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

T-X - A Future USAF Trainer

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
50
Was the original NG/Scaled plan to "win with more fin"?
 

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
923
Reaction score
18
I read an article where the writer stated the USAF wanted (but didn't say it was required) T-X to be supersonic. I can't find any other reference to this being a requirement.

Does anyone know if this is a requirement. If not a requirement, has anyone heard this rumor?

Thanks
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
948
Reaction score
56
HAVE A LOOK HERE (source User BringItOn):
https://www.scribd.com/document/259347717/T-X-KPP

And the full KPP and pre-draft:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=36bbba77ca454a9464c1ed3ebc1fa8b1&tab=core&_cview=1
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=399845681ea675ff09814d3e74c0d4f7&tab=core&_cview=0


The main problem lies with the sustained G and max G. See here: https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/modern-military-aviation/136737-usaf-t-x?p=3146680#post3146680
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
1
The Mako Heat would've been a perfect T-x. Wasn't it higher performing than any of the current candidates? (supersonic, excess power, sustained turn rate)

And the design pre dates the Boeing T-x?

And Mako was better looking than all of them, and could also be used as an effective "Red Air" threat simulation whereas current Tx designs not able to emulate a 5th Gen threat or be an aggressor aircraft.
 

Attachments

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
948
Reaction score
56
IMO a successful Mako would have de-facto killed any T-X competition before it even occurred with hundred of airframe being churned out somewhere in the US for the USAF. This is a management tragedy.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
146
NeilChapman said:
I read an article where the writer stated the USAF wanted (but didn't say it was required) T-X to be supersonic. I can't find any other reference to this being a requirement.

Does anyone know if this is a requirement. If not a requirement, has anyone heard this rumor?

Thanks
If the USAF wanted supersonic speed, they should have made it an Objective requirement. As it is, there is no speed requirement in the RFP except a mission profile that calls for speed greater than 300 knots. There are a couple of maneuvering requirements that require specific g loads at speeds below Mach 0.9. That doesn't preclude supersonic speed, but bidders get no credit for it in the evaluation.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,625
Reaction score
230
I loved the Mako back then... 15 years ago ! The project was on life support for a decade, as EADS desperately sought a viable partner which never come. They had a luvly mockup they showed at every air show. At some point they had a MoU with the UAE but nothing come of it.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
146
George Allegrezza said:
Reuters is reporting a Boeing win.
It's official now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/1045405825907527680

“Thank you, @USAirForce. We’re honored and excited to deliver #NewBoeingTX for future generations of pilots, trainers and maintainers!”
@BoeingDefense CEO Leanne Caret (link: http://Boeing.com/T-X) Boeing.com/T-X
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
948
Reaction score
56
Same on Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-27/boeing-beats-lockheed-for-9-2-billion-air-force-trainer-program

EDIT: sorry redundant
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
Surprising, but a great win none the less. Great news for SAAB too.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
146
I'm not really surprised. Boeing is going hard on low cost in all of these recent wins. Their TX is very minimalist compared to the high-spec T-50, so it should be very cheap compared to the Lockheed option. (The Leonardo T-100 was never serious once Raytheon dropped out.)
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
948
Reaction score
56
They can be hard on cost since they have worked hard on new materials and methodologies for airframe. The LM design is one generation behind in that domain what would have had an impact on the USAF with extra cost on sustainement.

Notice that the USAF has obligated only 810M$ for the first phase of the program.
 

fightingirish

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,160
Reaction score
143
Congratulations to Boeing and the USAF for a successful week!
First the MH-139, now the T-X. :) B)
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
95
fightingirish said:
Congratulations to Boeing and the USAF for a successful week!
First the MH-139, now the T-X. :) B)
It has been a VERY good month for Boeing.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
50
Hopefully it gets a better name/designation than T-X. T-51? There was not a T-49 that I can see, and LM used T-50 already of course.

As for a name, something 'spooky' from St Louis again?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,205
Reaction score
393
Surprised and disappointed but I get it. I had the T-50 winning easily but there's maintaining the industrial base and all that so. . . :p
 

litzj

BLOG : http://jaesan-aero.blogspot.com/
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
227
Reaction score
8
Website
jaesan-aero.blogspot.com
T-38 design has evolved F-5, YF=17, F/A-18A/C/E, YF-23... then turning again to trainer T-X for 60 years
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
45
sferrin said:
Surprised and disappointed but I get it. I had the T-50 winning easily but there's maintaining the industrial base and all that so. . . :p
No need to be disappointed, this is a really good platform. T-50 will continue to tick along, and will no doubt be raised as a fallback option if Boeing screws up badly enough.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,205
Reaction score
393
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Surprised and disappointed but I get it. I had the T-50 winning easily but there's maintaining the industrial base and all that so. . . :p
No need to be disappointed, this is a really good platform. T-50 will continue to tick along, and will no doubt be raised as a fallback option if Boeing screws up badly enough.
I hope they do a decent job. (Then again look at the circus the KC-46 is and that's with them ALREADY having converted the 767 to a tanker before.)
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
948
Reaction score
56
The tanker war with Airbus led to some surrealistic pricing (should I remind you that Airbus had no boom design finalized (or even demonstrated)). Here Boeing enjoyed a realistic competition... and won. I am much expecting falls out on the Mach 5 jetliner.
 

Airplane

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
432
Reaction score
1
Well, that settles it: the Thunderbirds will be flying 16s for a while more and then migrate to the 35. No way will they be flying that ugly duckling.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
121
Reaction score
25
Any word from Boeing if there will be a light fighter version of the T-X? Lots of F-5s, Mig-21s, and old F-16s out there needing replacing.
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
22
I doubt it sense it has no sensors and no structural provisions for weapons.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
948
Reaction score
56
Airplane said:
Well, that settles it: the Thunderbirds will be flying 16s for a while more and then migrate to the 35. No way will they be flying that ugly duckling.
We certainly don't share the same aesthetic values ;)

https://youtu.be/P06xAcBrosQ
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,629
Reaction score
42
Airplane said:
Well, that settles it: the Thunderbirds will be flying 16s for a while more and then migrate to the 35. No way will they be flying that ugly duckling.
Actually, I think the TX looks great and it will be the next T-Bird. It's very doubtful that the F-35 will ever be a team demo plane.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
121
Reaction score
25
Its definitely better looking than the hunchback of Fort Worth....

Ive seen the F-35 demo, even the C-17 demo was more impressive.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,166
Reaction score
26
SpudmanWP said:
I doubt it sense it has no sensors and no structural provisions for weapons.
is that a fact? that's really surprising! :eek:
I mean, sensors can be podded, but making no structural provisions for hardpoints seems foolish.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,255
Reaction score
146
When Boeing rolled out their T-X, they specifically noted that the wings can be modified to accept two pylons each. And the RFP required quite a bit of growth margin for simulated sensors. Real ones could certainly be accommodated.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,629
Reaction score
42
Scaled Composites has released more information now on their (Northrop) TX design, the Model 400 Swift.

Swift - Scaled Model 400 (Reg. N400NT)
FIRST FLIGHT August 26, 2016

Greatest Technical Challenge
Swift is a low-cost, high-performance, proof-of-concept jet designed to meet high-G, high angle-of-attack maneuvers. With such technically challenging goals laid before us, we were able to go from concept to first flight in only two years.

SWIFT BY THE NUMBERS
Crew 2 (1 Pilot, 1 crew)
MTOW 15,400 lbs
Max Speed 500 KEAS
Altitude 35,000 ft

SERVICES UTILIZED ON SWIFT

design
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
AERODYNAMIC DESIGN
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
SYSTEMS DESIGN
AVIONICS & SIMULATION DESIGN

build
TOOLING
PART FABRICATION
ASSEMBLY
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

test
MATERIALS & PROCESSING
COMPONENTS & SYSTEMS
FLIGHT TESTING

7 flights were achieved (as of Sep.28, 2018)
FLIGHT TESTING

Swift utilized General Electric's turbofan engine model F404-GE-102D
 

Attachments

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
50
Thanks Sundog.

Scaled have never built anything that entered proper series production. The Beech Starship was the closest, and that got re-engineered.

The Model 400 looks like another POC design, which is a general aviation way of building a non certifiable prototype. So likely they would need to re-engineer and build another set of prototypes to meet USAF needs. More time, more money.

Boeing went for production ready out of the box.
 

harrier

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
50
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-92b-t-x-trainer-contract-with-usaf-452263/

IOC 2024
FOC 2034

Ten years to add what? Presumably weapons and software/simulation if the airframe is 'production ready', as claimed.
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
276
Reaction score
8
Website
www.youtube.com
I too remember reading about hardpoint allowance when it comes to Boeing's T-X. Allegedly five hardpoints can be added, as in, spots for them are already part of the design. And the nose is certainly large enough for a small radar, if funding for such a variant can be justified. (unlike with NG's Swift which has a tiny, tiny nose)

Most importantly for a combat variant, Boeing doesn't have anything of the sort, in that class. Had LM won, combat variant would have remained whatever KAI does, without too much willpower from LM to actually fund and market the type around Europe/Americas. They have their second hand F-16 sales to protect.

But with Boeing winning, there might well be a market for 100+ such light combat planes around the world, and Boeing-SAAB plane might outdo a second-hand F-16 for the customers who are looking for absolute minimum of "supersonic" combat capabilities. We'll see in some 10 years time, I guess...
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,205
Reaction score
393
Anybody know if the thing is even supersonic? (I'm guessing it is but I could be wrong.)


Hmm. Barely. 800 mph. 'bout 350 mph slower than the T-50.
 

Attachments

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
948
Reaction score
56
Regarding a LWF derivative:

Tomorrow any bad guys out there would have long range missiles fielded with multi-target tracking. It means that you gonna have to light your afterburner 100 miles both ways (ingress / egress). That doesn't leave ANY rooms for a lightweight fighter able to survive the fight.

Demo:
F-404 reported SFC: 177.5 kg/(kN·h)
Max thrust: 77.7 kN

1h with full afterburner -> 177.5*77.7=13.8t

Flight time Mach 1.3 (average speed from M.0.8 cruise to Mach1.6 dash speed @30kft): 100/678= 0.15hr (one way)

Mass of fuel needed for the dash (both way) -> 0.15*2*13.8= 4t

So, without reserve, fuel for the fight (!) and considering you spanned at 30kft and Mach 0.8 by magics like in a dumb simulator, you'll need at least 4t of fuel for the mission...


Conclusion:
You'll be better building a new airframe tailored around the need

What you can have however is a DHS occasional fighter to police the skies (since sensors would be offboarded, a simple podded seeker (like a heat seeking modern missile) would do the trick).
 

totoro

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
276
Reaction score
8
Website
www.youtube.com
sferrin said:
Hmm. Barely. 800 mph. 'bout 350 mph slower than the T-50.
Trying to find the source of that figure, but aside from some aeronewstv.com website, no luck. Could you help me with a link?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,205
Reaction score
393
totoro said:
sferrin said:
Hmm. Barely. 800 mph. 'bout 350 mph slower than the T-50.
Trying to find the source of that figure, but aside from some aeronewstv.com website, no luck. Could you help me with a link?
It's on a couple different sites but it could all be copied from one. Don't see one from Boeing.
 
Top