something like the upgrade drawn up for the V-1600 seems like it is called for.
 
Let's be honest cat launch training doesn't need a specific airframe anymore (fighter jet) since today pilots get hands on stick only after the automated launch sequence.

Trapping is just a failed touch & go with your hook hanging loose... It might sound irrespective but that might well be the vision today.

Regarding airframe choice, Navy might well lean in favor of a Korean airframe (or a Teja?!).
 
TomcatViP said:
Let's be honest cat launch training doesn't need a specific airframe anymore (fighter jet) since today pilots get hands on stick only after the automated launch sequence.

Trapping is just a failed touch & go with your hook hanging loose... It might sound irrespective but that might well be the vision today.

Regarding airframe choice, Navy might well lean in favor of a Korean airframe (or a Teja?!).
Click to expand...


Sounds so simple. Clearly a half a century of navy pilots saying a carrier landing is one of the most difficult things you can do in an airplane were wrong.
 
I'm wondering if they're going to have the pilots doing landings anymore, other than for training purposes? There was an article in AvWeek a few years back talking about how much airframe life the U.S. Navy could save if they would let the aircraft land itself rather than having the pilots land them.

As for the landing gear, any existing airframe they use would require a strengthened landing gear. I just see them going with the T-7 due to commonality with the USAF.
 
sferrin said:
So how do they plan to teach pilots to land and takeoff from carriers?
Click to expand...

Considering that there is no two seat variant of the F-35C, and the NGF could also be largely a single seat aircraft (barring perhaps a Growler replacement), this seems a bit risky and something that the Navy could potentially reconsider down the road as this effort matured. Perhaps they want a largely off-the-shelf variant flying off a hot production line by a certain date and then develop something more permanent further down the road. This strategy would probably allow them to quickly contract the T-7 and then add capability over time.
 
Last edited:
What Sferrin is saying is that "touch and go" is NOT enough.

Carrier landings even today remain an insanely risky business.

Not training pilots to the COMPLETE thing sounds like a McNamara / British CVA-01 / bureaucratic recipe for disaster.

"Oh, we gonna save a lot of money by replacing full-blown carrier landing training with touch-and-go". Yeah, good idea. It will F-111 A/B all over again.
 
Last edited:
I think The Drive may have figured out what's going on. The solicitation only calls for an aircraft that can meet part of the T-45 training curriculum. I suspect that the plan is to fly most of the undergraduate course in the new T-XX and conserve T-45C cycles and hours for cat-and-trap qualifications.
 
TomS said:
I think The Drive may have figured out what's going on. The solicitation only calls for an aircraft that can meet part of the T-45 training curriculum. I suspect that the plan is to fly most of the undergraduate course in the new T-XX and conserve T-45C cycles and hours for cat-and-trap qualifications.
Click to expand...


That would make sense.
 
Archibald said:
"Oh, we gonna save a lot of money by replacing full-blown carrier landing training with touch-and-go". Yeah, good idea. It will F-111 A/B all over again.
Click to expand...

It isn't even remotely similar to the F-111A/B again. Three major things happened with the F-111 program that most people apparently haven't a clue on.

1) The U.S. navy originally just wanted a missileer (You can see threads on this site showing many of the designs). The GD design met the requirement quite well.
2) Unfortunately, the USAF and the Navy didn't have the same input into the F-111. The USAF got most of what it wanted, driving the weight up. For example, a high flotation landing gear, not needed by the Navy. Also, not really needed by the USAF, but that's a different argument. Side by side seating versus tandem seating. Once again the Navy lost on this point. Also, another giant weight adder, an escape pod, as opposed to just ejection seats. The Navy lost again.
3) As a result of the Vietnam war, the U.S. navy realized a Missileer alone wouldn't be enough. That, plus item 2, caused the Navy to change it's tune.

Fortunately for the U.S. Navy, since Grumman was building the F-111B, they learned how to greatly improve on the weight savings. Such as having the wing retract above the main structure instead of within it. In many ways, it was Grumman's experience building the F-111B that allowed the F-14 to be a great aircraft.
 
To close my part of the conversation regarding Touch & Go for carrier landing training, every first trap is done solo.
If you put your trainees in a modern fighter with fail safe landing assistance, odds IMOHO are that it would cost you less and student will see a drastic increase in their overall safety (FBW, modern digital assistance and... POWER).

Of course, your training syllabus should be done in a plane able to replicate the fighter. That's where a digital trainer like the T-50, T-100 and T-7 are done for.
 
Last edited:
I don't see this as a big deal. The Fleet Air Arm went over to land-based runway arrester gear training in the 1950s without problems and then went straight from Hunter T.8s to operational conversion in a Buccaneer, cats n traps and all!

Today if a pilot has done the mission in the simulator until he has become proficient in the technique and then felt the force of arresting on a runway with ground-based wires in a trainer and done some touch and goes to get real-life experience with deck motion then there is no reason why they should need to experience a full cat and trap until their operational conversion training on a frontline type.
 
In the meantime, some McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) T-45 Goshawks are being upgraded with swept engine inlets to help mitigate potentially dangerous compressor stalls and surges, that the aircraft may experience, when executing high-dynamic maneuvers.
Link:
www.thedrive.com

Navy T-45 Goshawk Trainers Being Upgraded With Swept Engine Inlets

The T-45 Goshawk's new inlet design is primarily intended to reduce dangerous compressor stall occurrences during dynamic maneuvers.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
Sundog said:
The U.S. Navy's new T-45 replacement program must be putting a premium on costs savings. I say that considering it won't be able to shoot cats and traps. According to the article they'll just be performing touch and goes on the carrier. I would be shocked if it wasn't the T-7 that gets chosen then, mainly due to compatibility with the USAF; i.e.-economies of scale.
Click to expand...

Leonardo offering at the Navy League Sea Air Space Symposoim right now

Cheers

https://twitter.com/x/status/1643327772033425409
View: https://twitter.com/leonardo_live/status/1643327772033425409?s=46&t=nOEaWqjdf5A6ZgSgGiGhiQ
 
Not much point in a delete option is there. How long can they continue flying the Hawk T45?
 
Sorry, leaving out the tailhook, in common automotive parlance, a delete option as with certain cars and badges.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom