Northrop Grumman / Scaled Composites T-X trainer program entry - Model 400 Swift

Sundog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Triton said:
Sundog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bring_it_on said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

Source:

Northrop Pivots To Clean-Sheet T-X Trainer | Aviation Week Network

A Northrop Grumman-led team is dashing its plan to propose a modified BAE Systems Hawk trainer for the U.S. Air Force’s T-38 replacement program, opting instead for a clean-sheet design for the $1 billion program.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

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

“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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • 10968522_10152984722917200_2106478253814927194_n.jpg
    10968522_10152984722917200_2106478253814927194_n.jpg
    92.4 KB · Views: 494
Last edited by a moderator:
Tailspin Turtle said:
That's odd. The print edition is dated 2-15 February.
Click to expand...
More than that
 

Attachments

  • 02-16.jpg
    02-16.jpg
    325.1 KB · Views: 429
I've never seen these in real life as well
 

Attachments

  • 10828145_10152958767852200_8506976159379434896_o.jpg
    10828145_10152958767852200_8506976159379434896_o.jpg
    251.8 KB · Views: 414
  • 10498219_10152958757337200_6208881241126568392_o.jpg
    10498219_10152958757337200_6208881241126568392_o.jpg
    154.2 KB · Views: 404

Attachments

  • Northrop Grumman:SC T-X1.jpg
    Northrop Grumman:SC T-X1.jpg
    101.4 KB · Views: 338
  • Northrop Grumman : SC 3.jpg
    Northrop Grumman : SC 3.jpg
    193.2 KB · Views: 352
Last edited by a moderator:
fightingirish said:
B) #happyaviationday! ;)
Click to expand...

Yup. Now here's hoping Northrop Grumman PR doesn't go home early and puts up some high resolution pictures before the weekend ;)
 
Northrop T-X breaks cover at Mojave


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 ...
Click to expand...

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?omni=Home-N-Number&nNumberTxt=N400NT
 

Attachments

  • FAA_Scaled.png
    FAA_Scaled.png
    260.2 KB · Views: 328
Trident said:
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
TomS said:
Trident said:
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boxman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you think they'd propose a refueling probe like the F5/f20?
 
TomS said:
Trident said:
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. This is their lead in risk-reduction IRAD craft that would have flown many times prior to the release of the full RFP in December. If they feel that the final RFP warrants an Afterburner they could quite easily offer a slightly different version in their final proposal. The program requires demonstrations of certain important performance metrics so their aim was obviously to get it to meet those. If they can meet performance goals without the need for an AB thats advantage to them in the cost department (Raytheon will claim that as well I guess). I wouldnt be surprised if the Boeing/SAAB design also takes this approach.

Sundog said:
Airplane said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

They sure had an opportunity to design completely around USAF's requirements so it will logically be a very competitive design. The last July RFI dump actually has a ton of information in it including the exact monetary amount they are willing to pay for performance over and above the threshold. I bet the OEM's had an idea of this much before it was formally published and related since the USAF has been having conversations with the industry for some time now.

SAM.gov | Home

www.fbo.gov www.fbo.gov
 
bring_it_on said:
They sure had an opportunity to design completely around USAF's requirements so it will logically be a very competitive design. The last July RFI dump actually has a ton of information in it including the exact monetary amount they are willing to pay for performance over and above the threshold. I bet the OEM's had an idea of this much before it was formally published and related since the USAF has been having conversations with the industry for some time now.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=eb00a01f5020fdc82b46de91ab1a5e38&_cview=0
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that was available.
 
NeilChapman said:
TomS said:
Trident said:
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Where'd you find a picture of it? Only one I've been able to find is this:
 

Attachments

  • Screen-Shot-2016-08-19-at-21_53_33.png
    Screen-Shot-2016-08-19-at-21_53_33.png
    932.3 KB · Views: 321
There's a second picture a couple of pages back in this thread.
 
BTW, the F404-102D puts out 11000 lbs of thrust (I'm assuming that's uninstalled thrust). Most sites are reporting the thrust of the afterburning version of the engine
 
TomS said:
There's a second picture a couple of pages back in this thread.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks. Now if you could just answer my other question. ;)
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
There's a second picture a couple of pages back in this thread.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks. Now if you could just answer my other question. ;)
Click to expand...

The post where the pictures are located gives the source link at the beginning of the post (David Kerns).
 
Sundog said:
bring_it_on said:
They sure had an opportunity to design completely around USAF's requirements so it will logically be a very competitive design. The last July RFI dump actually has a ton of information in it including the exact monetary amount they are willing to pay for performance over and above the threshold. I bet the OEM's had an idea of this much before it was formally published and related since the USAF has been having conversations with the industry for some time now.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=eb00a01f5020fdc82b46de91ab1a5e38&_cview=0
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that was available.
Click to expand...

Likewise. Interesting to see how the aircraft specifications continue to evolve; I had forgotten how ambitious/exacting they were.

It's hard to see how T-X isn't a straight race between LM and NG given how demanding the aircraft specification are (especially growth potential), the complexity of the training syllabus (especially LVC) and how F-35-like the cockpit requirements are.
 
fightingirish said:
Artist and journalist Karl Schwarz for the German magazine Flug Revue.
Link: http://www.flugrevue.de/militaerluftfahrt/kampfflugzeuge-helikopter/northrop-grumman-bietet-nicht-fuer-t-x-der-usaf-mit/712784
Click to expand...

Danke
 
...
 

Attachments

  • 41332951_345101989598858_929887128679369604_n.jpg
    41332951_345101989598858_929887128679369604_n.jpg
    91.4 KB · Views: 356
Thanks Flateric - rather nice looking lines. Hope Scaled keeps it flying as a chase plane....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom