I wonder, if the Boeing engineers are already planning or have in their backmind a USN variant to replace the T-45 Goshawk in 15-20 years or so.
 
I would say the large twin tails may have already been designed partly in mind for that very competition. Carrier ops do need even more tail control at slow speeds... I'd say Boeing-SAAB is in better position to win that one than T-50.
 
TomS said:
Harrier said:
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.

Ten years to build out the 300+ aircraft and 30+ additional simulators needed after IOC, for starters. That FOC date was baked into the T-X RFP, so it's not based on this specific aircraft but rather on what the Air Force wants to spend on the whole program. This isn't going to be a high-rate production program, because the Air Force wants to keep the budget impact relatively low year-over-year.

I can't believe nothing will be learned or added in that time. Low rates make fiddling more likely unless it is very clear it is all good from the get go. That would be an achievement.
 
Harrier said:
TomS said:
Harrier said:
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.

Ten years to build out the 300+ aircraft and 30+ additional simulators needed after IOC, for starters. That FOC date was baked into the T-X RFP, so it's not based on this specific aircraft but rather on what the Air Force wants to spend on the whole program. This isn't going to be a high-rate production program, because the Air Force wants to keep the budget impact relatively low year-over-year.

I can't believe nothing will be learned or added in that time. Low rates make fiddling more likely unless it is very clear it is all good from the get go. That would be an achievement.

I never said that there would be no changes. I'm sure we'll see several blocks within T-X aircraft manufacturing, and significant evolution in the training infrastructure and curriculum between IOC and FOC.

But I don't think we'll see major changes in aircraft capabilities between IOC and FOC; it will have to perform pretty much the full mission range at IOC. Pilots who start the APT pipeline in the T-X will have to complete the whole curriculum in that aircraft -- no way they will want trainee pilots to fly two advanced jets in the same course.

T-X FOC basically coincides with the T-38C end-of-service date, so achieving FOC is mostly based on having enough T-X aircraft and associated infrastructure in place to take over the full Advanced Pilot Training program.
 
TomS said:
Harrier said:
TomS said:
Harrier said:
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.

Ten years to build out the 300+ aircraft and 30+ additional simulators needed after IOC, for starters. That FOC date was baked into the T-X RFP, so it's not based on this specific aircraft but rather on what the Air Force wants to spend on the whole program. This isn't going to be a high-rate production program, because the Air Force wants to keep the budget impact relatively low year-over-year.

I can't believe nothing will be learned or added in that time. Low rates make fiddling more likely unless it is very clear it is all good from the get go. That would be an achievement.

I never said that there would be no changes. I'm sure we'll see several blocks within T-X aircraft manufacturing, and significant evolution in the training infrastructure and curriculum between IOC and FOC.

But I don't think we'll see major changes in aircraft capabilities between IOC and FOC; it will have to perform pretty much the full mission range at IOC. Pilots who start the APT pipeline in the T-X will have to complete the whole curriculum in that aircraft -- no way they will want trainee pilots to fly two advanced jets in the same course.

T-X FOC basically coincides with the T-38C end-of-service date, so achieving FOC is mostly based on having enough T-X aircraft and associated infrastructure in place to take over the full Advanced Pilot Training program.

Ah,OK, thanks. The capability is not meant to change in a technical sense, just numbers.

Would be interesting to know more about what makes Boeing both certain that they will not have changes and at such a low cost.
 
Archibald said:
Why do they use the old F404 and not the Superbug F414 ? Because Grippen ?

Well for a start presumably the Boeing T-X will generally operate at significantly lower weights than a Gripen-E so just doesn’t need the extra thrust. And that’s before you getting into things like cost, fuel efficiency, etc.
The latest developments of the F404 remains very up to date engines (used in the Indian LCA, Gripen C/D, T-50, etc.)
 
With the T-X competition complete and the winner announced, would it not be wise to start a new thread for the Boeing aircraft's subsequent development, and keep this thread for any further information about the losing competitors . . . ?


cheers,
Robin.
 
Harrier said:
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.

But oh so sexy. Better looking than anything in the teen/20 series save for Tomcat. Off the top of my head I can't think of an ugly design by Northrop. Was it just an engineering exercise to keep their talent pool warm on fighters?
 
A Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) spokesperson confirmed to Yonhap that Boeing’s bid for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X competition was “unbeatably low.”
The company’s share lost 29.8 percent after the winner of the contract was announced.
Source: http://www.koreatimesus.com/s-korea-loses-u-s-military-trainer-jet-bid/
 
I hope this program is not going to turn out to be shades of the NGT.
 
TomcatViP said:
great!

If I may, flattened nose reduces also trim drag at transonic speeds.

Yep. it could, however, increase of minimum drag can also be possible. Indeed, it is not easy to evaluate drag easily
 
I wonder what a prospective single seater will look like. Cockpit towards the back would increase room in the nose for avionics, maybe even an internal gun B) Then it really would be a baby-Hornet.
 
From this article
The sortie included a thorough mission brief, flight, and debrief in the T-X trainer, as well as time in the T-X simulator, which will provide student pilots with the skills needed to transition to 4th and 5th generation fighter, bomber, and other future Mach-21 aircraft.

I'm assuming Mach-21 is the road map for the 21st century, not a Mach 21 aircraft. Someone would have heard or seen that! It's just written poorly to make it sound like we're developing a whole bunch of Mach-21 aircraft. Of course, there is the new reusable launch vehicle from Boeing. ;)
 
Yeah, definitely an odd usage. Air Education and Training Command uses it a lot in the context of "MACH 21 airmen," to denote their 21st Century training approach. Never seen it applied to aircraft, though.

https://www.aetc.af.mil/News/Article/1437119/aetc-releases-2018-strategic-plan/
 
Halving just upgraded their Hawks, the RAAF won’t be in the market for another 10yrs.
 
GTX said:
Halving just upgraded their Hawks, the RAAF won’t be in the market for another 10yrs.

Which is just about the point that T-X might be available for export. It isn't even slated for USAF IOC until 2024.
 
AvWeek article on the ways Boeing says it was able to drop T-X costs so low. Highlights include massively reduced man-hours, trim code, and effective use of in-house suppliers.
 
I hope they haven't cut too many corners, though at least they seem to have cut down on the outsourcing a bit.
 
Interesting. I wonder if the economics of using external sources have run their finacial and political utility?
 
With the chaos Boeing in general is going through at the moment, SAAB may have to ride herd on it's partner to make sure both quality control and schedules are kept up.
 
The T-X will largely be an aluminum airplane, Torgerson told Air Force Magazine, and the only composite structure on the jet will be the nose. A metal airplane is easier to manufacture and easier to repair, he said, and the use of lighter-weight materials wasn’t a requirement as “we didn’t have to squeeze every speck of performance” out of the design, given that it’s not intended to be a front-line combat airplane. Even so, the T-X is described as having the ability to pull more than 8Gs.
Interesting
 
I noted that as well - the Yak-130 (as opposed to the M346 and the Yak-130D demonstrator) followed as similar philosophy.
 
Video posted by Boeing on YouTube on July 1, 2019, with the commencement of the T-X Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of flight test.

YouTube - Boeing: Boeing T-X Begins EMD Flight Tests
 
So does this become the T-7 or the T-54 in the US military aircraft designation series?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom