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

Attachments

  • 01.jpg
    01.jpg
    97 KB · Views: 605
  • T-X ?????...?? ? ?? ??? ? YTN ????.mp4_snapshot_00.58_[2015.12.18_13.16.02].jpg
    T-X ?????...?? ? ?? ??? ? YTN ????.mp4_snapshot_00.58_[2015.12.18_13.16.02].jpg
    78.5 KB · Views: 587
  • T-X ?????...?? ? ?? ??? ? YTN ????.mp4_snapshot_01.01_[2015.12.18_13.16.17].jpg
    T-X ?????...?? ? ?? ??? ? YTN ????.mp4_snapshot_01.01_[2015.12.18_13.16.17].jpg
    64.3 KB · Views: 571
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?

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.
 
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
 

Attachments

  • T-50 conformal fuel tank modification.png
    T-50 conformal fuel tank modification.png
    241.2 KB · Views: 480
  • T-50 aerial refueling receptacle CGI & T-50 new avionics layout.png
    T-50 aerial refueling receptacle CGI & T-50 new avionics layout.png
    299 KB · Views: 133
  • T-50 aerial refueling receptacle concept and description.png
    T-50 aerial refueling receptacle concept and description.png
    281.4 KB · Views: 126
  • T-50 CFT, Helmet-mounted Display, Internal Training System, Large Area Display, Head-Up Display.png
    T-50 CFT, Helmet-mounted Display, Internal Training System, Large Area Display, Head-Up Display.png
    129.7 KB · Views: 138
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.

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?

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/

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.
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.


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.

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!
 
It has to be difficult for the Primes. The AF "seems" to know what they want but... It seems that they really want to know what they can get.

Do the Primes have insight into what the AF is paying now for the ATP FoS?
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/
 
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/

That's good news for Boeing.

It boggle the mind that in 2016 it will take 12 years to produce a trainer for a platform that may outdated in 12 years. Carpe noctem. We've got to figure out ways to get these project done more expeditiously.
 
NeilChapman said:
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/

That's good news for Boeing.

It boggle the mind that in 2016 it will take 12 years to produce a trainer for a platform that may outdated in 12 years. Carpe noctem. We've got to figure out ways to get these project done more expeditiously.

The USAF could save time and just buy some Saab Gripens... Yes, that's a dig at Sweden's indigenous airplane!
 
“We intend to fly the aircraft at a time which we believe aligns with the competition. So we will fly it when the competition dictates it,” Vice said. “Obviously we’re trying to hold on to the uniqueness of the design, but we will be flying that airplane probably in the first half of 2016.”

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2016/01/19/northrop-fly-t-x-prototype-year/78966566/
 
LM formally announced the T-50 for the TX competition.

http://www.combataircraft.net/view_article.asp?id=9435
 

Attachments

  • 9435.jpg
    9435.jpg
    213.2 KB · Views: 316
NeilChapman said:
Grey Havoc said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/

That's good news for Boeing.

It boggle the mind that in 2016 it will take 12 years to produce a trainer for a platform that may outdated in 12 years. Carpe noctem. We've got to figure out ways to get these project done more expeditiously.

+1000 on this comment. The USAF could pick any one of a number of existing, off-the-shelf jet trainers and an have it *modestly* customized to simulate various current and future fighters, especially in terms of avionics. It would not be the 100% solution, but it would be the 80-90% solute that would save millions, perhaps billions of dollars. BAE Hawk with all-digital, all-glass re-configurable panel, for example?
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/why-skunk-works-ditched-its-clean-sheet-t-x-for-kore-421946/

"Weiss says the clean-sheet alternative might have cost approximately eight times more to develop, without adding significant capability “beyond a modernised T-50”. Moreover, it would struggle to meet the air force’s recently revised initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2024.

“Our team thought we had a really, really fine airplane . . . but it doesn’t do any more than the T-50 already does, so at the end of the day – it costs more, takes longer, has higher risk and without adding significant value beyond the T-50," Weiss says. “That baseline [T-50] aircraft has over 100,000 flight hours. It’s very mature. It’s trained more than 1,000 pilots today.”

Seems to me this applies to every clean sheet design. Of course the T-50 was already very close to meeting specs, so the delta in cost may not be as large as for the other competitors. still, makes you wonder how you can justify the costs if you're starting from scratch.
 
AeroFranz said:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/why-skunk-works-ditched-its-clean-sheet-t-x-for-kore-421946/

"Weiss says the clean-sheet alternative might have cost approximately eight times more to develop, without adding significant capability “beyond a modernised T-50”. Moreover, it would struggle to meet the air force’s recently revised initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2024.

“Our team thought we had a really, really fine airplane . . . but it doesn’t do any more than the T-50 already does, so at the end of the day – it costs more, takes longer, has higher risk and without adding significant value beyond the T-50," Weiss says. “That baseline [T-50] aircraft has over 100,000 flight hours. It’s very mature. It’s trained more than 1,000 pilots today.”

