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

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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: 355
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! ;)
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
What hype? It is a trainer, so it won't look super exciting or futuristic like YF-23.
 
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?
 
flanker said:
What hype? It is a trainer, so it won't look super exciting or futuristic like YF-23.
Click to expand...
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?"
 
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.
 
I wonder whats going on with Boeing/SAAB's design. They had earlier stated that they expect to fly by the year end.
 
F414 is high on the fuel consumption for a trainer. Bypass ratio a bit low. Will increase cost per flight hour surely?
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
F414 is high on the fuel consumption for a trainer. Bypass ratio a bit low. Will increase cost per flight hour surely?
Click to expand...

I'd imagine it would still be an improvement on the J85s.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
F414 is high on the fuel consumption for a trainer. Bypass ratio a bit low. Will increase cost per flight hour surely?
Click to expand...

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.
 
totoro said:
what are the odds it is a single engine bird, mostly based on f-20?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sundog said:
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
F414 is high on the fuel consumption for a trainer. Bypass ratio a bit low. Will increase cost per flight hour surely?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom