- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 10,760
- Reaction score
- 6,853
AeroFranz said:Why the extra fuel? Why should the trainer need longer legs than the attack version?
Lockheed Martin has yet to reveal its “ultimate offering” for the US Air Force's hotly contested advanced pilot training competition despite joining Korea Aerospace Industries in the unveiling of its possible T-50 Golden Eagle-based T-X proposal in South Korea this week.
sferrin said:Has anybody heard what types of sensors this thing will have? And is it primarily a flight trainer or a flight/systems/air combat trainer?
NeilChapman said:Just a story recap of the T-X program.
http://www.bidnessetc.com/60417-another-northrop-noclockheed-lmtboeing-ba-showdown-tx-trainer-program/
Points well taken. -SPTomS said:Not worth bothering to interpret the cost data, IMO, since the rest of the article is so badly flawed.
1) Boeing is explicitly offering a clean sheet design, not a Gripen variant.
2) Hawk isn't even being offered.
3) Scorpion isn't being offered.
4) The author's speculation that LM is at a disadvantage because it isn't offering a plane with stealth, VTOL capability, or twin tails suggests he doesn't actually understand anything about the T-X program requirements.
TomS said:Not worth bothering to interpret the cost data, IMO, since the rest of the article is so badly flawed.
1) Boeing is explicitly offering a clean sheet design, not a Gripen variant.
2) Hawk isn't even being offered.
3) Scorpion isn't being offered.
4) The author's speculation that LM is at a disadvantage because it isn't offering a plane with stealth, VTOL capability, or twin tails suggests he doesn't actually understand anything about the T-X program requirements.
TomS said:I don't know if they are specifying a specific cost per flight hour target. There's a cost target for the overall training operation, including ground-based training, flight training, etc. but the breakdown within that isn't detailed.
Considering that the T-38's CPFH less than half of an F-16, I'd be shocked if T-X was as high as an F-16. Clearly T-X is going to have a higher CPFH than the T-38, but twice as high would be surprising.
Grey Havoc said:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/
NeilChapman said:Grey Havoc said:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/
That's good news for Boeing.
It boggle the mind that in 2016 it will take 12 years to produce a trainer for a platform that may outdated in 12 years. Carpe noctem. We've got to figure out ways to get these project done more expeditiously.
NeilChapman said:Grey Havoc said:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/
That's good news for Boeing.
It boggle the mind that in 2016 it will take 12 years to produce a trainer for a platform that may outdated in 12 years. Carpe noctem. We've got to figure out ways to get these project done more expeditiously.
I would be very wary of taking one competitor's statement and treating them as the immutable truth for the others, they all have their reasons for going down the path they are. If I were to speculate, I think those behind clean-sheet approach are focused on bringing recurring costs down significantly below the off-the-shelf options.AeroFranz said:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/why-skunk-works-ditched-its-clean-sheet-t-x-for-kore-421946/
"Weiss says the clean-sheet alternative might have cost approximately eight times more to develop, without adding significant capability “beyond a modernised T-50”. Moreover, it would struggle to meet the air force’s recently revised initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2024.
“Our team thought we had a really, really fine airplane . . . but it doesn’t do any more than the T-50 already does, so at the end of the day – it costs more, takes longer, has higher risk and without adding significant value beyond the T-50," Weiss says. “That baseline [T-50] aircraft has over 100,000 flight hours. It’s very mature. It’s trained more than 1,000 pilots today.”
Seems to me this applies to every clean sheet design. Of course the T-50 was already very close to meeting specs, so the delta in cost may not be as large as for the other competitors. still, makes you wonder how you can justify the costs if you're starting from scratch.
AeroFranz said:Any delay will invariably help clean sheet designs.
Sundog said:
AeroFranz said:That seemed to be Lockheed's argument for going with the T-50 after doing their internal evaluation
NeilChapman said:Sundog said:
Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end
TomS said:NeilChapman said:Sundog said:
Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end
It's terrible writing; that's not actually what happened. FOC got delayed by two years, probably to deal with some sort of budget constraint, but that is not caused by the delay in the solicitation. Note that IOC is unchanged, so the delay in the solicitation does not actually delay production at all.
Seriously, go read the actual statement on the FedBizOps website.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=36bbba77ca454a9464c1ed3ebc1fa8b1&tab=core&_cview=1
.
TomS said:NeilChapman said:Sundog said:
Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end
It's terrible writing; that's not actually what happened. FOC got delayed by two years, probably to deal with some sort of budget constraint, but that is not caused by the delay in the solicitation. Note that IOC is unchanged, so the delay in the solicitation does not actually delay production at all.
Seriously, go read the actual statement on the FedBizOps website.
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=36bbba77ca454a9464c1ed3ebc1fa8b1&tab=core&_cview=1
.
TomS said:I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
The T-X Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems (APT FoS) includes flight simulators. Those simulators are supposed to prepare new pilots in general terms to fly advanced aircraft like the F-35 and F-22 , as well as any other fighter aircraft remaining in the USAF inventory. The APT FoS simulators are not the same as the actual type-specific F-22 and F-35 flight simulators that train pilots assigned to those particular aircraft. The type-specific simulators are not part of the APT curriculum -- they're later in the training process.