FARK.com: (5598488) U.S. Air Force considering new trainer jets with colorful streamers, an improved handlebar, a stronger kickstand, and totally radical decals

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		U.S. Air Force considering new trainer jets with colorful streamers, an improved handlebar, a stronger kickstand, and totally radical decals (upi.com)		113
		More: Obvious, U.S. Air Force, trainers

• • •

16404 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Sep 2010 at 10:34 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/5598488

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

113 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

eddyatwork

2010-09-03 09:17:21 PM

Everyone knows that the flame decals make it go faster.

jaylectricity

2010-09-03 09:56:48 PM

Can you put a baseball card in the turbine to make it sound like a motorcycle?

T-Luv

2010-09-03 10:38:16 PM

We can totally afford all that right now, let's go for it.

one of Ripley's Bad Guys

2010-09-03 10:40:36 PM

T38's are some of the prettiest planes in the sky - bar none.

www.airforce-technology.com

/hot - though not as hot as the plane
//Northrop trifecta?

vodka

2010-09-03 10:42:44 PM

I can't believe the Air Force uses MiG-28's as trainers. Commies!

gopher321

2010-09-03 10:42:54 PM

Don't forget the AAHHYOOOGAH! horn.

miamiguy

2010-09-03 10:44:46 PM

Why don't they just order a new batch of the planes with updated avionics? That way we can skip the 100 billion dollar R&D phase?

dennysgod

2010-09-03 10:45:23 PM

Don't forget the banana seat

Ball Zitch

2010-09-03 10:46:50 PM

jaylectricity: Can you put a baseball card in the turbine to make it sound like a motorcycle?

No need for that if you have a high-tech solution like this. (new window)

/had one on my first bike in 1976
//coolest bike accessory evar

uncletogie

2010-09-03 10:47:41 PM

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: T38's are some of the prettiest planes in the sky - bar none.

/hot - though not as hot as the plane
//Northrop trifecta?

Dad was stationed here at an office at the Taj at Randolph. Saw lots of 'em. I like 'em 'cause the profile reminds me of the F-4.

Man On Fire

2010-09-03 10:49:18 PM

miamiguy: Why don't they just order a new batch of the planes with updated avionics? That way we can skip the 100 billion dollar R&D phase?

because when they stop building planes, they destroy the tool-sets, and all the other things to make them. they don't just turn the lights off in the factory and lock the doors.

and that's just final assembly. same goes for all the hundreds of sub-contractors that make all th

Oznog

2010-09-03 10:51:03 PM

Everybody knows we don't want or need pilots in airplanes anymore.

pottie

2010-09-03 10:52:49 PM

First thing I'm doing is to take that stupid basket off the handlebars

Seacop

2010-09-03 11:03:49 PM

Oznog: Everybody knows we don't want or need pilots in airplanes anymore.

not to threadjack but the Coast Guard was gonna get a a few of those UAV's, but the plan was:

Make it only available to E-5's to fly
E-5's would be selected
E-5's would have to get pilots license and maintain quals on own time
E-5's would effectively stay an E-5 for life so as not to expend money on too much training
E-5's would be FINANCIALY RESPONSIBLE IF THE THING CRASHED

It goes without saying most thought the LCDR who decided these rules was a little out of touch.

/The CG crashed the multi-million dollar prototype and couldn't afford another so the project was scrapped.

Uncivil Engineer

2010-09-03 11:04:36 PM

miamiguy: Why don't they just order a new batch of the planes with updated avionics? That way w skip the 100 billion dollar R&D phase?
Like the previose poster pointed out, the tooling and jigs are are long gone. Even if you could, airframe technology has come along way in the last 40 years. A new airframe would be expensive to develope, but if we get 40 years out of them too, it would be worth it.

way south

2010-09-03 11:06:33 PM

Oznog: Everybody knows we don't want or need pilots in airplanes anymore.

Not meaning to feed the troll, but drones do have their limitations that will keep them from being our main line of defense.
Not to mention these are also jet trainers, for pilots who will be flying everything from combat missions to experimental aircraft, recon, maybe even transports.

Personally I wonder why the decision is for a 30 year contract when they'll break the winning mold before the first decade is out.
If so little changes in the training world that you can plan so far ahead on a single airframe, why didn't they keep a lower production rate and have an endless supply of constantly upgraded T-28's?

DPSturm

2010-09-03 11:14:08 PM

living right next to Sheppard AFB, I can say the t38 accident here was blamed on pilot error. theres no reason for a new jet trainer. the new t-6 texanII turboprop is pretty awesome and alot more fun to watch than the t37. id love to strip some of the noise reduction shiat off em, THEN watch

potterydove

2010-09-03 11:17:08 PM

uncletogie: one of Ripley's Bad Guys: T38's are some of the prettiest planes in the sky - bar none.

/hot - though not as hot as the plane
//Northrop trifecta?

Dad was stationed here at an office at the Taj at Randolph. Saw lots of 'em. I like 'em 'cause the profile reminds me of the F-4.

You mean F-5, amirite?

jaylectricity

2010-09-03 11:17:55 PM

Ball Zitch: jaylectricity: Can you put a baseball card in the turbine to make it sound like a motorcycle?

No need for that if you have a high-tech solution like this. (new window)

/had one on my first bike in 1976
//coolest bike accessory evar

OK with your high-falootin' fancy electronics. $10!?!?! My baseball card cost 20 cents and I got a piece of gum with it.

riknight

2010-09-03 11:20:05 PM

I remember as a kid in the 70's I had a thing on my trike the let you rev it like a motorcycle----give them on of those

Seacop

2010-09-03 11:22:26 PM

jaylectricity: Ball Zitch: jaylectricity: Can you put a baseball card in the turbine to make it sound like a motorcycle?

No need for that if you have a high-tech solution like this. (new window)

/had one on my first bike in 1976
//coolest bike accessory evar

OK with your high-falootin' fancy electronics. $10!?!?! My baseball card cost 20 cents and I got a piece of gum with it.

yeah but the broken tooth from the gum cost 80 bucks in dentist bills.

Oznog

2010-09-03 11:22:49 PM

Seacop: Oznog: Everybody knows we don't want or need pilots in airplanes anymore.

not to threadjack but the Coast Guard was gonna get a a few of those UAV's, but the plan was:

Make it only available to E-5's to fly
E-5's would be selected
E-5's would have to get pilots license and maintain quals on own time
E-5's would effectively stay an E-5 for life so as not to expend money on too much training
E-5's would be FINANCIALY RESPONSIBLE IF THE THING CRASHED

It goes without saying most thought the LCDR who decided these rules was a little out of touch.

/The CG crashed the multi-million dollar prototype and couldn't afford another so the project was scrapped.

1.bp.blogspot.com

The winning formula is, don't tell them it's not a game.

adeist69

2010-09-03 11:25:05 PM

FTFA: For years, a program caller Pacer Classic, opted to afford structural life extension for the T-38,

There's the problem. They've been using stockpiled Pacer parts to keep them flying...

Seacop

2010-09-03 11:27:53 PM

Oznog:

The winning formula is, don't tell them it's not a game.

Is that kinda like "The last Starfighter" without leaving the trailerpark?

io9.com

"It'll be a slaughter!"

"That's the spirit!"

LordZorch

2010-09-03 11:43:28 PM

I worked on T-38's, there's not an original part in any of them. All of them have been 100% rebuilt numerous times.

Ball Zitch

2010-09-03 11:45:19 PM

jaylectricity: Ball Zitch: jaylectricity: Can you put a baseball card in the turbine to make it sound like a motorcycle?

No need for that if you have a high-tech solution like this. (new window)

/had one on my first bike in 1976
//coolest bike accessory evar

OK with your high-falootin' fancy electronics. $10!?!?! My baseball card cost 20 cents and I got a piece of gum with it.

Yeah, this is military spending we're talking about, here. My gadget costs 50 times more than your gadget, serves almost the exact same function, and has moving parts that will eventually wear out and/or break. So it makes perfect sense.

Seacop

2010-09-03 11:47:44 PM

littleman77

2010-09-03 11:51:42 PM

vodka: I can't believe the Air Force uses MiG-28's as trainers. Commies!

They don't. The Navy used to, though. The Mig-28s were F-5E and F-5F (Tiger II) models from Miramar NAS.

akuma976

2010-09-03 11:53:01 PM

LordZorch: I worked on T-38's, there's not an original part in any of them. All of them have been 100% rebuilt numerous times.

Same here. I worked on them at Tech School at Sheppard AFB. They retired the tweets, they need to retire these. also.

Axel_Gear

2010-09-03 11:57:24 PM

Oznog: Everybody knows we don't want or need pilots in airplanes anymore.

Note the lack of brass on his shoulders. He's not a pilot.

itsfullofstars

2010-09-04 12:00:46 AM

one of Ripley's Bad Guys: T38's are some of the prettiest planes in the sky - bar none.

True, but they are prettier in the NASA livery
inapcache.boston.com

RoyBatty

2010-09-04 12:03:38 AM

LordZorch: I worked on T-38's, there's not an original part in any of them. All of them have been 100% rebuilt numerous times.

I've worked on the human body, and every year about 98% of gets rebuilt: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11893583

At any rate, I always liked the T-38, and I try and pretend that it still lives on in the lines of the F-18.

Deathfrogg

2010-09-04 12:04:07 AM

So, after all the R&D, they're gonna cost $300 million each and the USAF will demand 1500 aircraft.

The Air Force is the biggest waster of money out of all the branches of the Military. They've build more useless overpriced gold plated shiat at taxpayers expense than anyone else. All the USAF is, is a feed stock for the companies with the right political connections. They'll milk that cash cow as hard as they can for as long as they can. They insisted on building 100 copies of a $2.2 billion aircraft that couldn't even fly in the rain, and requires something like 400 man hours of maintenance for every hour it flies.

The USAF is a corrupt joke on the American Taxpayer.

uncletogie

2010-09-04 12:10:24 AM

potterydove: uncletogie: one of Ripley's Bad Guys: T38's are some of the prettiest planes in the sky - bar none.

/hot - though not as hot as the plane
//Northrop trifecta?

Dad was stationed here at an office at the Taj at Randolph. Saw lots of 'em. I like 'em 'cause the profile reminds me of the F-4.

You mean F-5, amirite?

Nope. F-4.

Didn't say it was a match, jus' reminded me of it. Think part of it's the canopy. I'm a sucker for 2-seaters.

w00ty

2010-09-04 12:15:08 AM

The planes are intended to fly 7,000 hours but they have already clocked more than double that.

so, we can afford to refuel aircraft carriers but not put aircraft on them.. nice!

Click Click D'oh

2010-09-04 12:19:13 AM

Deathfrogg: They insisted on building 100 copies of a $2.2 billion aircraft that couldn't even fly in the rain, and requires something like 400 man hours of maintenance for every hour it flies.

The USAF is a corrupt joke on the American Taxpayer.

If you told the Army to go into battle with a 50 year old tank, or the navy to go sailing in submarines their grandfathers sailed... there would be hysterics.

In the mean time...

www.aerospaceweb.org

/oh so hot.

Ball Zitch

2010-09-04 12:19:32 AM

macross87

2010-09-04 12:23:05 AM

"Striker, listen, and you listen close: flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle, just a lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes. "

/no one yet?
//Over Macho Grande?

gibbon1

2010-09-04 12:23:08 AM

Ball Zitch: Yeah, this is military spending we're talking about, here. My gadget costs 50 times more than your gadget, serves almost the exact same function, and has moving parts that will eventually wear out and/or break. So it makes perfect sense.

I'm kinda of amused lately. Civic infrastructure projects for the last twenty years are tending to come in around the original budget. Military stuff, still way over budget and with long delays.

Benevolent Misanthrope

2010-09-04 12:26:00 AM

Kreist oh KREIST I wish I could get checked out for ex-military jets in time to get one of these.

Of course, it will take a shiat-ton of time to get them replaced. And then there's the little matter of somehow getting the money to buy one. And maintain one. And buy hangar space at an airport that can handle jets.

But I swear to Elvis - I'd just about give my left ovary to own and fly one of those.

firefly212

2010-09-04 12:27:01 AM

Deathfrogg: So, after all the R&D, they're gonna cost $300 million each and the USAF will demand 1500 aircraft.

The Air Force is the biggest waster of money out of all the branches of the Military. They've build more useless overpriced gold plated shiat at taxpayers expense than anyone else. All the USAF is, is a feed stock for the companies with the right political connections. They'll milk that cash cow as hard as they can for as long as they can. They insisted on building 100 copies of a $2.2 billion aircraft that couldn't even fly in the rain, and requires something like 400 man hours of maintenance for every hour it flies.

The USAF is a corrupt joke on the American Taxpayer.

bwhahah... gold-plated... sounds like someone never enlisted in the AF. Anyways, half the crap the AF gets is stuff politicians force upon it... when I was in, it was still the C-130 and variants (AC, etc)... politicians in GA wanted to say they were bringing jobs home, so they forced the AF to pony up billions for crap nobody actually wanted and commanders openly objected to. The AF has a few nice things, to be sure... but when your ass is the one sitting in the jet over hostile territory trying to do a surgical strike in the heart of a bunch of AAA, then you can tell me about how glad you are that the taxpayers chinced out on the radar-absorbent paint because it needed frequent maintenance.

one of Ripley's Bad Guys

2010-09-04 12:32:48 AM

Man On Fire: miamiguy: Why don't they just order a new batch of the planes with updated avionics? That way we can skip the 100 billion dollar R&D phase?

because when they stop building planes, they destroy the tool-sets, and all the other things to make them. they don't just turn the lights off in the factory and lock the doors.

and that's just final assembly. same goes for all the hundreds of sub-contractors that make all th

media.farsnews.com

Iranians seem to have copied it fine, except for the extra stabilizer and severe area ruling... how tough could it be?

/Old man used to be an engineer then project manager at Northrop

crab66

2010-09-04 12:33:19 AM

Why do we even need an air force? Just divide up their equipment and personal among the other branches.

Ball Zitch

2010-09-04 12:33:40 AM

firefly212: radar-absorbent paint

I know what I'm painting my Corvette with next time.

Ball Zitch

2010-09-04 12:44:36 AM

Click Click D'oh: Deathfrogg: They insisted on building 100 copies of a $2.2 billion aircraft that couldn't even fly in the rain, and requires something like 400 man hours of maintenance for every hour it flies.

The USAF is a corrupt joke on the American Taxpayer.

If you told the Army to go into battle with a 50 year old tank, or the navy to go sailing in submarines their grandfathers sailed... there would be hysterics.

In the mean time...

Yeah those B-52's have been around since what, the 50's? And they plan on keeping them in service for another 30 years or so. The USAF is so pissed about it that they crash one once every great while in protest: Link (new window)

/that and other events like it were quite tragic. In no way do I intend to diminish the brave souls who have died in service of my country

Giltric

2010-09-04 12:53:05 AM

gibbon1: Ball Zitch: Yeah, this is military spending we're talking about, here. My gadget costs 50 times more than your gadget, serves almost the exact same function, and has moving parts that will eventually wear out and/or break. So it makes perfect sense.

I'm kinda of amused lately. Civic infrastructure projects for the last twenty years are tending to come in around the original budget. Military stuff, still way over budget and with long delays.

Cause during the building of civic infrastructure you don't have to deal with 3 evolutions of cement and rebar technology over the course of a project?

Any Pie Left

2010-09-04 12:55:44 AM

Meh, why not just increase the order for T-45 Goshawks the Navy already uses? These are basically a tweak of a British trainer and replaced the T-2 Buckeye for the Navy. It has already been ruggedized for Carrier ops training, so it should be plenty tough for landing on concrete. Also used in air show teams, plenty nimble.

Deacon Blue

2010-09-04 12:58:43 AM

************/threadjack************

I saw a blurb somewhere (maybe here) about a new carrier-based fighter the Navy is getting. In the pic I saw, it looked a lot like the F22 "Awesome" Velociraptorica. Any AF or Navy guys wanna give more details? It was in the "stil classified but an open secret" phase of development. Maybe it's not so awesome after all, in the picture I saw it had a chick test pilot, and would they really let a girl fly it if it was all that good? Next thing you know, they'll have negro or messican pilots.

/just kidding, all you chicks, negros and messicans ;-)

MBarry

2010-09-04 01:01:03 AM

Any Pie Left: Meh, why not just increase the order for T-45 Goshawks the Navy already uses? These are basically a tweak of a British trainer and replaced the T-2 Buckeye for the Navy. It has already been ruggedized for Carrier ops training, so it should be plenty tough for landing on concrete. Also used in air show teams, plenty nimble.

Yeah, Christ this. I thought the AF was already buying the T-45.

Or better yet just buy the OTS from the British. It should be cheaper than buying the Navy's version.

MBarry

2010-09-04 01:02:52 AM

Deacon Blue: ************/threadjack************

I saw a blurb somewhere (maybe here) about a new carrier-based fighter the Navy is getting. In the pic I saw, it looked a lot like the F22 "Awesome" Velociraptorica. Any AF or Navy guys wanna give more details? It was in the "stil classified but an open secret" phase of development. Maybe it's not so awesome after all, in the picture I saw it had a chick test pilot, and would they really let a girl fly it if it was all that good? Next thing you know, they'll have negro or messican pilots.

/just kidding, all you chicks, negros and messicans ;-)

You mean this?
deadwildroses.files.wordpress.com