2010 J-E-T-S !

[CAPFlyer]

Great pics, problem is that BB Black Bird is an AT-38, not an F-5 (though I'm sure it'd want to be one. ).

Interesting to see Beale though at Sun'N'Fun unless they had a U-2 there as well? Either way, you probably got to rub elbows with a U-2 driver since their AT-38's are the "currency aircraft" for them.

You're both wrong, the BB jets are Beale AFB T-38A's.

Ahh, you're correct, 64-13270 is a T-38A. I was told they'd upgraded all of them to "AT-38" aircraft as some of the TDY pilots were still required to keep their weapons qualifications if (similar to the deal with the AT-38's at Whiteman AFB).

[warbird1]

Great pics, problem is that BB Black Bird is an AT-38, not an F-5 (though I'm sure it'd want to be one. ).

Interesting to see Beale though at Sun'N'Fun unless they had a U-2 there as well? Either way, you probably got to rub elbows with a U-2 driver since their AT-38's are the "currency aircraft" for them.

You're both wrong, the BB jets are Beale AFB T-38A's.

Ahh, you're correct, 64-13270 is a T-38A. I was told they'd upgraded all of them to "AT-38" aircraft as some of the TDY pilots were still required to keep their weapons qualifications if (similar to the deal with the AT-38's at Whiteman AFB).

That is not a true statement. There are no weapons qualifications to maintain since the U-2 is unarmed. Beale will never have AT-38's, not only because there is no requirement or mission for it, but also because most of the pilots there do not come from a fighter background. Whiteman AFB also uses the T-38 for their companion trainers. They don't have AT-38's either.

[CAPFlyer]

There's been at least 1 AT-38 at Whiteman and the Air Force even put out at reports post-BRAC about moving some of the companion trainers from Holloman to Whiteman as a "cost saving" measure to allow pilots to maintain "all qualifications". I'm not sure how a stock T-38 can allow them to maintain weapons qualifications.

[Russ Matthews]

[warbird1]

There's been at least 1 AT-38 at Whiteman and the Air Force even put out at reports post-BRAC about moving some of the companion trainers from Holloman to Whiteman as a "cost saving" measure to allow pilots to maintain "all qualifications". I'm not sure how a stock T-38 can allow them to maintain weapons qualifications.

I haven't heard that there was at least 1 AT-38 at Whiteman- that may be true -I don't know. If it is, they are certainly not using it in the role the AT-38 was designed for - fighter lead-in training. The AT-38 has weapons capability - the ability to drop bombs and fire a gun pod. The AT-38 is designed for teaching fighter fundamentals - it has absolutely nothing of use for the B-2 pilots at Whiteman in this respect. If there is an AT-38 at Whiteman, it is being used in the same role as their non-armed T-38's - for pilot proficiency and training, not for tactical flying and teaching fighter fundamentals.

By the way, the T-38's at Holloman were leftovers from the F-117 days, when they were being utilized as companion trainers. I don't think they had any AT-38's over there, but if they did, there certainly weren't very many. There might have been a few AT-38's that survived after the Stealth left that were being utilized in some kind of testing/evaluation/chase ship role, I'm not sure, but their numbers were certainly small, if that was the case. Transferring the T-38's from Holloman to Whiteman makes sense, since they are the same airplane that Whiteman has used in the past. Holloman, did in fact have AT-38's for many years from the 70's until about 2000 or so, providing Fighter Lead-in Training. The ones you are talkiing about are the ex- companion trainers for the F-117's, not the ex-LIFT jets which had all left more than a decade previously.

You are confusing two issues here, "all qualifications" and "weapons qualifications". They are two different things. "All qualifications" means flying only duties - things such as formation, instrument, and low level flying proficiency and checkrides. "Weapons qualifications" is something that is utilized by fighter and bomber crews both, but AFAIK no AT-38 has ever been used as a level bombing proficiency trainer for any heavy bomber like the B-52, B-1 or B-2. It just doesn't make sense. Why would a B-2 pilot maintain bombing proficiency in the AT-38, when it has absolutely nothing in common with the Stealth bomber, which has totally different flying characteristics? A common mantra in the Air Force is "Train like you fight". Why would you train in an AT-38 to drop JDAM's and nuclear bombs when that airplane doesn't even use those weapons?

The reason that the T-38 is used as a companion trainer for the U-2 and B-2 is that they are much cheaper and easier to use for basic things such as taking instrument checkrides and maintaining general flying proficiency and satisfying Air Force currency requirements. Both the U-2 and B-2 are considered national assets which are very expensive to maintain and fly and support. Both planes are not made any more and are very, very expensive to operate. Does it really make any sense to take a multi-billion dollar airplane like the B-2 and fly it around for a couple of hours while the pilot just does an instrument checkride flying ILS's, Loc's, and Tacan's? Is it really effective use of taxpayer's money to put the wear and tear and more hours on these national assets when the same mission can be accomplished on an "effectively zero or no-cost" T-38? This is the reason they use the T-38's. It's effective utilization of a resource that is plentiful, cheap, and reduces stress on the U-2 and B-2 airframes.

[Fouga23]

Welcome to our side of the fence!!!!

Thx! darn Paris jets! They're like Stearmans. All over the place but utterly useless

[Roger Cain]

Welcome to our side of the fence!!!!

Thx! darn Paris jets! They're like Stearmans. All over the place but utterly useless

Forgot, there was a Paris Jet at Reno took, took darn near the entire length of the runway to get into the air it seemed.

[N3Njeff]

Welcome to our side of the fence!!!!

Thx! darn Paris jets! They're like Stearmans. All over the place but utterly useless

LOL

[Randy Haskin]

The AT-38 has weapons capability - the ability to drop bombs and fire a gun pod. The AT-38 is designed for teaching fighter fundamentals - it has absolutely nothing of use for the B-2 pilots at Whiteman in this respect. If there is an AT-38 at Whiteman, it is being used in the same role as their non-armed T-38's - for pilot proficiency and training, not for tactical flying and teaching fighter fundamentals.

FWIW, it was only the AT-38B that had a pylon, a bomb/gun sight, and a hot pickle button.

Once the conversion to C model happened across the T-38 fleet in AETC, the ATs lost that capability. The weapons are all virtual now in IFF (the fighter lead-in program). They're still "AT-38C", but they are no different than any other T-38C physically, they're simply coded differently in the USAF's system for tracking flight hours.

The T-38s that are used as companion trainers -- Beale, Holloman, Whiteman (and soon Tyndall and Langley to support the F-22s) -- are just A models. Holloman does have some "Super As", jets assigned to the test group out there that have extra instrumentation for use on White Sands, but they're not for use with any of the other jets.

[CAPFlyer]

Thanks for the better information guys. I'm just sad that guys who were actually "on the deck" at Beale and Whiteman would give bad information about the companion trainers.

Randy, have you heard if there's a plan to upgrade the T-38 Companion Trainers to C models? It's interesting for AETC to be just about done with the conversion and no word out there on what their going to do with the rest.

[Fouga23]

Forgot, there was a Paris Jet at Reno took, took darn near the entire length of the runway to get into the air it seemed.

[/quote]
Why do you think they LOST the French AF competition for a trainer to the Fouga? They're just a wast of perfectly good Marboré engines!

[Randy Haskin]

Randy, have you heard if there's a plan to upgrade the T-38 Companion Trainers to C models? It's interesting for AETC to be just about done with the conversion and no word out there on what their going to do with the rest.

To the best of my knowledge, ACC does not have any plans to pay for their T-38s to be upgraded to C models or PMPd.

Apparently the T-38s that are going to be used at Langley and Tyndall as F-22 aggressors are coming from South Korea, and are going to get some kind of cockpit overhaul/upgrade before going into service, but they're not going to be Cs.

[warbird1]

Thanks for the better information guys. I'm just sad that guys who were actually "on the deck" at Beale and Whiteman would give bad information about the companion trainers.

Randy, have you heard if there's a plan to upgrade the T-38 Companion Trainers to C models? It's interesting for AETC to be just about done with the conversion and no word out there on what their going to do with the rest.

A friend of mine who is a pilot at Beale told me that there are no plans to convert the T-38A's out there to "C" model standards. He said whenever the time comes that the Air Force decides to retire all "A" models, the T-38 will be retired from Beale as well. They will switch to a completely new companion trainer, most likely the new T-6, FWIW.

[Dwhart24]

Nice shots Bill. You and I weren't far from each other at a couple shows. Here are some I took.

[img][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2716/4538107062_dd0499c160_b.jpg[/img]
DSC_0865 by dwhart24, on Flickr
DSC_0240_01 by dwhart24, on Flickr
DSC_0848 by dwhart24, on Flickr[/img]

[Dwhart24]

DSC_0865 by dwhart24, on Flickr