Seems to me this applies to every clean sheet design. Of course the T-50 was already very close to meeting specs, so the delta in cost may not be as large as for the other competitors. still, makes you wonder how you can justify the costs if you're starting from scratch.
I would be very wary of taking one competitor's statement and treating them as the immutable truth for the others, they all have their reasons for going down the path they are. If I were to speculate, I think those behind clean-sheet approach are focused on bringing recurring costs down significantly below the off-the-shelf options.
 
AeroFranz said:
Any delay will invariably help clean sheet designs.

It will give them more time to get their proposals together but a clean sheet is still going to cost more than a pre-existing design (assuming they're remotely similar in capability).
 
That seemed to be Lockheed's argument for going with the T-50 after doing their internal evaluation
 
AeroFranz said:
That seemed to be Lockheed's argument for going with the T-50 after doing their internal evaluation

Isn't LM already providing flight simulators for F-35? How is another company supposed to come in and provide a new system without understanding all the flight characteristics and the differences in the various software loads?
 
NeilChapman said:
Sundog said:

Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end

It's terrible writing; that's not actually what happened. FOC got delayed by two years, probably to deal with some sort of budget constraint, but that is not caused by the delay in the solicitation. Note that IOC is unchanged, so the delay in the solicitation does not actually delay production at all.

Seriously, go read the actual statement on the FedBizOps website.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=36bbba77ca454a9464c1ed3ebc1fa8b1&tab=core&_cview=1

.
 
TomS said:
NeilChapman said:
Sundog said:

Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end

It's terrible writing; that's not actually what happened. FOC got delayed by two years, probably to deal with some sort of budget constraint, but that is not caused by the delay in the solicitation. Note that IOC is unchanged, so the delay in the solicitation does not actually delay production at all.

Seriously, go read the actual statement on the FedBizOps website.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=36bbba77ca454a9464c1ed3ebc1fa8b1&tab=core&_cview=1

.

Thanks, I couldn't figure out why development would have been pushed back now because of something so many years in the future. Aren't we supposed to be seeing these designs in the near future?
 
TomS said:
NeilChapman said:
Sundog said:

Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end

It's terrible writing; that's not actually what happened. FOC got delayed by two years, probably to deal with some sort of budget constraint, but that is not caused by the delay in the solicitation. Note that IOC is unchanged, so the delay in the solicitation does not actually delay production at all.

Seriously, go read the actual statement on the FedBizOps website.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=36bbba77ca454a9464c1ed3ebc1fa8b1&tab=core&_cview=1

.

This seems very good for the competition. Delaying the FOC ensures less decision "weight" given to existing systems e.g. a competitor has an extra couple of years to get the F-35 and F-22 flight software into simulators, training materials, etc etc etc.

That being said, LM is likely to have 100 flight simulators out by 2019, with ~240 total in Plan of Record. They don't look cheap. What do you do with those, pay to integrate them into the new system, operate them separately or phase them out?
 
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

The T-X Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems (APT FoS) includes flight simulators. Those simulators are supposed to prepare new pilots in general terms to fly advanced aircraft like the F-35 and F-22 , as well as any other fighter aircraft remaining in the USAF inventory. The APT FoS simulators are not the same as the actual type-specific F-22 and F-35 flight simulators that train pilots assigned to those particular aircraft. The type-specific simulators are not part of the APT curriculum -- they're later in the training process.
 
TomS said:
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

The T-X Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems (APT FoS) includes flight simulators. Those simulators are supposed to prepare new pilots in general terms to fly advanced aircraft like the F-35 and F-22 , as well as any other fighter aircraft remaining in the USAF inventory. The APT FoS simulators are not the same as the actual type-specific F-22 and F-35 flight simulators that train pilots assigned to those particular aircraft. The type-specific simulators are not part of the APT curriculum -- they're later in the training process.

You nailed it - answered my question perfectly. It was my mis-understanding of the process. Thank you for that.

To make sure I got it, I'll reiterate what I understand.
1. APT FoS is for basic flight training
2. APT simulators are for basic flight training - with the advantages specified in the new program.
3. After basic flight training - your assigned to a aircraft type.
4. Type specific simulators are then used (not part of APT) for that training.
 
Sundog

Thanks, I couldn't figure out why development would have been pushed back now because of something so many years in the future. Aren't we supposed to be seeing these designs in the near future?
[/quote]

I agree, am getting very interseted in the Northrop and Saab/Boeing clean sheet designs and what they look like!

So far the glimpse of the Northrop design is very similar to a T-38, but has a fuselage chine. With Saab/Boeing I am hoping that the design
is almost 6th generation in appearance. Something tailless with levcons or canards, yet very flattened fuselage, and with room for growth. New manufacturing techniqes for affordability. If used as trainer and possibly Agressor/emulator later on, and also as an affordable export fighter to supplement F-35 why not put some very advanced features to make it worth the cost. Later options for a small AESA, and DAS, IR sensor?

Why the dearth of concept sketches? will have to make some. Would like to see what others think it will look.

Makes sense that this airplane would need to train 6th gen pilots as well as current pilots if it will be anything like the T-38 was.
 
So, has anyone heard any news on the new designs rolling our from Northrop and Boeing/SAAB.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom