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.
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?

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?

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?

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?

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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
 

Attachments

  • Northrop T-X Speculative - 5.jpg
    Northrop T-X Speculative - 5.jpg
    21 KB · Views: 271
CiTrus90 said:
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.

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
 
LowObservable said:
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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • Navy.jpg
    Navy.jpg
    46.6 KB · Views: 105
Courtesy of AIAA, you can now play along at home.
 

Attachments

  • 2015-2016_EngineDesignCompetition_RFP.pdf
    474.2 KB · Views: 11
  • design-comp-aiaa.jpg
    design-comp-aiaa.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 472
​PICTURES: KAI, Lockheed rollout T-X prototype




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.
 

Attachments

  • KAI.jpg
    KAI.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 354
  • KAI1.jpg
    KAI1.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 351
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?
 
LowObservable said:
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.
 
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.
 
Wonder if it's still supersonic. IIRC the standard T-50 can reach Mach 1.5.
 
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.
 
sferrin said:
LowObservable said:
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.
 
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.
 
LowObservable said:
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.
 
LowObservable said:
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"
 
marauder2048 said:
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".
 
marauder2048 said:
LowObservable said:
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 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.
 
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
LowObservable said:
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.
 
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.
 
LowObservable said:
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom