Yup, the plan the media reported was by the end of this year.
 
Boeing announced today that the their T-X will fly by the end of next year ...(Amy Butler @ Twitter )
 
bring_it_on said:
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 :

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
 
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.
 
Well the year end should be exciting with both Boeing/Saab, and Northrop Grumman revealing their versions :)..
 
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!?
 
Reaper said:
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.
 
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.
 
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 :)
 
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
 
Steve Pace said:
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.
 
Steve Pace said:
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.
 
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.
 
LowObservable said:
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
 
LowObservable said:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
http://www.janes.com/article/53508/usaf-rolls-out-first-pacer-classic-iii-upgraded-talon
 
Boeing/SAAB T-X
 

Attachments

  • 635779059539537707-DFN-AFA-T-X.jpg
    635779059539537707-DFN-AFA-T-X.jpg
    78.5 KB · Views: 349
Northrop Grumman T-X
 

Attachments

  • tx.jpg
    tx.jpg
    91.3 KB · Views: 308
;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.
 
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! ::)
 
Triton said:
Hey Boeing-Saab and Northrop Grumman! You're such a tease! ;)


A T-X strip tease war? See who reveals a little more first? ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The Northrop Grumman entry reminds me a lot of the Cessna 526 CitationJet for JPATS.
 
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.
 
Rhinocrates said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom