T-X Trainer - Boeing T-7A Red Hawk



Here's a comparison with t-38, roughly to scale. figures written are length and ground to wing clearance, both in pixels.

I tried using the image of the truck towing the plane first, and i think truck is Ford F-250 Super Duty Crew Cab Long Wheel Base, but using it for comparison i get very strange figures, like length of plane being 16 meters (without pitot!) so that can't possibly be right.
 
marauder2048 said:
Interesting to see how the aircraft specifications continue to evolve; I had forgotten how ambitious/exacting they were.
Click to expand...

Actually the T-X performance requirements aren't all that stringent. The key is to read the small print:

The "sustained" turn requirement includes an allowance for a 2,000ft altitude loss and 50 knot speed loss, which is an awful lot of energy bleed allowed for the 8 seconds required to complete a 140 degree, 6.5G turn. In fact, this is within the realm of what an A-4M Skyhawk or Super Etendard could achieve 40 years ago...

There are no supersonic, climb rate or high altitude requirements, which would have favored the T-50 or other afterburning solutions. So the emphasis on horizontal turn performance favors a non-afterburning platform with high subsonic lift-to-drag. Northrop's T-X certainly fits the bill...
 
Any idea on how many engines the Northrop T-X design has? Does it have one or two engines?
 
FighterJock said:
Any idea on how many engines the Northrop T-X design has? Does it have one or two engines?
Click to expand...
As mentioned before, only a single F404-GE-102D engine!
 
NeilChapman said:
fightingirish said:
No, the USAF uses the boom and receptacle system.
Click to expand...


We'll have to see if it's one of those slick, flip-over panels like the B-2.
Click to expand...

I recall that I read the USAF eliminated the in-flight refueling requirement since it can be flown in the simulator. I would wager there is no aerial refueling capability on the NG. That's another reason I think this LM's competition to lose. The cursory glance of the NG from these 2 pics looks like they went for cheap.

What's the reason for the chine? I cannot imagine it adds very much if anything to high alpha flight. Is it just a styling feature?
 
Looks like the requirement is still there -- as Bring It On posted, the teams can get a credit for a fully integrated IFR capability over just a dummy slipway.

I'd guess this isn't a final model. Things like the IFR receptacle will be added once they get the basic airframe flying and proven.
 
^ Correct. If you offer that capability, you get as much as $20 Million cost adjustment in your total estimated price.
 
bring_it_on said:
^ Correct. If you offer that capability, you get as much as $20 Million cost adjustment in your total estimated price.
Click to expand...



US$20Million credit on the total bid, correct?

[300 planes @ ~US$20Million] + (all the training systems, etc) + (flying hour costs for 20 years) = X price (who knows? - for s&g sake let's say

6 billion + 1 billion + 2.7 billion (10k per hour * 13.5khrs * 20yrs) = ~US$10 billion

So out of this total cost you get a US$20million credit for a refueling receptacle? Obviously I've got this formula wrong. How does this work?

Thanks!

N
 
NeilChapman said:
bring_it_on said:
^ Correct. If you offer that capability, you get as much as $20 Million cost adjustment in your total estimated price.
Click to expand...



US$20Million credit on the total bid, correct?

[300 planes @ ~US$20Million] + (all the training systems, etc) + (flying hour costs for 20 years) = X price (who knows? - for s&g sake let's say

6 billion + 1 billion + 2.7 billion (10k per hour * 13.5khrs * 20yrs) = ~US$10 billion

So out of this total cost you get a US$20million credit for a refueling receptacle? Obviously I've got this formula wrong. How does this work?

Thanks!

N
Click to expand...

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=32466e3b451f7b4279506e279d4d2d41
 
Spoiler Alert!
James Drew ‏@JamesDrewNews said:
Coming out of the shadows: @BoeingDefense/@Saab to unveil clean-sheet T-X next-generation trainer in September
Click to expand...
James Drew ‏@JamesDrewNews said:
Introducing the @BoeingDefense/@Saab next-generation T-X clean-sheet trainer for the @usairforce @AviationWeek
Click to expand...
Sources:
https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/767747706190176256
https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/767746864754094081
https://twitter.com/Rotorfocus/status/767758657140432896

Edit:
Reveal will be September 13 in St. Louis.
Website with a Sneak Peek Gallery
http://www.boeing.com/defense/t-x#
 

Attachments

  • Boeing_Saab_T-X_Spoiler_1_20160822.jpg
    Boeing_Saab_T-X_Spoiler_1_20160822.jpg
    41.1 KB · Views: 390
  • Boeing_Saab_T-X_Spoiler_2_20160822.jpg
    Boeing_Saab_T-X_Spoiler_2_20160822.jpg
    115.2 KB · Views: 384
  • Boeing_Saab_T-X_Spoiler_3_20160822.jpg
    Boeing_Saab_T-X_Spoiler_3_20160822.jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 384
The view from the front reminds me very much of the Saab 105, Fairchild T-46, Mitsubishi T-2 and SEPECAT Jaguar.
 
If it doesn't have a lot based on the Gripen why would they even need SAAB? ???
 
http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/08/22/northrop-grummanscaled-composites-model-400/
 
dilbert_bah.jpg
 

Attachments

  • SWED- Saab Eurohawk_1.jpg
    SWED- Saab Eurohawk_1.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 372
  • 518.png
    518.png
    398.2 KB · Views: 115
The wing planform seems very different from Saab Eurotrainer to Boeing-Saab T-X.
 
bring_it_on said:
NeilChapman said:
bring_it_on said:
^ Correct. If you offer that capability, you get as much as $20 Million cost adjustment in your total estimated price.
Click to expand...



US$20Million credit on the total bid, correct?

[300 planes @ ~US$20Million] + (all the training systems, etc) + (flying hour costs for 20 years) = X price (who knows? - for s&g sake let's say

6 billion + 1 billion + 2.7 billion (10k per hour * 13.5khrs * 20yrs) = ~US$10 billion

So out of this total cost you get a US$20million credit for a refueling receptacle? Obviously I've got this formula wrong. How does this work?

Thanks!

N
Click to expand...

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=32466e3b451f7b4279506e279d4d2d41
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link!
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
TomS said:
The wing planform seems very different from Saab Eurotrainer to Boeing-Saab T-X.
Click to expand...

Yeah the wing platform look like a... T-38.
Click to expand...

In that new Northrop book it shows Northrop tried using that basic design as the basis of so many different concepts it's no wonder this new trainer did as well.
 
Run the top image from post 331 through Photoshop and you get a few more details...

Hints of the old SAAB B3LA and Eurotrainer designs...

Zeb
 

Attachments

  • T_X1-2.jpg
    T_X1-2.jpg
    24 KB · Views: 90
Looking at the wingspan of this, I'm not sure the front view and the plan view are the same aircraft.
 
TomS said:
The wing planform seems very different from Saab Eurotrainer to Boeing-Saab T-X.
Click to expand...

Well, it would be, given that Eurotrainer was a much smaller, lower performance design ('high subsonic', as opposed to the M-346/T-100 being considered 'transonic', let alone this one with its afterburning engine and therefore almost certainly supersonic performance). As others have mentioned, there does appear to be some heritage in the forward fuselage (nose, canopy, LERX, intakes) though.

As for the rest, I decided to defer the ironing, studied the teaser videos closely and broke out the pencil (well, and liberal use of the eraser too...) :D Single fin is an assumption, loosely based on the Eurotrainer proposal - the vertical tail is about the only area of the airframe for which the sneak peek movies offer absolutely no clues, so twin tails for better high AoA handling remain possible.

EDIT: I may have somewhat exaggerated the span on the wing and stabs, though chord seems close enough?
 

Attachments

  • Boeing-Saab_T-X_20160822.JPG
    Boeing-Saab_T-X_20160822.JPG
    320.8 KB · Views: 67
sferrin said:
If it doesn't have a lot based on the Gripen why would they even need SAAB? ???
Click to expand...

A ) To spread development costs.
B ) Sweden needs a new trainer to replace the 105. Sweden could also use this as their new trainer.
 
More screenshots from the video. It looks like it has a wing root fence similar to the T-346, but I'm not sure how accurate these previews were, in terms of distortion. The first two pics are from the bottom left, just behind the trailing edge looking forward, hence the control hinge fairing.
 

Attachments

  • B1.jpg
    B1.jpg
    167.7 KB · Views: 458
  • B2.jpg
    B2.jpg
    193.3 KB · Views: 441
  • T1.jpg
    T1.jpg
    241.9 KB · Views: 442
To say the least am very disappointed with the Boeing design so far according to the sneak peak. Why not some basic stealth shaping? No chine, planform alignment, or V-tail and inlet shaping to at least make some basic steps towards lower observability. Why not make the TX to be competitive as a future Red Air Aggressor, or possible to offer as a lower cost operational aircraft much like the F-5 was. The way it looks, Boeing and Saab really dropped the ball.

And their marketing is embarrassing! The sneak peak videos look and sound like they were made by teenage DJs playing skrillex Dubstep fan club techno music for party goers looking for a good time. Looking at the Lockheed Martin video too, they are both look ridiculous trying to cater to that party/rave music generation.

Am going with Northrop/Scaled composites all the way (even if they lose) I like the efficient elegant design, at least they took the basic T-38, a success, and upgraded it slightly.

I was expecting something much more groundbreaking and innovative from the same companies that made the Bird of Prey, X-32, and the Gripen. Looks more or less like a M-346/Scorpion/T-50 mashup.
 
kcran567 said:
To say the least am very disappointed with the Boeing design so far according to the sneak peak. Why not some basic stealth shaping? No chine, planform alignment, or V-tail and inlet shaping to at least make some basic steps towards lower observability. Why not make the TX to be competitive as a future Red Air Aggressor, or possible to offer as a lower cost operational aircraft much like the F-5 was. The way it looks, Boeing and Saab really dropped the ball.
Click to expand...

Stealth shaping on a trainer?

They get no credit for anything like that in T-X. It's all well and good to talk about Aggressors or operational roles but that's not what this competition asks for. If they start adding cost for those features the design stops being competitive for T-X and they don't get anything at all.
 
kcran567 said:
I was expecting something much more groundbreaking and innovative from the same companies that made the Bird of Prey, X-32, and the Gripen. Looks more or less like a M-346/Scorpion/T-50 mashup.
Click to expand...

You inadvertently stumbled upon the fact that aircraft designed for the same mission as other aircraft tend to look like those aircraft. ;) It's the sizing and details that differentiate them based on the mission requirements. When there isn't a need to be ground breaking, don't. Unless you're goal is to be over priced, over weight, and not have a chance of winning the contract.

Having said that, you meant ground breaking in the configuration sense. I'm quite sure Boeing-SAAB would argue their design is ground breaking in it's application of the lessons learned from the Black Diamond program.
 
Here's my initial take on NG/BAe's design.
 

Attachments

  • 0820161456a-1.jpg
    0820161456a-1.jpg
    110.6 KB · Views: 422
Yes Sundog and TomS, I meant configuration wise. I'm sure internally the Saab/Boeing design and Black Diamond is going to be impressive. I am just very disappointed with the configuration. I understand the initial focus on training, but one could think that almost 70 years after T-38 a Boeing Saab team could offer a better AND affordable configuration for such a big contract. Advances in airframes, materials, manufacturing, etc. and this is the best configuration they can offer? They should have hit it out of the park to cover the training option and possible Red Air and light fighter to meet the market for a 21st century lighter aircraft that could beat all those other competitors you mentioned with a similar configuration m-346, scorpion, t-50. I was expecting a Mako or next generation f-5,t-38,F-20. And what about those who can't afford F-35? They missed that opportunity completely. I guess that is the point, only the F-35 type aircraft to play that game, but nothing remotely competitive under it.

I am liking the Nothrop Scaled design more and more just based on looks though.
 
The T-X isn't about any of that. The USAF is very particular what they will pay EXTRA for, and the contractors have to factor that in. Affordability is a very strong performance parameter and requirements driver and there is absolutely no point in spending money on, and designing around phantom requirements with an eye out into the future requirements that you may not end up seeing if you loose the very basic T-X competition. The USAF haven't even mentioned Aggressor requirements in their RFP documents to avoid mission creep and to keep the cost low. Can't really blame Boeing/SAAB for designing something around what the USAF has indicated it is looking to buy.
 
kcran567 said:
I was expecting a Mako or next generation f-5,t-38,F-20.
Click to expand...

Mako tells us a lot about the potential market for a reduced observability advanced trainer and light attack aircraft. Specifically, it tells us that there probably isn't much of a market for such an aircraft.
 
No need for a Mako type light aircraft? The TX could have been the perfect aggressor training red air threat aircraft, it is also a very important need to continue that type of training for future pilots. The Boeing TX will not be used for that role based on strict AF requirements for TX. So now the AF needs to build another new aircraft to simulate future more advanced and LO type threat aircraft? Or thenAF could just use modified F-35s, but that seems ridiculous not to mention cost prohibitive.
 
It went beyond aesthetics; EADS specifically described Mako as having LO features.

For example, see the link below to a paper titled "Aerodynamic Assessment of Low-observable Forebody Configurations for a Light Combat Aircraft." I can't read the whole report, but page one specifically refers to Mako.

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2003-3419
 
kcran567 said:
No need for a Mako type light aircraft? The TX could have been the perfect aggressor training red air threat aircraft, it is also a very important need to continue that type of training for future pilots. The Boeing TX will not be used for that role based on strict AF requirements for TX. So now the AF needs to build another new aircraft to simulate future more advanced and LO type threat aircraft? Or thenAF could just use modified F-35s, but that seems ridiculous not to mention cost prohibitive.
Click to expand...

See "5GAT" or 5th Generation Aerial Target. Plus, whatever active and passive RCS reductions they can eke out of QF-16.
 
TomS said:
It went beyond aesthetics; EADS specifically described Mako as having LO features.

For example, see the link below to a paper titled "Aerodynamic Assessment of Low-observable Forebody Configurations for a Light Combat Aircraft." I can't read the whole report, but page one specifically refers to Mako.

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2003-3419
Click to expand...

To perhaps generalise it's probably broadly correct to characterise the Mako design having a similar level of intentional designed-in low observability as a Rafale or Typhoon but nowwhere near a more tailored design such as the F-35 or F-22.
As such perhaps somewhat better than an earlier design like the F-16 but not the order of magnitude necessary to make that much of a difference.
Relatively common and likely design features like s-bend intakes, and relatively straight forward measures like gold-lined canopies, some RAM in leading edges and other key areas, and large scale use of composites will likely be seen in a version/ one-off prototype of the winning T-X (even if just in a low-tier combat version that's its manufacturer will at least try to sell) would be suitable and likely for an aggressor version (if the US airforce should want to acquire it).
 
sferrin said:
If it doesn't have a lot based on the Gripen why would they even need SAAB? ???
Click to expand...

Perhaps Boeing feels they have a bit of a credibility problem?

JSF X-32
LRS-B loss
KC-46 program problems
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom