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

FYI...

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/raytheon-unveils-its-next-gen-air-force-trainer/
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-usaf-considers-expanded-role-for-t-x-427313/
 
Air Force releases T-X draft RFP; final RFP expected in December


The Air Force has released a draft request for proposals for the next-generation T-X trainer family of systems -- a precursor to the final RFP, which it expects to release in December.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said during a Defense One event this morning that the service has engaged in "an unprecedented level of discussion on requirements" with industry for the T-X program. That engagement has allowed the Air Force to conduct a cost capability analysis for the program, a process that helps the service prioritize requirements and make trades where needed.

"At the end of the day when we do the final RFP, which should be by the December time frame, we should have a really good grasp on how we're going to do this cost capability analysis for the T-X," James said.

The cost capability analysis concept is an outgrowth of the service's Bending the Cost Curve initiative, which stemmed from the Defense Department's Better Buying Power push. T-X is one of the first Air Force programs to incorporate the construct.
Click to expand...

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=eb00a01f5020fdc82b46de91ab1a5e38&_cview=0
 
fightingirish said:
B) #happyaviationday! ;)
Click to expand...

Yup. Now here's hoping Northrop Grumman PR doesn't go home early and puts up some high resolution pictures before the weekend ;)
 
Northrop T-X breaks cover at Mojave


LOS ANGELES – Northrop Grumman’s contender for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X next-generation trainer competition has begun taxi tests at Mojave, California. The aircraft, which was designed by Northrop’s Scaled Composites special projects company, is believed to have begun high speed taxi work this week. Northrop’s offering is a low-wing, single-engine aircraft with side-mounted inlets and a conventional horizontal and large vertical tail. Similar to the T-38 ...
Click to expand...

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?omni=Home-N-Number&nNumberTxt=N400NT
 

Attachments

  • FAA_Scaled.png
    FAA_Scaled.png
    260.2 KB · Views: 316
Triton said:
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?
Click to expand...

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.
 
Based on the shadow it looks like it has a swept wing; I was expecting a delta or a trapezoidal wing. It's definitely nice looking.

I don't know if this is LM's to lose as the clean sheet designs could win extra points based on performance. Of course, I don't think the air frame itself will win the competition. A lot of it will be based on the training system itself. It will definitely be interesting and be a hell of a fight.
 
The Draft RFI gives plenty of opportunity for higher performance to overcome higher independent cost estimate and nicely quantifies in important performance metrics. This will definitly be something to watch out for with the clean sheet designs mixed with a couple of proven in service designs.
 
Well it looks like I'm fashionably late to the party. But I did bring potato chips. :-D
 
Trident said:
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?
Click to expand...

The FAA registration says F404-GE-102D; the D would mean non-afterburning. But I'd bet the design can be easily modified for an afterburning engine if required for a future development.
 
sferrin said:
Triton said:
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?
Click to expand...

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.
Click to expand...

The politics are almost unfathomable though. Do you piss off two (or possibly three) nations purchasing F-35 by not buying their trainer? Do you run Boeing out of the fast jet business? Do you reward NG for their rapid prototyping and IRAD deployment?
 
Seemingly quite a contrast in "heft" as an airframe compared to the LockMart/KAI T-50A.

I wonder where the boom receptacle (and plumbing) will go? Doesn't seem to be enough room for one. It'd be a shame to mess up those nice lines on a clean-sheet design with a scabbed on "hump" like the T-50.
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
Triton said:
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?
Click to expand...

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.
Click to expand...

The politics are almost unfathomable though. Do you piss off two (or possibly three) nations purchasing F-35 by not buying their trainer? Do you run Boeing out of the fast jet business? Do you reward NG for their rapid prototyping and IRAD deployment?
Click to expand...

The trainer/F-35 customer angle is nothing. They're already getting something for their money (a stealth fighter and workshare). Boeing and NG? This is a competition for a trainer, not welfare. If they awarded to Boeing to keep them in the fighter business, and their entry wasn't demonstrably better than LM's, there would a a protest (justifiably so) and LM would win. Same with NG. The only way to beat LM, and not lose an inevitable protest, is to bring a superior solution to the table.
 
If they're looking for something that can be weaponized, its Lockheed's contract. Hard to believe the company that brought us the yf23 and the b2, brings us this "kit plane" looking thing. No afterburner too? Hell Lockheed will win just to keep the NG bid from becoming the next Thunderbird. Were all their real engineers busy with the b21?
 
Airplane said:
If they're looking for something that can be weaponized, its Lockheed's contract. Hard to believe the company that brought us the yf23 and the b2, brings us this "kit plane" looking thing. No afterburner too? Hell Lockheed will win just to keep the NG bid from becoming the next Thunderbird. Were all their real engineers busy with the b21?
Click to expand...

Good engineers don't need to over build an airplane. In fact, it's usually about meeting the specifications with the minimum amount of material (lower cost). They also know more about the requirements than you do; that's why this airplane looks the way it does. Without knowing every single one of those requirements, none of us know which design is the best. The requirements drive the design, not the other way around.

The T-50 was <i>not</i> designed to those requirements; it was modified to meet them the best Lockheed-Martin knows how. The Northrop-Grumman design actually <i>is</i> designed to the requirements. The next move is Boeing-SAAB's to make.
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
Triton said:
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?
Click to expand...

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.
Click to expand...

The politics are almost unfathomable though. Do you piss off two (or possibly three) nations purchasing F-35 by not buying their trainer? Do you run Boeing out of the fast jet business? Do you reward NG for their rapid prototyping and IRAD deployment?
Click to expand...

Israeli's seem happy with their M-346 decision over the T-50. Of course, they negotiated a great deal with the Italians.
 
TomS said:
Trident said:
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?
Click to expand...

The FAA registration says F404-GE-102D; the D would mean non-afterburning. But I'd bet the design can be easily modified for an afterburning engine if required for a future development.
Click to expand...

Dry version of the engine in the T-50. I think this is nicer looking than the T-50 and in the picture it just "feels" quite a bit lighter, if that makes sense.

Looks wicked fast.
 
Boxman said:
Seemingly quite a contrast in "heft" as an airframe compared to the LockMart/KAI T-50A.

I wonder where the boom receptacle (and plumbing) will go? Doesn't seem to be enough room for one. It'd be a shame to mess up those nice lines on a clean-sheet design with a scabbed on "hump" like the T-50.
Click to expand...

Do you think they'd propose a refueling probe like the F5/f20?
 
TomS said:
Trident said:
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?
Click to expand...

The FAA registration says F404-GE-102D; the D would mean non-afterburning. But I'd bet the design can be easily modified for an afterburning engine if required for a future development.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. This is their lead in risk-reduction IRAD craft that would have flown many times prior to the release of the full RFP in December. If they feel that the final RFP warrants an Afterburner they could quite easily offer a slightly different version in their final proposal. The program requires demonstrations of certain important performance metrics so their aim was obviously to get it to meet those. If they can meet performance goals without the need for an AB thats advantage to them in the cost department (Raytheon will claim that as well I guess). I wouldnt be surprised if the Boeing/SAAB design also takes this approach.

Sundog said:
Airplane said:
If they're looking for something that can be weaponized, its Lockheed's contract. Hard to believe the company that brought us the yf23 and the b2, brings us this "kit plane" looking thing. No afterburner too? Hell Lockheed will win just to keep the NG bid from becoming the next Thunderbird. Were all their real engineers busy with the b21?
Click to expand...

Good engineers don't need to over build an airplane. In fact, it's usually about meeting the specifications with the minimum amount of material (lower cost). They also know more about the requirements than you do; that's why this airplane looks the way it does. Without knowing every single one of those requirements, none of us know which design is the best. The requirements drive the design, not the other way around.

The T-50 was <i>not</i> designed to those requirements; it was modified to meet them the best Lockheed-Martin knows how. The Northrop-Grumman design actually <i>is</i> designed to the requirements. The next move is Boeing-SAAB's to make.
Click to expand...

They sure had an opportunity to design completely around USAF's requirements so it will logically be a very competitive design. The last July RFI dump actually has a ton of information in it including the exact monetary amount they are willing to pay for performance over and above the threshold. I bet the OEM's had an idea of this much before it was formally published and related since the USAF has been having conversations with the industry for some time now.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=eb00a01f5020fdc82b46de91ab1a5e38&_cview=0
 
bring_it_on said:
They sure had an opportunity to design completely around USAF's requirements so it will logically be a very competitive design. The last July RFI dump actually has a ton of information in it including the exact monetary amount they are willing to pay for performance over and above the threshold. I bet the OEM's had an idea of this much before it was formally published and related since the USAF has been having conversations with the industry for some time now.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=eb00a01f5020fdc82b46de91ab1a5e38&_cview=0
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that was available.
 
NeilChapman said:
TomS said:
Trident said:
No reheat (nozzle seems non-variable)?
Click to expand...

The FAA registration says F404-GE-102D; the D would mean non-afterburning. But I'd bet the design can be easily modified for an afterburning engine if required for a future development.
Click to expand...

Dry version of the engine in the T-50. I think this is nicer looking than the T-50 and in the picture it just "feels" quite a bit lighter, if that makes sense.

Looks wicked fast.
Click to expand...

Where'd you find a picture of it? Only one I've been able to find is this:
 

Attachments

  • Screen-Shot-2016-08-19-at-21_53_33.png
    Screen-Shot-2016-08-19-at-21_53_33.png
    932.3 KB · Views: 309
There's a second picture a couple of pages back in this thread.
 
BTW, the F404-102D puts out 11000 lbs of thrust (I'm assuming that's uninstalled thrust). Most sites are reporting the thrust of the afterburning version of the engine
 
TomS said:
There's a second picture a couple of pages back in this thread.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks. Now if you could just answer my other question. ;)
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
There's a second picture a couple of pages back in this thread.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks. Now if you could just answer my other question. ;)
Click to expand...

The post where the pictures are located gives the source link at the beginning of the post (David Kerns).
 
Sundog said:
bring_it_on said:
They sure had an opportunity to design completely around USAF's requirements so it will logically be a very competitive design. The last July RFI dump actually has a ton of information in it including the exact monetary amount they are willing to pay for performance over and above the threshold. I bet the OEM's had an idea of this much before it was formally published and related since the USAF has been having conversations with the industry for some time now.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=eb00a01f5020fdc82b46de91ab1a5e38&_cview=0
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I didn't know that was available.
Click to expand...

Likewise. Interesting to see how the aircraft specifications continue to evolve; I had forgotten how ambitious/exacting they were.

It's hard to see how T-X isn't a straight race between LM and NG given how demanding the aircraft specification are (especially growth potential), the complexity of the training syllabus (especially LVC) and how F-35-like the cockpit requirements are.
 
^ True. I still think Boeing will be putting in a lot of money given how important this program is to their defense division. Below are the 3 interesting tables on exactly how much you can pull back your ICE $ amount on account of better performance -

Other cost incentives for exceeding threshold are in the following categories -

1) High G Maneuvers ( 6.5G Threshold , 7.5 G Objective with a MAX $88 Million Value Adjustment for those that achieve 7.5G or above)
2) High AOA ( 20 Threshold, 25 Degrees Objective with a MAX of $51 Million for those that achieve 25 or above)
3) Terrain Warning and Avoidance (Up to $27 Million Value adjustment for meeting Objective)
4) GBTS Connectivity (Up to $13 Million adjustment for meeting objective)
5) Aerial Refueling Subsystem Full Integration (Max adjustment of $20 Million)
6) Targeting Pod System Simulation ( Max of $17 Million)
7) Ground Support Station Connectivity (Max $24 Million)
8) Turn Around Time (Max of $51 Million in 1 minute increments up to the objective of 33 Minutes vs a 45 minute threshold)

Triton said:
Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?
Click to expand...

The amount of detail in the RFP is enough to prepare a firm ground for appeal if a particular team feels that they haven't been given the credit they deserve. Its very closely aligned with the better buying power initiative pushing through incentives for proposing a solution closer to the objective performance requirements. Boeing could well win this but by most likely investing lot of company money into design, development and proposing a very robust solution. I don't think there's room to play politics or make 'industry concern' decisions on this one but those things should give the individual teams plenty of incentive to aggressively spend on their particular designs and solutions both in the aircraft and the other equally as important aspects (training).
 

Attachments

  • T-X_HighG.png
    T-X_HighG.png
    36.5 KB · Views: 466
  • T-X_AOA.png
    T-X_AOA.png
    38.4 KB · Views: 456
  • T-X_Risk.png
    T-X_Risk.png
    61.8 KB · Views: 471
There was one thing I found most interesting about the requirements, which I should have though of, but didn't. That's how much of the document describes the tests required to prove a given design meets the requirements; the validation section.
 
Sundog said:
There was one thing I found most interesting about the requirements, which I should have though of, but didn't. That's how much of the document describes the tests required to prove a given design meets the requirements; the validation section.
Click to expand...

Yup. That would have been something that they must have been communicating all along the process given the rush to get a proposal grade variant in the air by the time the final RFP is released. Even Boeing would have flown their design by the year end when the final RFP is expected.
 
bring_it_on said:
Other cost incentives for exceeding threshold are in the following categories -

1) High G Maneuvers ( 6.5G Threshold , 7.5 G Objective with a MAX $88 Million Value Adjustment for those that achieve 7.5G or above)
2) High AOA ( 20 Threshold, 25 Degrees Objective with a MAX of $51 Million for those that achieve 25 or above)
3) Terrain Warning and Avoidance (Up to $27 Million Value adjustment for meeting Objective)
4) GBTS Connectivity (Up to $13 Million adjustment for meeting objective)
5) Aerial Refueling Subsystem Full Integration (Max adjustment of $20 Million)
6) Targeting Pod System Simulation ( Max of $17 Million)
7) Ground Support Station Connectivity (Max $24 Million)
8) Turn Around Time (Max of $51 Million in 1 minute increments up to the objective of 33 Minutes vs a 45 minute threshold)
Click to expand...

With these considerations in mind, I have to agree with sferrin; it's Lockheed's to lose.

The incentive for Auto-GCAS is particularly striking and while Saab has a similar system on some of the Gripens (same AFTI lineage) Lockheed's Auto-GCAS is literally combat proven.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom