• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Boeing T-X designation

tigercat2

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Since Boeing has won the T-X contest, any idea on what the designation will be? Perhaps the T-7 following on to the T-6, or perhaps the "pre-1962" system as the T-49 or higher.


Wes W
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,639
Reaction score
50
Probably T-2020, since that's about the time frame it will operate in and it offers a clear vision of the future for advanced pilots. I wish I was kidding, but the old designation system is about dead. It's now about marketing; T-6 (A reference to the original WW2 NA Texan), the B-21 (not B-3, because it's a bomber for the 21st century), and whatever other programs they've played with the naming convention for better marketing.
 

tigercat2

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Actually the IOC date looks like 2024, with full capability by 2035(!) Why does it take so long for a relatively simple singe engine trainer to come on line?


Wes W
 

Maveric

Fight for yor Right!
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
1,792
Reaction score
61
Do you know the company designation (Model-number) of this bird?
 

Andreas Parsch

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Mar 2, 2006
Messages
245
Reaction score
1
tigercat2 said:
Perhaps the T-7 following on to the T-6, or perhaps the "pre-1962" system as the T-49 or higher.
... that would be T-54 or higher.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,282
Reaction score
161
tigercat2 said:
Actually the IOC date looks like 2024, with full capability by 2035(!) Why does it take so long for a relatively simple singe engine trainer to come on line?


Wes W
It looks like FOC coincides with the retirement of the T-38, so in this case, full operational capability may refer to having enough aircraft and ground systems to take over the full training workload rather than any specific capability development.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
188
Not sure on the model designation# - Boeing listed it as BTX-1 when applying for the two N#s they have been flying under.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

tigercat2

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Andreas Parsch said:
tigercat2 said:
Perhaps the T-7 following on to the T-6, or perhaps the "pre-1962" system as the T-49 or higher.
... that would be T-54 or higher.
If the USAF goes for the post-1962 series, would the next designation be T-7?

Wes W.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,282
Reaction score
161
It would be odd for them to revert to the T-7 since they've assigned T-53 more recently. T-6 was the aberration, used to force the nostalgic link between the WW2-era T-6 Texan and the new T-6 Texan II.

I hope we'll see the Boeing TX become the T-54, but I could see them skipping over both T-54 and T-55 to avoid Google collisions with the Soviet tanks.
 

tigercat2

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Brilliant idea; T-21 for the 21st Century. Sort of like the way, way, way out of sequence B-21 for the 21st Century. Too bad that the C-21 was recently used for the Lear, and the F-21 for the Kfir.


Wes W.
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
549
Reaction score
35
Hello!

tigercat2 said:
Brilliant idea; T-21 for the 21st Century. Sort of like the way, way, way out of sequence B-21 for the 21st Century. Too bad that the C-21 was recently used for the Lear, and the F-21 for the Kfir.
Comparing the time, when aircraft, like B-52 and T-38 have been intoduced to service, their replacement's should be used during wholed 21st century.

T-38 is till operational, with maiden flight in 1958.
B-52 - as well, with maiden flight in 1952.

Perhaps, modern aircraft should be designed with the provision for service life for a centuries, not decades?
:cool:
 

tigercat2

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Silencer1 said:
Hello!

tigercat2 said:
Brilliant idea; T-21 for the 21st Century. Sort of like the way, way, way out of sequence B-21 for the 21st Century. Too bad that the C-21 was recently used for the Lear, and the F-21 for the Kfir.
Comparing the time, when aircraft, like B-52 and T-38 have been intoduced to service, their replacement's should be used during wholed 21st century.

T-38 is till operational, with maiden flight in 1958.
B-52 - as well, with maiden flight in 1952.
or
Perhaps, modern aircraft should be designed with the provision for service life for a centuries, not decades?
:cool:
You are correct; the Boeing T-X will probably be in service for 80% of the 21st century!


Wes W
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
1
Its amazing to imagine something that looked like it was designed in the 1970's to be flying in the year 2099.

Disappointed. I know it might be "affordable" whatever it ends up ultimately costing, but was hoping for something more innovative and inspirational like the T-38 was when it first appeared.

My guess will be designated T-57/58
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
27
There have been no fundamental changes in the understanding of transonic aerodynamics in the last 50 years. Why would it look different?
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,405
Reaction score
118
Because fashion.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
1
Not just fashion...although looks count for something in aircraft and fighters/trainers?

You're right and I agree...

Yet was just hoping for more inspiration in the design and something more versatile (like the Mako
Heat) something that could have filled other roles like a viable "Red Air" threat. Why not design a future trainer with Aggressor role, training role (currently), and also as an affordable alternative that could be produced in numbers.

I was hoping that affordable manufacturing was going to make a high performance Bird of Prey or Mako Heat type of aircraft. The Bird of Prey was testing low cost manufacture tech itself wasn't it?

Trainer, Red air, and as a "numbers" aircraft that could supplement more expensive. And if stealth is the main focus of US fighter doctrine, why not make the trainer look like it was meant to operate in a 21st century environment.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
66
I very much think that red air is part of what T-X will do. The kind of Red-Air the T-38 embedded in F-22 squadrons do presently: deploy and provide dynamic training at squadron level sparing Raptor flight hours and logistics.
The T-X is build to be easily/cheaply maintained while providing range and dynamics flight hours as suited.
 

Vahe Demirjian

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
440
Reaction score
141
We'll see if the Boeing T-X is designated T-4 or T-54 (remember that the T-6 was assigned out of sequence for the T-6 Texan II to honor of T-6 Texan of WW2).
 

Vahe Demirjian

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 1, 2013
Messages
440
Reaction score
141
It would be odd for them to revert to the T-7 since they've assigned T-53 more recently. T-6 was the aberration, used to force the nostalgic link between the WW2-era T-6 Texan and the new T-6 Texan II.

I hope we'll see the Boeing TX become the T-54, but I could see them skipping over both T-54 and T-55 to avoid Google collisions with the Soviet tanks.
Agree. But skipping over T-54 and T-55 is ridiculous because T-54 and T-55 are tanks (T stands for tanka=tank).
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
139
Reaction score
28
Its especially bad since the bird it's named after is actually called the Red-tailed Hawk (not Red Hawk) and is sometimes referred to as Red Tail. Calling it the T-7A Red Tail, would have been somewhat less awkward and more significant.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,282
Reaction score
161
Its especially bad since the bird it's named after is actually called the Red-tailed Hawk (not Red Hawk) and is sometimes referred to as Red Tail. Calling it the T-7A Red Tail, would have been somewhat less awkward and more significant.
It's not named after the red-tailed hawk. It's named in a mash-up of the Tuskegee "red-tails" and the P-40 Warhawk. No actual bird in the picture here.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
645
Reaction score
63
I recall a comment made during the Cold War when someone asked an Air Force official why Communist planes look like ours. He said that even though the planes are Communist, they have to obey the same laws of aerodynamics that ours do.

Of course, this brings up the question of some foreign Cold War aircraft that are no longer being used by Communists.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
225
Logical designation sequence I guess.
Not sure about the name though, rather like the RAF naming the Tempest the Dambuster Spithurivulcane.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,282
Reaction score
161
It isn't odd. The T-7A Red Hawk follows the T-6A Texan II.
What's odd is that after the T-6 Texan II (which skipped a couple of numbers to line up with the old AT-6 Texan), the Air Force fell back on the older sequence and used T-51, -52, and -53 for various Academy primary trainers.
 
Top