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

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Courtesy of AIAA, you can now play along at home.

​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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Not that pretty!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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"

Click to expand...

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

marauder2048 said:

LowObservable said:

Why do you need a jammer? That's what LVC is for.

Click to expand...

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"

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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"

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY-0uTDnmPs

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.

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.

AeroFranz said:

Why the extra fuel? Why should the trainer need longer legs than the attack version?

Click to expand...

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.

That would make it a high-fidelity MiG-21 simulator, wouldn't it?

via Ambassador @ http://themess.net/forum/military-discussion/52241-helmet-mounted-cueing-system-conformal-fuel-tank-and-aerial-refueling-for-t-50

http://www.bizinfo.go.kr/uss/pis/policy/PolicyInfoDetail.do?menuNo=10205000&searchLclasId=0200&policyCodeId=2015mkeee00000801
http://www.bizinfo.go.kr/cmm/fms/BizFileDown.do?div=policyInfo&atchFileId=2015mkeee00000801&fileSn=1&fileSe=290001
http://www.bizinfo.go.kr/cmm/fms/BizFileDown.do?div=policyInfo&atchFileId=2015mkeee00000801&fileSn=1&fileSe=290002

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?

Lockheed to reveal 'ultimate offering' for T-X next year

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.

Click to expand...

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

sferrin said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

Just a story recap of the T-X program.

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

NeilChapman said:

Just a story recap of the T-X program.

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

Click to expand...

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?

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.

TomS said:

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.

Click to expand...

Points well taken. -SP

TomS said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

TomS said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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

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!