Register here

Author Topic: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer  (Read 196410 times)

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2012, 03:11:01 am »
Boeing Leans Toward New-Build Design For U.S. Air Force T-X (Ares blog)

Quote
After a long flirtation with the concept of a partnership to offer a foreign fast-jet trainer to the U.S. Air Force as a T-38C replacement, Boeing will forgo an off-the-shelf bid in favor of a new-build design or opt not to bid at all.

“We have looked at a lot of different options. But our belief is the aerospace industry and the defense industry need somebody who can come in and provide disruptive innovation,” says Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft, in an interview with Aviation Week. “By year end, we will have agreed internally how we are going to move forward, and how and if we team for a clean-sheet design.”

Quote
Chadwick, however, says the company feels it can build a new aircraft without an escalated development price by rejecting the urge to infuse new and unproven technologies into the design.

As the Pentagon continues to feel financial pressure from social program demands on the U.S. budget, military officials should embrace new ways to acquire hardware that allow for reduced cost and time to field, Chadwick says.

In an effort to be more nimble, the company is aggressively pursuing ways to offer systems to the Pentagon at a reduced cost by taking on some of the development risk. A forthcoming T-X design, if it materializes, is one example.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2012, 11:50:45 pm »
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 01:50:07 pm by PaulMM (Overscan) »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2012, 11:53:58 pm »
Boeing Leans Toward New-Build Design For U.S. Air Force T-X
By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com
Source: AWIN First


July 11, 2012

After a long flirtation with the concept of a partnership to offer a foreign fast-jet trainer to the U.S. Air Force as a T-38C replacement, Boeing will forgo an off-the-shelf bid in favor of a new-build design or opt not to bid at all.

“We have looked at a lot of different options. But our belief is the aerospace industry and the defense industry need somebody who can come in and provide disruptive innovation,” says Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft, in an interview with Aviation Week. “By year end, we will have agreed internally how we are going to move forward, and how and if we team for a clean-sheet design.”

The field of T-X competitors includes BAE with a Hawk aircraft, Alenia Aermacchi (which is shopping for a U.S. partner) with the M346 (a derivative of the Russian Yak-130) and the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50. The Air Force plans to buy 350 of the trainers as well as ground-based training systems and aids; a competition is unlikely to start before 2013.

Saab is said to also be considering a Gripen-based trainer offering. Despite speculation to the contrary, the Yak-130 will not be in the running, says Konstantin Popovich, head of Russia’s Yakovlev engineering center. “Since we have good relations with Aermacchi [which builds a derivative of the aircraft in Italy] . . . we are trying to be realistic,” Popovich told reporters during a briefing here July 11. “We understand that is the Western option of the aircraft” for the Air Force’s T-X competition.

Air Force officials have indicated they are strongly leaning toward an off-the-shelf purchase owing to a desire to reduce the cost of development.

Chadwick, however, says the company feels it can build a new aircraft without an escalated development price by rejecting the urge to infuse new and unproven technologies into the design.

As the Pentagon continues to feel financial pressure from social program demands on the U.S. budget, military officials should embrace new ways to acquire hardware that allow for reduced cost and time to field, Chadwick says.

In an effort to be more nimble, the company is aggressively pursuing ways to offer systems to the Pentagon at a reduced cost by taking on some of the development risk. A forthcoming T-X design, if it materializes, is one example.

Another is a proposal by Boeing to expand on the work on the Navy’s 737-based P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft with a 737-based offering overland and air-surveillance capabilities now provided by Air Force 707s. They say the Air Force can benefit from the nonrecurring engineering already paid for by the Navy and spend precious dollars on tailoring the mission systems for its requirements.

Copyright © 2012, Aviation Week, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_11_2012_p0-475701.xml#
« Last Edit: October 11, 2012, 12:03:00 am by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2012, 12:04:05 am »
Boeing's T-X four-post tail configuration shown in presentation at Dubai Air Show in September 2011
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1590
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2012, 01:57:35 am »

A NEW ‘FREEDOM’ FIGHTER
BUILDING ON THE T-X COMPETITION
Peter Klicker


http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/projects/PIPS/PIPS.2011-2012/ANewFreedomFighter.Klicker.Peter.pdf

Interesting!! Thanks for sharing Flateric

Regards
Pioneer
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline SlowMan

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 154
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2012, 12:16:22 pm »
Boeing's T-X four-post tail configuration shown in presentation at Dubai Air Show in September 2011

Well, the USAF has no money for a new airframe and will buy an existing one off the shelf.

What's really interesting is Saab's stripped-down Gripen T-X offering.

Offline SlowMan

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 154
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2012, 06:33:50 pm »
T-X KPP document released.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-releases-draft-t-x-kpps-377693/

Quote
USAF releases draft T-X KPPs

The KPPs include a requirement for the prospective aircraft to have an operational availability of no less than 64.7%. It must also be able to sustain 6.5Gs for no less than 15 seconds using no more than 15 degrees nose low attitude at 80% fuel weight between an altitude of 10,000 and 20,000 feet.

Key system attributes (KSA) include the ability to attain a minimum of 7.5G and an onset rate of 3Gs per second. The USAF wants the T-X to be able to attain at least a 12° per second instantaneous turn rate with a sustained turn rate of 9°. It should also be able to conduct angle-of-attack maneuvering at greater than the 20° angle-of-attack. It also needs to have enough fuel for visual range dogfighting and it needs to be able to make dry contacts with an aerial refueling tanker. Other KSAs for the T-X aircraft include having simulated radars, data-links, radar-warning receivers, situational awareness displays and a full glass-cockpit similar to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35. The T-X must also have the ability to simulate a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons including the AIM-120 and Small Diameter Bomb onboard.

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=517f912be4db8a348e0e88a4803b5c4f

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2013, 07:40:32 am »
Boeing and Saab to propose the JAS 39E/F version of the Gripen for the T-X competition:


http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_11_2013_p0-615489.xml


Interestingly, the article also discusses using the Gripen for DACT and air sovereignty missions.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2013, 03:14:50 pm »
Its dissapointing that boeing is settling for a warmed over Gripen.  :-\  What happened to their clean sheet design? Yet another sign of a fading superpower. America is choosing between a Swedish and a Korean design? Was really hoping for an new generation, innovative, stealthy, agile F-5/Talon class of aircraft that might have been more affordable than the F-35.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 03:21:01 pm by kcran567 »

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2013, 03:17:49 pm »
Yet another sign of a fading superpower. America is choosing between a Swedish and a Korean design?

 ::)

child please.

Great news for SAAB though. Maybe Boeing will fund the two seat version they couldn't afford to develop themselves.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 03:29:37 pm by TaiidanTomcat »
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2013, 03:37:11 pm »
Yet another sign of a fading superpower. America is choosing between a Swedish and a Korean design?

 ::)

child please.

Great news for SAAB though. Maybe Boeing will fund the two seat version they couldn't afford to develop themselves.
I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however. We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft. Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1169
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2013, 03:46:12 pm »
Boeing and Saab to propose the JAS 39E/F version of the Gripen for the T-X competition:

Saab apparently does not agree on the second page of the article, saying it might not make a good trainer.
 

Interestingly, the article also discusses using the Gripen for DACT and air sovereignty missions.

Now, as an ANG/AFR F-16 replacement, this could actually be a good idea.  Chasing Cessnas or airliners around doesn't require an LO aircraft (and probably not even an F-16), and neither does performing peacetime intercepts of BLACKJACKs for that matter.  Is it better to go this route over a clean sheet trainer design "upgunned" with an AI radar, gun, and a few AMRAAMs?  Maybe, especially if there is little to no development cost associated with the buy. 
 
Otherwise, for a supersonic trainer, it's pretty much the T-50 or a new airplane. 

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2013, 03:54:20 pm »
I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however. We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft. Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

You don't understand the point of a training aircraft. It doesn't need stealth or to carry weapons internally or to possess the ability to supercruise; those are all hall marks of the "gens" you're describing. What it needs is to operate like those aircraft, with advanced systems, without costing near as much as the front line systems. Also, they need to make sure the funds to develop it aren't extensive. A clean sheet design may be cheap to operate, but it won't be as cheap to develop and buy as something that already exists in some form.

I know L-M will probably go with the T-50, but I think they would be much better off going with a de-rated F-16. Just put the minimum systems in it to make it a training aircraft. They already have the production line set up here and they already have the infrastructure to support both the airframe and the engine in place. Maybe even go with a de-rated engine, which would also greatly extend the life of the engine.

Personally speaking, I think Boeing using the Gripen as a basis for it's submission is a a brilliant move, if they don't make it too much airplane for the requirement.

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2013, 03:59:50 pm »
Quote
I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however.

And by not doing that the US is ceding it superpower status? (again, as we use Texans and Hawks that did not originate here),

Quote
We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft.

What does that entail exactly? What would make a trainer "5th/6th generation" ? On that note, what is 6th generation?

 Honestly a Gripen F, if it lives up to all the hype is probably overkill for this purpose.

Quote
Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

I did laugh  ;D
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 04:04:49 pm by TaiidanTomcat »
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1169
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2013, 04:28:39 pm »
And by not doing that the US is ceding it superpower status? (again, as we use Texans and Hawks that did not originate here)

 
We only cede superpower status if Boeing has to compete against the foreigners.  It's totally OK for them to collaborate with Boeing!  :-X

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2013, 06:25:25 pm »
Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea.  The Gripen E/F is one heck of an aircraft, and if they really can sell it for less than a T-50, wow!    This would greatly open up training  possibilities, and other roles as well. 

Regarding a derated F-16, I'd shy away from that.  Reducing thrust below what the a/c was designed  for hurts performance considerably more than the gain realized by adding thrust.  You've still got the same amount of drag and mostly weight to overcome.  The question would. 

Regarding overkill, probably so.  But if you can get it for a good price, why not? 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2013, 06:35:01 pm »
Its dissapointing that boeing is settling for a warmed over Gripen.  :-\  What happened to their clean sheet design? Yet another sign of a fading superpower. America is choosing between a Swedish and a Korean design? Was really hoping for an new generation, innovative, stealthy, agile F-5/Talon class of aircraft that might have been more affordable than the F-35.

"Warmed over Gripen" is rather pejorative and doesn't reflect the reality.  What Boeing problay realized is that startng with a clean sheet design that was affordable and competitive with the pricing of derviatives of other trainers wouldn't be that significantly better than everyone else, whereas here they can take something of the latest non-stealth technology and for minimal out of pocket R&D deliver a significantly more capable aircraft (I wonder if it'll include the rotating AESA).   Wonder about the operating costs, though.

I also wonder if the deal will really get done...

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2013, 07:48:18 pm »
Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea.  The Gripen E/F is one heck of an aircraft, and if they really can sell it for less than a T-50, wow!    This would greatly open up training  possibilities, and other roles as well. 


Good point.
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #20 on: September 13, 2013, 01:45:39 am »
I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however. We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft. Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

You don't understand the point of a training aircraft. It doesn't need stealth or to carry weapons internally or to possess the ability to supercruise; those are all hall marks of the "gens" you're describing. What it needs is to operate like those aircraft, with advanced systems, without costing near as much as the front line systems. Also, they need to make sure the funds to develop it aren't extensive. A clean sheet design may be cheap to operate, but it won't be as cheap to develop and buy as something that already exists in some form.

I agree with what you say re training requirements and an existing aircraft would work just fine. An all new design would be much more cable for 5th/6th training requirements. With stealth proliferation around the world how else to realistically simulate those threats and capabilities. I was hoping for a 5 th/6th generation version of the f-5/ t-38. A capable low cost and light weight stealthy brand new design with some innovative technology that would fill the niche much like the f-5 in its day. Our allies would welcome this, and imagine an aggressor squadron of these for training purposes as well. I suspect that the real reason is the pentagon wants nothing to compete with the f-35 whatsoever so the idea was squashed quickly much like the f-20 was vs the f-16. Our allies would have wanted this if it wasn't a budget buster.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #21 on: September 13, 2013, 01:56:23 am »
Quote
I'm disappointed. Would like to see maybe a joint Boeing/Saab clean sheet design however.

And by not doing that the US is ceding it superpower status? (again, as we use Texans and Hawks that did not originate here),

Quote
We should be building an all new 5th/6th generation trainer to train pilots for 5th and 6th generation aircraft.

What does that entail exactly? What would make a trainer "5th/6th generation" ? On that note, what is 6th generation?

 Honestly a Gripen F, if it lives up to all the hype is probably overkill for this purpose.

Quote
Not happy about warmed over Swedish leftovers.

I did laugh  ;D
i know to you it seems unlikely, but there are hints that our superpower status is in decline morally ^Miley Cyrus^and economically ( take a look at Detroit for example, it looks worse than Hiroshima did after the Atom bomb was dropped) but I'll spare everyone that discussion. I appreciate the Texan, hawk, and even the gripen but seriously
[size=78%] if we are talking about using foreign designs I for one would pass on last weeks reheated Swedish meatballs [/size] :P  would a thriving superpower need to resort to using old foreign competitors? For the reasons I think it's the wrong choice, and it could be a larger market for all new design.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 02:12:13 am by kcran567 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #22 on: September 13, 2013, 04:44:59 am »
Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea.  The Gripen E/F is one heck of an aircraft, and if they really can sell it for less than a T-50, wow!    This would greatly open up training  possibilities, and other roles as well. 

Regarding a derated F-16, I'd shy away from that.  Reducing thrust below what the a/c was designed  for hurts performance considerably more than the gain realized by adding thrust.  You've still got the same amount of drag and mostly weight to overcome.  The question would. 

Regarding overkill, probably so.  But if you can get it for a good price, why not?

There's a reason nobody wanted the F-16/79   ;)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #23 on: September 13, 2013, 08:37:44 am »
The Gripen is a LOT of airplane for the trainer mission. There is already some doubt about the T-50 being disadvantaged versus the M346/T100 because of the larger size and operating costs.
I think the Gripen's a great aircraft, but when you start with a heavier, more sophisticated, higher-performance airframe than either competitors, you have to work very hard to justify the price tag in relationship to the requirements.


That is not to say that it won't work, i'm just skeptical about the practicality of it and Boeing selling it.


With regards to the amenities currently found on the JAS-39, and specifically the radar, i would get rid of the thing and pocket the savings, at least if training is all you're doing. That's probably $1M+ right there. Modern trainers have built-in simulations that allow you to replicate inflight engagement scenarios without actually having to lug the thing around (and buy it and maintain it). THat's on top of the ground simulators.


Of course, nothing says SAAB/Boeing couldn't sell a radar-equipped version for missions other than training. In that case, Raytheon and NG would push for a competition to put their SABR and RACR radars in there. The case for the -39 gets better when you can sell more of them for other customers/missions, but few things are more cost/effective than an aircraft designed from the start to requirements very close to those of the T-X RFP.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #24 on: September 13, 2013, 10:23:50 am »
There's a reason nobody wanted the F-16/79   ;)

The F-16/79 wasn't being marketed as a trainer, it was being marketed as a frontline fighter. That's a huge difference in the mission requirements and it had nothing to do with the large existing infrastructure we have with the program now. ;)
 
As for lowering the thrust, it wouldn't be a problem, because most advanced trainers don't have a T/W of 1.0 anyway.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 10:25:53 am by Sundog »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #25 on: September 13, 2013, 10:54:03 am »
Too bad that Aviation Technology Group went bankrupt or we might have had the Javelin in the T-X competition.

ATG Javelin
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,37.msg123.html#msg123

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #26 on: September 13, 2013, 12:49:44 pm »
Quote
i know to you it seems unlikely, but there are hints that our superpower status is in decline morally ^Miley Cyrus^and economically ( take a look at Detroit for example, it looks worse than Hiroshima did after the Atom bomb was dropped) but I'll spare everyone that discussion. I appreciate the Texan, hawk,

The Texan and Hawk are rehashed foriegn designs though, and Miley aside Training aircraft aren't really needed to be awesome Hi tech performers. They are meant to train, in that way they are all very similiar in which case there is no need to reinvent the wheel. All of this stuff costs, and as others have pointed out the expense needed for the aircraft you want, that is going to be a trainer anyway is unfeasible. If you want to try and play the superpower in decline card, buying foreign training aircraft like we did decades ago is a bad argument. Hell the US has operated combat aircraft of foreign manufacture many times throughout its history. It doesn't suddenly relinquish our super power status because they aren't building a niche aircraft you think we need. The US is about to dominate the combat fighter market for the next 40 years. If thats a "decline" I'll take it. Europe OTOH is selling less than ever. Ill let you do the math on who is declining. (sorry my measure is airplanes not pop stars)

Quote
if we are talking about using foreign designs I for one would pass on last weeks reheated Swedish meatballs [/size] :P  would a thriving superpower need to resort to using old foreign competitors? For the reasons I think it's the wrong choice, and it could be a larger market for all new design.

There is market and its currently filled by the same aircraft that are competing for the T-X Your idea is take that market and create a bastard that is more expensive than the others in order to field capabilities no one needs for a trainer. So its too light for a combat aircraft, and too heavy and expensive for a trainer.

Quote
I agree with what you say re training requirements and an existing aircraft would work just fine. An all new design would be much more cable for 5th/6th training requirements. With stealth proliferation around the world how else to realistically simulate those threats and capabilities.

how? What makes a "5th/6th generation" trainer?


Quote
I was hoping for a 5 th/6th generation version of the f-5/ t-38. A capable low cost and light weight stealthy brand new design with some innovative technology that would fill the niche much like the f-5 in its day.

Substitute "F-16" for "F-5" in there and you have the basis of the F-35. Saying these things doesn't instantly make them so. We also have no idea what a sixth generation fighter is. And no one want to spend billions of dollars to develop a stealthy trainer.

Take a look at the hellacious time SAAB has had just trying to sell the Gripen NG. Look at its unit cost is so far. Look what its cost to develop. Look at how many orders its secured, Now imagine going clean sheet with even more advanced avionics and stealth features, and tell me where the market is for a fighter of that size at that price.

Quote
I suspect that the real reason is the pentagon wants nothing to compete with the f-35 whatsoever so the idea was squashed quickly much like the f-20 was vs the f-16. Our allies would have wanted this if it wasn't a budget buster.

That's extremely simplistic.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 01:01:08 pm by TaiidanTomcat »
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #27 on: September 13, 2013, 02:21:05 pm »
Some thoughts:

JAS-39 E/F is a lot more than a "warmed over Gripen".  Even some basic research will show that.   As to why it hasn't been selling, aside from pure politics, it's competing against Rafale and Typhoon, which are admittedly higher performance in some areas and a lot more prestigious.  Don't discount that as a factor. Plus, not that many countries are familiar with Swedish arms sales and capabilities, which cuases uncertainty.  If the AF bought it, its prestige would immediately rise, and potential customers would feel more confident as well.    It's worthy of note that the Super Hornet has not won a single competition.   

Regarding a competition on putting SABR or RACR in there, I find that doubtful and ultimately pointless.  Those are designed for aircraft that weren't already designed with an AESA-based system.  Gripen E/F is already designed around  a system that's as least as capable and has a much wider field of view, so trying to put one of those in there will do nothing except raise costs considerably, introduce delays and extend the EMD and require significant changes.   Plus USAF is clearly looking for a training package.  Why would they want to go out and sped the time and money to arrange a competition which at best will give them what they'd already have anyway?    Of course, they could drop the radar and passive senors altogether (you'd have to put in ballast).  That would reduce costs and as far a Sweden goes, all those airframes sold to the US would reduce costs finance them going back to offering a weaponized two seater.   But you know, with as many as USAF is talking about buying, I'd leave all the stuff in if it's cost-competitive, because they'd be a valuable asset for combat use. 

Regarding the lowered thrust, I'm not talking about just fighter type maneuvers, lowering thrust below what the a/c was designed for affects the entire envelope.   Besides, what other engine would you put in there?  F414 is already in US (N) inventory.  Putting in another one will raise costs. 

As far as a clean sheet design, if Gripen didn't exist then Boeing might still try and go that route.  But, since the cost of development of an F for USAF is a small fraction of what it would cost to start from scratch and said design wouldn't be all that much better, why bother?    In this case, assuming it can be delivered for a competitive price to the other trainers, the numbers have to favor  the Swedish plane.   

As far as stealthy goes, who needs that in a trainer?    If you're going to use it as an aggressor aircraft (not a bad idea with the Gripen, for Navy as well) and want to train against a stealth aircraft, you can hang a specific transponder on it and program the fire control systems in the other aircraft not to "see" it.  Voila! Instant simulated stealth!   



« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 06:52:23 pm by F-14D »

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2269
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #28 on: September 13, 2013, 06:24:40 pm »
Why not build a whole bunch of NEW T-38s - to me the T-38 is the best ever transonic pilot trainer. -SP
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2013, 06:57:45 pm »
Why not build a whole bunch of NEW T-38s - to me the T-38 is the best ever transonic pilot trainer. -SP

Well, for one thing the US gov't doesn't own the design.  For another, good as it is, it isn't as capable as later technology aircraft (plus its systems are getting harder to support because of their age).   And finally, given what it would cots to recreate the production line tooling, reset up the line for it and the J85 (we can maintain the J85 through 2040, but not sure if we could build them anymore), you'd probably cost as much as one of the aircraft being proposed. 

Offline Reaper

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2013, 06:18:31 am »
It's worthy of note that the Super Hornet has not won a single competition.   

Autralia!

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #31 on: September 16, 2013, 06:44:23 am »
It's worthy of note that the Super Hornet has not won a single competition.   

Autralia!

Actually, Australia was an export but not a competition in the classic sense.  Australia wanted to retire its F-111s due to their airframe life and the perceived cost of keeping them in service.  The replacement was to be the F-35, but it was decided an interim aircraft would be needed until what they really wanted was available.  Since they already operated Classic Hornets, they  studied whether they could leverage their Hornet experience to use the Super Bug in this role, and whether it would be cost effective as a stopgap.  Their analysis decided "yes" to both questions, so they ordered directly.

AFAIK, the SH was not pitted against Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, et al in an actual competition.  So far, it has never won in a full competition when pitted against other aircraft . 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #32 on: September 16, 2013, 12:35:11 pm »


Great news for SAAB though. Maybe Boeing will fund the two seat version they couldn't afford to develop themselves.

Ya know, thinking on it this might not help SAAB in this area that much.  Aerodynamically, the two seater wouldn't be that hard, after all, the NG Demonstrator is a two seater.   Where SAAB really ran into money issues was the desire both for Sweden and exports that the F version have a decoupled rear cockpit/crew station ala Navy F-4s, the F-14, later Super Hornets, etc.  With the new displays, revised architecture  and  integration, that got to be more expensive than they could swallow, given the expected market. 

For the T-X mission, that isn't necessary and in fact could be a detriment, dual controls  certainly being desired.  At least for AF training missions, you'd want the aft cockpit to replicate the student on up front as much  as possible, so I can't see Boeing kicking in money for a capability that won't help them in the competition.

OTOH, maybe a big AF order would raise the JAS 39's profile enough and generate sufficient cash flow that the new rear cockpit could be affordable for Sweden and other potential customers. 

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2583
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #33 on: December 06, 2013, 12:16:52 pm »
Quote
Boeing and Saab Sign Joint Development Agreement on T-X Family of Systems Training Competition
(Source; Boeing Co. and Saab AB; issued Dec. 6, 2013)
 
ST. LOUIS/STOCKHOLM --- Boeing and Saab AB have signed a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) to jointly develop and build a new advanced, cost-efficient T-X Family of Systems training solution for the upcoming competition to replace the U.S. Air Force's aging T-38 aircrew training system. The JDA, with Boeing as the prime contractor and Saab AB as primary partner, covers areas including design, development, production, support, sales and marketing.

"Teaming with Saab will bring together our companies' formidable technical expertise, global presence, and willingness to present an adaptable and affordable advanced pilot training solution," said Boeing Military Aircraft President Chris Chadwick. "Boeing and Saab form the foundation for what will be the strongest, most cost-effective industry team. Our comprehensive Family of Systems approach provides a new, purpose-built T-X aircraft supported by innovative training and logistics support to offer total-life-cycle cost benefits to the U.S. Air Force and taxpayers."

"Saab is proud to join with Boeing for the T-X competition, thus creating a highly capable team to deliver unprecedented value to the customer. We are sure this is the best way to supply affordable first-class trainers to the U.S. Air Force," said Saab President and CEO Håkan Buskhe. "We will invest in development of this completely new aircraft design over the coming years. This cooperation with Boeing is part of our strategic development and we confirm our long-term financial targets."

Boeing and Saab look forward to the upcoming acquisition process, which will lead to the customer awarding the contract. The U.S. Air Force T-X program will include aircraft and training that will prepare warfighters for the next 40 years. The Air Force plans to replace the T-38 with a new Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems and about 350 aircraft, plus associated ground-based training systems and logistics and sustainment support.

The trainer solution from Boeing and Saab with other potential team members will be a completely new designed aircraft, built to meet the needs of the Air Force.


Swedish defense and security company Saab serves the global market with world-leading products, services and solutions ranging from military defense to civil security. Saab has operations and employees on all continents and constantly develops, adopts and improves new technology to meet customers’ changing needs. Saab is a $4 billion business with approximately 14,000 employees in about 35 countries.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $33 billion business with 58,000 employees worldwide.

-ends-

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #34 on: December 06, 2013, 12:35:55 pm »
Quote
The trainer solution from Boeing and Saab with other potential team members
will be a completely new designed aircraft, built to meet the needs of the Air
Force.
That's unexpected.  Back in September, they were supposedly planning to offer Gripen.  Do we think "new designed aircraft" is a matter of sematics, essentially an Americanized Gripen, the way the M-346 is a "new aircraft" rather than a Europeanized Yak-130?   Or did Boeing go back to their earlier clean sheet design with assistance from SAAB?

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2013, 12:43:50 pm »
That's unexpected.  Back in September, they were supposedly planning to offer Gripen.  Do we think "new designed aircraft" is a matter of sematics, essentially an Americanized Gripen, the way the M-346 is a "new aircraft" rather than a Europeanized Yak-130?   Or did Boeing go back to their earlier clean sheet design with assistance from SAAB?

Maybe even something from the SAAB FS2020 stable, perhaps?
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2013, 02:39:29 pm »
Would it not be appropriate for Textron to step in with a version of their current E530 Scorpion?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2013, 05:29:52 pm »
I don't think Scorpion has the acrobatic high-g performance required for T-X.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2013, 06:49:52 pm »
AFAIK, the SH was not pitted against Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon, et al in an actual competition.  So far, it has never won in a full competition when pitted against other aircraft .

Late response as I've just seen this. This isn't quite true. The RAAF's assessment of the bridging aircraft capability (which was the program the Super Hornet was ordered under) included a wide range of aircraft. Including those usual suspects. This 'competition' however was carried out in house based on the tender quality information the RAAF had gathered for the AIR 6000 project updated by the DSTO 'watching brief'. This assessed cost, capability, etc for the role and found the Super Hornet superior as both a combat platform and (importantly) a bridging platform. The bridging capability being twofold in retaining air combat competancy (ie leveraging the Hornet connection) and in bridging the technology gap to the F-35. In the later assessment the Block II Super Hornet was well above other options because it had the AESA and groovy fifth gen type avionics.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2013, 08:43:18 pm »
Model of BAE Systems/Northrop Grumman Hawk AJTS (Advanced Jet Training System) on display at the AFA Air Warfare Symposium 2013 in Orlando, Florida.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=494449453925266&set=pb.250121178358096.-2207520000.1386390915.&type=3&theater
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 08:46:10 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2013, 10:07:45 pm »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2013, 10:13:35 pm »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2013, 10:45:22 am »
Model of BAE Systems/Northrop Grumman Hawk AJTS

I find it odd, given the history of McDonnell Douglas with the U.S. production of the T-45 Goshawk, that this new Hawk derivative should be proposed by Northrop Grumman and not Boeing...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2013, 12:54:33 pm »
I find it odd, given the history of McDonnell Douglas with the U.S. production of the T-45 Goshawk, that this new Hawk derivative should be proposed by Northrop Grumman and not Boeing...

Maybe, but we don't know the terms of the license agreement between McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, and BAE Systems.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2013, 12:56:33 pm »



Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2013, 01:09:39 pm »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2013, 02:24:21 pm »
Why reinvent the wheel?  Better still, a US contractor is already involved.

"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2013, 02:47:15 pm »
Artist's impression of Boeing clean sheet T-X trainer concept. No word yet if this concept resembles the clean sheet T-X trainer that Boeing and Saab have agreed to develop and announced on December 6, 2013.

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/31245/boeing-and-saab-to-team-for-usaf-t-x-requirement
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 02:54:57 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2013, 02:52:17 pm »
"Boeing and Saab to team for USAF T-X requirement"
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
05 December 2013

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/31245/boeing-and-saab-to-team-for-usaf-t-x-requirement

Quote
Boeing and Saab AB have signed a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) to offer a solution for the US Air Force's (USAF) T-X trainer requirement, the companies announced on 6 December.

Boeing will lead the effort to develop and build a replacement platform for the USAF's aging fleet of Northrop T-38C Talon aircraft, with Saab acting as the primary partner.

"We will invest in development of this completely new aircraft design over the coming years," Saab President and CEO Håkan Buskhe said in a statement. As noted by Bushkhe, and reiterated to IHS Jane's by a Saab spokesperson, the new aircraft will be a completely 'clean sheet' design, and will in no way be a variant of the Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighter.

The JDA is still very much in its early stages, but Boeing has previously released conceptual images of a proposed design for T-X that reveal a twin-seat, single-engined jet with a front end that resembles that of the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 and KAI T-50, and a diamond-wing and V-tail platform that is reminiscent of the Northrop Grumman YF-23. The Saab spokesperson declined to say if this would form the basis of the JDA T-X offering.

"It's no secret that Boeing is looking at a completely new design [for T-X], but we are not ready to talk about the design or performance specifications just yet," he said, adding; "More information will be forthcoming in the coming months."

According to the source, Boeing and Saab have opted to go down the route of a new design to exactly match the USAF's requirements. "Everyone else is trying to make existing aircraft fit the [T-X] requirements, but we are looking to make something that matches them exactly," he said.

Although the USAF has a stated requirement to replace its more than 300 T-38C aircraft, no programme-of-record currently exists. However, in launching the JDA, Boeing and Saab have demonstrated that an investment is being made and that a request for proposals (RfP) is expected. "This [JDA] is real, and is not just some marketing announcement," the Saab source told IHS Jane's , adding: "T-X will only happen if it is cost effective. The programme has to be delivered on time and on budget, and Saab knows how to do that."

The USAF is expected to release a draft RfP for T-X in 2016, with an anticipated initial operating capability for about 2023. Other companies that have stated their intentions of entering the T-X competition include BAE Systems with the Hawk, Alenia Aermacchi with the M-346, to be designated T-100 in the United States, and Lockheed Martin with the Korean Aerospace Industries T-50 Golden Eagle.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 03:28:35 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2013, 03:00:08 pm »
« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 03:07:01 pm by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2013, 03:17:24 pm »
Nice.  The T-50 seems the best option all things considered.  All R&D done and paid for, in production, etc.  The Boeing/SAAB idea just looks like a good way to blow a lot of money. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #51 on: December 07, 2013, 03:55:58 pm »
Hopefully, Boeing and Saab can provide "disruptive innovation" in their clean-sheet T-X proposal.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #52 on: December 07, 2013, 05:22:18 pm »
Why reinvent the wheel?  Better still, a US contractor is already involved.



My feelings totally!

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #53 on: December 07, 2013, 05:32:11 pm »
Hopefully, Boeing and Saab can provide "disruptive innovation" in their clean-sheet T-X proposal.

They'll need something more than the latest buzz words to be more cost effective than a design that is already in production and in service.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #54 on: December 07, 2013, 05:50:43 pm »
They'll need something more than the latest buzz words to be more cost effective than a design that is already in production and in service.

Indeed. Boeing and Saab are entering a crowded market.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #55 on: December 07, 2013, 10:33:13 pm »
Why reinvent the wheel?  Better still, a US contractor is already involved.



My feelings totally!

One question that has to be being weighed in their minds is do we really want to give LM everything?

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #56 on: December 07, 2013, 11:45:23 pm »
One question that has to be being weighed in their minds is do we really want to give LM everything?

Well, word through the grapevine is the Pentagon is extremely disappointed with L-M's performance on the F-35, and to some extent the F-22, and contracts aren't exactly going their way lately. Which I think L-M is aware of and one of the reasons they are a sub on the Boeing NGB proposal and not a lead. The fact that the T-50 already exists is definitely a bonus, but I think they'll still be hard pressed to win the contract. Which I only see happening if the other competitors completely drop the ball.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #57 on: December 10, 2013, 02:40:48 pm »
It's probably worthwhile to buy the clean-sheet T-X from Boeing to keep Boeing St. Louis (MCAIR) in the manned fighter business. Otherwise, Lockheed Martin could become the sole U.S. contractor for manned fighters in the future.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #58 on: July 13, 2014, 10:18:41 pm »
"Boeing Defense Head: Saab Team-Up Offers 'Forward Thinking Approach'"
Jul. 13, 2014 - 03:56PM   | 
By AARON MEHTA

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140713/DEFREG01/307130014/Boeing-Defense-Head-Saab-Team-Up-Offers-Forward-Thinking-Approach-

Quote
LONDON — When Boeing and Saab unveil their co-design of a new trainer for the US Air Force, it will look different from the Swedish firm’s Gripen fighter, the head of Boeing’s defense arm said Sunday.

“I can unequivocally tell you it’s not Gripen, or son of Gripen,” Chris Chadwick said during a media briefing held at Boeing’s London office ahead of this week’s Farnborough International Airshow.

When Boeing announced last December that it was teaming with Saab to design a new plane specifically for the T-X requirement, it joined a crowded field that includes three other teams. All three of the competitors are offering designs that have seen extensive use in the past, leaving Boeing and Saab as the only group to create a new platform.

Analysts have been skeptical that a bespoke design could be cost efficient enough to win the service’s contract, but Chadwick expressed confidence in the strategy.

“Our design process is moving along very smartly and we will be able to fly in a timely fashion to show the Air Force that this is a viable option,” he said of the decision to offer a “clean sheet” design. “We’re going to see how it all plays out and how the requirements come together that will determine what we need to do to compete.”

He then elaborated on why Boeing chose to work with Saab, citing its ability to produce a very capable fighter in the Gripen despite a relatively small industrial base.

“When you think about Saab, [Sweden is a] small country that created a great capability in the Gripen and had to do it in a cost-constrained environment. When they design, they design in a more compact fashion,” Chadwick said. “So we’ve learned a lot about how they design and develop, and they’ve learned a lot from us about what we’ve done in terms of bringing some of our technology we’re able to pull out of Phantom Works.”

“So that collision of ideas, in terms of how do you design — how do you bring that capability in, how do you mature it, how do you simulate it in the virtual warfare center — it’s those different capabilities from the different companies that come together to offer a better offering in the long term.”

“When you mix those together, what is happening is we’re creating this culture that is allowing us to move faster, design smarter, and hit the price targets that we have that we think will differentiate ourselves from the other three competitors that are in the marketplace.”

Although not one of the “big three” recapitalization programs the Air Force is focused on, the T-X remains a priority for the service.

“The next-generation trainer, the T-X, is sort of existential to the Air Force,” service undersecretary Eric Fanning said in a May interview . “The trainers we’re using now are really old, well past their expected life, and if we do not have those, we cannot train to the next level of platforms.”

The T-X program will receive $600 million over the course of the five-year period known as the Future Years Defense Program, according to the service’s budget plan. The Air Force hopes to award a contract in FY 2017.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #59 on: July 14, 2014, 01:29:09 am »
That article is interesting in that Saab compact and low cost (plus) Boeing Phantom Works innovation will lead to a very interesting all new design. Just speculating, but maybe this leads to a scaled down order of still very expensive F-35's (yet very capable for the strike role) while this new trainer becomes the true 21st century "F-5" the Air Force can truly buy in larger numbers. The F-35 could simply not be bought in as many numbers with many partners complaining on cost, this could be the answer?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #60 on: July 15, 2014, 02:59:51 am »
...
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #61 on: July 15, 2014, 04:15:32 am »
T-50 Plz. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #63 on: December 19, 2014, 08:23:24 am »
Way to get your daily 500 words out of a non-response.


The interesting question is "will it be supersonic?" Otherwise, I'd call a dry F414EE and something like this...




Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 786
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #64 on: December 19, 2014, 08:32:17 am »
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141202/SHOWSCOUT17/312020026/Boeing-Official-T-X-Design-Won-t-Unveiled-Soon

I'd very much like an explanation of the concept of an "off-the-shelf custom design".  I assume it's like "jumbo shrimp".

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #65 on: December 19, 2014, 08:41:12 am »
I'd assume it means basically "One from Column A, one from Column B" --  all the components are off-the-shelf, but the way they are arranged is custom.  Whether that would extend to the airframe is anyone's guess. 

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #66 on: December 19, 2014, 09:23:53 am »
It probably means "a custom design with off-the-shelf parts", but I think we knew that already.


Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #67 on: December 19, 2014, 02:26:28 pm »
Not a bad theory, Scorpion could arguably be labeled as a custom offf-the-shelf design.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #68 on: February 05, 2015, 10:24:41 pm »
Northrop to develop a clean sheet design for the T-X program. I was shocked to learn that these aircraft will also have to serve as aggressor platforms as well.



Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #69 on: February 05, 2015, 10:53:57 pm »
Were we to assume that multiple bidders can come in close to each other in price/capabilities, T-X seeks to buy enough aircraft that it may offer a good opportunity. The DoD could hand a "stay in the game" contract to a company that is on the loosing end of the bomber competition. It wouldn't be a long term solution, but it should be able to keep the combat aircraft unit of a company like Boeing or Northrop together until the 6th gen fighter programs are at a more advanced stage. Which may help explain why those two are both working on clean-sheet designs rather than something off the shelf.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #70 on: February 06, 2015, 08:14:56 am »
Northrop to develop a clean sheet design for the T-X program. I was shocked to learn that these aircraft will also have to serve as aggressor platforms as well.

Looks like they tapped Scaled Composites for the T-X design, I wonder what innovative shape they will produce for their T-X proposal for Northrop Grumman?  :) Looks like T-X is shaping up to be an interesting competition with some clean sheet proposals.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2015, 08:18:15 am by Triton »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #71 on: February 06, 2015, 08:24:58 am »
Northrop to develop a clean sheet design for the T-X program. I was shocked to learn that these aircraft will also have to serve as aggressor platforms as well.

Looks like they tapped Scaled Composites for the T-X design, I wonder what innovative shape they will produce for their T-X proposal for Northrop Grumman?  :) Looks like T-X is shaping up to be an interesting competition with some clean sheet proposals.

From what i make from this article and others is that SC would be building the prototype. The design would most likely come form Northrop Grumman proper, form the teams they have that specialize in this area.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #72 on: February 06, 2015, 09:03:19 am »
From what i make from this article and others is that SC would be building the prototype. The design would most likely come form Northrop Grumman proper, form the teams they have that specialize in this area.

That's not the impression I got from the article, but your mileage may vary:

Quote
Scaled Composites, wholly owned by Northrop Grumman since its purchase in 2007, formed a small team to build a suitable aircraft from the ground up.

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/northrop-pivots-clean-sheet-t-x-trainer

I presume that this includes the design phase of the aircraft.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #73 on: February 06, 2015, 09:22:41 am »
Definitely appears that Scaled was asked to do the design, not just fabrication. 
 
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/02/northrop-secretly-building-jet-air-force-trainer-competition/104739/
 
Quote
“Our goal is not to win with a certain solution, our goal is to win with what the Air Force wants,” said Marc Lindsley, Northrop Grumman T-X director of programs.
 
Two years ago, Northrop tasked subsidiary Scaled Composites to come up with plans for a new plane. Scaled, as it’s often called, is the aerospace development company behind SpaceShipOne, the aircraft that flew the first manned private space flight in 2004.   
 
“Scaled’s ability to do things quickly, understand customer requirements and design the airplane, is complementary to Northrop as a designer and developer,” Lindsley said.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #74 on: February 06, 2015, 10:11:55 am »
Thanks guys...Stand corrected.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #75 on: February 06, 2015, 04:28:49 pm »
The cover of the new issue of Aviation Week shows what I assume to be the forward fuselage of the NG T-X design. I don't know if they have more images of it inside, since my issue never shows up until a couple of weeks after it's been released and every time I ask them to give me online access with my subscription, there isn't a reply.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1713
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #76 on: February 11, 2015, 10:32:08 am »
Aggressive, Not Aggressor.

Quote
The new T-X trainer's requirements don't call for it to be used as a future "Aggressor"-type aircraft, Air Education and Training Command requirements chief Brig. Gen. Dawn Dunlop told Air Force Magazine. Dunlop said AETC has incorporated into T-X the requirements of USAF major commands that now use the T-38 as a "companion trainer;" a function it performs for the B-2 and F-22 communities, but "we are not buying … a companion trainer.

See the link for the rest.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/February%202015/February%2012%202015/Aggressive,-Not-Aggressor.aspx



Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #77 on: February 11, 2015, 07:37:15 pm »
Aggressive, Not Aggressor.

Quote
The new T-X trainer's requirements don't call for it to be used as a future "Aggressor"-type aircraft, Air Education and Training Command requirements chief Brig. Gen. Dawn Dunlop told Air Force Magazine. Dunlop said AETC has incorporated into T-X the requirements of USAF major commands that now use the T-38 as a "companion trainer;" a function it performs for the B-2 and F-22 communities, but "we are not buying … a companion trainer.

More weasel words from the Air Force, as later in the article it states;
Quote
That said, "I hope we have built into our requirements the adaptability" that would allow the T-X to be applied to other, "future missions."

So it's not "designed for it initially," but it's a role they may want in the future, which means the airframe itself has to be initially designed for the role.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1713
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #78 on: February 12, 2015, 10:02:27 am »
Saab boss upbeat on T-X prospects with Boeing.

Quote
Saab chief executive Håkan Buskhe has provided a bullish assessment of the company’s prospects in pursuing the US Air Force’s future T-X trainer contract with its programme partner Boeing.

“I think we are strong partners,” says Buskhe. “We have set up criteria that we think we need to achieve to have a great chance of winning. Breaking the cost curve, increased performance – that’s something we’re working on.

“The work together and the co-operation with the Boeing company is going tremendously well,” he says, noting that “we have our team in St Louis, and they have people in Linköping”.

Rest on the link.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-boss-upbeat-on-t-x-prospects-with-boeing-408960/

Also this article.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/February%202015/February%2012%202015/T-X-Coming-Quick.aspx

« Last Edit: February 12, 2015, 10:13:34 am by Flyaway »

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1713
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #79 on: February 13, 2015, 10:18:46 am »
AFA 2015: USAF prepares to unveil T-X requirement.

Quote
Key Points
The USAF is preparing to release requirements for its Northrop T-38C Talon combat aircraft trainer replacement programme

Although the service's FY 2016 budget request includes funding for the T-X as an aggressor training system, officials insist that the USAF intends the system only as an advanced pilot training system

http://www.janes.com/article/48958/afa-2015-usaf-prepares-to-unveil-t-x-requirements

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Reaper

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #81 on: February 15, 2015, 05:25:38 am »
It should have two seats! But it's not a must!  ;)

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #82 on: February 15, 2015, 05:26:52 am »
Sounds like they want to scrub the requirement for the gremlins that add 10 per cent to the capability and 40 per cent to the cost. It also depends where the reqs were before they started the process.


Somehow, the rest of the world has gotten by without supersonic trainers. And even if you insist on supersonic, there's a difference between just that and wanting 7g sustained and M=1.5 for Aggressor missions. At that point, look at the cost of maintaining a dedicated Aggressor fleet versus making all your trainers 50 per cent bigger than most of the mission requires.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #83 on: February 15, 2015, 07:42:45 am »
The cover of the new issue of Aviation Week shows what I assume to be the forward fuselage of the NG T-X design. I don't know if they have more images of it inside, since my issue never shows up until a couple of weeks after it's been released and every time I ask them to give me online access with my subscription, there isn't a reply.
No more images of the NG T-X design are shown in the latest issue of AW&ST, February 16th to March 1st, 2015.  >:(
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #84 on: February 15, 2015, 02:09:50 pm »
February 9, 2015: Northrop Grumman unveils its new concept for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X fast-jet trainer for F-22 and F-35 pilots. The Northrop team—including BAE Systems and L-3 Communications—had been planning to use the BAE Hawk in its bid to replace T-38 trainers. But now, Northrop’s Scaled Composites unit is fabricating a prototype of a clean-sheet design.

Northrop Grumman/Scaled Composites artist’s concept.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2015, 02:11:30 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Tailspin Turtle

  • Naval Aviation Author
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 683
    • U.S. Navy Aircraft History
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #85 on: February 15, 2015, 02:47:40 pm »
That's odd. The print edition is dated 2-15 February.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #86 on: February 15, 2015, 03:28:57 pm »
Have NG kept BAE in the bid? I would have thought they would almost be surplus to requirements at this point?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2015, 03:39:53 pm »
That's odd. The print edition is dated 2-15 February.
More than that
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2015, 03:41:52 pm »
I've never seen these in real life as well
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Wahubna

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • EXPERIMENTAL-AB
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #89 on: March 10, 2015, 01:13:48 pm »
As a hard-core Scaled Composites fan I have to say my current unrealistic fantasy is the 2 seater ARES for T-X  ;D...no way that is it, but I bet Scaled (Rutan & Cory Bird specifically) have had something up there sleeve for a high performance light tactical jet for years after ARES...
To design an airplane is nothing
To build an airplane is something
To fly is everything

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #90 on: March 19, 2015, 09:21:40 pm »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #91 on: March 20, 2015, 06:47:40 am »
Also here (see the Requirements matrix):
 
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=36bbba77ca454a9464c1ed3ebc1fa8b1&tab=core&_cview=1
 
There's no specific speed requirement, but the instantaneous G requirement is 8g at 0.9 Mach.  Sustained is ≥6.5 (Threshold)/≥7.5 (Objective) at ≤0.9 Mach.  There doesn't seem to be anything demanding supersonic performance. 
 
Also, no requirement for real sensors, just simulated radar, targeting pod, and defensive countermeasures.  There is a section in one document asking for a description of how much work would be required to add real rather than simulated systems, but they don't seem interested in buying them up front. 
 

Offline Wahubna

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • EXPERIMENTAL-AB
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #92 on: March 20, 2015, 01:25:56 pm »
Ouch, those stats make the Scorpion seem less reasonable...
To design an airplane is nothing
To build an airplane is something
To fly is everything

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #93 on: March 21, 2015, 05:42:08 am »
T-X: $1 Billion a Year


Quote
The finalrequirements for the Air Force’s T-X trainer call for a fleet of 350 aircraft and a training system, including simulators and courseware, that can be bought and operated for $1 billion a year for 20 years, in base-year 2014 dollars. A contract is to be let in late 2017. The requirements are being released about 10 months earlier than usual acquisition procedures, meant to generate “more deliberate and open engagement with industry,” said Brig. Gen. Dawn Dunlop, Air Education and Training Command director of programs and requirements. Initial draft requirements were released in 2012. The jets will replace about 420 T-38s, which are now more than 50 years old. According to AETC, the period of operation for T-X is 2026-2045, with first deliveries due in 2022. The aircraft are to fly 360 hours a year, at a mission readiness rate of 80 percent. AETC has not limited the competition to “off the shelf” aircraft, and contractors are free to submit clean-sheet designs. Boeing and Northrop Grumman each are designing new jets for the T-X competition, and Lockheed Martin has a new design ready in case its offering of the Korean T-50 trainer, which it helped develop, doesn’t meet the requirements.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/March%202015/March%2023%202015/T-X-$1-Billion-a-Year.aspx
No Aggressor, But Built-In Adaptability


Quote
The requirements for the Air Force’s T-X trainer don’t call for the airplane to be capable of the aggressor mission, but the jet is to have sufficient space, weight, power, and cooling to accommodate that role in the future. Lt. Gen Tod Wolters, deputy chief of staff for operations, told the Senate Armed Services airland panel on March 19 that it’s “too early” to look at the T-X for the aggressor role, noting F-16s are doing the mission “most cost effectively” for the near-term. However, USAF may want to consider the T-X in the aggressor role “at some point.” William LaPlante, service acquisition executive, said USAF ensured the requirements didn’t “limit our options” regarding future T-X applications. Air Education and Training Command said March 20 there is $40 million across the future years defense plan under “stores-aircraft interface” “to provide future planning or development options related to T-X.” Gen. Robin Rand, AETC commander, said a T-X variant “is just one option for ‘Red Air’ if we decide there’s a requirement for it.” (LaPlante/Holmes prepared testimony)

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/March%202015/March%2023%202015/No-Aggressor,-But-Built-In-Adaptability.aspx
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 05:44:07 am by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #94 on: March 21, 2015, 06:38:37 am »
The AF seems very confused. The budget language doesn't talk about the "stores-aircraft interface" - which is specifically a TX version - solely or primarily as an Aggressor, but as a companion trainer for the F-35 (as F-22 squadrons use T-38s). It would have radar, datalink and jammer, and the argument for it is economic - the CTs would stand in for F-35s, particularly on multi-ship training operations.

The T-X performance would be adequate for most of that mission. I don't think the AF should even think of using it as an aggressor, however: it would probably blow the budget for acquisition and O&S. They should look around for someone who's going to be looking for a home for c.100 low-time, low-CPFH modern fighters in the 2020s.  :)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 06:48:45 am by LowObservable »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #95 on: May 22, 2015, 01:45:42 pm »
Program Overview Col Pete Eide
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #96 on: May 23, 2015, 02:47:37 pm »
As a hard-core Scaled Composites fan I have to say my current unrealistic fantasy is the 2 seater ARES for T-X  ;D ...no way that is it, but I bet Scaled (Rutan & Cory Bird specifically) have had something up there sleeve for a high performance light tactical jet for years after ARES...

Thanks for these ARES pics, especially the two-seater.

You described yourself as "a hard-core Scaled Composites fan"... that's cool. I'm always on the lookout for people who could assist me in updating my STARGAZER website more often (I'm busy with so many projects that I can't really keep up to date). In case you're interested I'd love to hear from you in a private message.

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1590
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #97 on: May 23, 2015, 10:04:53 pm »
Well from my perspective (for what its worth), I think its a great, but deserved indictment on the U.S. aviation industry and the USAF, that it can no longer build (I say build, as opposed to design) the USAF's 'T-X'.
My analogy comes down to the fact that hardly any aircraft program, let alone something as fundamentally basic as an efficient and cost effective training aircraft can be trusted too the U.S. aviation industry, what with their inherent ability to cause time and financial blow-outs! Granted the inability of the U.S. services to be able to derive, let alone stick to a program, without continuous changes, requirements and implementations.
But saying this I have always been a firm advocate that the Pentagon/U.S. Defence Industry/U.S. politics has been notorious in continuously being guilty for attempting to reinvent the wheel ('Not built in America' ideology) when it comes to weapons/weapons platforms, which are already available, built and tested, but alas by foreigners >:(   

Here's hoping that what ever...who ever the USAF selects to build its next gen of trainers, that it doesn't stick its finger in the ointment of the given design and turn it into an overly complex, overweight and of course as per all U.S. military programs - overly expensive platform which eventually gets cancelled!!  :o

Regards
Pioneer     
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #98 on: May 23, 2015, 10:54:45 pm »
I have some close-up pictures of a local T-38 pole model that really show the great lines of the aircraft. I was going to post a few if anybody is interested.


As far as its relpacement, shouldn't a "next generation" T-38/F-5/F-20 be more  or less what the Air Force should be wanting? Is the AF downplaying the Red Air option because it knows that a stealthy agressor is not financially possible? To have an effective training aircraft there must be some stealth built in to simulate those threats. It is interesting that Lockheed Skunkworks, and Scaled Composites/Northrop, and Boeing Saab are all offering new clean sheet designs. I personally am hoping for something very futuristic, 6th Gen almost. But there must be some real breakthroughs in cost and manufacturing methods to make it viable.

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 623
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2015, 03:42:42 am »
The general move is towards virtual / augmented reality training - so long as T-X can maneuver like a 4th / 5th gen fighter and has a half-decent cockpit design, they can then add the 'stealth' in later by having modelled the 3D RCS of aircraft either via real-world testing (for US aircraft), supplied data (from allies) and/or high-end RCS simulation, and then programming software to fake not being able to detect an aircraft until some distance, as dictated by aircraft attitude, simulated capabilities, etc.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #100 on: June 04, 2015, 08:58:56 am »
Teeing Up the T-X

Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #101 on: July 13, 2015, 12:16:37 pm »
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-reaffirms-ambitious-t-x-sustained-g-requirement-414531/


"The government wants to avoid a design that would be cost prohibitive to add AR capability in the future"

Right there you've all but eliminated all COTS solutions. None of the legacy trainers are designed for boom AR. Whereas you can bolt on a probe and drogue system, boom receptacles actually require lots of analysis and more importantly internal volume that is hard to find in a modern aircraft that does not have it built-in from the start. Scabbing on something externally will never be nearly as good.

So the "affordable" solution is a clean sheet design (with all the NRE costs associated), capable of 7.5g sustained (read: big wing and big engine). What a joke. The air force is addicted to gold-plating and requirement creep, and will spend itself into oblivion. Not that i am bitter or anything.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #102 on: July 13, 2015, 12:34:52 pm »
Speaking of. . .

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/04/205_135843.html

As for "gold plating", the T-38 wasn't exactly a cheap POS for it's day.  Secondly, what use would an aircraft be that couldn't actually train a pilot to use the aircraft they're going to be flying?  Is boom refueling something you really want to learn OJT?

« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 12:38:16 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #103 on: July 13, 2015, 01:12:34 pm »
More and more interesting.


The operative word is "downloading".

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #104 on: July 13, 2015, 01:45:43 pm »
More and more interesting.


The operative word is "downloading".

Elaborate.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #105 on: July 13, 2015, 02:03:21 pm »
Taking training tasks off the fighter and moving them to the trainer. It's influenced by the relative costs of each. You could see it as parallel to the 1950s, when most of the Century series looked very big and expensive, so a supersonic trainer seemed to make sense.


Lack of a two-seat option is another factor. It saves you $$ on the fighter side and means you're not carrying less-capable two-seaters on the squadron but also eliminates a training tool.





Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #106 on: July 13, 2015, 02:43:33 pm »
Speaking of. . .

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/04/205_135843.html

As for "gold plating", the T-38 wasn't exactly a cheap POS for it's day.  Secondly, what use would an aircraft be that couldn't actually train a pilot to use the aircraft they're going to be flying?  Is boom refueling something you really want to learn OJT?


No, but it's not outlandish to think that you could have an OML-conformal but non-functional receptacle that could do everything but the actual transfer of fuel. At any rate the flight handling characteristics of the platform you will end up flying operationally (F-22, F-35, F/A-XX, etc.) will be different from those of T-X, so flight training is always only representative up to some point. I guess that ground simulation takes care of the rest. Not to belittle the flying skills required, but the presence of a boom operator considerably eases the burden of the receiving platform compared to probe and drogue.


For obvious reasons, it's in the AF's interest to have as large a user base as possible. It is safe to say that the T-X emerging from the current requirements will be more expensive than T-50, Hawk, M346. Other nations may find that their needs are not as exacting as those for T-X and will not elect to buy it.


My point is: the AF is traditionally very poor at picking 80/20 solutions. How does that maxim go again? "It's the last 10% of the capabilities that net 50% of the total cost"?


Let's make an absurd example - just humor me. If i were to tell you that removing the AR capability from T-X would save enough money to buy six more F-22s (from a magically restarted production line), wouldn't you think about it? You can come up with scenarios of your own.
My view is that the acquisition budget is a zero-sum game, and "exquisite" capabilities should be carefully required only where necessary, because inevitably it means you won't be able to afford something you might need just as bad if not more. My .02.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Bill Walker

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 482
  • Per Ardua ad Nauseum
    • Canadian Military aircraft Serial Numbers
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #107 on: July 13, 2015, 10:31:34 pm »

No, but it's not outlandish to think that you could have an OML-conformal but non-functional receptacle that could do everything but the actual transfer of fuel.

I think France did this for their Mirage 4 training, using non-functioning nose mounted re-fueling booms on Mirage IIIs for pilot training in connecting to a tanker.
Bill Walker

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #108 on: July 13, 2015, 10:36:47 pm »
I'm hoping this is a true f-5/t-38 size aircraft with a novel wing, small powerful engines, lightweight, maybe some thrust vector paddles or fluidic thrust vector, small levcons, pelikan tail. Minimal sensors eventually small radar or IR sensor, a simplified helmet sight or display. Maybe Saab will help keep costs down. Hoping for a great plane like t-38 that wont suffer from "f-35itis" but I don't know if that is possible today seeing how the contractors and Air Force have been doing business.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #109 on: July 14, 2015, 04:58:48 am »
Speaking of. . .

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2015/04/205_135843.html

As for "gold plating", the T-38 wasn't exactly a cheap POS for it's day.  Secondly, what use would an aircraft be that couldn't actually train a pilot to use the aircraft they're going to be flying?  Is boom refueling something you really want to learn OJT?


No, but it's not outlandish to think that you could have an OML-conformal but non-functional receptacle that could do everything but the actual transfer of fuel. At any rate the flight handling characteristics of the platform you will end up flying operationally (F-22, F-35, F/A-XX, etc.) will be different from those of T-X, so flight training is always only representative up to some point. I guess that ground simulation takes care of the rest. Not to belittle the flying skills required, but the presence of a boom operator considerably eases the burden of the receiving platform compared to probe and drogue.


For obvious reasons, it's in the AF's interest to have as large a user base as possible. It is safe to say that the T-X emerging from the current requirements will be more expensive than T-50, Hawk, M346. Other nations may find that their needs are not as exacting as those for T-X and will not elect to buy it.


My point is: the AF is traditionally very poor at picking 80/20 solutions. How does that maxim go again? "It's the last 10% of the capabilities that net 50% of the total cost"?


Let's make an absurd example - just humor me. If i were to tell you that removing the AR capability from T-X would save enough money to buy six more F-22s (from a magically restarted production line), wouldn't you think about it? You can come up with scenarios of your own.
My view is that the acquisition budget is a zero-sum game, and "exquisite" capabilities should be carefully required only where necessary, because inevitably it means you won't be able to afford something you might need just as bad if not more. My .02.

I think they should have just gone with the T-50 and called it good.  (Of course you'd have everybody else freaking out because their jet didn't get picked, and trying to blame the evil "MIC"/LM cabal for the fact that their own entries were subsonic, minimally performing trainers, so we'd still be right back here most likely after the dust settled from all the lawsuits.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #110 on: July 14, 2015, 05:40:43 am »
the fact that their own entries were subsonic, minimally performing trainers

I would not make that assumption.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #111 on: July 14, 2015, 05:56:24 am »
the fact that their own entries were subsonic, minimally performing trainers

I would not make that assumption.

Aside from the T-50 which other off-the-shelf entry was a supersonic design?  And by "minimally performing" I'm not talking T-37 levels of performance, just that they're subsonic <7G designs.  Perhaps "minimally performing" is a bit harsh. 
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 06:02:31 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #112 on: July 14, 2015, 06:35:57 am »
The M346 is certainly not "minimally performing", Boeing was in there with a new design by 2009, and there is still no supersonic requirement.


What the USAF may get is T-50 performance at lower cost, which is not at all bad given the evolving need.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #113 on: July 14, 2015, 06:49:48 am »
What the USAF may get is T-50 performance at lower cost, which is not at all bad given the evolving need.

If they can make a NEW design that has T-50 performance at a lower cost than buying off-the-shelf I'd be astonished.  It would be a pleasant surprise but I'm not holding my breath.

Re. supersonic/subsonic, you're right.  For some reason I had it stuck in my head that that was a requirement.  (I could see the lawyers of the losing side salivating at the T-50's supersonic performance if it happened to win though.  They'd accuse the USAF of being dishonest because it selected an aircraft that happened to be supersonic when they said it wasn't a requirement.)
« Last Edit: July 14, 2015, 06:54:58 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #114 on: July 14, 2015, 07:07:42 am »
Exactly. In fact, it makes the whole requirement/source selection process much easier when you don't know in advance what each contender is bringing to the party and that all three are very different (as you did with a T-50/M346/Hawk contest).


The T-50 is in many ways a mini-F-16 designed in the 1990s, with a 1970s engine. Lots of scope for cost reduction.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #115 on: July 28, 2015, 01:14:48 pm »
Quote from: Amy Butler ‏@ABAviationWeek
#Boeing exec: #TX trainer demonstrator to fly by end of next year.
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #116 on: July 28, 2015, 01:53:29 pm »
Hey how about a picture in the meantime, Boeing?

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #117 on: July 28, 2015, 02:06:07 pm »
Boeing TX

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #118 on: July 28, 2015, 02:57:29 pm »
this is an old picture..not sure if this was after they partnered with saab or not.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #119 on: July 28, 2015, 04:57:08 pm »
this is an old picture..not sure if this was after they partnered with saab or not.


That was before SAAB. I wonder if this T-X demonstrator is tied in with the Black Diamond demonstration program, or partially a result of it? Isn't the NG-Scaled Composites version supposed to roll out later this year?

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #120 on: July 28, 2015, 07:24:17 pm »
It's a subscriber article but AvWeek says Alenia is getting back in with a new US production partner.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #121 on: July 29, 2015, 02:54:14 am »
Yup, the plan the media reported was by the end of this year.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #122 on: July 29, 2015, 11:15:20 am »
Boeing announced today that the their T-X will fly by the end of next year ...(Amy Butler @ Twitter )
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #123 on: July 29, 2015, 05:49:49 pm »
Boeing announced today that the their T-X will fly by the end of next year ...(Amy Butler @ Twitter )

Edit/Correction: In there recent article AvWeek quotes boeing officials :

Quote
Meanwhile, Boeing and Saab could fly their T-X advanced trainer demonstrator before the end of the year, says Debbie Rub, Boeing vice-president for global strike. She said on July 28 that the company’s T-X demonstrator is close to its first flight. “Can I say we will fly next year?” she asked, glancing at public relations officials during the question-and-answer session of a briefing on strike programs in St. Charles, Missouri. “We will fly this year or we will fly the year after,” she added. “We want to win. We have a partnership with a great company, Saab, [and] we will do what it takes to win.”

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-prepares-t-x-first-flight-competition-intensifies
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #124 on: July 29, 2015, 09:45:33 pm »
Really looking forward to the possibilities of the TX. Something very forward thinking and cost effective. Boeing/Saab seem very confident at this point also looking forward to what Grumman has up their sleeve.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #125 on: July 30, 2015, 03:19:19 am »
Well the year end should be exciting with both Boeing/Saab, and Northrop Grumman revealing their versions :)..
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Reaper

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #126 on: July 30, 2015, 12:57:55 pm »
If the want to fly something soon and the partnered with Saab not so long ago + they didnt really know any requirements then it cant be a clean sheet design, but a tweak of an existing plane e.g. T-Gripen!?

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #127 on: July 30, 2015, 04:43:40 pm »
If the want to fly something soon and the partnered with Saab not so long ago + they didnt really know any requirements then it cant be a clean sheet design, but a tweak of an existing plane e.g. T-Gripen!?


No, it's a clean sheet design. Go check out the information on the Black Diamond program.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #128 on: July 30, 2015, 06:39:45 pm »
Just some theorizing here, but: we know that Boeing fighter development is searching for a reason to exist, the abortive efforts at Silent Eagle and Silent Hornet haven't taken flight. We also know that the US military is worried about the exploding timelines for fighter programs. Finally, there are strong hints that the US Navy is not fully pleased with the F-35C. (And perhaps the USN isn't happy waiting till 2030 for a F/A-18E replacement.)

Putting those three together, might Boeing use the T-X program to demonstrate a breakthrough fighter design capability? And, if that is the case, could Boeing then try and pitch that as a sign that a new fighter program can happen in a radically shorter period of time?

Food for thought.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #129 on: July 30, 2015, 07:57:41 pm »
Quote
Putting those three together, might Boeing use the T-X program to demonstrate a breakthrough fighter design capability? And, if that is the case, could Boeing then try and pitch that as a sign that a new fighter program can happen in a radically shorter period of time?

No  :)
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2269
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #130 on: July 30, 2015, 09:22:51 pm »
In my eyes the T-X could easily be a dual-controlled F-16D. Look at the $ it would save the U.S. taxpayers. -SP
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1307
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #131 on: July 31, 2015, 02:21:21 am »
In my eyes the T-X could easily be a dual-controlled F-16D. Look at the $ it would save the U.S. taxpayers. -SP

Make use of existing airframes, save money...that's just crazy talk.
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #132 on: July 31, 2015, 04:05:55 pm »
In my eyes the T-X could easily be a dual-controlled F-16D. Look at the $ it would save the U.S. taxpayers. -SP


I actually said that a while ago. Put a derated engine in it, so it has even longer life and place simpler avionics in it; i.e., not all of the weapons systems. Perhaps systems like they're thinking of for the T-X program to keep costs down. Plus, it has the added bonus of the support infrastructure already existing for the airframe.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #133 on: August 01, 2015, 06:52:05 am »
The problem is that the requirement calls for 360h/PAA/year. There aren't that many two-place F-16s with that much life left. And unless you chop the burner off you have a noisy airplane.


DrR - I don't think it makes a fighter, per se - although you might have a CAS platform as the migration to smaller and more accurate weapons continues. But Boeing could certainly use it as a demonstrator of how the new Black Diamond ManTech suite applies to a combat-type airframe, and if they could reduce development cost, steepen the learning curve and cut manufacture costs, it would reduce the F-35's incumbency advantage.

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2269
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #134 on: August 01, 2015, 08:37:08 am »
The problem is that the requirement calls for 360h/PAA/year. There aren't that many two-place F-16s with that much life left. And unless you chop the burner off you have a noisy airplane.


DrR - I don't think it makes a fighter, per se - although you might have a CAS platform as the migration to smaller and more accurate weapons continues. But Boeing could certainly use it as a demonstrator of how the new Black Diamond ManTech suite applies to a combat-type airframe, and if they could reduce development cost, steepen the learning curve and cut manufacture costs, it would reduce the F-35's incumbency advantage.
They would have to be new-build F-16Ds. -SP
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #135 on: August 01, 2015, 09:56:38 am »
That would get you into a CPFH realm that you wouldn't want to be in.

Offline DrRansom

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 512
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #136 on: August 01, 2015, 01:46:10 pm »


DrR - I don't think it makes a fighter, per se - although you might have a CAS platform as the migration to smaller and more accurate weapons continues. But Boeing could certainly use it as a demonstrator of how the new Black Diamond ManTech suite applies to a combat-type airframe, and if they could reduce development cost, steepen the learning curve and cut manufacture costs, it would reduce the F-35's incumbency advantage.

The latter part was my point. Boeing faces a psychological problem that new start aircraft is seen as a two decade endeavor. Could Boeing demonstrate a radically faster new development timeline which may entice the Navy to accelerate F/A-XX?

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #137 on: August 01, 2015, 02:59:48 pm »
I don't think that the DOD will be comfortable with having just one fighter-supplier for the F-35 and whatever follows it. Boeing, or perhaps Northrop Grumman should get significant work as a Prime on at least one of the future tactical platforms, regardless of whether they get anything meaningful out of the 'black-diamond' effort.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #138 on: August 01, 2015, 05:27:33 pm »
Even without avionics and with a derated engine, I think you'd be hard pressed to get an F-16's operating costs down to the necessary levels.  A T-38 costs around a third as much as an F-16 per flight hour and T-X likely needs to be in the same ballpark as the T-38 to hit the overall O&S cost target.

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #139 on: August 01, 2015, 10:56:28 pm »
When the t-38 came out it was very cutting edge and cost efficient I.e. its small lightweight engines and efficient design. The t-x will be very advanced as well. Some of the efficient tooling and materials that Boeing used in the BOP, maybe some type of moldable cured airframe structure to reduce weight and cost and some never before used manufacturing methods for very fast and lightweight assembly.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #142 on: September 17, 2015, 08:15:10 am »
Boeing/SAAB T-X
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #143 on: September 17, 2015, 08:15:46 am »
Northrop Grumman T-X
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #144 on: September 17, 2015, 08:59:05 am »
SO IT DOES HAVE A COCKPIT!  ;D
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #145 on: September 17, 2015, 11:00:44 am »
 ;D

It does show us that it's 1) subsonic and 2) not very stealthy.  Which is exactly what you would expect based on the KPPs in the T-X RFP.


Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #146 on: September 17, 2015, 03:44:44 pm »
Well, DOYY.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #147 on: September 17, 2015, 05:14:43 pm »
Holy crap, they're building the same airplane. One just has a slightly different radome radius than the other. Hey Boeing SAAB and NG, thanks for revealing the designs would have a nose and a two place tandem cockpit, we would have never guessed that! ::)

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #148 on: September 17, 2015, 05:16:51 pm »
Hey Boeing-Saab and Northrop Grumman! You're such a tease!  ;)

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #149 on: September 17, 2015, 05:31:09 pm »
Hey Boeing-Saab and Northrop Grumman! You're such a tease!  ;)


A T-X strip tease war? See who reveals a little more first? ;)

Offline kagemusha

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 42

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #151 on: September 18, 2015, 05:24:09 am »
This competition is a farce.

T-50, M-346 or an advanced Hawk / Goshawk and have done with it.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #152 on: September 18, 2015, 08:30:50 am »
I agree it will be difficult to amortize the NRE costs with clean sheet designs, unless they sell several hundreds, including to foreign countries. Those probably won't need a 'Cadillac' of a trainer for their own needs.
My .02 is that 80% of the capability at low risk and lower cost is a good proposition.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #153 on: September 18, 2015, 10:24:12 am »
It does seem the T-50 could meet the performance specs, but I don't know what they're looking for in terms of the "system." But Boeings Black Diamond program could be a game changer, if everything we're hearing about it is true.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2015, 10:26:11 am by Sundog »

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #154 on: September 18, 2015, 11:09:31 am »
You have a large production run over which to amortize development, and a relatively huge lifetime operating cost, so the key is to achieve a CPFH edge over the T-50 or M-346. I don't think that's impossible, particularly if there's no supersonic requirement. For instance, if you wrapped a new LP system around a CF34 core you'd have an engine that might barely ever need to come off the wing. Then think of COTS avionics, digital HUDs and so on.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #155 on: September 18, 2015, 12:53:49 pm »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline kagemusha

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #156 on: September 18, 2015, 02:21:26 pm »
 :D

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #157 on: September 19, 2015, 01:46:17 am »
The Northrop Grumman entry reminds me a lot of the Cessna 526 CitationJet for JPATS.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #158 on: September 20, 2015, 03:19:23 pm »
Hopefully Northrop Grumman do a proper rollout...
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Rhinocrates

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #159 on: December 11, 2015, 06:04:06 pm »
Brief peek of Northrop Grumman's T-X. No pictures allowed and only ninety seconds sight of a model plus a claim that the design's moved on a bit anyway.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-grumman-offers-sneak-peek-of-full-t-x-conce-420004/

In essence though: strong resemblance to a T-38, chine running back from the nose, cheek inlets, conventional tail. No mention of the number of engines.

If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #160 on: December 11, 2015, 09:31:37 pm »
Brief peek of Northrop Grumman's T-X. No pictures allowed and only ninety seconds sight of a model plus a claim that the design's moved on a bit anyway.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-grumman-offers-sneak-peek-of-full-t-x-conce-420004/

In essence though: strong resemblance to a T-38, chine running back from the nose, cheek inlets, conventional tail. No mention of the number of engines.

That makes me think of many of the early designs that were in the transition from F-5 to P-600 (YF-17/P630) design lineage.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #161 on: December 12, 2015, 02:07:40 am »
I know T-X is not foremost a marketing exercise, but if they're running the cloak and dagger routine but have an aircraft which doesn't match the hype at first look, they're just setting up a whole bunch of "meh" reactions from the defense press. I don't mean to single out NG, the Boeing-SAAB team seems to be running a similar play.

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #162 on: December 12, 2015, 05:07:44 am »
What hype? It is a trainer, so it won't look super exciting or futuristic like YF-23.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #163 on: December 12, 2015, 02:26:09 pm »
A T-38 is an evolved design. The shark-nose mod works to inhibit directional slice. Why not just increase the wing area and put on a single-engine back end?

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #164 on: December 12, 2015, 04:35:55 pm »
What hype? It is a trainer, so it won't look super exciting or futuristic like YF-23.
I think that's the point I was trying to make, and poorly. The "big reveal" is sorta pointless when you're talking T-X, barring a truly out-there design, yet B-S and NG are both playing games with teaser images and "no pictures allowed" press events. Seems like a waste, especially when they finally pull back the cover and the reaction is "....and?"

Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 244
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #165 on: December 13, 2015, 02:03:28 am »
what are the odds it is a single engine bird, mostly based on f-20?
www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline flanker

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 827
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #166 on: December 13, 2015, 07:01:53 am »
It is built and developed by Scaled Composites, right? So i dont think any similarities to F-20 and T-38 will be because T-X is developed from them but rather because of convergent design.
Push the envelope,watch it bend.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #167 on: December 13, 2015, 08:32:56 am »
I wonder whats going on with Boeing/SAAB's design. They had earlier stated that they expect to fly by the year end.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #168 on: December 13, 2015, 09:12:05 am »
I'd bet on a single-engine aircraft. Most likely a nonreheat F414.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10958
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #169 on: December 13, 2015, 09:28:04 am »
F414 is high on the fuel consumption for a trainer. Bypass ratio a bit low. Will increase cost per flight hour surely?
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #170 on: December 13, 2015, 09:45:04 am »
F414 is high on the fuel consumption for a trainer. Bypass ratio a bit low. Will increase cost per flight hour surely?

I'd imagine it would still be an improvement on the J85s.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #171 on: December 13, 2015, 10:18:26 am »
F414 is high on the fuel consumption for a trainer. Bypass ratio a bit low. Will increase cost per flight hour surely?

They could be using a modified fan to optimize the bypass required based on the program specs. Although, that would of course add costs. Unless there is something already developed in that regard, used on other programs that we don't know about. Of course, if the designs being offered by NG and BS are supersonic capable, you don't want too much bypass. It sounds to me like the NG plane is supersonic, at least based off of the description given.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 10:20:13 am by Sundog »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #172 on: December 13, 2015, 10:31:03 am »
what are the odds it is a single engine bird, mostly based on f-20?

That would surely vindicate the F-20 and its proponents! It's unlikely though that they would go and revive a 30-year-old design, but it could certainly resemble it pretty much in configuration, dimension and purpose.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #173 on: December 13, 2015, 03:22:56 pm »
F414 is high on the fuel consumption for a trainer. Bypass ratio a bit low. Will increase cost per flight hour surely?

They could be using a modified fan to optimize the bypass required based on the program specs. Although, that would of course add costs. Unless there is something already developed in that regard, used on other programs that we don't know about. Of course, if the designs being offered by NG and BS are supersonic capable, you don't want too much bypass. It sounds to me like the NG plane is supersonic, at least based off of the description given.

I'm assuming they want very good SFC at transonic as T-X will probably eventually replace the DRFM equipped Gulfstream aircraft.

This in turn might suggest the use of one of the many new bizjet powerplants that are flying today.

Offline PaulMM (Overscan)

  • Secret Projects Forum Founder
  • Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • *****
  • Posts: 10958
  • Paul Martell-Mead
    • Secret Projects
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #174 on: December 13, 2015, 03:36:16 pm »
I would use an afterburning version of an off the shelf bizjet engine for a supersonic trainer. It allows supersonic flight when needed without the complexity of optimising for supercruise and fuel efficency the other 98% of the time.
"They can't see our arses for dust."
 
- Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #175 on: December 13, 2015, 06:47:51 pm »
I would use an afterburning version of an off the shelf bizjet engine for a supersonic trainer. It allows supersonic flight when needed without the complexity of optimising for supercruise and fuel efficency the other 98% of the time.

There are also a few new more powerful bizjet engines just coming out as well. However, I wonder if they would have to modify them for the sustained g-loading requirements?

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #176 on: December 14, 2015, 09:13:41 am »
I'd have thought that business jet engines would have too high a bypass ratio for an advanced trainer. Good for fuel consumption, not so good for bare thrust/weight, really not good for overall airplane weight and drag (because of inlet and duct size/weight/volume and impact on cross section). On the other hand, a civil core with a scaled F414-like LP system could be attractive in terms of LCC.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #177 on: December 14, 2015, 09:20:55 am »
Would T-X be the right size for an F125XX, using reheat for the most demanding corner of the envelope?  Or would the burner add too much complexity?  The M346 uses a pair of unreaheated F124s, so that might also be an option.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #178 on: December 14, 2015, 02:02:41 pm »
A little small, I'd have thought, although Eidetics talked many years ago about retrofitting T-38s with a new back end and a single F125.

The great thing about a T-38/F-5 is that you can pretty much unbolt any part of the airplane and replace it with a new or modified bit.

Offline CiTrus90

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #179 on: December 15, 2015, 01:29:27 am »
Brief peek of Northrop Grumman's T-X. No pictures allowed and only ninety seconds sight of a model plus a claim that the design's moved on a bit anyway.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-grumman-offers-sneak-peek-of-full-t-x-conce-420004/

In essence though: strong resemblance to a T-38, chine running back from the nose, cheek inlets, conventional tail. No mention of the number of engines.

I'll go out on a limb and say it will be a twin engine, and it will look somewhat like this ;D

P.S.
And, if this is really the case, Boeing-Saab will have an easy win.

Regards
Regards.

L. Landino

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #180 on: December 15, 2015, 04:00:11 am »
Brief peek of Northrop Grumman's T-X. No pictures allowed and only ninety seconds sight of a model plus a claim that the design's moved on a bit anyway.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/northrop-grumman-offers-sneak-peek-of-full-t-x-conce-420004/

In essence though: strong resemblance to a T-38, chine running back from the nose, cheek inlets, conventional tail. No mention of the number of engines.

I'll go out on a limb and say it will be a twin engine, and it will look somewhat like this ;D

P.S.
And, if this is really the case, Boeing-Saab will have an easy win.

Regards

However, the model indicates Northrop’s offering would be a low-wing, single-engine aircraft with side-mounted inlets and a conventional horizontal and vertical tail.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/northrop-offers-sneak-peek-t-x-concept
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #181 on: December 15, 2015, 09:16:50 am »
A little small, I'd have thought, although Eidetics talked many years ago about retrofitting T-38s with a new back end and a single F125.

The great thing about a T-38/F-5 is that you can pretty much unbolt any part of the airplane and replace it with a new or modified bit.

Per the ever-reliable Wikipedia  ;) , the F124XX was proposed at 48 kN, versus 53 kN for the dry thrust of the F404-102 in the T-50.  The afterburning F125XX gets up to 73 kN reheated, compared to 78.7 kN reheated for the F404-102.  That would adequately power an aircraft somewhat lighter than the T-50.  Since T-X has basically no requirement for real rather than virtual armament or sensors, a clean-sheet design could be lighter than the T-50.  I can see it working.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #182 on: December 15, 2015, 09:49:12 am »
Well - Just recently found this very interesting forum.  I've been enjoying reading the
thoughtful, reasoned and experienced comments.  Mine are none of those.  I just like
airplanes.

Perhaps NG has a good shot at this T-X program.  My thoughts on why.
In no particular order...

1.  Future training requirements will probably not be greater than current released
     1A - 6.5-7G sustained etc
     1B - Heavy focus on sensor management

2.  NG is building the fuselage for the F-35 including sensor integration, the latest high production fighter aircraft being built.
     2a.  This gives them information on design-to-build difficulties
     2b.  They know the platform for a good portion of the training requirement - F35/F22
     2c.  They provide a significant portion of the sensor/communications package

3.  They've invested heavily and actually learned a great deal working with Kuka on their Integrated Assembly Line for F35.
     3a.  Current production time is 3days for fuselage and expect down to 1d in ~1.5years
     3b.  Partnered with Kuka for T-X

4.  Developed the F-20 - Familiarity with airframes in this performance envelope. 
     4a.  F-20 very similar to T-50/F16
     4b.  F-20 performance envelope exceeds USAF requirements (on a limb here)
     4c.  Integrated the F404 engine into the F-20.
     4d.  F414 fits in the same footprint as the F404.

So given the design envelope defined by USAF...

     very similar to F-20 capabilities
     
with NG's current assets...

     Scaled Composites - rapid prototype + low rate initial production capability
     IAL experience to understand and produce production cost savings
     Sensor and other systems currently provided for F35
     F35 fuselage build experience
     Stealth coatings experience for RQ-180 and upgrades for B2
     Passive stealth design experience for RQ-180 as relates to sensor suite for training

this could be a pretty hot little beast.

Model suggests a single engine solution.  The F-20 was designed around the F404
used in the F-18.  The current F404 replacement is the F414 which is in the 22k pound
thrust class - quite a bit of increase from T-38 but suspect the platform will be marginally
larger. The F414 might allow this design to supercruise at Mach 1.2 as that's what's
expected from the Gripen with the same engine.

I'm not good with photoshop but perhaps someone else is?   I'd like to see what this
platform looks like.

Perhaps the flattened nose-on profile with chine design from the F/A-XX,

http://nationalinterest.org/files/images/NGAD%25202.jpg

with the conventional backend suggested in the model much like the Tigershark?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/F-20_flying.jpg/1024px-F-20_flying.jpg

Just my wishful thinking.


« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 09:51:30 pm by NeilChapman »

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #183 on: December 15, 2015, 07:51:33 pm »
Courtesy of AIAA, you can now play along at home.

« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 07:53:48 pm by marauder2048 »

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #184 on: December 17, 2015, 01:50:43 am »
​PICTURES: KAI, Lockheed rollout T-X prototype




Quote
17 DECEMBER, 2015 BY: GREG WALDRON SINGAPORE
Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has revealed the prototype that will form the basis of Lockheed Martin’s bid for the US Air Force’s T-X next generation trainer competition.

Based on the T-50 family of trainer/light fighter aircraft, the company’s “T-X demonstrator aircraft” will conduct ground and flight tests in 2016, says KAI in an email to Flightglobal. In 2017, KAI plans flight tests in the USA.

The aircraft features several new features, including a large area display (LAD), embedded training systems, and an aerial refuelling capability.Aesthetically, the most striking change from the original T-50 is the addition of a large dorsal hump.

The original T-50, along with its variants, was developed via technology transfer from Lockheed Martin with offsets related to South Korea’s large F-16 fleet.

The lucrative T-X competition has always been a major objective of the T-50 programme, which is a source of great national pride in South Korea. The country's president Park Geun-hye was in attendance at the rollout ceremony.

The winner of the T-X competition will eventually replace the 55-year old Northrop T-38 Talon, which has served as the USAF’s advanced jet trainer since the 1960s. The procurement could reach up to 350 units.The appearance of the Lockheed/KAI T-X technology demonstrator is notable in that it makes the Lockheed/KAI team the first competitor to show its hand. Over the years KAI and Lockheed have displayed models at air shows of a baseline T-50 with T-X markings.

The other T-X competitors are Northrop Grumman, Boeing (which is teaming with Saab) and Alenia Aermacchi.

On 12 December, Northrop Grumman grudgingly allowed journalists to a view of a model of its planned offering for the requirement, but allowed no photographs. Days later in an interview with Flightglobal, Boeing Phantom Works president Darryl Davis refused to provide any more details about the US firm’s planned clean-sheet offering with Saab.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #185 on: December 17, 2015, 07:15:58 am »
That's a big hump for the AAR receptacle. How many AAR sorties they will add to the syllabus? And how many AAR sorties that will lop off the fighter-conversion program?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #186 on: December 17, 2015, 07:19:32 am »
That's a big hump for the AAR receptacle. How many AAR sorties they will add to the syllabus? And how many AAR sorties that will lop off the fighter-conversion program?

How many do they need to do to justify it?  2?  14?  27?   Obviously they felt it was a useful skill to train for so whether they add 5 or 50 makes no difference.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline CiTrus90

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #187 on: December 17, 2015, 07:51:58 am »
It's a FAT-50...

...and i don't mean FAT as a Fighter/Attack/Trainer acronym ;D

The renderings circling around on the net were way more aesthetically pleasing, to be honest.

Regards.
Regards.

L. Landino

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #188 on: December 17, 2015, 08:29:14 am »
Wonder if it's still supersonic.  IIRC the standard T-50 can reach Mach 1.5.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #189 on: December 17, 2015, 08:34:34 am »
I'm sure it is.  There are much larger humps on other aircraft, like the F-16 with CFTs, and they don't seem to do terrible things to speed.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #190 on: December 17, 2015, 09:41:15 am »
That's a big hump for the AAR receptacle. How many AAR sorties they will add to the syllabus? And how many AAR sorties that will lop off the fighter-conversion program?

How many do they need to do to justify it?  2?  14?  27?   Obviously they felt it was a useful skill to train for so whether they add 5 or 50 makes no difference.

I was thinking they just stashed the jammer (or other EW gear) there as well. There's precedence for that.

Offline Reaper

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #191 on: December 17, 2015, 09:59:09 am »
Not that pretty!

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #192 on: December 17, 2015, 10:03:04 am »
Why do you need a jammer? That's what LVC is for.

Obviously, too, there is a weight/cost penalty to be paid for the receptacle. And (DOYYY) of course it's a necessary skill, but you're still going to be flying AAR training sorties when you move on to your F-22/F-35/C-17/LRSB or whatever, so the value of the training resides mostly (I'd say entirely) on the ability to "download" some of those sorties to the cheaper trainer.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 10:08:36 am by LowObservable »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #193 on: December 17, 2015, 10:35:47 am »
Why do you need a jammer? That's what LVC is for.

Obviously, too, there is a weight/cost penalty to be paid for the receptacle. And (DOYYY) of course it's a necessary skill, but you're still going to be flying AAR training sorties when you move on to your F-22/F-35/C-17/LRSB or whatever, so the value of the training resides mostly (I'd say entirely) on the ability to "download" some of those sorties to the cheaper trainer.

I'd think you'd want your new pilot's first aerial refueling experience to NOT be in one of your expensive front line jets.  YMMV.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #194 on: December 17, 2015, 10:53:01 am »
Why do you need a jammer? That's what LVC is for.



From the FY2016 Air Force RDT&E document Vol II (emphasis mine)

"T-X aircraft to serve as a "Red Air" adversary or aggressor capability for 5th generation fighter aircraft.  A version of the T-X equipped with radar/data-link and hard-points for
weapons and jammer carriage is envisioned for this role"


Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2043
  • I am not actually here.
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #195 on: December 17, 2015, 11:20:55 am »

From the FY2016 Air Force RDT&E document Vol II (emphasis mine)

"T-X aircraft to serve as a "Red Air" adversary or aggressor capability for 5th generation fighter aircraft.  A version of the T-X equipped with radar/data-link and hard-points for
weapons and jammer carriage is envisioned for this role"

Not necessarily a "jammer" but a "threat simulator".

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #196 on: December 17, 2015, 11:49:01 am »
Why do you need a jammer? That's what LVC is for.



From the FY2016 Air Force RDT&E document Vol II (emphasis mine)

"T-X aircraft to serve as a "Red Air" adversary or aggressor capability for 5th generation fighter aircraft.  A version of the T-X equipped with radar/data-link and hard-points for
weapons and jammer carriage is envisioned for this role"

That's odd, because the actual T-X requirements really downplay the need for anything beyond simulated sensors and weapons.

In any case, note they are talking about hardpoints for carriage of jammers -- meaning external podded systems on pylons, not internal jammers. 

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 268
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #197 on: December 17, 2015, 01:32:15 pm »
I noticed the demonstrator retains the cannon port on the port-side LERX. I wonder if the T-X as ultimately produced will retain the cannon, or if its appearance on the KAI/LockMart demonstrator is a vestigial remainder from the original T-50 airframe? 

Also, while it now features the new boom receptacle, has the T-X optimized T-50 been designed to actually to take on fuel? My understanding of the T-X requirement is that the operational airframe will require a receptacle for AAR training, but not necessarily the plumbing to actually take on fuel.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #198 on: December 17, 2015, 02:38:37 pm »
Why do you need a jammer? That's what LVC is for.



From the FY2016 Air Force RDT&E document Vol II (emphasis mine)

"T-X aircraft to serve as a "Red Air" adversary or aggressor capability for 5th generation fighter aircraft.  A version of the T-X equipped with radar/data-link and hard-points for
weapons and jammer carriage is envisioned for this role"

That's odd, because the actual T-X requirements really downplay the need for anything beyond simulated sensors and weapons.

In any case, note they are talking about hardpoints for carriage of jammers -- meaning external podded systems on pylons, not internal jammers.

I take your point but the provisioning for 30% electrical growth, 25% ECS growth and ~300 lbs of LRU expansion (along with the required roadmap for future antenna installations) just tells me a different story.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #199 on: December 17, 2015, 07:43:41 pm »
It's a different story but one that makes not a lot of sense. The point of LVC is to eliminate the use of real hardware and (importantly) real signals.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #200 on: December 17, 2015, 10:24:15 pm »
It's a different story but one that makes not a lot of sense. The point of LVC is to eliminate the use of real hardware and (importantly) real signals.

A good chunk of the Red Air stuff gets done over water where it's much harder for foreign intelligence services to park their ELINT vans.

The point of LVC is to save money; the "Lives" in LVC still emit (in part to train the larger number of V's) and unless they are all wearing Oculus Rift, C'ed complex WVR engagements aren't really doable.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #201 on: December 18, 2015, 02:23:56 am »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #202 on: December 18, 2015, 03:41:18 am »
I've certainly seen all kinds of virtual threats being brought up on HMDs - and again, don't quite see why RF signals should not be emulated.

And if foreign intelligence can get their SIGINT-configured Winnebagos close to inland ranges, I doubt if they'll have that hard of a time putting them on boats. (Trawlers, perhaps?)

Also - some illustrations now show that much of the bulge on the T-50 is a gas tank. That may point to a clean-sheet design being larger rather than smaller than the T-50.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #203 on: December 18, 2015, 07:27:33 am »
Why the extra fuel? Why should the trainer need longer legs than the attack version?
On a side note, the dorsal fin-fuel tank looks area ruled. There's a bulge right past the end of the wing to smooth out the overall change in cross-sectional area. If the Koreans did their homework, it may not increase transonic drag too much. It's still more wetted area and subsonic drag than a clean T-50 though.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2043
  • I am not actually here.
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #204 on: December 19, 2015, 12:12:05 am »
Why the extra fuel? Why should the trainer need longer legs than the attack version?


My understanding is that for the DACT mission the T-38/F-5 was good for simulating the MiG-21 but had very limited endurance.

Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #205 on: December 19, 2015, 06:32:48 am »
That would make it a high-fidelity MiG-21 simulator, wouldn't it?


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #207 on: December 19, 2015, 07:15:34 am »
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?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Flyaway

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1713
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #208 on: December 19, 2015, 01:40:32 pm »
Lockheed to reveal 'ultimate offering' for T-X next year

Quote
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.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-to-reveal-ultimate-offering-for-t-x-next-420225/

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #209 on: December 19, 2015, 07:43:14 pm »
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?

Then requirement matrix lays out the baseline--all simulated sensors, not actual ones.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #210 on: January 04, 2016, 03:37:31 pm »

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #211 on: January 04, 2016, 05:12:38 pm »
Just a story recap of the T-X program.

http://www.bidnessetc.com/60417-another-northrop-noclockheed-lmtboeing-ba-showdown-tx-trainer-program/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/31/is-koreas-new-fighter-jet-lockheed-martins-best-ho.aspx

This story indicates presumed pricing for several of the competitors...

"After all, at an estimated cost of $26 million, analysts predict Lockheed's offering will be one of the most expensive -- if not the most expensive -- T-X candidates. BAE's Hawk, in contrast, is expected to come in as much as 20% cheaper. And Textron's Scorpion is aiming to be cheapest of them all, with a sticker price below $20 million."

I can't find any source for these numbers.  Any ideas on where they came from?  If these numbers are available are there estimates - or how would one calculate cpfh for these designs?


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #212 on: January 05, 2016, 12:15:14 pm »
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.

Offline Steve Pace

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2269
  • Aviation History Writer
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #213 on: January 05, 2016, 01:37:58 pm »
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.
Points well taken. -SP
When you know you're right, go ahead.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #214 on: January 06, 2016, 05:58:20 am »
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.


Thanks Tom.

Have I read correctly that they don't want the T-X cpfh to be greater than the F16?  With some known cpfh is it possible to reverse engineer the price per unit based on a given engine etc?

Also, which cpfh definition is being used?  It seems like the AF cpfh consists of consumable supplies, aviation fuel and depot level repairable items while "program" cpfh includes development and acquisition costs.


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #215 on: January 06, 2016, 07:37:32 am »
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.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #216 on: January 06, 2016, 09:07:45 am »
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.

Ah...  Somehow I got that into my head.  Has the AF released the full requirements list?

Certainly less than half, in fact I think it's a third or less (4 vs 12-20k) depending on block etc.

Thanks much!


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #217 on: January 06, 2016, 11:48:56 am »
I'm never quite sure if this is all the requirements or just a summary.  But the Requirements matrix is the main document people are referring to.  It can be found on the FedBizOps page for the program:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8cacbf513fb4c944764d6e9dbed4c60f&tab=documents&tabmode=list


Online LowObservable

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2147
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #218 on: January 07, 2016, 04:55:30 am »
Maybe the idea is that since the T-38 CPFH is half the F-16, TX should be half the F-35.

AETC will love their Rafales!

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #219 on: January 07, 2016, 09:29:19 am »
It has to be difficult for the Primes.  The AF "seems" to know what they want but...  It seems that they really want to know what they can get.

Do the Primes have insight into what the AF is paying now for the ATP FoS? 

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #221 on: January 11, 2016, 10:34:13 pm »
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.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #222 on: January 12, 2016, 06:21:03 pm »
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.

The USAF could save time and  just buy some Saab Gripens...  Yes, that's a dig at Sweden's indigenous airplane! 

"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #223 on: January 19, 2016, 02:26:19 pm »

“We intend to fly the aircraft at a time which we believe aligns with the competition. So we will fly it when the competition dictates it,” Vice said. “Obviously we’re trying to hold on to the uniqueness of the design, but we will be flying that airplane probably in the first half of 2016.”

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2016/01/19/northrop-fly-t-x-prototype-year/78966566/

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2152
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #224 on: February 11, 2016, 09:25:26 am »
LM formally announced the T-50 for the TX competition.

http://www.combataircraft.net/view_article.asp?id=9435
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1307
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #225 on: February 11, 2016, 10:16:34 pm »
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.

+1000 on this comment.  The USAF could pick any one of a number of existing, off-the-shelf jet trainers and an have it *modestly* customized to simulate various current and future fighters, especially in terms of avionics.  It would not be the 100% solution, but it would be the 80-90% solute that would save millions, perhaps billions of dollars.  BAE Hawk with all-digital, all-glass re-configurable panel, for example?

*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #226 on: February 18, 2016, 11:49:19 am »
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.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #227 on: February 18, 2016, 07:15:31 pm »
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.
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.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #228 on: March 22, 2016, 05:30:28 pm »

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #229 on: March 23, 2016, 08:11:07 am »
Any delay will invariably help clean sheet designs.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #230 on: March 23, 2016, 08:21:28 am »
Any delay will invariably help clean sheet designs.

It will give them more time to get their proposals together but a clean sheet is still going to cost more than a pre-existing design (assuming they're remotely similar in capability). 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #231 on: March 24, 2016, 09:06:58 am »
That seemed to be Lockheed's argument for going with the T-50 after doing their internal evaluation
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #232 on: March 24, 2016, 12:31:51 pm »
Air Force Delays TX Solicitation.

Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #233 on: March 24, 2016, 12:58:25 pm »
That seemed to be Lockheed's argument for going with the T-50 after doing their internal evaluation

Isn't LM already providing flight simulators for F-35?  How is another company supposed to come in and provide a new system without understanding all the flight characteristics and the differences in the various software loads?


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #234 on: March 24, 2016, 01:33:08 pm »
Air Force Delays TX Solicitation.

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


Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #235 on: March 24, 2016, 05:02:23 pm »
Air Force Delays TX Solicitation.

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

.

Thanks, I couldn't figure out why development would have been pushed back now because of something so many years in the future. Aren't we supposed to be seeing these designs in the near future?

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #236 on: March 25, 2016, 08:27:16 am »
Air Force Delays TX Solicitation.

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

.

This seems very good for the competition.  Delaying the FOC ensures less decision "weight" given to existing systems e.g. a competitor has an extra couple of years to get the F-35 and F-22 flight software into simulators, training materials, etc etc etc.

That being said, LM is likely to have 100 flight simulators out by 2019, with ~240 total in Plan of Record.  They don't look cheap.  What do you do with those, pay to integrate them into the new system, operate them separately or phase them out?


Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #237 on: March 25, 2016, 09:50:19 am »
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.


Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #238 on: March 25, 2016, 11:26:26 am »
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.

You nailed it - answered my question perfectly.  It was my mis-understanding of the process.  Thank you for that.

To make sure I got it, I'll reiterate what I understand. 
1.  APT FoS is for basic flight training
2.  APT simulators are for basic flight training - with the advantages specified in the new program.
3.  After basic flight training - your assigned to a aircraft type.
4.  Type specific simulators are then used (not part of APT) for that training.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 11:28:38 am by NeilChapman »

Offline kcran567

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 660
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #239 on: March 27, 2016, 04:10:31 pm »
Sundog

Thanks, I couldn't figure out why development would have been pushed back now because of something so many years in the future. Aren't we supposed to be seeing these designs in the near future?
[/quote]

I agree, am getting very interseted in the Northrop and Saab/Boeing clean sheet designs and what they look like!

So far the glimpse of the Northrop design is very similar to a T-38, but has a fuselage chine. With Saab/Boeing I am hoping that the design
is almost 6th generation in appearance. Something tailless with levcons or canards, yet very flattened fuselage, and with room for growth. New manufacturing techniqes for affordability. If used as trainer and possibly Agressor/emulator later on, and also as an affordable export fighter to supplement F-35 why not put some very advanced features to make it worth the cost. Later options for a small AESA, and DAS, IR sensor?

Why the dearth of concept sketches? will have to make some. Would like to see what others think it will look.

Makes sense that this airplane would need to train 6th gen pilots as well as current pilots if it will be anything like the T-38 was.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 04:14:56 pm by kcran567 »

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #240 on: May 30, 2016, 09:41:14 am »
So, has anyone heard any news on the new designs rolling our from Northrop and Boeing/SAAB.

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #241 on: May 30, 2016, 10:02:32 pm »
The members of both teams seem to have focused their media/pr efforts on other programs of late. However Sweden has started talking openly about their trainer options and it wouldn't shock me if SAAB starts putting out some artwork as they campaign to keep that contact on home turf.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #243 on: June 01, 2016, 06:36:04 am »
Makes me think of an F-5.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 244
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #244 on: June 01, 2016, 06:55:34 am »
I do hope NG wins, as that'd mean a fair chance of their plane getting extra variants during the project's lifetime, including an actual low-cost fighter for poor countries. (f-20/f-5 reborn!) And unlike LM with T50 which seem to be against any TA/Fa50 sale they fear might endanger their own used f16 sales, i could see NG actually market it as such as NG doesn't have anything else in the fighter roster.

That being said, with NG winning the bomber competition, i somehow don't see it winning this as well. :(
www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #245 on: June 01, 2016, 07:31:20 am »
I do hope NG wins, as that'd mean a fair chance of their plane getting extra variants during the project's lifetime, including an actual low-cost fighter for poor countries. (f-20/f-5 reborn!) And unlike LM with T50 which seem to be against any TA/Fa50 sale they fear might endanger their own used f16 sales, i could see NG actually market it as such as NG doesn't have anything else in the fighter roster.

That being said, with NG winning the bomber competition, i somehow don't see it winning this as well. :(

Considering LM has the F-35 I'd say they're equally as likely.  I would probably scratch the Boeing/SAAB joint venture from the list. Apparently Raytheon is in the mix as well?  Probably scratch them as well.  Just my opinion.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #246 on: June 01, 2016, 08:01:21 pm »
http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/BusinessSectors/AerospaceSystems/Documents/magazine/IA_Magazine_Mar_Apr_2016.pdf

Hey flateric, thanks for posting this link.  I've been watching for this issue for weeks.  Got busy this last week and didn't look at all.

I hope NG remembers, don't give them what they ask for, give 'em what they want!


Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #247 on: June 01, 2016, 08:13:03 pm »
I do hope NG wins, as that'd mean a fair chance of their plane getting extra variants during the project's lifetime, including an actual low-cost fighter for poor countries. (f-20/f-5 reborn!) And unlike LM with T50 which seem to be against any TA/Fa50 sale they fear might endanger their own used f16 sales, i could see NG actually market it as such as NG doesn't have anything else in the fighter roster.

That being said, with NG winning the bomber competition, i somehow don't see it winning this as well. :(

Considering LM has the F-35 I'd say they're equally as likely.  I would probably scratch the Boeing/SAAB joint venture from the list. Apparently Raytheon is in the mix as well?  Probably scratch them as well.  Just my opinion.

I just can't get over how badly Boeing has screwed up the tanker project.  And with the issues in the SCS, buying Korean jets might be a good political move.  That being said, I'd love for NG to win this.

You know there is a lot of company pride going into this project.  The T-38 is an icon.  This is all about the "rest of the system".  Hopefully BAE/L3 is as good as I'm sure the airframe will be.

Offline totoro

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 244
    • Binkov's Battlegrounds
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #248 on: June 01, 2016, 11:38:35 pm »

Considering LM has the F-35 I'd say they're equally as likely.  I would probably scratch the Boeing/SAAB joint venture from the list. Apparently Raytheon is in the mix as well?  Probably scratch them as well.  Just my opinion.

I just fear that with LM being twice as large company it will have significantly more clout lobbying wise. After one two punch with f-22 and f-35 that wasn't enough, but since NG was given piece of the cake with the new bomber and since it's enough for it to survive a decade or more - LM might have the upper hand.

Politics aside, (which can never really be set aside) i'd say the cheapest plane should win here. Providing  it meets the requirements. It doesn't seem as if USAF will reward extra capability. So a wholy new design seems just unlikely to win. That'd put Boeing/Saab out of the running. LM is in good position as it's a developed plane, though it *may* be too much of a plane for a trainer. MEaning in the long run, with the ops costs - it may be too pricey. Raytheon/Alenia actually seem to have a very good product there - unless requirements are higher than what m346 offers (though i doubt it). But if requirements are higher then that's right up in the LM's alley with T-50. (Of course, politics dictate low-ish chances for Raytheon/Alenia)

NG says it will be offering a new design - sounds too costly. Though if it is, in reality, a reworked f-5/t-38 then it might actually work. Especially if requirements are for a smaller plane like that, not something in the class of  T-50.

AirLand Scorpion seems like a no-go to me. They'd need a substantially reworked plane from Scorpion to compete and even if they somehow manage, they have next to zero influence on the Hill to make it work.

If transsonic performance is not a requirement and if low fuel consumption will be rewarded  extra for going lower than the required 10% below T38 fuel consumption - then i'd say M346 and reworked T38 have best chances. And out of those, due to politics, NG might even have better chances. But with politics and large money sacks of LM included - who knows.
www.youtube.com/c/binkovsbattlegrounds - military analysis videos

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #249 on: June 02, 2016, 08:06:33 am »
T-50A takes flight

Lockheed Martin announced today it completed a successful first flight of its offering for the Air Force's next-generation T-X competition.

The company's T-50A features a fifth-generation cockpit and was developed jointly with Korea Aerospace Industries. Lockheed is currently standing up its assembly and checkout site for the aircraft in Greenville, SC.

To date, Lockheed's competitors on T-X include a Raytheon, Finmeccanica and CAE team offering the T-100; a Boeing-Saab team putting forward a clean-sheet design; and a Northrop Grumman, BAE and L-3 team also proposing an original design.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #250 on: June 02, 2016, 08:20:58 am »
any video with T-50A first flight ?

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 268
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #251 on: June 02, 2016, 10:55:05 am »
Here's a photo of the aircraft in flight along with the accompanying press release from the LockMart site:

http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/june/T50AFirstFlight.html
Quote
Lockheed Martin Flies First T-50A Upgraded Aircraft for T-X Competition
Fort Worth, Texas, June 2, 2016 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) successfully completed the initial flight test of its T-50A configured aircraft. The T-50A is the company’s aircraft offering in the U.S. Air Force’s Advanced Pilot Training competition.
“The aircraft in its new configuration with the 5th Gen cockpit and other upgrades performed flawlessly,” said Mark Ward, Lockheed Martin T-50A lead test pilot, after his flight in Sacheon, South Korea. “I have no doubt this aircraft will close the gap which currently exists between the trainer fleet and 5th Generation fighters.”
The T-50A is low risk and ready now. It builds on the proven heritage of the T-50 with more than 100 T-50s flying today—100,000 flight hours and counting—and more than 1,000 pilots trained.
The T-50A is the only offering that meets all APT requirements and can deliver those capabilities on schedule at the lowest risk to the customer. Lockheed Martin teams studied clean-sheet alternatives and determined they pose prohibitive risk to APT cost and schedule requirements. The T-50A delivers the performance and capabilities needed to prepare pilots to fly, fight and win with 5th Generation fighter aircraft.
Lockheed Martin is currently standing up its T-50A Final Assembly and Checkout site in Greenville, South Carolina.
The T-50A was developed jointly by Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries. The accompanying T-50A Ground-Based Training System features innovative technologies that deliver an immersive, synchronized ground-based training platform.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 10:57:04 am by Boxman »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #252 on: June 02, 2016, 11:37:27 am »
Looks like a baby big-spine F-16 from that angle.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #253 on: June 02, 2016, 11:51:22 am »
Basically mini-F-16 back end married to Ching Kuo/IDF front end, it seems to me.

Ugly SOB, in any case. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #254 on: June 02, 2016, 12:21:07 pm »
Basically mini-F-16 back end married to Ching Kuo/IDF front end, it seems to me.

Ugly SOB, in any case.

And that's the NICE looking entry.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #255 on: June 02, 2016, 01:09:49 pm »
I kind of like the T-100.  It does look like someone took a piece out of the middle (big cockpit, big tail, no center), but at least it has clean lines.

Who knows what the others will look like?  I'm hoping Being's offer looks like the old T-X slides they threw out a few years ago (basically a baby MDD JSF). 
« Last Edit: June 02, 2016, 01:14:24 pm by TomS »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #256 on: June 02, 2016, 01:13:04 pm »
Donno, I kind of like the T-100.  It does look like someone took a piece out of the middle (big cockpit, big tail, no center), but at least it has clean lines.

They're all kinda stumpy looking compared to the classic T-38 lines.   :(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 865
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #257 on: June 02, 2016, 04:19:37 pm »
Yes It is ugly .

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 804
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #258 on: June 04, 2016, 05:44:48 pm »
I find the T-100/M-346 relatively easy on the eyes. The really amusing thing about this entrant winning though would be that it'd arguably represent the first time since the C-47/Li-2 60+ years ago that the armed forces of Russia (or the USSR at the time), the People's Republic of China, Israel and the US all operated variants of the same basic aircraft design in significant numbers :)

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #259 on: June 05, 2016, 01:48:47 am »
Yes It is ugly .

Such comments are completely partial. Beauty, the eye of the beholder, bla bla...
To me, "ugly" is the Japanese Shinshin, which other forum members find absolutely cute.
And for nearly every aircraft design, there will be lovers and haters..

That is why adding a slight disclaimer, as in "Personally I find it ugly" may prevent endless and pointless "ugly vs. beautiful" arguments such as we've had in the past elsewhere! At the very least it doesn't sound so much like the person is trying to impose their tastes upon others or make it sound like the proponents of good aeronautical taste... ;-)

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #260 on: June 06, 2016, 04:10:10 pm »
It looks like an F-16 without the ventral inlet and the large spine reminds me of the F-16's with the large spine. It obviously has less thrust and a greater aspect ratio than an F-16, but I don't see anything ugly about it. I just keep trying to visualize it in the Thunderbirds paint scheme, as I think it's obvious that whatever the next T-X is, it is what the Thunderbirds will be flying once the F-16 is retired.

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 522
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #261 on: June 06, 2016, 04:18:39 pm »
Yes It is ugly .

Such comments are completely partial. Beauty, the eye of the beholder, bla bla...
To me, "ugly" is the Japanese Shinshin, which other forum members find absolutely cute.
And for nearly every aircraft design, there will be lovers and haters..

That is why adding a slight disclaimer, as in "Personally I find it ugly" may prevent endless and pointless "ugly vs. beautiful" arguments such as we've had in the past elsewhere! At the very least it doesn't sound so much like the person is trying to impose their tastes upon others or make it sound like the proponents of good aeronautical taste... ;-)

I agree beauty or the lack of it in the eye of the beholder.
Apart from early post war Soviet night/all weather jet fighters (some prototypes only). Virtually all as ugly as sin :)

Unless your happy to do a Gnat and make the cockpit too small for many pilots jet trainers always likely to look a bit dumpier than their jet fighter contempories

Don't think any of the known T-X entries are hard in the eye; both are fine proven aircraft capability wise.

Offline Dragon029

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 623
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #262 on: June 07, 2016, 01:02:53 am »
I kind of like the T-100.  It does look like someone took a piece out of the middle (big cockpit, big tail, no center), but at least it has clean lines.
It'll be kinda weird if the USAF chooses the T-100; having both the US and Russia using training aircraft with the same roots / base design.

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #263 on: June 13, 2016, 09:36:12 pm »
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline CiTrus90

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #264 on: June 13, 2016, 11:37:13 pm »
Most interesting!!

Thanks for sharing Deino.

I suspect a delta canard planform in the making: after the "lil draken" the "lil gripen"? ;D

Regards.


Regards.

L. Landino

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #265 on: June 14, 2016, 04:30:02 am »
Indeed, but the question is: is it a new design, or based on the Gripen-trainer ???
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #266 on: June 14, 2016, 04:58:06 am »
Boeing and Saab have both specifically said that T-X is a clean-sheet design and definitely not a Gripen. 

Offline CiTrus90

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #267 on: June 14, 2016, 05:44:16 am »
I'd say it's a new design, the wing position looks higher than on the Gripen.

As a side note...I think they had some issues while trying to load it onto the Il-76.
In one picture (like most in the set) it's getting loaded rear side first, but in another picture it's front first ???
Change of plans at the last minute?

Regards.
Regards.

L. Landino

Online Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #268 on: June 14, 2016, 07:41:58 am »
Its also possible they sent more than one. One for flight and one for ground testing, for instance.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #269 on: June 14, 2016, 08:00:37 am »
I don't think there were two.  There's a Swedish news story here with a few other pictures.  There were two trucks, one with the fuselage and one with an enclosed cargo cab.  It looks to me like they did pick up the pallet and turn it around on the truck bed before loading it.  Possibly a fit problem of some sort? 

http://www.corren.se/nyheter/linkoping/har-ar-den-hemliga-lasten-om4176561.aspx

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 804
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #270 on: June 14, 2016, 08:44:07 am »
So arguably the Boeing/Saab T-X had its first flight (... inside a Il-76TD-90) :D

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #271 on: July 02, 2016, 05:48:57 am »
Most likely the wrong thread but fitting the topic !

Does anyone knows what this design is ?
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #272 on: July 02, 2016, 07:26:16 am »
The two aircraft in the picture have different wings (see the difference in sweep). I thought i had seen something similar in another thread, a proposal from some startup, definitely not one of the primes. I'm going to say it was a British company. Sorry, not being super helpful here!
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #273 on: July 02, 2016, 09:40:48 am »
The two aircraft in the picture have different wings (see the difference in sweep). I thought i had seen something similar in another thread, a proposal from some startup, definitely not one of the primes. I'm going to say it was a British company. Sorry, not being super helpful here!

You're probably thinking of the DART modular trainer.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #274 on: July 02, 2016, 10:02:05 am »
I also can confirm, that that picture shows the British DART modular trainer.
I saw this picture on Twitter a few days ago. Dart Jet might be present at Farnborough International Airshow 2016.
Source: https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/747428369105563648
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #275 on: July 02, 2016, 10:33:22 am »
Thank You so much !  ;)
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #276 on: July 02, 2016, 02:32:51 pm »
The two aircraft in the picture have different wings (see the difference in sweep). I thought i had seen something similar in another thread, a proposal from some startup, definitely not one of the primes. I'm going to say it was a British company. Sorry, not being super helpful here!

You're probably thinking of the DART modular trainer.

That's the one - thanks for filling the blanks!  ;)
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #277 on: July 04, 2016, 02:33:24 am »
So this new Dart design follows the idea introduced on the Scorpion to offer both a straight-wing and a swept-wing variant? Is this a new trend? Are there more examples of this thinking?

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #278 on: July 06, 2016, 01:57:22 pm »
I'd say it's a new design, the wing position looks higher than on the Gripen.

As a side note...I think they had some issues while trying to load it onto the Il-76.
In one picture (like most in the set) it's getting loaded rear side first, but in another picture it's front first ???
Change of plans at the last minute?

Regards.


No news of where it was dropped off?  Where is Boeing doing this work?

Thanks!



Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #279 on: July 06, 2016, 06:54:53 pm »


No news of where it was dropped off?  Where is Boeing doing this work?

Thanks!

It went to St Louis.

Offline CiTrus90

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Credibility is down! Kill ratio is up!
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #280 on: July 07, 2016, 12:29:44 am »
No news of where it was dropped off?  Where is Boeing doing this work?

Thanks!

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2016/06/14/boeing-saab-tx-prototype/85873702/

Confirmed St. Louis, where they have definitely better OPSEC than in Norrköping, unfortunately for us :D

Regards.
Regards.

L. Landino

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #283 on: July 26, 2016, 04:00:24 pm »
Air Force releases T-X draft RFP; final RFP expected in December


Quote
The Air Force has released a draft request for proposals for the next-generation T-X trainer family of systems -- a precursor to the final RFP, which it expects to release in December.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said during a Defense One event this morning that the service has engaged in "an unprecedented level of discussion on requirements" with industry for the T-X program. That engagement has allowed the Air Force to conduct a cost capability analysis for the program, a process that helps the service prioritize requirements and make trades where needed.

"At the end of the day when we do the final RFP, which should be by the December time frame, we should have a really good grasp on how we're going to do this cost capability analysis for the T-X," James said.

The cost capability analysis concept is an outgrowth of the service's Bending the Cost Curve initiative, which stemmed from the Defense Department's Better Buying Power push. T-X is one of the first Air Force programs to incorporate the construct.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=eb00a01f5020fdc82b46de91ab1a5e38&_cview=0
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #284 on: August 19, 2016, 02:21:12 pm »
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 02:29:18 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #285 on: August 19, 2016, 03:05:48 pm »
 B) #happyaviationday!   ;)
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #286 on: August 19, 2016, 03:08:10 pm »
B) #happyaviationday!   ;)

Yup. Now here's hoping Northrop Grumman PR doesn't go home early and puts up some high resolution pictures before the weekend ;)
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #287 on: August 19, 2016, 03:58:01 pm »
Northrop T-X breaks cover at Mojave


Quote
LOS ANGELES – Northrop Grumman’s contender for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X next-generation trainer competition has begun taxi tests at Mojave, California. The aircraft, which was designed by Northrop’s Scaled Composites special projects company, is believed to have begun high speed taxi work this week. Northrop’s offering is a low-wing, single-engine aircraft with side-mounted inlets and a conventional horizontal and large vertical tail. Similar to the T-38 ...

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?omni=Home-N-Number&nNumberTxt=N400NT
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 04:05:12 pm by bring_it_on »
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #288 on: August 19, 2016, 04:07:51 pm »
IMO this is Lockheed's to lose. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2583
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #289 on: August 19, 2016, 04:09:56 pm »
IMO this is Lockheed's to lose.

Agreed

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9704
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #290 on: August 19, 2016, 04:17:52 pm »
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2583
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #291 on: August 19, 2016, 04:18:27 pm »
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

What do you mean?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #292 on: August 19, 2016, 04:21:31 pm »
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #293 on: August 19, 2016, 04:31:54 pm »
Based on the shadow it looks like it has a swept wing; I was expecting a delta or a trapezoidal wing. It's definitely nice looking.

I don't know if this is LM's to lose as the clean sheet designs could win extra points based on performance. Of course, I don't think the air frame itself will win the competition. A lot of it will be based on the training system itself. It will definitely be interesting and be a hell of a fight.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1844
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #294 on: August 19, 2016, 05:04:28 pm »
The Draft RFI gives plenty of opportunity for higher performance to overcome higher independent cost estimate and nicely quantifies in  important performance metrics. This will definitly be something to watch out for with the clean sheet designs mixed with a couple of proven in service designs.
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline Trident

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 804
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #295 on: August 19, 2016, 05:15:03 pm »
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?

Offline XP67_Moonbat

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2152
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #296 on: August 19, 2016, 05:44:35 pm »
Well it looks like I'm fashionably late to the party. But I did bring potato chips. :-D
In God we trust, all others we monitor. :-p

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #297 on: August 19, 2016, 06:07:11 pm »
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?

The FAA registration says F404-GE-102D; the D would mean non-afterburning.  But I'd bet the design can be easily modified for an afterburning engine if required for a future development.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2164
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #298 on: August 19, 2016, 07:00:52 pm »
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.

The politics are almost unfathomable though. Do you piss off two (or possibly three) nations purchasing F-35 by not buying their trainer? Do you run Boeing out of the fast jet business? Do you reward NG for their rapid prototyping and IRAD deployment?

Offline Boxman

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 268
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #299 on: August 19, 2016, 07:03:19 pm »
Seemingly quite a contrast in "heft" as an airframe compared to the LockMart/KAI T-50A.

I wonder where the boom receptacle (and plumbing) will go? Doesn't seem to be enough room for one. It'd be a shame to mess up those nice lines on a clean-sheet design with a scabbed on "hump" like the T-50.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #300 on: August 19, 2016, 07:13:37 pm »
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.

The politics are almost unfathomable though. Do you piss off two (or possibly three) nations purchasing F-35 by not buying their trainer? Do you run Boeing out of the fast jet business? Do you reward NG for their rapid prototyping and IRAD deployment?

The trainer/F-35 customer angle is nothing.  They're already getting something for their money (a stealth fighter and workshare).  Boeing and NG?  This is a competition for a trainer, not welfare.  If they awarded to Boeing to keep them in the fighter business, and their entry wasn't demonstrably better than LM's, there would a a protest (justifiably so) and LM would win.  Same with NG.  The only way to beat LM, and not lose an inevitable protest, is to bring a superior solution to the table.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Airplane

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #301 on: August 19, 2016, 07:34:05 pm »
If they're looking for something that can be weaponized, its Lockheed's contract. Hard to believe the company that brought us the yf23 and the b2, brings us this "kit plane" looking thing. No afterburner too? Hell Lockheed will win just to keep the NG bid from becoming the next Thunderbird. Were all their real engineers busy with the b21?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 07:36:15 pm by Airplane »
"The test of success is not what you do when your on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom.”
– General George S. Patton

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #302 on: August 19, 2016, 08:48:49 pm »
If they're looking for something that can be weaponized, its Lockheed's contract. Hard to believe the company that brought us the yf23 and the b2, brings us this "kit plane" looking thing. No afterburner too? Hell Lockheed will win just to keep the NG bid from becoming the next Thunderbird. Were all their real engineers busy with the b21?

Good engineers don't need to over build an airplane. In fact, it's usually about meeting the specifications with the minimum amount of material (lower cost). They also know more about the requirements than you do; that's why this airplane looks the way it does. Without knowing every single one of those requirements, none of us know which design is the best. The requirements drive the design, not the other way around.

The T-50 was not designed to those requirements; it was modified to meet them the best Lockheed-Martin knows how. The Northrop-Grumman design actually is designed to the requirements. The next move is Boeing-SAAB's to make.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #303 on: August 19, 2016, 08:58:23 pm »
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.

The politics are almost unfathomable though. Do you piss off two (or possibly three) nations purchasing F-35 by not buying their trainer? Do you run Boeing out of the fast jet business? Do you reward NG for their rapid prototyping and IRAD deployment?

Israeli's seem happy with their M-346 decision over the T-50.  Of course, they negotiated a great deal with the Italians. 

« Last Edit: August 19, 2016, 10:02:06 pm by NeilChapman »

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #304 on: August 19, 2016, 10:00:00 pm »
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?

The FAA registration says F404-GE-102D; the D would mean non-afterburning.  But I'd bet the design can be easily modified for an afterburning engine if required for a future development.

Dry version of the engine in the T-50.  I think this is nicer looking than the T-50 and in the picture it just "feels" quite a bit lighter, if that makes sense.

Looks wicked fast.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #305 on: August 20, 2016, 12:55:00 am »
Seemingly quite a contrast in "heft" as an airframe compared to the LockMart/KAI T-50A.

I wonder where the boom receptacle (and plumbing) will go? Doesn't seem to be enough room for one. It'd be a shame to mess up those nice lines on a clean-sheet design with a scabbed on "hump" like the T-50.

Do you think they'd propose a refueling probe like the F5/f20? 

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: T-X - A Future USAF Trainer
« Reply #306 on: August 20, 2016, 01:08:20 am »
No, the USAF uses the boom and receptacle system.
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***