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

T-X - A Future USAF Trainer

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
284

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,936
Reaction score
400
Website
beyondthesprues.com
People are reading too much into the TA-50 Block 2 announcement. If you read on KAI's own website it is pretty obvious that Block 2 simply refers to the the second mass-production deal:

 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
1,055
People are reading too much into the TA-50 Block 2 announcement. If you read on KAI's own website it is pretty obvious that Block 2 simply refers to the the second mass-production deal:

Yes. As you get closer to the Korean original press release, references to TA-50 Block 1 disappear and the announcement just says that TA-50 is an upgraded version of the T-50 trainer.

 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
2,936
Reaction score
400
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Exactly. I think people have missed the subtle element of the story: ... TA-50 aircraft, an advanced T-50 trainer variant...

Add in the Block 2 part and people jump to conclusions, however the reality is far simpler: They are comparing the TA-50 version to the T-50 and yes, the TA-50 is a more advanced version but it has also been around for a while plus they are also talking about Block 2 being the second mass production deal.
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
78
Reaction score
12
It simply just means the second production run. However, the second production one is distinct from the first in that the dedicated assembly line for the TA-50 was converted to the FA-50 a long time ago, thus this TA-50 is practically just the FA-50 with link-16 removed.
 

helmutkohl

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
206
Reaction score
201
It simply just means the second production run. However, the second production one is distinct from the first in that the dedicated assembly line for the TA-50 was converted to the FA-50 a long time ago, thus this TA-50 is practically just the FA-50 with link-16 removed.
how simple is it to convert a TA-50 to an FA-50?
so far I think Philippines is the only customer of the FA version
all other exports (Iraq, Indonesia, etc) use just the trainer version
I think S.Korea uses all 3?
 

Mach42

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
78
Reaction score
12
It simply just means the second production run. However, the second production one is distinct from the first in that the dedicated assembly line for the TA-50 was converted to the FA-50 a long time ago, thus this TA-50 is practically just the FA-50 with link-16 removed.
how simple is it to convert a TA-50 to an FA-50?
so far I think Philippines is the only customer of the FA version
all other exports (Iraq, Indonesia, etc) use just the trainer version
I think S.Korea uses all 3?
This should probably be moved to a different thread but here is the short version: Main difference is in the vertical stabilizer. 'Original' TA-50 has a clipped vert. stab. identical to the T-50. While the FA-50 has a (very F-16 like) vert. stab. with a (housing for the) antenna for the rwr on top. So if you check the T-50i, T-50IQ, T-50A they are all actually 'FA-50's in a way. So I would say it is difficult to convert the 'original' TA-50s but for most of the exported T-50 family flying currently, its simply a matter of adding the missing avionics/systems.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,805
Reaction score
247
While I'm sure some of those countries may buy it, there are some that definitely won't. For instance, I definitely don't see France or anyone within the EU buying it. They'll want their own solution for their on manufacturers. I can't say I blame them, we want the same thing here. I don't see Brazil buying them because because they're now building their own Gripens. I could see the navy using them to replace F-5s in the aggressor role, especially if they buy some as T-45 replacements for the advanced training role. They still have their maintenance set up to handle F404s for the Marine's F-18s, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to get them integrated into service.

It seems to me like this program is moving slow, for how fast we got the prototypes.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
3,904
Reaction score
1,503
France has not wanted a supersonic trainer since the Jaguar fiasco :p

More generally, still no replacement in view for the Alphajets - or maybe I just can't remember.

EDIT: France decided to go the opposite way. PC-21s everywhere, except for the ETO and Patrouille de France.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,022
Reaction score
711
Great brief:
Boeing’s chief test pilot for Air Force programs, Dan “Dragon” Draeger, reported that the aircraft has been flown to its highest speed and has proved its fuel-flow system in inverted flight. It has exceeded its threshold angle-of-attack requirement of 20 degrees, and also its objective target of 25 degrees. It meets requirements of both instantaneous and sustained turn rates, and has been demonstrated at loads above the threshold figure of 6.5 g as it approaches the objective of 7.5 g. It is also “very well-behaved in a crosswind environment,” reported Draeger.
 

FighterJock

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
284
I cannot see Serbia buying the T-7 anytime soon, since the military in Serbia are so linked with Russia.
 

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
162
Reaction score
25
Wow finally, years later we really can understand the planform that all the side shots failed to convey. Interesting they ditched the trapezoidal wing for a more general swept wing.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
1,055
Wow finally, years later we really can understand the planform that all the side shots failed to convey. Interesting they ditched the trapezoidal wing for a more general swept wing.
It looks almost a tailed delta. The trailing edge of the wing seems slightly swept along the inner portion and very nearly straight (or possibly very slightly forward swept) at the outer portion.
 

Attachments

NUSNA_Moebius

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
162
Reaction score
25
It has a small LERX so clearly it's going to have vortex lift at least in the inner portion of the wing but outside of that it's more functionally a general swept wing. I guess technically it's really a compound wing.

The increase in span, aspect ratio and chord compared to the trapezoidal N-156 family is prob in focus to subsonic performance and foregoing the necessity of an afterburner for ACM. Can lighten the structure too but it's one less thing you can train pilots on using.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
1,055
Boeing's virtual kiosk for Tailhook includes a pic of the T-7 in Navy colors, and a brochure about their development process that shows both Aggressor and Light Attack configurations. Aggressor gets tip rails for AAMs or ACMI pods plus a centerline pylon. Light Attack adds four underwing hardpoints as well.
 

Attachments

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
145
Reaction score
224
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSGX1NAc6ZE


 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
1,055
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSGX1NAc6ZE


Well, that's the dumbest idea in designations in quite a while. And there have been plenty of contenders.

Everything is designed digitally before it is physically built these days. This change just adds confusion with no value at all.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,022
Reaction score
711
The change is integrated simulation with all "classic" CAE collapsed in a box; a model that you can also fly, test for maintenance, use to train pilot or develop safety procedures with the last design update.

If you are a trained CAD engineer (among the few that can go beyond conceptual things under a CAD software), you'll know that there is next to no CAE without iterations. IMOHO this is the fundamental difference here.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
1,072
Well, that's the dumbest idea in designations in quite a while. And there have been plenty of contenders.

Everything is designed digitally before it is physically built these days. This change just adds confusion with no value at all.
Because sadly designations are now marketing tools like everything else.
Presumably this would clash with the current capital 'E' prefix for special electronic installation. Maybe that's what they meant by a 'digital century series' after all? They were all 100-series numbers, these will all be 'e' numbers.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
497
I had always thought the USAF to be more savvy about marketing than any of the other services. This seems an Army thing to do. Rather surprised to see this level of nincompoopery on their part.

Honestly I seriously doubt there will be any more excitement at flying a eF-2035 than a F-2035. Of course I am a "boomer" so I have no appreciation for this sort of thing.
 

Silencer1

That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
613
Reaction score
124
If Apple starts its' own series of military aircraft, they definitely could use prefix "I" in their designations.
Sorry for off topic :cool:
 
Last edited:
Top