T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2015, 14:14
by popcorn
Another major AF program that merits it's own thread.

USAF Issues T-X Requirements

WASHINGTON — The US Air Force has released the long-awaited requirements for its next-generation trainer program, known as T-X.

The requirements, posted on a federal website Wednesday, will drive the decisions of the five competing companies who hope to win the rights to build 350 advanced flight trainers and the associated systems to replace the legacy T-38 trainer. Interested parties must respond to the service by May 10.

The program is the first to issue requirements under the "Bending the Cost Curve" initiative, a major staple in Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James' plans for acquisition reform.

There are over 100 requirements included in the documents, but an Air Force news release said the emphasis is on three key components: sustained G, simulator visual acuity and performance, and aircraft sustainment.

Other capabilities include the need for in-flight refueling, a 10 percent reduction in fuel usage from the T-38, and a minimum of being able to take off at an 8000' runway length, 7400' density altitude and 10 knot tailwind
.

[Notably, there is no requirement for a "Red Air" aggressor aircraft. ]While such a program was included in the out years of the fiscal 2016 budget request submitted by the service, Air Force officials have characterized that more as study money for future upgrades...

A contract award is planned for fall of 2017.

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /25080555/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2015, 16:24
by cantaz
Which doesn't mean the service isn't looking at future capabilities for the T-X. Included in a series of questions posited to industry are "to what degree is your current design open/flexible to accommodation of future capability modifications" and another asking whether there are "limiting factors in your current design that would preclude future system modification" of wing pylons, radar systems, datalinks and defensive systems.


CAS aircraft for permissible environments?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2015, 18:08
by madrat
So basically they can get away with an afterburning engine as long as it burns less fuel than a pair of J85's. Sounds like a single engined F125-powered trainer with a fixed air intake and larger wings than the T-38. Does it discourage canard layouts? I would think a wing layout like the X-31 would give a simple design capable of sustained high g turns. Plus it's a well understood wing plan and easily adaptable for wing loads. The alternative would be stay conventional and stick with a slim design like the T-38 only incorporating LERX extensions and reroute the airflow underwing, which would gave it the mini-Golden Eagle (T-50) look.

Does the fuel usage need to be vis-a-vis? I could see a contractor taking the maximum WET fuel use of the T-38 minus the minimum savings the air force wants and then using dry thrust efficiency to justify a larger engine. But as an added caveat they would still use an engine incorporating wet thrust without having to justify its wet thrust efficiency.

The emphasis is on only three factors that really involve the aircraft. The fourth one probably drives the winner more than anything. Wouldn't it make more sense to bid that part - the simulator visual acuity - first and then put the airframe out to bid second?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2015, 01:36
by popcorn
cantaz wrote:
Which doesn't mean the service isn't looking at future capabilities for the T-X. Included in a series of questions posited to industry are "to what degree is your current design open/flexible to accommodation of future capability modifications" and another asking whether there are "limiting factors in your current design that would preclude future system modification" of wing pylons, radar systems, datalinks and defensive systems.


CAS aircraft for permissible environments?

Just keeping their options open which makes sense. I also think it serves no purpose for the AF to play up any potential combat capabilities at this time when the F-35 production is beginning to ramp up. No need for Sprey-clones arguing to cut F-35s now that a cheap option is to be had. No need to saddle F-X with that baggage.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2015, 01:58
by popcorn
 More along the same lines.

No Aggressor, But Built-In Adaptability
—JOHN A. TIRPAK3/23/2015
comment

The requirements for the Air Force’s T-X trainer don’t call for the airplane to be capable of the aggressor mission, but the jet is to have sufficient space, weight, power, and cooling to accommodate that role in the future. Lt. Gen Tod Wolters, deputy chief of staff for operations, told the Senate Armed Services airland panel on March 19 that it’s “too early” to look at the T-X for the aggressor role, noting F-16s are doing the mission “most cost effectively” for the near-term. However, USAF may want to consider the T-X in the aggressor role “at some point.” William LaPlante, service acquisition executive, said USAF ensured the requirements didn’t “limit our options” regarding future T-X applications. Air Education and Training Command said March 20 there is $40 million across the future years defense plan under “stores-aircraft interface” “to provide future planning or development options related to T-X.” Gen. Robin Rand, AETC commander, said a T-X variant “is just one option for ‘Red Air’ if we decide there’s a requirement for it.” (LaPlante/Holmes prepared testimony)

Source: Daily Report

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2015, 03:04
by popcorn
Interesting. AF has just released the T-X requirements so for SK's sake hope T-50 gets the nod.

Lockheed Has T-X Clean Sheet Backup

WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin is planning to offer the T-50 trainer for the Air Force's T-X program. But that doesn't mean the world's largest defense firm hasn't covered its bases.

Rob Weiss, executive vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin's advanced development programs, better known as the Skunk Works, said the company has a clean-sheet design for T-X on hand on the off-chance the T-50 cannot meet the requirements for the T-X program, which are expected to be released shortly.

"We have taken, over the years, a broad look at the whole T-X requirement," Weiss told reporters last month. "Back in 2010, when this really started getting going as a program, we looked at clean-sheet alternatives as well. And we've kept a low-level effort going on the clean sheet.

"So depending exactly on where the Air Force lands on the requirement, we'll see exactly what we bring forward as the offering."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /24438549/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 22:19
by pron
GD Withdraws as T-100 Prime Contractor

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaki ... /70510320/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2015, 23:28
by KamenRiderBlade
I really hope they don't give up on the T-X program itself.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2015, 04:30
by rheonomic
Has anyone actually seen the T-X requirements? I've seen a couple of news articles on their release, but was unable to find them on FedBizOps (the AF Link URL didn't seem to work for me). Best I was able to do was find a slideshow talking about some of the requirements, but that seemed a bit dated.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2015, 01:57
by bring_it_on
rheonomic wrote:Has anyone actually seen the T-X requirements? I've seen a couple of news articles on their release, but was unable to find them on FedBizOps (the AF Link URL didn't seem to work for me). Best I was able to do was find a slideshow talking about some of the requirements, but that seemed a bit dated.


Here you go -

https://www.scribd.com/doc/259347717/T-X-KPP

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2015, 17:13
by rheonomic
Thanks!

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2015, 15:28
by popcorn
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... nt-414531/
USAF reaffirms ambitious T-X sustained-g requirement
The US Air Force is not backing away from the ambitious sustained g requirement for its T-X next-generation trainer that has sidelined at least two proposed aircraft types and driven the competitors toward clean sheet designs...

In a 10 July statement, Air Education and Training Command confirmed that the minimum T-X sustained g requirement of 6.5 g and objective of 7.5 g remains unchanged from the key performance parameter published in March, even though it would exclude a number of viable trainer options from the competition.

The requirement sets a high bar for manoeuvrability, requiring the T-X to sustain that load at a pressure altitude of 15,000ft for at least 140 degrees of a full turn with minimal loss of energy and altitude.

More.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2015, 22:33
by johnwill
Wonder why they call it a sustained g maneuver requirement, when their definition of the maneuver is not a sustained g?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2015, 06:29
by huggy
johnwill wrote:Wonder why they call it a sustained g maneuver requirement, when their definition of the maneuver is not a sustained g?

I'm not following you on this.
Yes, it is losing energy in the turn... but it's still got to hold 6.5G or better for 140 degrees.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 07:12
by popcorn
This is a surprise. The more the merrier.


http://theaviationist.com/2015/08/05/al ... n-t-x-bid/

ALENIA AERMACCHI M-346 BACK IN U.S. AIR FORCE T-X ADVANCED TRAINER PROGRAM

The aircraft is considered one of the best candidates to replace the U.S. Air Force’s fleet of aging Northrop T-38 Talon trainers.

[Read also: We have flown one of the world’s most advanced jet trainers: the M-346 of the Italian Air Force]

Still, the fate of the T-100, the M-346 proposal for the T-X program has been unclear since General Dynamics announced it was withdrawing itself as the prime contractor for the bid in March. Furthermore, there were doubts the aircraft could be compliant to the sustained g performance requirement included in the initial RFI (Request For Information), issued by the Air Force.

Nevertheless, it looks like both finding the partner and comply with the challenging requirement are no longer a problem: the company said Aviation Week that talks are in progress with a new partner that will be announced “very soon” whereas, dealing with the sustained g requirement, Alenia Aermacchi Chief Test Pilot Enrico Scarabotto said that the M-346 recently proved to be compliant with the latest amendment of the RFI, issued on Jul. 10.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 16:37
by popcorn
So what's in the hump?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pe-420149/
​PICTURES: KAI, Lockheed rollout T-X prototype
Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has revealed the prototype that will form the basis of Lockheed Martin’s bid for the US Air Force’s T-X next generation trainer competition.

Based on the T-50 family of trainer/light fighter aircraft, the company’s “T-X demonstrator aircraft” will conduct ground and flight tests in 2016, says KAI in an email to Flightglobal. In 2017, KAI plans flight tests in the USA.

The aircraft features several new features, including a large area display (LAD), embedded training systems, and an aerial refuelling capability.
Aesthetically, the most striking change from the original T-50 is the addition of a large dorsal hump.

More.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 17:14
by gideonic
popcorn wrote:So what's in the hump?

Intresting. Looks a bit like conformal fuel tanks but too small for that.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 17:49
by durahawk
gideonic wrote:
popcorn wrote:So what's in the hump?

Intresting. Looks a bit like conformal fuel tanks but too small for that.

Pure speculation here, but I suspect it may have something to do with the inflight refueling requirements for T-X:
The aircraft shall provide a growth path and have provisions for installation of a boom-type inflight refueling system (to include space for a receptacle) without significant structural modifications and movement/redesign of other systems and subsystems to accomplish air-to-air refueling operations, in both day and night lighting conditions, with boom-equipped USAF Tankers.

[Objective]
The aircraft shall have a fully integrated inflight refueling capability compatible with boom-equipped USAF Tankers for use in accomplishing air-to-air refueling operations, in both day and night lighting conditions.

If KAI/Lockheed can hit the objective requirement right of the bat with a modification, I suspect they might be able to maintain a level playing field with the clean sheet offerings.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 18:52
by madrat
Hookups for practice, but no implication it actually takes fuel from it.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 19:40
by slapshot!
Maybe extra ECM equipment along with an in flight refueling system.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 20:04
by basher54321
Wow - hardly off the shelf and it has a hump already ala A-4E / F-16D+ !

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2015, 20:25
by johnwill
huggy wrote:
johnwill wrote:Wonder why they call it a sustained g maneuver requirement, when their definition of the maneuver is not a sustained g?

I'm not following you on this.
Yes, it is losing energy in the turn... but it's still got to hold 6.5G or better for 140 degrees.


Sorry for the late reply to your comment, just overlooked it. Losing any energy either by speed or altitude loss violates the definition of a sustained turn. The requirement is clear, but calling it a sustained turn is wrong.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2015, 14:34
by popcorn
It turns out that the T-50 isn't a lock for LM's offerinģ to meet the T-X requirement. The Skunk Works has a clean-sheet "ultimate offering" design that could be proposed instead. LM is probably holding it in reserve while it evaluates the competition, likely keeping a close eye on the Boeing-Saab clean-sheèt design. The AF is expected to issue the RFP in 2017.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... xt-420225/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2015, 16:32
by borg

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2016, 09:11
by popcorn
LM has finally decided fo scrap a Skunk Works TX design and stick with a T-50 variant.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ks-421837/

Lockheed proposes KAI T-50A for T-X over Skunk Works design

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2016, 14:18
by durahawk
popcorn wrote:LM has finally decided fo scrap a Skunk Works TX design and stick with a T-50 variant.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ks-421837/

Lockheed proposes KAI T-50A for T-X over Skunk Works design


Logical move I think, although:
He says the proposed design would have cost eight times more to fully develop than it would to bring the T-50A into production, but the extended schedule was more of a concern.

Really? 8 times the R&D cost is not a great concern? Yeah, don't worry, uncle sam will pick up the tab. :doh:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2016, 15:32
by durahawk
Looks like Northrop's T-X entry has been spotted undergoing high speed taxi testing!
Image

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.

From initial images released on Aug 19, the aircraft also appears to have simple trailing edge flaps and horizontal stabilizers mounted at a slightly negative dihedral (or anhedral) angle. The images also appear to indicate a baseline, non-afterburning engine – at least for the initial demonstrator. Northrop first revealed a brief glimpse of the concept to reporters in December 2015 and specified at the time the design was tailored to meeting the Air Force’s requirements for sustained G, instantaneous G, angle-of-attack maneuvering and turn rate/ turn radius – without being too expensive.

According to FAA registration details, the demonstrator is designated the Model 400 according, to its Scaled Composites design number. It is powered by a single General Electric F404-102D engine. The aircraft was registered with the FAA in mid-June 2015.

Northrop, which is teamed on T-X with BAE Systems and L-3, is expected to make the first flight of the demonstrator before year end. Competition for the T-X program is intense with Lockheed Martin and KAI offering a variant of the T-50A, while Boeing and Saab are working together on a clean-sheet design. Raytheon has partnered with Leonardo to offer the T-100, an upgraded version of the Leonardo (Alenia Aermacchi) M-346 advanced jet trainer.

The Air Force is planning to release a request for proposals for T-X in December, with a contract award expected by early 2018. The T-X is now expected to have operational capability in 2034 with initial operational capability in 2024.
http://aviationweek.com/defense/northro ... ver-mojave


Definitely looks like it has a lot of Northrop DNA! Very reminiscent of T-38 and F-20 Tigershark configurations. Also, interesting they went with a non-afterburning GE 404. Since T-X doesn't have a supersonic requirement, perhaps an afterburning engine is not needed to meet the sustained G and turn rate maneuverability requirements. Since the KAI T-50 uses an afterburning 404, it will be interesting to see how they rack and stack in terms of maneuverability with the age old more thrust vs. lighter weight paradigm.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2016, 16:02
by popcorn
Nice sleek clean lines, no hump :D

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2016, 17:15
by strykerxo
Sort of underwhelming. I expected more from Northrop/Scaled Composites design wise, but if it fulfills requirements then so be it. The T-38 was a fairly nimble AC so if they took that basic design and up'd the performance and hold down cost even better.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2016, 18:28
by durahawk
strykerxo wrote:Sort of underwhelming. I expected more from Northrop/Scaled Composites design wise, but if it fulfills requirements then so be it. The T-38 was a fairly nimble AC so if they took that basic design and up'd the performance and hold down cost even better.


Heh, I think that's more a less a metaphor for Government Acquisition as a whole these days. Poorly rewritten over constraining requirements breeding unimaginative, mundane material solutions.

Honestly though, I do think the number #1 objective for T-X should be cost control. Which is why I winced a little when the released the expanded maneuverability requirements and mid-air refueling considerations. While that may allow it to step into training roles that might have utilized a much more expensive asset, scope creep is generally something to be avoided like the plague in acquisition...

With so many procurement's going on at the same time... F-35, LSRB, KC-46, new ICBM's, (now OA-X??) etc. it's best for T-X to be kept on a pretty tight leash from a cost perspective, we really can't afford it otherwise.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2016, 20:20
by slapshot!
Who cares, Lockheed will probably win.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2016, 21:49
by neurotech
strykerxo wrote:Sort of underwhelming. I expected more from Northrop/Scaled Composites design wise, but if it fulfills requirements then so be it. The T-38 was a fairly nimble AC so if they took that basic design and up'd the performance and hold down cost even better.

I disagree. The T-X is intended as an advanced trainer. Considering the technology level of the F-35, it would be unlikely they would go for something extremely revolutionary for T-X. The KAI (LM partnered) T-50 and F-5 pretty much confirmed the role of lead-in fighter.

Politics will most likely keep the T-50 out of real contention, because LM are already "busy" with the F-35.

Remember, The F-5 was one of the most popular light fighters in the western world. F-5s and T-38s have gone head-to-head in training with the most advanced jets in the world, including the F-22, and given them a challenge in close. If Northrop take the knowledge gained with the F-20 and F/A-18, revamp the F-5 design, they'd have an effective lead-in fighter trainer for the next generation.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2016, 23:01
by arian
Boeing might roll theirs out next month

Image

Image

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2016, 23:53
by durahawk
neurotech wrote:Politics will most likely keep the T-50 out of real contention, because LM are already "busy" with the F-35.


Eh, I wouldn't overplay this one. Lockheed is a an aerospace behemoth and let's not forget the T-50 is already in production in Korea. Even if they establish a final assembly line here in the States as promised, they will have a huge leg up with the fixtures and manufacturing processes for the aircraft already designed and implemented. (A lot of the T-50 internal structure and assembly is derived from the F-16 anyhow.) Not to mention they can still source many of the parts from KAI and leverage their supply chain which is already well established.

As a side note, I have toured KAI's T-50 line in the ROK and it's a world class production facility. I was thoroughly impressed.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2016, 06:05
by gideonic
durahawk wrote:
neurotech wrote:Politics will most likely keep the T-50 out of real contention, because LM are already "busy" with the F-35.


Eh, I wouldn't overplay this one. Lockheed is a an aerospace behemoth and let's not forget the T-50 is already in production in Korea. Even if they establish a final assembly line here in the States as promised, they will have a huge leg up with the fixtures and manufacturing processes for the aircraft already designed and implemented. (A lot of the T-50 internal structure and assembly is derived from the F-16 anyhow.) Not to mention they can still source many of the parts from KAI and leverage their supply chain which is already well established.

As a side note, I have toured KAI's T-50 line in the ROK and it's a world class production facility. I was thoroughly impressed.

Well Northop still got screwed with it's tanker bid, despite having a mature airframe.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2016, 08:51
by Corsair1963
Lockheed Martin will have a Lion Share of the World Fighter Market for the foreseeable future . So, the US will need to keep Boeing (Military) in business some how.


Hence the T-X Program...... :wink:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2016, 14:07
by jakobs
The trainer program is so low risk so I don't think Lockheed will have any specific advantage with the T-50. Also Boeing/Saab and Northrop Grumman are likely to present very low technical risk proposals in line with the aircraft and training system requirements specified.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2016, 22:12
by johnwill
durahawk wrote:
As a side note, I have toured KAI's T-50 line in the ROK and it's a world class production facility. I was thoroughly impressed.


Fully agreed. Engineering staff and facilities are equally good.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2016, 22:42
by marauder2048
johnwill wrote:
durahawk wrote:
As a side note, I have toured KAI's T-50 line in the ROK and it's a world class production facility. I was thoroughly impressed.


Fully agreed. Engineering staff and facilities are equally good.


Johnwill,

Did LM risk-reduce control-laws and avionics development for the T-50 on the Block 50 (or other block) F-16s?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2016, 06:51
by johnwill
T-50 control laws are similar to F-16, but much more complex. F-16 was originally analog and thus relatively primitive. When Block 40 digital came along, USAF insisted the control laws be identical to analog to simpify the changeover. F-16 control law block diagram was 2 pages, while tbe T-50 was 17 pages. Can't help with avionics comparison, no knowledge of it.
Hope that answers your question.
Added
Actually T-50 ontrol laws benefited from work done on the Taiwan IDF light fighter, also more complex than F-16.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2016, 20:45
by strykerxo
This is for all you keep the T-38 flying. cheap modernized F-5 variant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Saeqeh

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 01:30
by durahawk
strykerxo wrote:This is for all you keep the T-38 flying. cheap modernized F-5 variant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Saeqeh


Well, it sure is 'cheap'

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 08:08
by jakobs
Saab actually worked on a eurotrainer concept in the late 90's/early 2000's. I wonder how much from it we will see in the Boeing plane?

Image
Image
Image

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 13:46
by southernphantom
jakobs wrote:Saab actually worked on a eurotrainer concept in the late 90's/early 2000's. I wonder how much from it we will see in the Boeing plane?




The T-X 'sneak peek' from Boeing seems to indicate at least superficial similarities in configuration; you may be onto something with that.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2016, 14:07
by gideonic
southernphantom wrote:The T-X 'sneak peek' from Boeing seems to indicate at least superficial similarities in configuration; you may be onto something with that.

+1. It does indeed look similar, and the second picture is a dead givaway of no canards, as some wishful Gripen fanboys have hoped for :P

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 03:36
by smsgtmac
Boeing lifted the skirt today. Pretty plane, nice lines, and an interesting planform, but I have to wonder about the words I was hearing out of the spokespeople's mouths about being designed to the 'thresholds' and cost. They are either going the low cost approach 'for the win', or they are sandbagging.
http://www.boeing.com/features/2016/09/ ... 09-16.page
tx_rollout_630x354.jpg

..and I can't believe you guys weren't all over it when it happened :shock:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 06:06
by edpop
Nice looking plane...............front end kind of reminds me of the F-104 Starfighter trainer. As far as costs go this project will probably be the last large production volume contract of it's kind for many years to come. And since Boeing is going up against a current production trainer they will have to do something spectacular to make their plane cost effective. Whether they low ball the bid or whatever it will be an interesting scenario to watch.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 06:14
by southernphantom
smsgtmac wrote:..and I can't believe you guys weren't all over it when it happened :shock:


Same here. I was considering starting a thread covering the announcement.
It's really a good-looking aircraft, like the offspring of the Textron Scorpion and a Super Hornet. Doesn't appear especially small, either. I'm interested to see the performance figures, since the airframe is likely to be a shoe-in light fighter for US allies unable to afford the F-35. Things get even more interesting if the rejiggered manufacturing processes mean Boeing can undercut LM/KAI's cost while delivering a good aircraft.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 07:17
by linkomart
In case you're interested in a rendering of the Boeing T-X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amiJwedNJYM
....And I bet Spaz has posted it already... :D

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 07:48
by linkomart
Or, you can put the video directly here....
Anyway, looks a bit better in the Pictures than I'd imagine.....




I've never been a fan of the F-16 (style) landing gear and perhaps would have prefered something different, but it will probably do the job.

It's big. Really.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 07:51
by linkomart
Saw this video at alert5, with some "interviews" of some of the involved.




Regards

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 08:47
by KamenRiderBlade
The Boeing T-X trainer looks good.

I'm wondering what the Northrop Grumman clean sheet design will look like.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 08:51
by KamenRiderBlade
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tx- ... oeing-saab

Northrop's offering really does look like the old F-20 Tigershark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

So far the Boeing one looks closest to the F-35 with a little bit of F-18 in it, especially with the way their Chines was designed.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 09:02
by linkomart
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
So far the Boeing one looks closest to the F-35 with a little bit of F-18 in it, especially with the way their Chines was designed.


:) That's the understatement of the day... "..a little bit of F-18 in it...."
I'd say that it looks like a F-18 where they have taken one motor away, and blown up the cockpit 2 times to make all the XL people fit.... (Really, the cockpit is probably only 1.2 times bigger, but the fuselage is a tad smaller)

my 5 cent.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 10:25
by Corsair1963
KamenRiderBlade wrote:The Boeing T-X trainer looks good.

I'm wondering what the Northrop Grumman clean sheet design will look like.




CqPwqOUUMAAxrQR.jpg

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 11:12
by popcorn
...and Raytheon's entry, the T-100.
Not quite the looker as the others but could be the cheapest along with LM's offering.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 12:41
by madrat
Boeing once again demonstrated they have a massive PR department. Northrop Grumman will probably lose due to not marketing well. Lockheed Martin will - like Raytheon - suffer from NIMBY. And Textron has the g** awful straight wing.

Boeing has the best looking airframe at this point. It's hard to hate Raytheon's T-100 design. And Lockheed Martin certainly is no slouch in providing a functional product. Even though I think the engine and tail layout of the Textron is the best, it just doesn't have the big picture solved. And even though I adore Northrop Grumman's front section, long sleek and slender lines, long tradition with this weight class and the USAF syllabus, and rugged looking design, I'm thinking they only have a slight chance to win.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 12:49
by popcorn
Assuming they all meet RFP requirements, Cost will likely be the major factor in deciding the winner.Advantage those with existing production lines.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 19:24
by KamenRiderBlade
I wonder if there will be a Dog Fight competition between the trainer models from each company.

That would be interesting to watch if it was limited to WVR engagement and see what each companies pilot can pull off in a trainer.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 20:10
by rheonomic
The Boeing T-X is not a bad looking aircraft, although wing fences... :(

Any idea what the pods/fairings on the underside of the wings are at about quarter span from each tip? First thought was fairing for actuators, but they seem too large for that.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 21:01
by mixelflick
smsgtmac wrote:Boeing lifted the skirt today. Pretty plane, nice lines, and an interesting planform, but I have to wonder about the words I was hearing out of the spokespeople's mouths about being designed to the 'thresholds' and cost. They are either going the low cost approach 'for the win', or they are sandbagging.
http://www.boeing.com/features/2016/09/ ... 09-16.page
tx_rollout_630x354.jpg

..and I can't believe you guys weren't all over it when it happened :shock:


Great looking plane (and I generally gloss over trainers, lol). You know though, the way things are going - shouldn't the winning design have some (even a rudimentary air to air/ground) combat capability?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 21:03
by SpudmanWP
The Boeing plane has accommodations for two hardpoints per wing.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 21:23
by rheonomic
T-X should have weapons only if it's in the requirements. Design so that it's easy to add (e.g. think about where stores will go, use an open systems architecture), but if the requirements don't list A2A/A2G capability then it's gold-plating and will only add to cost and schedule.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2016, 22:08
by count_to_10
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tx-trainer-northrop-grumman-boeing-saab

Northrop's offering really does look like the old F-20 Tigershark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

It does, but it also has chines around the cockpit, normally a stealth feature (while still having a single vertical stabilizer, which is not). I wonder if it has to do with handling. The way that the chines have a lower angle of attack than the wings would contribute to aerodynamic instability.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2016, 10:50
by linkomart
count_to_10 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tx-trainer-northrop-grumman-boeing-saab

Northrop's offering really does look like the old F-20 Tigershark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

It does, but it also has chines around the cockpit, normally a stealth feature (while still having a single vertical stabilizer, which is not). I wonder if it has to do with handling. The way that the chines have a lower angle of attack than the wings would contribute to aerodynamic instability.


I'd say its just paintwork, not a chine.
Image

regards

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2016, 17:43
by durahawk
madrat wrote:Boeing once again demonstrated they have a massive PR department. Northrop Grumman will probably lose due to not marketing well. Lockheed Martin will - like Raytheon - suffer from NIMBY. And Textron has the g** awful straight wing.

Boeing has the best looking airframe at this point. It's hard to hate Raytheon's T-100 design. And Lockheed Martin certainly is no slouch in providing a functional product. Even though I think the engine and tail layout of the Textron is the best, it just doesn't have the big picture solved. And even though I adore Northrop Grumman's front section, long sleek and slender lines, long tradition with this weight class and the USAF syllabus, and rugged looking design, I'm thinking they only have a slight chance to win.


It's easy for me to, it's a YAK! Genuine Ruskie airplane in Italian leather. :P
BTW, Textron dropped the Scorpion out of T-X awhile back when the expanded the maneuverability requirements.

With regards to Boeing's entry, I see lot's of Hornet DNA there, almost like it's an airplane designed to keep St Louis in business. Definitely a good looking airplane though.

Interesting to note that three of four entrants are F404 powered, so either way GE Aviation will be playing a stacked deck for this contract. Lot of happy folks up in Lynn.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2016, 21:45
by count_to_10
linkomart wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tx-trainer-northrop-grumman-boeing-saab

Northrop's offering really does look like the old F-20 Tigershark

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-20_Tigershark

It does, but it also has chines around the cockpit, normally a stealth feature (while still having a single vertical stabilizer, which is not). I wonder if it has to do with handling. The way that the chines have a lower angle of attack than the wings would contribute to aerodynamic instability.


I'd say its just paintwork, not a chine.
Image

regards

?
Looks like a chine to me.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2016, 00:44
by madrat
Looks like a lip, possibly a joint

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2016, 01:01
by popcorn
Not easy visualizing the shape of it's wing. Also that flat section of the bottom fuselage in between the wing and the horizontal tail.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2016, 00:58
by count_to_10
madrat wrote:Looks like a lip, possibly a joint


popcorn wrote:Not easy visualizing the shape of it's wing. Also that flat section of the bottom fuselage in between the wing and the horizontal tail.

I was talking about the line of shadow that runs from the top of the intake to the tip of the nose. To me, that looks like a chine, much the same as the F-22 and F-35 have.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2016, 01:10
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:I was talking about the line of shadow that runs from the top of the intake to the tip of the nose. To me, that looks like a chine, much the same as the F-22 and F-35 have.

I was interested in the wing shape, not that line on the forward fuselage.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2016, 01:33
by rheonomic
popcorn wrote:I was interested in the wing shape, not that line on the forward fuselage.


Hard to tell with the angle, but it almost looks like a T-38 wing with a LERX.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2016, 02:28
by sferrin
rheonomic wrote:
popcorn wrote:I was interested in the wing shape, not that line on the forward fuselage.


Hard to tell with the angle, but it almost looks like a T-38 wing with a LERX.


The F-5E/F had that:

northrop_f5e_tiger_ii_l2.jpg

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2016, 04:14
by rheonomic
sferrin wrote:The F-5E/F had that:


As well as F-20. My impression of the NG a/c is a lot of F-20 heritage, with design changes by Scaled to meet the T-X reqmts (e.g. the godawful VT for more directional stability at high alpha) and to reduce production and operation costs.

It'll be interesting to see how much h/w from F-20 they reused. Wouldn't be surprised if they reused gear and actuators at the least.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2016, 05:41
by smsgtmac
I thought the NG landing gear looked like F-5 (vs. T-38) gear as well. I'm becoming more interested in this as a candidate for a couple of reasons.
Did NG
1. Design this bird to reuse as much existing F-5/T-38 support equipment/hangars/facilities as possible?
2. Ask themselves what would an F-20 look like if they didn't reuse existing F-5 structure, but leveraged all the Aero they knew then and added it to what we know now?

I ask the second question because of the similarities (like horizontal stab anhedral) and differences to the F-5/F-20 design and my (right or wrong) understanding of the F-5's limitations, what the F-20 improved upon, and what post-4th gen maneuverability would require to be added. To me, all those things together point to something like we see in the spy shots.

I think the systems and feel of the competing trainers, and the fidelity thereof to the aircraft that trainees will graduate into will be the key to winning this contract, but it's fun to think about the aero.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2016, 05:58
by rheonomic
smsgtmac wrote:I thought the NG landing gear looked like F-5 (vs. T-38) gear as well. I'm becoming more interested in this as a candidate for a couple of reasons.
Did NG
1. Design this bird to reuse as much existing F-5/T-38 support equipment/hangars/facilities as possible?
2. Ask themselves what would an F-20 look like if they didn't reuse existing F-5 structure, but leveraged all the Aero they knew then and added it to what we know now?

I ask the second question because of the similarities (like horizontal stab anhedral) and differences to the F-5/F-20 design and my (right or wrong) understanding of the F-5's limitations, what the F-20 improved upon, and what post-4th gen maneuverability would require to be added. To me, all those things together point to something like we see in the spy shots.

I think the systems and feel of the competing trainers, and the fidelity thereof to the aircraft that trainees will graduate into will be the key to winning this contract, but it's fun to think about the aero.


Re. #1 I'd say almost certainly yes. Being able to use all the current infrastructure would be a great advantage on cost.

I also agree with point 2; my guess is they started with the F-5/F-20/T-38 as a baseline configuration and then updated the aero and systems with current gen tech. After all, why not, the T-38's done the job pretty well for 50+ years now.

As an aero it's kind of sad that we're really entering a point where the important thing isn't the platform but rather the systems on the platform. :(

One thing I'm still wondering is how well the clean sheets will fare come downselect. I feel like the AF is going to push for the lowest risk (and probably lowest cost) solution on T-X, and it'll be interesting to see how they evaluate things.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2016, 06:18
by madrat
All the extremes of the bid certainly are being pushed

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2016, 23:10
by geforcerfx
Anyone know how common parts are between the 404 and 414? Seems like it would help out both the Navy and air force to keep costs down if the same engine was used, unless there is already a lot of commonality between them. Seems like the 404 is on its way out with the mass legacy hornet retirement in the next decade.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2016, 00:07
by neurotech
geforcerfx wrote:Anyone know how common parts are between the 404 and 414? Seems like it would help out both the Navy and air force to keep costs down if the same engine was used, unless there is already a lot of commonality between them. Seems like the 404 is on its way out with the mass legacy hornet retirement in the next decade.

Parts commonality. Very little. Pretty much all the expensive parts are very different between the two versions.

The F414 is a more advanced, durable engine, and possible the production aircraft will actually use a F414.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2016, 00:52
by madrat
I thought it was $4 million cheaper than hot rod F404's and about $5 million less than the cheapest F414

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2016, 00:11
by neurotech
madrat wrote:I thought it was $4 million cheaper than hot rod F404's and about $5 million less than the cheapest F414

Ehh?

An F414 is about $4.5m new, and a F404 is about $2.5m new according to some references, and as much as $3.8m according to other sources. It is less likely to completely f%%k a F414 with FOD damage due to the blisk design. An F404 is more sensitive to FOD, and what does the major damage is damaged fan blades going into the core.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2016, 00:15
by airforces_freak
Image

Sierra Nevada (SNC) and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) partnered up to join the TX race with their all composite fly-by-wire Freedom Trainer.

Advantages over the competitors:

Constructed entirely of Advanced Composites hence much lighter
2 x low cost commercial engines
5th generation avionics and MFT Displays
Low fuel consumption
Light Attack Secondary role
Sub-systems from Turkey's TF-X program

Disadvantages:
Foreign Partner (Turkey)
Competing against Boeing (although SNC has won over the big boys with its Dream Chaser Cargo System)

Sierra Nevada Corp./TAI Team To Offer Freedom Trainer For T-X

Dec 16, 2016 James Drew | Aviation Week & Space Technology


Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) are betting that the U.S. Air Force is seeking a fuel-efficient advanced pilot trainer to succeed the outdated Northrop T-38 Talon, like the one the companies plan to offer.

With the spotlight shining on the major primes until now, the two businesses have quietly set up shop in Centennial, Colorado, as Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC, to develop a lightweight, all-composite trainer powered by two business jet-class engines.

The company tells Aviation Week in exclusive interviews that it intends to enter the jam-packed race for the T-X, offering an “economical” trainer alternative to those being pitched by rivals Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. The clean-sheet aircraft has been designed by an integrated team of engineers from SNC and TAI, who have been working for some time at the joint venture’s headquarters near Denver.


Dream Chaser

»SNC/TAI pitch lightweight, FJ44-4M-powered Freedom Trainer

»Single prototype being built in Colorado for flight evaluations

»American-made advanced pilot trainer aimed at domestic and international air forces, but based on U.S. T-X requirements

»Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC registered in Centennial, Colorado



Better known for its satellites and Dream Chaser spaceplane, the Sparks, Nevada-based company’s Turkish-American owners Fatih and Eren Ozmen, CEO and owner/president, respectively, want to play in the big leagues and see military aircraft manufacturing as a key driver of growth.

They singled out the military trainer market after sensing demand for more than 1,200 aircraft globally, driven partly by the introduction of the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II, with the largest potential order being the U.S. government’s requirement for 350 or more T-X aircraft.


The company’s twin-tail, moderately swept-wing trainer with a tricycle landing gear and step-tandem cockpit is powered by the Williams International FJ44-4M, a 3,600-lb.-thrust-class engine chosen by the Aero Vodochody L-39NG and Leonardo/Alenia Aermacchi M-345 High-Efficiency Trainer. Williams certified the engine in 2010 for the light business jet market, providing a cruise speed of up to 450 kt. over a 2,000-nm range with 5,000 flight hours between overhauls. It was chosen as the Freedom Trainer offering due to its relatively inexpensive procurement and sustainment costs as well as fuel efficiency, with the company saying it can buy two Williams engines for half the cost of one high-power military turbofan.

The company already has one flying prototype in development, and it intends to answer the long-awaited T-X request for proposals (RFP) once released by the Air Force. The timing of the RFP will not be affected by the stopgap funding measure passed by Congress, since it is not a new-start program. The air force says a RFP notification could come any day, otherwise it will push into January due to holidays.

SNC/TAI’s proposal is for a purely a fly-by-wire trainer, seeming to leave little design margin for secondary light-attack or aggressor roles. Instead, the aircraft digitally replicates radar intercepts, precision-guided munition drops and the use of targeting pods. The aircraft is no larger than the GE J85-5-powered T-38 and consumes 30% less fuel, allowing weight reductions across the board to boost high subsonic performance at lower thrust levels. “We’re focusing on open architecture and lowest total ownership cost,” one company executive explains. The Freedom Trainer also is designed to fully comply with the Air Force’s Open Mission System standards to prevent “vendor-lock,” even though that requirement was dropped. “We did not want to drive costly design/redesign into systems that may otherwise meet the objective requirement,” an Air Force Life Cycle Management Center official says. SNC believes buying into any proprietary systems will drive up costs later.

The company says the Freedom Trainer will likely cost less to buy and sustain than its higher-powered competitors and consume 40-50% less fuel, while still meeting all threshold and objective performance requirements, including 6.5-7.5g sustained and high angle-of-attack maneuverability.

“In this day of tight budgets and looming operations and sustainment bow waves, it only makes sense for the Air Force to spend less up-front so they can save more over the life cycle, which is why this training system makes so much sense,” Fatih Ozmen says.

SNC is the prime contractor, with financial and intellectual input from TAI, it notes. “We’re not just a pretty face,” the company says. “We didn’t start off with a design from Turkey or anyplace else.” The single prototype under construction in Colorado, and the overall program, can be accelerated as needed to meet the Air Force’s schedule requirements for T-X. It has not been decided where in the U.S. serial production would occur, and there is potential for coproduction overseas for foreign buyers, the company says. It has some experience in this arena, having teamed with Brazil’s Embraer to set up an A-29 Super Tucano factory in Jacksonville, Florida, which is now delivering aircraft for the Afghan and Lebanese air forces.

T-X is the single largest opportunity for SNC, but it will complete the trainer even if it loses, with opportunities in Australia, Turkey and many other nations that are inducting modern warplanes. “We’ve cast a wide net,” a company official says.

Freedom Trainer was purposefully designed from the outset to meet Air Force training and airworthiness standards, which are well regarded by other air arms. The aircraft incorporates “live, virtual and constructive” training elements, provisions for aerial refueling, data links and communication radios woven into a high-performance aircraft with a fifth-generation cockpit, sensor suite and avionics. The overall training system requires “very little invention,” the company notes.


SNC is renowned for keeping a low profile, having also silently competed unsuccessfully in the Air Force’s first round of contracts for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, or J-Stars, replacement program.

The company has again kept quiet while finalizing its teaming arrangements and developing the T-X proposal. It has been engaging directly with the government, steering clear of industry days.

“We don’t want to surprise people in the Defense Department and Air Force, but we do want to surprise the industry,” says one company official. “It’s not just about T-X per se; we’re looking at an international advanced trainer.”

The Air Force confirmed engagement with SNC, saying it keeps an “open dialogue” with all companies that express interest in the T-X competition. The service says it welcomes any proposals that meet its requirements.

SNC is lining up against sizable primes: the first, second, fourth and sixth largest defense OEMs in the world by 2015 revenue. Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries are offering to build the Golden Eagle-based T-50A in Greenville, South Carolina. Raytheon and Leonardo would set up a T-100 final assembly and checkout facility plant in Meridian, Mississippi. Boeing and Saab unveiled their clean-sheet trainer in St. Louis in September, without having picked a final assembly location. The Northrop Grumman/Scaled Composites/BAE Systems/L-3 team has not shown its hand, except through leaked photos on social media. Its T-X prototype is flying routinely at the Mojave Air and Space Port in California.


SNC’s annual revenue has grown to $2 billion since being bought by the Ozmens in 1994. The majority of its revenue comes from space systems and special forces programs. TAI has significant aerospace aircraft manufacturing clout in Turkey, having license-built more than 300 F-16s and now center fuselages for the F-35 as a second source. The company is producing the Hurkus Free Bird turboprop basic trainer as well as helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and a next-generation fighter for the Turkish government.

The Ozmens’ ethnic tie is with Turkey, and they are helping that nation develop a regional jet based on the Dornier 328, with TAI as a major subcontractor. It seems a natural fit, but the SNC/TAI partnership for T-X is not without headwinds due to the political and security situation in the NATO-allied nation. The unsuccessful military coup against President Recep Erdogan in July resulted in a governmentwide purge, and war continues to rage across the borders in Syria and Iraq.

SNC says the joint venture with TAI is solid, postcoup. TAI immediately sent an envoy to the U.S. to reaffirm its commitment to Freedom Trainer. “The talent from TAI has been phenomenal,” SNC points out. “They brought their A-Team. We’ve cast a wide net,” a company official says.

SNC says it aims to be a disruptive innovator, and its Freedom Trainer “family of systems” is the embodiment of that ethos, from the aircraft to the ground-based training system, simulators and courseware, and logistics chain. “The aircraft is just another training device,” the company notes. “We want the students to go off to their weapon systems with as high a quality training experience as possible, but focusing on doing it at the lowest possible cost per graduate.

“We think a lot of our solutions are groundbreaking innovations,” the company continues. “We took an engine that can meet [our requirements] and built an airplane around it.”

The U.S. government plans to retain 546 T-38A/B/Cs. While some play aggressor roles in flying exercises or support weapons testing, 431 Talons support undergraduate training for pilot selected to fly fighters or bombers. The Air Education and Training Command expects to phase out its T-38 between 2023-29 as the T-X comes online, targeting initial operational capability by fiscal 2024.

The source-selection process will take about one year, with a development contract expected in early fiscal 2018. Low-rate production should start in fiscal 2022.


http://aviationweek.com/defense/sierra- ... rainer-t-x


SNC and TAI began working on the Freedom Fighter back in 2011.

DIGITAL BATTLESPACE rss feed
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/digi ... peration-/
IDEF 2011: SNC and TAI sign co-operation agreement
12th May 2011 - 17:43 by Tony Skinner

US-based electronic systems company Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is seeking to expand its footprint in the Middle East and Africa with the signing of a cooperation agreement with Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI).

The two companies signed the memorandum of understanding to jointly pursue international space technology opportunities at the IDEF ...

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2016, 00:52
by popcorn

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2016, 11:57
by airforces_freak


AFAIK, the final tender (RFP) has not yet been issued. It was meant to be issued before the new year.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 07:02
by rheonomic

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 07:04
by Corsair1963
I think Boeing may have a winner on it's hands..... :wink:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2016, 07:11
by rheonomic

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 02:01
by popcorn

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 03:06
by KamenRiderBlade
My only gripe with the Boeing T-X design is that the cockpit hatch opens sideways instead of forwards or backwards.

Otherwise it's my favorite design by far.

I really hope that it wins and becomes what the F-20 Tigershark never became, a budget LWF that can be sold to many parts around the world.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2016, 03:57
by smsgtmac
This competition will heat up nicely. I see all the candidates except for the SNC-TAI FrankenScorpion as viable right now. If I had to rank order the rest, I couldn't, Too many unknowns about the planes, and the requirements.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 02:18
by airforces_freak
smsgtmac wrote:This competition will heat up nicely. I see all the candidates except for the SNC-TAI FrankenScorpion as viable right now. If I had to rank order the rest, I couldn't, Too many unknowns about the planes, and the requirements.


I don't even understand why SNC would select Turkish Aerospace Industries as a partner when US-Turkish relations are at an all time low. Stupid move. They would have had more prospects of success if they went in alone. Or is it a strategic move to pitch the Turkish Air Force the T-X Freedom Fighter for Turkey's Jet trainer program?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 03:03
by zerion

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 04:50
by durahawk
airforces_freak wrote:I don't even understand why SNC would select Turkish Aerospace Industries as a partner when US-Turkish relations are at an all time low. Stupid move. They would have had more prospects of success if they went in alone. Or is it a strategic move to pitch the Turkish Air Force the T-X Freedom Fighter for Turkey's Jet trainer program?


Sometimes I think you get caught between loving Turkey and hating the United States.

Tough place to be bro.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2016, 16:25
by jakobs
airforces_freak wrote:They would have had more prospects of success if they went in alone.


Up against Lockheed, NG and Boeing they have absolutely zero chance of success. I don't know why they even bother, it must be something else behind it.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2016, 00:37
by airforces_freak
jakobs wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:They would have had more prospects of success if they went in alone.


Up against Lockheed, NG and Boeing they have absolutely zero chance of success. I don't know why they even bother, it must be something else behind it.


SNC won against the big boys in the Dream Chaser Space System Tender.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2016, 02:33
by nutshell
airforces_freak wrote:
Nah I am just pissed off that a pefectly functioning alliance was thrown away by incompetent Obama.


Guess who menaced to retaliate against an ally because his son was under investigation because of money laundering; jesus a simple investigation..

airforces_freak wrote:
I love the American people and the US


Suuuuure. :lol:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2016, 05:15
by arian
Why do you people keep engaging this idiot troll who turns every thread into an idiotic Turkish politics thread?

Just ignore the idiot troll.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2016, 14:11
by vilters
First of all, the TX looks like a good plane.

Second, what airforces freak is saying is that/
Erdolan is a dictator, and his son a criminal, both protected by a rotten International diplomats protection system that should have been abandoned years ago.

PS : and as another example from about 2 years ago :

In "a West country" , about half of the stolen PC's and Smart Phones ended up in "East or North African country" ambassadors houses. => Protected property, No way to continue the investigations. => And from there? They vaporised.

They had to change their "hobby" because most of these have tracking devices these days. (That's how we found out)

That whole "ambassador" system is rotten to the bone, invented to protect High Level International criminals..

But?
So far, I like what has been shown from the TX.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2016, 02:58
by airforces_freak
Considering that the T-38 Talon's have 2 engines, is it more likely than not that the US Air Force would opt for a twin engine Jet trainer for the T-X program? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of a twin engined trainer as compared to a single engined trainer?

AFAIK, only the Raytheon/Alenia Aermacchi T-100 and the Sierra Nevada/TAI Freedom Trainer offer Twin engines.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2016, 06:50
by XanderCrews
tincansailor wrote:
Jr reminds me of the South African villain in the first "lethal Weapon" movie. After the big shoot out at the end he holds up his pp and shouts "Diplomatic Immunity" just before Mel Gibson shoots him in the head.


It's Danny glover that shoots him. Might as well talk about that since air forces freak has utterly derailed yet another thread

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2016, 15:14
by XanderCrews
airforces_freak wrote:Just recall the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and the events that followed this incident.


Just recall the thread is about T-X

You ruin every thread you touch. You are a cancer to this forum

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2016, 00:31
by airforces_freak
XanderCrews wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:Just recall the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and the events that followed this incident.


Just recall the thread is about T-X

You ruin every thread you touch. You are a cancer to this forum


No. I just responded to a comment on this thread. So others have a right to go off-topic but I can't respond?

nutshell wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:
Nah I am just pissed off that a pefectly functioning alliance was thrown away by incompetent Obama.


Guess who menaced to retaliate against an ally because his son was under investigation because of money laundering; jesus a simple investigation..

airforces_freak wrote:
I love the American people and the US


Suuuuure. :lol:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2016, 03:08
by XanderCrews
airforces_freak wrote:
No. I just responded to a comment on this thread. So others have a right to go off-topic but I can't respond?



Yes. It's always you. You are the common denominator in all these threads going over the rails. You steer every topic back to Turkey and the same tired garbage.

If the mods don't get on the ball this forum is going to become Intolerable

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2016, 00:37
by arian
How is this tiresome psychopath not banned?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2016, 14:09
by botsing
airforces_freak wrote:
arian wrote:How is this tiresome psychopath not banned?


You and your mates should try harder.

Do you think the Webmaster does not see who is derailing all these threads? I am merely responding to off-topic comments made by you and your ilk on my posts.

Then how come that all derailing threads involve you?

It might not be clear to you, but you have tendency to post "news reports" that contain almost no newsworthy content and a lot of political rhetoric. For you that might be your normal way to digest "news", but for other people here it just reeks like propaganda (which is essentially is) and that results in a lot of irritation.

You call it "responding to off-topic comments" but in reality you are just using that as an excuse to post even more political infested rhetorics without any fact checking, and then you present those as "facts" and "rebuttal" to us. If you do not do this intentionally then I am afraid that you have Dunning–Kruger effect.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2016, 07:07
by collimatrix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p01yyPA1DdI

360 degree video of Being's T-x.

...

Oh wait, was I supposed to say something about how Kurdish is totally not an Indo-European language and how Gulenist traitors get what's coming to them? I'm new at this.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2016, 10:43
by arian
So both the Boeing and LM designs use the same engine which isn't an engine the USAF uses? Anyone see this is as a problem, or is this actually a good thing since it gives them commonality with the Navy and thus cheaper supply chain?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2016, 15:24
by count_to_10
arian wrote:So both the Boeing and LM designs use the same engine which isn't an engine the USAF uses? Anyone see this is as a problem, or is this actually a good thing since it gives them commonality with the Navy and thus cheaper supply chain?

I guess the question would be "which engine is likely to be around longest?"

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2016, 21:26
by vilters
Better question ;

What engine has the most growth and sustainability for the next 40-50 years?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2017, 12:39
by airforces_freak
vilters wrote:Better question ;

What engine has the most growth and sustainability for the next 40-50 years?


Williams FJ44 ?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2017, 20:14
by KamenRiderBlade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414

We need to get GE working on the F414-EPE

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2017, 02:31
by airforces_freak
US Air Force releases final T-X trainer RFP
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... fp-432824/

30 DECEMBER, 2016 SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL PRO BY: LEIGH GIANGRECO WASHINGTON DC
T-X contenders are off to the races today, after the US Air Force released its much anticipated final request for proposals for the T-38 trainer replacement programme.

The $16.3 billion RFP encompasses a total of 350 aircraft, including delivery of the initial five test aircraft, contract options for LRIP lots 1 and 2 and full-rate production of lots 3 through 11.

The USAF is expected to award the contract in 2017 and reach initial operational capability by the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2024, the service says in a 30 December statement.

The final RFP did not change course from the air force’s draft version released in July, which proposed millions of dollars in incentives for contractors who bring forth a trainer aircraft that exceeds the service’s outlined performance requirements.

Contractors who offer a trainer with higher sustained G and maneuvering, as well as lower turn-around time, would receive reductions to their total evaluated price. Competitors would receive a $13.2 million decrement to its price for every 0.1G above the threshold of 6.5Gs, and $4.4 million for every 0.1G above 7.0G. The service set a 7.5G ceiling with a maximum $88 million price reduction, according to the draft RFP.

Competition for the T-X programme has been heating up all year, with Boeing’s extravagant T-X rollout in September and more recent media days from Lockheed and Raytheon this December. Four competitors will face off for the T-X competition. Boeing and Northrop Grumman have each put forth clean-sheet designs, while Lockheed has opted for the existing T-50A and Raytheon has chosen the the T-100 based on M346 twin-jet design.

With the exception of looming nuclear recapitalisation, the USAF has bitten off most of major acquisition programmes with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the B-21 bomber. That makes those 350 aircraft all the more enticing to competitors. A T-X win could provide a boost for Boeing, which has faltered in the fighter jet market in recent years.

For the USAF, the T-X competition also represents what the service hopes to be a turning point in defense acquisition. The air force spoke with industry for several months before releasing the final RFP, a move that could prevent the kind of contentious protests the service saw following the B-21 bomber contract award.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2017, 05:21
by rheonomic
RFP is here.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2017, 00:39
by airforces_freak
Further rendition of SNC/TAI's T-X Freedom-

Image

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 17:32
by durahawk
Looks like Leonardo has burnt through another US partner (first General Dynamics and now Raytheon) due to not being able to agree on terms of aircraft assembly. It is unknown at this time whether Leonardo will continue to tender the Yak-130/M-346/T-100 on it's own.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ray ... er-program

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 17:43
by rheonomic
If they don't have a US prime they're done. I don't know why we'd even consider buying a Yak in the first place, even with a US prime...

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 17:59
by mixelflick
KamenRiderBlade wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414

We need to get GE working on the F414-EPE


Agreed. 26,400lbs of thrust? That's insane, especially for its small size. When you're used to looking at F-100's/F-110 motors, the F404 looks anemic. But damn, that much thrust from such a (by all accounts) maintenance friendly and fuel stingy engine..

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 18:11
by durahawk
rheonomic wrote:If they don't have a US prime they're done. I don't know why we'd even consider buying a Yak in the first place, even with a US prime...


Agreed. If the Boeing congressional lobby were successful in stripping the KC-X award away from Airbus... a Russian co-designed trainer would be an easy kill.

By the way, I expect the Boeing lobby to throw the same fodder at the T-50A if Lockheed wins, despite Lockheed working with KAI on aircraft development from the start.

Boeing needs this contract more than Lockheed so they will likely underbid. At this point, it looks like it's Boeing's contract to lose.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 18:41
by rheonomic
durahawk wrote:
rheonomic wrote:If they don't have a US prime they're done. I don't know why we'd even consider buying a Yak in the first place, even with a US prime...


Agreed. If the Boeing congressional lobby were successful in stripping the KC-X award away from Airbus... a Russian co-designed trainer would be an easy kill.

By the way, I expect the Boeing lobby to throw the same fodder at the T-50A if Lockheed wins, despite Lockheed working with KAI on aircraft development from the start.

Boeing needs this contract more than Lockheed so they will likely underbid. At this point, it looks like it's Boeing's contract to lose.


I feel like, at least in the white world, Boeing needs to win T-X to keep in the tacair business...LM has F-35, NG has B-21, Boeing has legacy McDonnell-Douglas platforms whose lines near closing. It will be interesting to see whether maintenance of the industrial base is something taken into consideration in the downselect.

I'm kind of interested in what the work share split between Boeing and Saab is on their T-X entry, and whether that could affect lobbying efforts. (Although I suppose perception is key, and if they can weaponize Lockheed's 'Korean' trainer plus bad press about F-35, it's definitely something that can be overcome.)

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2017, 19:32
by durahawk
rheonomic wrote:I feel like, at least in the white world, Boeing needs to win T-X to keep in the tacair business...LM has F-35, NG has B-21, Boeing has legacy McDonnell-Douglas platforms whose lines near closing. It will be interesting to see whether maintenance of the industrial base is something taken into consideration in the downselect.

I'm kind of interested in what the work share split between Boeing and Saab is on their T-X entry, and whether that could affect lobbying efforts. (Although I suppose perception is key, and if they can weaponize Lockheed's 'Korean' trainer plus bad press about F-35, it's definitely something that can be overcome.)


Well the T-50 would be clearly represent the lowest technical risk, since it is already in production along with a FA-50 light attack variant.

Something to note, especially considering Boeing seems to have significantly understated the KC-46's technical risks.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2017, 02:15
by arian
At some level the technical risk also comes the manufacturer's ability to make the numbers of planes we're talking about. LM could obviously do it, but probably not without significant expansion in its production. So more fixed cost investment for new facilities. There is an optimal level of output which minimizes costs (as a proxy for technical risk) since cost curves are U-shaped. Making more isn't always going to be better or cheaper if it involves a organization so large.

Boeing on the other hand is drawing down on production for military aircraft which means it has available space, people and bureaucracy. Less need to crate new production abilities which also means less technical risk.

The other players are just silly.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2017, 04:13
by marauder2048
arian wrote:At some level the technical risk also comes the manufacturer's ability to make the numbers of planes we're talking about. LM could obviously do it, but probably not without significant expansion in its production. So more fixed cost investment for new facilities.


LM/KAI's current maximum production capacity (existing facilities) for the T-50 is 2.5/month which isn't much
greater than what would be required for T-X FRP.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2017, 04:53
by popcorn
arian wrote:So both the Boeing and LM designs use the same engine which isn't an engine the USAF uses? Anyone see this is as a problem, or is this actually a good thing since it gives them commonality with the Navy and thus cheaper supply chain?

The F404 provides the needed performance and is an affordable, proven, reliable and cost-effective solution. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :wink:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2017, 07:34
by arian
marauder2048 wrote:
arian wrote:At some level the technical risk also comes the manufacturer's ability to make the numbers of planes we're talking about. LM could obviously do it, but probably not without significant expansion in its production. So more fixed cost investment for new facilities.


LM/KAI's current maximum production capacity (existing facilities) for the T-50 is 2.5/month which isn't much
greater than what would be required for T-X FRP.


In...Korea?

Also I'm not sure 2.5/month is sufficient for anything other than low-rate IOC. It would take 11 years to reach the initial order, and if the USAF plans to purchase 1,000 as claimed, that would take 33 years. Obviously unrealistic either for the 350 assumption or the 1,000 assumption. You'd probably need 4-5 times greater output.

Either way, I recognize this is probably small potatoes for both LM and Boeing. But it is a component of the "technical risk" here. Not simply the design but also the ability to get producing. Both could handle it, but maybe Boeing could so more easily than LM which is already bloated with work.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2017, 08:49
by airforces_freak
Seems like Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC has a better chance in this race than we thought. Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) were onto something when they decided to form a new company (Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC) with its own production plant solely for Jet-Trainer aircraft.

Full text of Aviation week:

Sierra Nevada Corp./TAI Team To Offer Freedom Trainer For T-X

Dec 16, 2016 James Drew | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) are betting that the U.S. Air Force is seeking a fuel-efficient advanced pilot trainer to succeed the outdated Northrop T-38 Talon, like the one the companies plan to offer.

With the spotlight shining on the major primes until now, the two businesses have quietly set up shop in Centennial, Colorado, as Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC, to develop a lightweight, all-composite trainer powered by two business jet-class engines.

The company tells Aviation Week in exclusive interviews that it intends to enter the jam-packed race for the T-X, offering an “economical” trainer alternative to those being pitched by rivals Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. The clean-sheet aircraft has been designed by an integrated team of engineers from SNC and TAI, who have been working for some time at the joint venture’s headquarters near Denver.

Dream Chaser

»SNC/TAI pitch lightweight, FJ44-4M-powered Freedom Trainer

»Single prototype being built in Colorado for flight evaluations

»American-made advanced pilot trainer aimed at domestic and international air forces, but based on U.S. T-X requirements

»Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC registered in Centennial, Colorado

Better known for its satellites and Dream Chaser spaceplane, the Sparks, Nevada-based company’s Turkish-American owners Fatih and Eren Ozmen, CEO and owner/president, respectively, want to play in the big leagues and see military aircraft manufacturing as a key driver of growth.

They singled out the military trainer market after sensing demand for more than 1,200 aircraft globally, driven partly by the introduction of the Lockheed F-35 Lightning II, with the largest potential order being the U.S. government’s requirement for 350 or more T-X aircraft.

The company’s twin-tail, moderately swept-wing trainer with a tricycle landing gear and step-tandem cockpit is powered by the Williams International FJ44-4M, a 3,600-lb.-thrust-class engine chosen by the Aero Vodochody L-39NG and Leonardo/Alenia Aermacchi M-345 High-Efficiency Trainer. Williams certified the engine in 2010 for the light business jet market, providing a cruise speed of up to 450 kt. over a 2,000-nm range with 5,000 flight hours between overhauls. It was chosen as the Freedom Trainer offering due to its relatively inexpensive procurement and sustainment costs as well as fuel efficiency, with the company saying it can buy two Williams engines for half the cost of one high-power military turbofan.

The company already has one flying prototype in development, and it intends to answer the long-awaited T-X request for proposals (RFP) once released by the Air Force. The timing of the RFP will not be affected by the stopgap funding measure passed by Congress, since it is not a new-start program. The air force says a RFP notification could come any day, otherwise it will push into January due to holidays.

SNC/TAI’s proposal is for a purely a fly-by-wire trainer, seeming to leave little design margin for secondary light-attack or aggressor roles. Instead, the aircraft digitally replicates radar intercepts, precision-guided munition drops and the use of targeting pods. The aircraft is no larger than the GE J85-5-powered T-38 and consumes 30% less fuel, allowing weight reductions across the board to boost high subsonic performance at lower thrust levels. “We’re focusing on open architecture and lowest total ownership cost,” one company executive explains. The Freedom Trainer also is designed to fully comply with the Air Force’s Open Mission System standards to prevent “vendor-lock,” even though that requirement was dropped. “We did not want to drive costly design/redesign into systems that may otherwise meet the objective requirement,” an Air Force Life Cycle Management Center official says. SNC believes buying into any proprietary systems will drive up costs later.

The company says the Freedom Trainer will likely cost less to buy and sustain than its higher-powered competitors and consume 40-50% less fuel, while still meeting all threshold and objective performance requirements, including 6.5-7.5g sustained and high angle-of-attack maneuverability.

“In this day of tight budgets and looming operations and sustainment bow waves, it only makes sense for the Air Force to spend less up-front so they can save more over the life cycle, which is why this training system makes so much sense,” Fatih Ozmen says.

SNC is the prime contractor, with financial and intellectual input from TAI, it notes. “We’re not just a pretty face,” the company says. “We didn’t start off with a design from Turkey or anyplace else.” The single prototype under construction in Colorado, and the overall program, can be accelerated as needed to meet the Air Force’s schedule requirements for T-X. It has not been decided where in the U.S. serial production would occur, and there is potential for coproduction overseas for foreign buyers, the company says. It has some experience in this arena, having teamed with Brazil’s Embraer to set up an A-29 Super Tucano factory in Jacksonville, Florida, which is now delivering aircraft for the Afghan and Lebanese air forces.

T-X is the single largest opportunity for SNC, but it will complete the trainer even if it loses, with opportunities in Australia, Turkey and many other nations that are inducting modern warplanes. “We’ve cast a wide net,” a company official says.

Freedom Trainer was purposefully designed from the outset to meet Air Force training and airworthiness standards, which are well regarded by other air arms. The aircraft incorporates “live, virtual and constructive” training elements, provisions for aerial refueling, data links and communication radios woven into a high-performance aircraft with a fifth-generation cockpit, sensor suite and avionics. The overall training system requires “very little invention,” the company notes.

SNC is renowned for keeping a low profile, having also silently competed unsuccessfully in the Air Force’s first round of contracts for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, or J-Stars, replacement program.

The company has again kept quiet while finalizing its teaming arrangements and developing the T-X proposal. It has been engaging directly with the government, steering clear of industry days.

“We don’t want to surprise people in the Defense Department and Air Force, but we do want to surprise the industry,” says one company official. “It’s not just about T-X per se; we’re looking at an international advanced trainer.”

The Air Force confirmed engagement with SNC, saying it keeps an “open dialogue” with all companies that express interest in the T-X competition. The service says it welcomes any proposals that meet its requirements.

SNC is lining up against sizable primes: the first, second, fourth and sixth largest defense OEMs in the world by 2015 revenue. Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries are offering to build the Golden Eagle-based T-50A in Greenville, South Carolina. Raytheon and Leonardo would set up a T-100 final assembly and checkout facility plant in Meridian, Mississippi. Boeing and Saab unveiled their clean-sheet trainer in St. Louis in September, without having picked a final assembly location. The Northrop Grumman/Scaled Composites/BAE Systems/L-3 team has not shown its hand, except through leaked photos on social media. Its T-X prototype is flying routinely at the Mojave Air and Space Port in California.


SNC’s annual revenue has grown to $2 billion since being bought by the Ozmens in 1994. The majority of its revenue comes from space systems and special forces programs. TAI has significant aerospace aircraft manufacturing clout in Turkey, having license-built more than 300 F-16s and now center fuselages for the F-35 as a second source. The company is producing the Hurkus Free Bird turboprop basic trainer as well as helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles and a next-generation fighter for the Turkish government.

The Ozmens’ ethnic tie is with Turkey, and they are helping that nation develop a regional jet based on the Dornier 328, with TAI as a major subcontractor. It seems a natural fit, but the SNC/TAI partnership for T-X is not without headwinds due to the political and security situation in the NATO-allied nation. The unsuccessful military coup against President Recep Erdogan in July resulted in a governmentwide purge, and war continues to rage across the borders in Syria and Iraq.

SNC says the joint venture with TAI is solid, postcoup. TAI immediately sent an envoy to the U.S. to reaffirm its commitment to Freedom Trainer. “The talent from TAI has been phenomenal,” SNC points out. “They brought their A-Team. We’ve cast a wide net,” a company official says.

SNC says it aims to be a disruptive innovator, and its Freedom Trainer “family of systems” is the embodiment of that ethos, from the aircraft to the ground-based training system, simulators and courseware, and logistics chain. “The aircraft is just another training device,” the company notes. “We want the students to go off to their weapon systems with as high a quality training experience as possible, but focusing on doing it at the lowest possible cost per graduate.

“We think a lot of our solutions are groundbreaking innovations,” the company continues. “We took an engine that can meet [our requirements] and built an airplane around it.”

The U.S. government plans to retain 546 T-38A/B/Cs. While some play aggressor roles in flying exercises or support weapons testing, 431 Talons support undergraduate training for pilot selected to fly fighters or bombers. The Air Education and Training Command expects to phase out its T-38 between 2023-29 as the T-X comes online, targeting initial operational capability by fiscal 2024.

The source-selection process will take about one year, with a development contract expected in early fiscal 2018. Low-rate production should start in fiscal 2022.


http://aviationweek.com/defense/sierra- ... rainer-t-x

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2017, 17:54
by durahawk
arian wrote:In...Korea?

Also I'm not sure 2.5/month is sufficient for anything other than low-rate IOC. It would take 11 years to reach the initial order, and if the USAF plans to purchase 1,000 as claimed, that would take 33 years. Obviously unrealistic either for the 350 assumption or the 1,000 assumption. You'd probably need 4-5 times greater output.

Either way, I recognize this is probably small potatoes for both LM and Boeing. But it is a component of the "technical risk" here. Not simply the design but also the ability to get producing. Both could handle it, but maybe Boeing could so more easily than LM which is already bloated with work.


The current schedule calls for a FRP of 4 aircraft per month starting in FY25 and drawing down in FY30. The schedule for the 4 EMD and 35 LRIP 1 & 2 assets is hardly taxing either. So you are right, small potatoes for both.
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=af8fd ... 2ea1bdf8b4

Not sure I can agree with Boeing representing lower production risk for T-X. Sure, there is capacity in St. Louis but I'd be willing to bet Marietta has some open floor space from the early F-22 line closure as well, and they have plenty time to ready extra space as needed. Focusing on the Prime Contractor final assembly capacity is kind of looking in the wrong place either way, in my opinion. Today's aircraft production is much more horizontally integrated than it used to be and the vast majority of the aircraft structures, hydraulics, fuel system components, wiring harnesses, actuators, circuit cards, etc will all be coming from outside suppliers anyhow. This is why, with respect to production risk, I give the clear nod to LM/KAI with a fully established and integrated supply chain with attendant approved first articles and demonstrated production quality. Ability to meet rate for the LM/KAI team is a matter of capacity resource planning since the Cpk and yield rates of their suppliers are known quantities. Not necessarily so for the Boeing.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2017, 19:47
by rheonomic
Interesting (paywalled) WSJ article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/raytheon-dr ... 1485468298

The AIAA Daily Launch summary of it is:

The Wall Street Journal (1/26, Subscription Publication) reports that one day after the Raytheon team announced that it has dropped its bid for the $16 billion Air Force T-X training jet program, Northrop Grumman also expressed uncertainty over whether it will pursue the contract. In an earnings call on Thursday, Northrop Grumman CEO Wes Bush said that the company has to “look through the cold, hard lens” at the project before making a decision. Separately, a spokesman said the “company is assessing the final [request for proposals] as part of its business process.” A Boeing-Saab AB team and a Lockheed Martin-Korea Aerospace Industries team continue to pursue the contract.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 00:00
by popcorn
I wonder what they saw in the RFP that gave them cold feet?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 00:34
by rheonomic
Here's the article:

Raytheon Drops Out of Air Force Jet Contest; Northrop Unsure
A contest worth as much as $16 billion for the winner to build new Air
Force training jets was upset Thursday after a big U.S. defense company
pulled out and one of the front runners said it had yet to decide on
entering.

Raytheon Co. said it couldn't reach a deal with its Italian partner that
was in the best interest of the U.S. Air Force, while Northrop Grumman
Corp., which designed a new plane for the contest, said it hadn't yet
established whether its offering would be profitable.

The Air Force T-X program calls for 350 new planes to train pilots to fly
jet fighters such as the F-35 and has attracted interest from Boeing Co.
and Lockheed Martin Corp. as well, whose entries were largely designed
overseas.

President Donald Trump recently expressed concern about the lack of
competition among U.S. companies building military jets.

Northrop Grumman in 2015 dropped plans to modify planes built by BAE
Systems PLC for the T-X contest in favor of its own new design, but Chief
Executive Wes Bush said Thursday it had to "look through the cold, hard
lens" of the Air Force contest before deciding whether to proceed.

"We need to be thoughtful about what it means going forward and that's the
business case we're looking at," Mr. Bush told investors after Northrop
reported forecast-beating quarterly earnings alongside 2017 guidance that
fell short of expectations.

The Air Force issued final requirements for the T-X program in December and
is expected to make a decision in the summer.

"The company is assessing the final [request for proposals] as part of its
business process," a Northrop Grumman spokesman said.

Toby O'Brien, Raytheon's chief financial officer, said in an interview that
it couldn't reach a business deal with Leonardo SpA to use a version of the
Italian company's trainer jet for the U.S. Leonardo had previously proposed
to use a similar jet in partnership with General Dynamics Corp. before the
U.S. company also dropped out, saying it wouldn't be able to make a profit
if it won.

Boeing has identified winning the T-X contest as a priority after its
joint bid with Lockheed to build a new Air Force bomber lost out to
Northrop. Last month, Boeing for the first time flew the all-new trainer
plane it designed with Sweden's Saab AB.

Lockheed is offering the T-50A jet developed with Korea Aerospace
Industries Ltd. after concluding it was too costly to develop a new plane.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 00:43
by popcorn
Thanks. The concern about program profitability seem justified. Margins may not that great to begin with then factor in the bureaucratic challenges to deal with. At least NG has the B-21 to fall back on.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 01:29
by rheonomic
popcorn wrote:Thanks. The concern about program profitability seem justified. Margins may not that great to begin with then factor in the bureaucratic challenges to deal with. At least NG has the B-21 to fall back on.


Makes sense to me. LM/KAI T-50 is basically already down so there's not too much cost in bidding; Boeing [b]needs[/i] (IMO) to win T-X if they want to stay relevant in tacair; NG on the other hand just got the B-21/LRS-B contract, and for T-X would need to finish the development of their clean sheet. (That's not to say that they don't want to win, but rather they don't really have a pressing need to and at the same time have larger risk involved than they might like.) Not to mention the trainer market is pretty dense at the moment. (Here, at least in the west, the M-346 seems to have done pretty well.)

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 04:18
by madrat
I'm thinking Northrop did what everyone else did and based their initial design to meet the preliminary requirements. Then the goalposts were moved. I suspect Boeing influenced the RFP process and basis for the point system. Classic way to spoil competition.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 04:31
by popcorn
So how to create a poll to see which design gets the nod on this forum?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 08:57
by arian
popcorn wrote:So how to create a poll to see which design gets the nod on this forum?


They're all the same. It comes down to logistics/risk.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2017, 19:24
by johnwill
LM plans to assemble the T-50 at an existing facility in Greenville, SC.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 00:12
by vilters
OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 01:46
by rheonomic
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


I kind of feel like that's more or less what they did with their N-400 design.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 02:27
by weasel1962
This sound like revival of the LAAR which the A-29 got selected. I don't think it wil be about logistics and risk.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 06:59
by KamenRiderBlade
rheonomic wrote:
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


I kind of feel like that's more or less what they did with their N-400 design.

http://www.janes.com/article/63129/nort ... eaks-cover

Looks like a improved F-20 to me.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 16:05
by madrat
Does one F404 cost less than two F125's? Honeywell and Williams both have some lighter turbo fans that I would think would be less upfront, but over twenty years probably have to be competitive. Honeywell has FADEC experience. Pretty sure Williams does, too. It might make the overall designs have more drag, because the single engine would obviously be better when it comes to drag. There's nothing in the RFP to require one engine AFAIK.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 17:45
by mixelflick
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


I'd second the F-20 recommendation. And talk about a combat capable trainer!

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2017, 22:50
by madrat
This is what the F-20A evolved into:
Image
It comes in single- and two-seat versions, just like the T-38A's predecessor, the F-5. The F-20A never had a two-seat version.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 10:30
by Corsair1963
madrat wrote:This is what the F-20A evolved into:
Image
It comes in single- and two-seat versions, just like the T-38A's predecessor, the F-5. The F-20A never had a two-seat version.



Those are (IDF) F-CK-1 Ching-kuo Fighters and are not related to the F-20. Which, was based on a F-5 with a GE F404 engine. Unless I misunderstood your meaning????

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 13:52
by madrat
You missed it's history. It used the F-20's export friendly radar/weapon system and the design devolved to F125's because F404 wasn't approved for them. It wasn't technically directly from Northrop, but it was an offshoot.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 15:58
by linkomart
madrat wrote:You missed it's history. It used the F-20's export friendly radar/weapon system and the design devolved to F125's because F404 wasn't approved for them. It wasn't technically directly from Northrop, but it was an offshoot.

hmm, IIRC it was General Dynamics who helped them with the design, using data from the F-16, not Northrop who have the design data from F-5 (or F-20...)

The systems might be from F-20, but the external design isn't.... I Believe.

best regards.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2017, 17:13
by johnwill
As a GD employee, I spent seven years in Taiwan as an "advisor" on the IDF program. There is no F-20 influence on tbe airplane.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 15:40
by rheonomic
U.S. Air Force’s T-X Playing Field Shrinking Fast

The U.S. Air Force’s once-crowded $16 billion T-X next-generation trainer competition is beginning to look more and more like a price shootout between the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50A and Boeing/Saab BTX after Northrop Grumman expressed mixed feelings about entering the race.

What started out as six potential entrants including Raytheon/Leonardo, Sierra Nevada Corporation/Turkish Aerospace Industries and Textron Aviation prior to the Dec. 30 request for proposals has narrowed to five and perhaps fewer after the Raytheon/Leonardo team withdrew its M-346 Master-based T-100 offer.

The two firms left T-100 partners CAE USA and Honeywell Aerospace, as well as the town of Meridian, Mississippi, in the lurch on Jan. 25 when they abandoned T-X, having failed to come to a business agreement over the cost of the Italian aircraft, which Raytheon believed needed to be substantially lower to be competitive.

On Jan. 26, when asked if Northrop would bid, company CEO Wes Bush surprised some T-X watchers by saying no decision has been made either way, despite substantial investment in a flying prototype. “We don’t want to walk ourselves into a decision to do something just because we’ve been doing it,” he said.

Sierra Nevada has avoided saying whether its “Freedom Trainer” will enter the race, and Textron Aviation also will not say definitively if a Scorpion-based offer is on the table.

One industry source tells Aviation Week that the T-100 needed to be the low-cost option for the Air Force to have a fighting chance against Boeing and Lockheed.

Raytheon, which produced the T-1A Jayhawk and T-6A Texan II, exited the aircraft manufacturing business in 2006 when it sold Hawker Beechcraft, now owned by Textron Aviation. The firm would have been Leonardo’s U.S. face for the T-100, acting as prime system integrator and driving toward 70% American content on the aircraft.

The team announced its partnership in February 2016 and looked solid until October, when Aviation Week reported disagreements over control of the bid. The source says Leonardo’s aircraft and helicopter divisions, Finmeccanica Alenia Aermacchi and AgustaWestland, respectively, are “not the easiest partners” and do not like relinquishing control of their products to teammates. Alenia Aermacchi had been teamed with General Dynamics for T-X, but split and reformed with Raytheon.

“[The M-346] is probably the most proven of the competitors, [but] Leonardo and Raytheon were several million dollars apart from what [unit price] they wanted,” the source says.

Just last month, Raytheon held a ceremony at Key Field in Meridian—where it hoped to complete assembly of the aircraft—to drum up support for the T-100 among local politicians and business leaders.

A spokesman for Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran (R) expressed disappointment about the breakup, but was not totally disheartened. “Because of this process, there’s no question that we are poised to meet future opportunities [in high-tech aerospace manufacturing],” the spokesman says.

CAE, one of the leading providers of aircraft training and simulation services, says it is disappointed that the T-100 will not compete. The Canadian firm’s U.S subsidiary in Tampa, Florida, would have provided the ground-based training system. It typically competes against FlightSafety International, L-3 Link Simulation & Training, and Boeing and Lockheed’s in-house training services businesses for U.S. military training contracts. L-3 Link is partnered with Northrop, and Boeing and Lockheed are leveraging their own training and simulation capabilities. Sierra Nevada has not disclosed its teaming arrangements.

“We would welcome supporting the eventual T-X winner with our advanced simulation technologies and training support capabilities,” CAE says.

The T-100 split has dashed Honeywell’s hopes of resuming production of its F124 low-bypass turbofan engine in the U.S. The F124 was militarized from Honeywell’s commercial TFE731 business jet engine for Taiwan’s Indigenous Defense Fighter, and it now also powers the M-346 and Aero Vodochody L-159. Honeywell opened an American assembly line in Phoenix, Arizona, to build engines for Israel’s M-346 training fleet, and would have resumed production there if Raytheon won T-X.

“For Honeywell, it’s easy to shrug off,” says Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at Teal Group. “This was only a combat engine by accident when the Taiwanese adopted it for their fighter program a long, long time ago. For CAE, their business is going very well, so they should be able to shrug it off, but it hurts; it hurts to be a big training company and not be part of the biggest training competition in the world.”

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said the break with Leonardo was a “smart move” by Raytheon because of the economics and Leonardo’s shaky track record of partnering with American companies, citing the failed the Lockheed/AgustaWestland AW101-based VH-71 Kestrel presidential helicopter project. “Leonardo had an integrated training solution before Raytheon even came along,” he says, “but there’s a price of admission for getting into this market that requires getting along with one of the major U.S. system integrators.”

Aboulafia and Thompson agree that it could come down to a price war between Lockheed and Boeing, although the two firms have different motivations and market forecasts.

The T-50A is an already-fielded, high-performance aircraft that easily could be adapted to other missions such as light combat or aggressor training support, whereas Boeing and Saab have developed a purpose-built trainer aircraft. Boeing is hungry for a military aircraft win after losing the Joint Strike Fighter contract to Lockheed in 2001 and the Long-Range Strike Bomber to Northrop in 2015.
“Boeing does have a significant development bill, but boy, are they hungry for a military airframe win,” Aboulafia says.

Thompson says if price does become the main discriminator for T-X, it might be wise for Northrop to sit this competition out, since it significantly underbid the Boeing/Lockheed team to win the bomber contract and might be exposed to too much financial risk with another development program. “Taking a big risk dampens your enthusiasm for more such bidding,” he says.

Aboulafia says just because Northrop invested in a clean-sheet prototype does not mean it must bid. “Any economist is going to tell you that the sunk cost fallacy is the biggest fallacy of all,” he says.

Bush expressed such sentiments during the earnings call. “While it’s interesting enough that we have made some investments supporting this program, [these] investments tend to have broader applicability, so we need to be thoughtful.”

The Air Force is seeking 350 next-generation trainers over 11 annual batches to replace upward of 450 Northrop T-38 Talons for undergraduate fighter and bomber pilot training. The T-38 was introduced in 1961, and T-X service entry is due by late fiscal 2024 “or earlier,” the service says.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 17:07
by gtg947h
Am I the only one that, every time I see Sierra Nevada Corp. discussed in this context, keeps thinking "why is a beer company involved in designing a trainer"?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2017, 11:19
by airforces_freak
T-X MAY BE LESS COMPETITIVE THAN EXPECTED
http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/11-air/72 ... ected.html

Speculation is rife in defence industry circles regarding the potential outcome of the bidding process for the US Advanced Pilot Training programme, known as T-X, potentially worth up to $16 billion.

In late January, Raytheon and Leonardo said that they will not jointly bid the T-100 (a variant of the Leonardo M-346 MASTER jet trainer) for the programme has thrown the bidding community into some disarray. (see news item here). Neither company made any comment regarding the substantive reasons for the withdrawal, but informed observers believe the fundamental stumbling block was a potential inability to compete on price.

The result, according to speculation in the last few days, is that the competition may come down to a two-horse race, with Boeing and Lockheed Martin competing fiercely for the largest – and most valuable – training aircraft contract for the foreseeable future.

MÖNCH COMMENT
If Boeing and Lockheed Martin end up being the only contenders for T-X, there is a strong possibility that price may become the single most important discriminating factor. Both companies are anxious to keep production lines open over extended periods and winning the contract may become more important as a core strategy than making an acceptable level of margin.

If the supposition that the Raytheon/Leonardo withdrawal was the result of an inability to agree on a competitive price point is correct, then other potential bidders may also be going through a similar thought process. Northrop Grumman’s potential solution has great merit on the surface, but it is doubtful whether it will be as price competitive as the two major bidders’ offers could be. Neither Sierra Nevada Corp. nor Textron have yet confirmed whether they will submit bids for T-X, but the same rubric applies to their potential solutions too.

Price – given every defence customer’s resource limitations and desires – is an important component of so large an undertaking. But is it necessarily THE supremely important consideration? The Air Force needs – and deserves – a solution for the requirement that offers the very best mix available of capability, effects-oriented training and long-term sustainability. At the very least that demands that contractors be encouraged to submit carefully crafted and compelling bids based on technology, capability development, innovative solution building and value for money. The cost of bidding for a programme like T-X runs into millions of dollars: how many potentially winning solutions might just not be bid as a result of companies determining those costs are not justified by a realistic prospect of a win?

Speculation? Certainly. But a legitimate concern that raises difficult questions for the US Air Force and the bidding community to resolve.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2017, 16:18
by rheonomic
According to AvWeek reporters on Twitter (hasn't made the site yet), NG decided not to submit a response to the T-X RFP.

Edit: Defense News story:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/nor ... ompetition

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2017, 17:06
by airforces_freak
I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2017, 18:32
by archeman
airforces_freak wrote:I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.


How much does it hurt their offer to not have a prototype flying?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2017, 19:22
by madrat
NG hasn't publicly came out refusing to bid, correct? They can sell off their effort or partner it out. Sunk costs of a prototype may be trivial to some, but they have an aversion to throwing away money.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2017, 20:35
by durahawk
airforces_freak wrote:I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.


Ummm... no. Two commercial engines that don't have any established logistical support whatsoever within DoD are not automatically cheaper than a single F404 that the military has been supporting, maintaining and overhauling for decades.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2017, 23:15
by airforces_freak
archeman wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.


How much does it hurt their offer to not have a prototype flying?


One is being assembled as we speak. Aviation Week reported this a few months ago. We should see a flying prototype in the coming months with a few surprises according to SNC: "The aircraft incorporates “live, virtual and constructive” training elements, provisions for aerial refueling, data links and communication radios woven into a high-performance aircraft with a fifth-generation cockpit, sensor suite and avionics"

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2017, 23:31
by airforces_freak
durahawk wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:I really didn't think SNC/TAI with their twin engined (Williams FJ44-4M) Freedom Trainer would stand a chance in this race but after hearing news of the companies dropping out from the tender I think this partnership now has a chance. They are offering the cheapest alternative out there: the use of commercial engines.


Ummm... no. Two commercial engines that don't have any established logistical support whatsoever within DoD are not automatically cheaper than a single F404 that the military has been supporting, maintaining and overhauling for decades.


The Williams FJ44-4M was also proposed by Cessna in its Model 526 CitationJet Trainer for the United States Joint Primary Aircraft Training System program in 1993. I don't think it would be more expensive to support, maintenance and overhaul the Williams FJ44-4M should the SNC/TAI Freedom Trainer be selected. In fact, SNC has stated that its offer will include support, maintenance and overhaul supply chains.

Image

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2017, 20:38
by huggy
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2017, 00:36
by popcorn
huggy wrote:
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.

LOL.. just like the the girl who "got away" way back when... she'd look a bit dated nowadays for sure.. :mrgreen:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2017, 15:22
by rheonomic
Leonardo to offer T-100 training system for T-X program

Don't see how this turns out for them, especially given how Raytheon apparently thought the cost was several million too high.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2017, 02:06
by arian
rheonomic wrote:Leonardo to offer T-100 training system for T-X program

Don't see how this turns out for them, especially given how Raytheon apparently thought the cost was several million too high.


Don't know why they keep wasting their time. We're not going to get a Yak-130 clone.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2017, 16:58
by mixelflick
huggy wrote:
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.


It's because the F-20 really was a world beater* Two seat versions with combat capability would be invaluable after the stealth birds establish air superiority. In addition to those 200 or so F-15C's and 1,000 F-16's, you could fall back on XXX number of TF-20's. Flying with the AIM-9x and AMRAAM, they'd be formidable opponents. Small, lightweight and with a thrust to weight ratio of around 1:1 opens up all kinds of possibilities.

An F-20 with AMRAAM/9x's would be one dangerous foe. It also had/has robust air to ground (and even air to sea) capability. With $ scarce and every dollar counting, I'd want a combat capable trainer. Regardless if it's the F-20 or some other aircraft..

*Considering cost per flight hour, time to scramble and life cycle costs. Not only that, but the F-404 is very reliable, notoriously stingy on fuel consumption and (in the F-20), provides plenty of power.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2017, 23:07
by popcorn
T-X isn't even officially calling for an Aggressor variant, let alone a Fighter variant. The AF wants to transition away from 4Gens as quickly as possible so building a large fleet of modernized F-20s runs counter to this.The F-20 lost to the F-16, it's day has come and gone.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2017, 15:14
by huggy
Mixelflick,
Please... put down the crack pipe.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2017, 23:45
by rheonomic

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2017, 17:44
by pmi
rheonomic wrote:Textron's out.


Just chaff being separated. This became a two horse race the moment Northrop left the field.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2017, 15:21
by airforces_freak
2 more Defence giants mull joining forces in the Sierra Nevada Corporation/ Turkish Aerospace Industries Freedom Trainer program for the T-X tender.

Most likely Northrop Grumman and Raytheon.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2017, 15:42
by zerion
Swedish Air Force interested in Boeing-Saab trainer jet, but probably not other T-X options
By: Valerie Insinn

STOCKHOLM — If Boeing and Saab’s trainer wins the U.S. Air Force’s T-X competition, the Swedish Air Force will put serious thought into buying it. If another company nabs the contract, however, Sweden will likely opt for a much less expensive turboprop training aircraft, a Swedish Air Force official said Monday.

Sweden currently has an inventory of 50 Saab 105 trainers, which were introduced in the late 1960s. Those planes are aging and increasingly more expensive to maintain, said Col. Magnus Liljegren, head of the Air Force department at the Swedish Armed Forces Headquarters.

Although the Swedish Air Force had planned to begin phasing out Saab 105s in the early 2020s, the government made a decision to continue operating them until about 2025 and 2026 — an outcome that means the service can consider the T-X offering jointly designed by U.S. aerospace company Boeing and Sweden’s own Saab...

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/swe ... %20Roundup

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2017, 00:31
by johnwill
mixelflick wrote:
huggy wrote:
vilters wrote:OK, now a serious question from me/

Why is Northrop not "reviving" its F-20 into a new trainer version?

Talons, as all other F-5 airframe versions are known for their durability, reliability, and maintainability.
Exactly what you want/need for a trainer.

Add the F-20 improvements, new engine and avionix and get an upgraded version of a proven training system.


What is it about you guys that are "F-20 disciples"? Do you really understand what is needed in our next trainer? Let it go already.

My calendar says it is 2017. Let's get a good product that isn't based on a 50+ year old design.


It's because the F-20 really was a world beater* Two seat versions with combat capability would be invaluable after the stealth birds establish air superiority. In addition to those 200 or so F-15C's and 1,000 F-16's, you could fall back on XXX number of TF-20's. Flying with the AIM-9x and AMRAAM, they'd be formidable opponents. Small, lightweight and with a thrust to weight ratio of around 1:1 opens up all kinds of possibilities.

An F-20 with AMRAAM/9x's would be one dangerous foe. It also had/has robust air to ground (and even air to sea) capability. With $ scarce and every dollar counting, I'd want a combat capable trainer. Regardless if it's the F-20 or some other aircraft..

*Considering cost per flight hour, time to scramble and life cycle costs. Not only that, but the F-404 is very reliable, notoriously stingy on fuel consumption and (in the F-20), provides plenty of power.


You mean like the T-50?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2017, 02:14
by arian
Two seat versions with combat capability would be invaluable after the stealth birds establish air superiority. In addition to those 200 or so F-15C's and 1,000 F-16's, you could fall back on XXX number of TF-20's. Flying with the AIM-9x and AMRAAM, they'd be formidable opponents. Small, lightweight and with a thrust to weight ratio of around 1:1 opens up all kinds of possibilities.


After you've established air superiority, what use are xxx numbers of light-weight fighters armed with AIM-9X/Amraams? And in what scenario would the 2,000+ other conventional multi-role fighters of the USAF, USN and Marines, not be sufficient and require an additional number of light-weight trainers?

What would be useful would be a multi-role aircraft with the ability to carry out some useful air-ground missions, with reasonable range to maintain a sufficient sortie rate, and also be sufficiently capable of defending itself against anything the enemy can throw (hence no need for escorts). An F-20 or even T-50 of today couldn't do any of that as well as an F-16 could (an F-20 of 1980s maybe could, relative to its contemporaries).

With $ scarce and every dollar counting, I'd want a combat capable trainer. Regardless if it's the F-20 or some other aircraft..


With money scare, I'd think they would be best specialized for their training mission, of which there is more than enough to go around, then be compromised by the requirement that they also carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles around.

I think there's a reason every light-weight fighter design in the world has failed, even in places one would think it would be successful (e.g. AMX, armed versions of Hawk, armed versions of L-39, even going back to the Gnat. It never seems to work. No I don't consider the F-5 as being in that category since in contemporary terms it was not a light-weight fighter but comparable to most country's front-line fighters.)

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2017, 10:51
by hornetfinn
IMO lightweight fighters have the problem that they are envisioned to have 80 percent of the capability at 20 percent of the cost of real fighter aircraft. They however always end up with having 20 percent of the capability at 80 percent of the cost. I think there is no way of having actual Hi-Lo mix that works well. Best result seems to come from Very Hi-Hi mix like F-22 and F-35 or F-15/F-16. Many smaller countries and services opt for having no mix but having just "Hi" and go with just one type.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2017, 11:43
by madrat
Actually they tend to be more like 50% of the cost for 50% of the capability. Unless you're the Russians, they aim more for 60-65% of the cost for a similar capability.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2017, 12:35
by hornetfinn
madrat wrote:Actually they tend to be more like 50% of the cost for 50% of the capability. Unless you're the Russians, they aim more for 60-65% of the cost for a similar capability.


I was just using the famous Pareto principle, actual percentages may well differ. I'd say that it really depends on what you aim for. Fighters like KAI FA-50 do cost about 50% of what aircraft like F-35A or Super Hornet cost. Operating costs are possibly lower than that. However, I doubt they have anywhere near 50% of the capability of Super Hornet and definitely not F-35A. Maybe in some spesific metrics, but not overall combat capability. They just have so much weaker avionics systems with legacy radar, not much in EW department, basic CNI system, no HMD/HMS, much less and weaker sensors, no towed decoy, no FLIR/IRST system, small bombs and no cruise missile capability. Going up against decent IADS or fighter force, I'd say 20% was being very generous.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2017, 16:58
by zerion
Wrong thread

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 01:06
by arian
hornetfinn wrote: Fighters like KAI FA-50 do cost about 50% of what aircraft like F-35A or Super Hornet cost. Operating costs are possibly lower than that. However, I doubt they have anywhere near 50% of the capability of Super Hornet and definitely not F-35A. Maybe in some spesific metrics, but not overall combat capability.


Also, even if we assumed 50% of the cost and 50% of the capability, is that really a trade-off one wants to make? 50% of the capability doesn't mean that 2 of these planes will be as good as 1 F-35, or that in combat 2 of them will be able to take on 1 F-35. If you only get 50% of the capability, it may well imply that every time they will be defeated by F-35, in which case you didn't save 50% of the cost. You wasted all that money.

Now I understand that there are circumstances where this doesn't hold, such as when you don't actually intend to take on an adversary with advanced top of the line fighters. In which case, just about anything will do the job, and given the availability of numerous very cheap 4th gen fighters out there (like F-16s), then the need for a light-weight armed trainer is even less apparent. There's nothing a $30 million FA-50 can do better then a $30 million F-16 (other then perhaps being a newer air-frame and thus having more life left).

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 00:40
by popcorn
Ballsy.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/06/22/leon ... -fly-f-35/

Leonardo’s T-X Submission Already Training Pilots to Fly F-35

The loss of the Raytheon partnership may ultimately spell savings too.

“Not having a partner with Raytheon, is that good or bad? It turns out that it’s actually pretty good,” Vaca said. “So now we’re one manufacturer building the airplane. So a lot of the fees, a lot of the issues that went along with partnering, we can take out of the system so it allows us to get to a lower price.”

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 01:01
by arian
popcorn wrote:Ballsy.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/06/22/leon ... -fly-f-35/

Leonardo’s T-X Submission Already Training Pilots to Fly F-35


That's obviously a half-truth half-lie, and all BS statement. Polish and Singaporean pilots aren't training to fly the F-35, and Italian and Israeli pilots are training on it because that's their AF's trainer, which was acquired independent of F-35 requirement of either air force.

T-100 isn't going to happen for a simple reason: the USAF isn't going to acquire an aircraft produced overseas (even less a design made jointly with Yakovlev). Leonardo may think it will make a cheaper bid without a US-based partner, but when it comes down to actual production it can't rely on its Italian production to supply the USAF order.

I'm not sure how "low risk" it is to give a contract for 1,000+ planes to a company that hasn't even produced 50 of an early-90s design.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 04:22
by talkitron
arian wrote:T-100 isn't going to happen for a simple reason: the USAF isn't going to acquire an aircraft produced overseas (even less a design made jointly with Yakovlev). Leonardo may think it will make a cheaper bid without a US-based partner, but when it comes down to actual production it can't rely on its Italian production to supply the USAF order.


Leonardo will assemble the planes in Tuskegee, Alabama if it wins the trainer contract. I am not sure about what fraction of the supply chain will be from the US; the supply chain is where a lot of the value would lie. With the administration's pro-US approach to economic matters, I do believe it is politically risky for the Air Force to award the contract to a US-based subsidiary of an Italian firm when two prominent US-headquartered firms are also in the running.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 06:43
by arian
talkitron wrote:
arian wrote:T-100 isn't going to happen for a simple reason: the USAF isn't going to acquire an aircraft produced overseas (even less a design made jointly with Yakovlev). Leonardo may think it will make a cheaper bid without a US-based partner, but when it comes down to actual production it can't rely on its Italian production to supply the USAF order.


Leonardo will assemble the planes in Tuskegee, Alabama if it wins the trainer contract. I am not sure about what fraction of the supply chain will be from the US; the supply chain is where a lot of the value would lie. With the administration's pro-US approach to economic matters, I do believe it is politically risky for the Air Force to award the contract to a US-based subsidiary of an Italian firm when two prominent US-headquartered firms are also in the running.


If they win the contract (which they won't), they'll have to build a facility to produce 1,000 planes (and parts and maintenance). How confident can one be that they have figured out the costs of doing so accurately in their bid? How confident can one be in their claim that this project is a "low risk" project given that it is in production in Italy, if the project hinges on re-creating the supply chain and assembly in the US?

My qualm is that they claim this to be "low-risk" when it seems to me to be the highest risk project, especially because it is a 20 year old design.

PS: how did they chose Tuskegee Alabama of all places? Where does one go to hire aerospace workers there?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2017, 15:37
by rheonomic
arian wrote:My qualm is that they claim this to be "low-risk" when it seems to me to be the highest risk project, especially because it is a 20 year old design.


It's also a Yak...

(although maybe that's a plus with this admin...)

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2017, 12:04
by jedigman
The shortlisted 3 are:

Boeing / Saab (BTX1 - N38ITX)
Lockheed Martin / KAI (T-50A)
Leonardo (T-100)

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2017, 06:11
by edpop
Northrop Grumman gives details on why it dropped out of competition..........

http://www.combataircraft.net/2017/09/2 ... d-t-x-jet/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Sep 2017, 23:04
by madrat
Northrop Grumman got the front half right, Boeing got the back half.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 23:29
by zerion
Sierra Nevada Reveals ‘Freedom Aircraft’ Prototype

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland—Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) has offered the first glimpse of its “Freedom Aircraft” prototype, which has been taking shape at the company’s facilities in Centennial, Colorado. SNC partnered with Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) under the banner of Freedom Aircraft Ventures last year to develop the clean-sheet, all-composite, twin-engine multirole aircraft for domestic and international military customers. The aircraft originally was ...

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/sie ... -prototype


Pic at link

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 18:05
by zerion
Boeing Reveals T-X Cockpit Layout

Boeing wants to confine knobs and switches to a bygone era.
The company this week released the first images of its T-X cockpit, revealing a 21st century knobless and switchless touchscreen large-area display.

The “BTX” aircraft Boeing designed with Saab for the U.S. Air Force’s Advanced Pilot Training, or T-X, competition has identical displays and symbology in the front and rear cockpit. In a training flight, the instructor pilot can see exactly what the student sees, and which inputs are selected...

Image

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... 0248a645d5

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 03:03
by rheonomic
Image


Meh.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 17:55
by rheonomic
Some T-50A propaganda from LM:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 18:15
by madrat
So are these all digital displays/controls literally one voltage spike away from total loss of feedback?

How about EMP mitigation?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 20:26
by basher54321
You would hope a standard level of protection might be in place.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53081&p=372816&hilit=hardening#p372816

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 20:31
by rheonomic
basher54321 wrote:You would hope a standard level of protection might be in place.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53081&p=372816&hilit=hardening#p372816


No, I'm pretty sure this is what happens: https://youtu.be/0B_ypC07GGY?t=5m45s

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 21:16
by madrat
Voltage spikes never happen on aircraft, especially not on modern planes like Airbus...

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 23:51
by SpudmanWP
madrat wrote:So are these all digital displays/controls literally one voltage spike away from total loss of feedback


If it's anything like the F-35's main display then it is actually 2 separate 8*10 displays that can take over the work if the other goes down. In the F-35 there is a third display sitting between the knees that can display all of the needed information to get you back home if both the main and HUD/HMDS goes down. It's likely the same here.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 00:51
by geforcerfx
SpudmanWP wrote:If it's anything like the F-35's main display then it is actually 2 separate 8*10 displays that can take over the work it the other goes down. In the F-35 there is a third display sitting between the knees that can display all of the needed information to get you back home if both the main and HUD/HMDS goes down. It's likely the same here.


Image

Looks to have similar cockpit redundancy, in fact it looks like a clone of the F-35 cockpit in a lot of ways.

Image

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 05:52
by pmi
Lockheed is definitely winning the PR war. The T50 has been showing up in a lot of mainstream media spots.

rheonomic wrote:No, I'm pretty sure this is what happens: https://youtu.be/0B_ypC07GGY?t=5m45s


Standard Russian demo at the Paris airshow?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 06:36
by rheonomic
pmi wrote:Lockheed is definitely winning the PR war. The T50 has been showing up in a lot of mainstream media spots.


The downselect on this one will really be interesting. I don't think Leonardo has much of a chance*, which leaves Boeing and LM (the other contenders aren't serious IMO). I prefer the LM T-50A offer since it's already a proven aircraft, while Boeing's claims of low-risk for their clean sheet seem somewhat dubious to me.

Ultimately I think it'll come down to cost and perhaps industrial base concerns. Boeing may edge out here since it seems like there's not much to keep St Louis open, which would potentially reduce tacair to LM and NG. I suspect they'll win at least one of T-X or MQ-25. (Boeing does have KC-46, but as I understand that's being led by the commercial and not defense side.)


---------
*Although I could be totally wrong here e.g. UH-72 / A-29, although IIRC there was a Congressional sh*tstorm about both of those. Not to mention the CF with the KC-X program between NG/EADS and Boeing...

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2018, 13:38
by popcorn
KAI implicated in the Essential Consulting LLC controversy. KAI's changing explanations for the arrangement strain credulity. It remains to be seen if this impacts their participation in the T-X bidding.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2018, 08:29
by mk82
rheonomic wrote:Some T-50A propaganda from LM:


After watching how LVC training works in real life....I now understand how LVC will revolutionize tactical aircraft pilot training in multiple ways. Student fighter pilots utilizing LVC training will be tactically competent much sooner in their training pipeline.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2018, 17:06
by geforcerfx

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2018, 23:41
by jakobs
Probably some interesting info in this article for anyone who can read it!

http://www.defensedaily.com/air-force-inching-closer-t-x-contract-award/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2018, 12:50
by popcorn
T'X winner expected to be announced by September 30.at the latest.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08 ... -aircraft/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 01:28
by sferrin
Boeing got the MQ-25. I suspect LM will wrap up the T-X.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 31 Aug 2018, 03:31
by rheonomic
sferrin wrote:Boeing got the MQ-25. I suspect LM will wrap up the T-X.


Will be interesting to see. Out of the two likely contenders (negligible little chance we go for the EuroYak IMO) the T-50A seems like the lowest risk solution. Of course, Boeing could continue their strategy of ridiculously underbidding to try and get it. Their claims about the clean sheet being low risk are bullshit.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2018, 11:01
by jakobs
sferrin wrote:I suspect LM will wrap up the T-X.


Yeah, but how motivated is Lockheed?

I suspect both Boeing and Leonardo is extremely motivated for this and have no problem underbidding it.

Is Lockheed really willing to do that? They have their hands full for a long time forward with the F-35, will they really risk being stuck with a big program where cost is going to spiral?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 21:47
by pron
And the winner are Boeing and Saab - Boeing Co (BA.N) was selected to build the U.S. Air Force’s next training jet in a contract worth up to $9.2 billion over the life of the program, the Air Force said on Thursday.

Boeing teamed up with Sweden’s Saab AB (SAABb.ST) to develop a new plane for the competition, beating out Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and Leonardo DRS (LDOF.MI).

The Air Force plans to purchase 351 of the jets. The service expects the program to reach full operation in 2034.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... M72MP?il=0

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 21:55
by jakobs
Congratulations to Boeing/SAAB!

Let's face it, it was life or death for Boeing on this one.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 23:01
by sferrin
I'm surprised at this. It was Lockheed's to lose. T-50s are in production right now. I wonder how many delays and cost increases we'll see in this as Boeing tries to figure it out. (It's probably a tad more difficult than making a 767 into a tanker when they'd already done that before.)

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2018, 23:50
by SpudmanWP
Can we now stop the charity buying of the SH since the Boeing factory will have something to do?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 00:22
by madrat
LockMart isn't exactly locked out of the program as the USAF will probably pursue some of their designs with regards to the virtual training systems.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 06:05
by thepointblank
sferrin wrote:I'm surprised at this. It was Lockheed's to lose. T-50s are in production right now. I wonder how many delays and cost increases we'll see in this as Boeing tries to figure it out. (It's probably a tad more difficult than making a 767 into a tanker when they'd already done that before.)

I'm reading Boeing is assuming almost ALL of the risk in their offering; they offered a fixed-price contract. If Boeing blows the budget, they could be out millions, even billions. Risky for sure, for Boeing.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 06:21
by weasel1962
Boeing would have calculated and priced in the risk. T-38 fleet is ~500 aircraft replacement before counting attrition, notwithstanding that the current deal is only for 350. Add to that the possibility of future light combat aircraft sales. Its a way to keep Boeing in the combat aircraft business beyond F-15/F-18 production. That $b potential cost overrun is probably seen as an investment in the future.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 10:51
by talkitron
Other than being a new design and a low price, what are the known distinguishing features of the Boeing/SAAB design?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 14:11
by popcorn
talkitron wrote:Other than being a new design and a low price, what are the known distinguishing features of the Boeing/SAAB design?

Well, "new design" covers a lot of territory... More will be revealed in due time.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 19:27
by Scorpion1alpha
Congratulations to Boeing and Saab. I'm very pleased with this decision. I feel the Boeing/Saab design is the right choice and they will deliver as specified and promised.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2018, 22:13
by tbarlow
Anyone know what the MDS will be? The T-?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 00:30
by rheonomic
thepointblank wrote:
sferrin wrote:I'm surprised at this. It was Lockheed's to lose. T-50s are in production right now. I wonder how many delays and cost increases we'll see in this as Boeing tries to figure it out. (It's probably a tad more difficult than making a 767 into a tanker when they'd already done that before.)

I'm reading Boeing is assuming almost ALL of the risk in their offering; they offered a fixed-price contract. If Boeing blows the budget, they could be out millions, even billions. Risky for sure, for Boeing.


Boeing also makes a lot of money on the commercial side, which allows them to bid more aggressively than LM or NG can usually.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 08:47
by zero-one
Lots of questions surrounding this.

First , for the life of me I couldn't find the name of the Boeing design. Boeing's T-X proposal is what everyone seems to call it. And is it just a prototype or is it the production model.

I believe the aircraft itself is just part of the program and simulators and integration with other training assets is another.
But just judging by the aircraft alone, did the DOD make the right call? The only performance metric I found was an emphasis to sustain 6.5-7.5G maneuvers. Perhaps our resident aero engineers can do some quick analysis between the contenders, I personally think the Lockheed T-50A was the toughest competitor.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 08:52
by KamenRiderBlade
I can see the T-X be the next F-5 that we use to help out allied nations around the world with.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 11:01
by zero-one
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can see the T-X be the next F-5 that we use to help out allied nations around the world with.


I think the T/A and F/A-50s have that base covered

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 12:05
by quicksilver
rheonomic wrote:
thepointblank wrote:
sferrin wrote:I'm surprised at this. It was Lockheed's to lose. T-50s are in production right now. I wonder how many delays and cost increases we'll see in this as Boeing tries to figure it out. (It's probably a tad more difficult than making a 767 into a tanker when they'd already done that before.)

I'm reading Boeing is assuming almost ALL of the risk in their offering; they offered a fixed-price contract. If Boeing blows the budget, they could be out millions, even billions. Risky for sure, for Boeing.


Boeing also makes a lot of money on the commercial side, which allows them to bid more aggressively than LM or NG can usually.


This.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2018, 14:45
by zero-one
rheonomic wrote:Boeing also makes a lot of money on the commercial side, which allows them to bid more aggressively than LM or NG can usually.

Wonder if Boeing can use this to their advantage in the future.
If they can offer their PCA candidate at a fixed price then that gives them a massive advantage against the competition.

Unlike Lockheed and Northrop, they don't need to maximize profits as much as they make so much from their commercial contracts as well. Minimum profit is better than no profit after all.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 05:50
by rheonomic
zero-one wrote:Wonder if Boeing can use this to their advantage in the future.
If they can offer their PCA candidate at a fixed price then that gives them a massive advantage against the competition.

Unlike Lockheed and Northrop, they don't need to maximize profits as much as they make so much from their commercial contracts as well. Minimum profit is better than no profit after all.


They’ve gone 3 for 3 with this approach on the last few major acquisitions. Be interesting to see how sustainable this is long term.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 07:28
by boilermaker
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can see the T-X be the next F-5 that we use to help out allied nations around the world with.

It seems to be very light and with a thrust to weight ratio of 2-1. Imagine a F16 with 2 GE engines...

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 08:34
by zero-one
boilermaker wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I can see the T-X be the next F-5 that we use to help out allied nations around the world with.

It seems to be very light and with a thrust to weight ratio of 2-1. Imagine a F16 with 2 GE engines...


People, we already have that. Its called the F/A-50 or T/A-50 if you're a bit tighter on the wallet, Tejas if thats your fancy, No, what about the Hawk 200. Competition you ask? Theres the JF-17 from China and Yak-130 from Russia. The Grippen C is also somewhere in that category.

Honestly the F-16 already filled the low cost, lightweight fighter category when it came out. However it's become so much better over the years and a tad bit more expensive.

Plus the fact that the US, the economic titan that she is doesn't necessarily translate "low cost" like the rest of us. the F-16C is considered cheap over there, but for developing countries, thats still a bit too pricey. Thus the F/A-50 and the like fills in a new category.
-The glorified trainer
-Trainer jet on steroids
-Trainer with a gun
-Cheaper than cheap low cost fighters
-Entry level MRFs

Point is, Boeing doesn't need to develop this into another one of those if there are no buyers and judging by the F/A-50s exports so far. I don't think they will. Don't get me wrong the T-50 line is doing okay, but not good enough in my opinion for Boeing to notice.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 23:33
by talkitron
zero-one wrote:Point is, Boeing doesn't need to develop this into another one of those if there are no buyers and judging by the F/A-50s exports so far. I don't think they will. Don't get me wrong the T-50 line is doing okay, but not good enough in my opinion for Boeing to notice.


Whether Boeing is planning to enter this market or not is not something anyone here knows. The defense business seems to involve chasing a lot of lower volume contracts and I am sure Boeing knows how to do that.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 00:49
by Corsair1963
The Boeing T-X will not become another fighter like the F-5. As Stealth is now part of the game....



That said, it should have good prospects in the export market.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 01:00
by marsavian
With its very high thrust to weight ratio it would be quite an energy handful in close maneuvering, perhaps they can add a few to the aggressor squadrons to supplement the F-16s.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 01:16
by sferrin
marsavian wrote:With its very high thrust to weight ratio it would be quite an energy handful in close maneuvering, perhaps they can add a few to the aggressor squadrons to supplement the F-16s.


The T-50 would have likely been a better choice for that.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 01:27
by weasel1962
Boeing's offering came in under $20m per unit vs $25m for the T-50. x 350 units = an extra sqn of F-35s.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 01:37
by marsavian
sferrin wrote:
marsavian wrote:With its very high thrust to weight ratio it would be quite an energy handful in close maneuvering, perhaps they can add a few to the aggressor squadrons to supplement the F-16s.


The T-50 would have likely been a better choice for that.


That's literally twice the weight on the same engine. The T-X will have a dry thrust/weight ratio of around unity even when fully tanked up. For BFM DACT it will be some opponent and provide good exercise for all. Good choice for a pure trainer.

p.s. the twin tails will also provide good AoA performance according to the manufacturers which is relevant to future F-35 users.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 17:17
by geforcerfx


Someone listed some specs from militaryfactory.com, If these are true the T/W ration on this jet will be insane.

Empty weight: 7,165lbs
Max TOW: 12,125lbs

Dry: 11,000lbf
Wet: 17,700lbf

T/W Dry: .91
T/W Wet: 1.46

Even if the empty weight turns out a lot higher in the 11,000-12,000 lb range the aircraft could still easily have a 1 T/W ratio.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 17:26
by sferrin
Yeah, not sure about those weights. If true then yeah, it should fly rings around a T-50 (assuming the structure and aerodynamics are up to the task). It's listed top speed is significantly less than the T-50 however.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 07:55
by weasel1962
Reminds me of when Singapore retrofitted the F404-GE-100D into the TA-4s back in the 80s. The airframe literally cracked at supersonic. Its a credit to GE and the F404 design that it will continue on decades later.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 07:58
by Corsair1963
Sounds like a good trainer for the F-35 to me.... :wink:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 13:19
by litzj

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 02 Oct 2018, 13:33
by marsavian
This has the potential to be developed into the new F-5E but the trick would be to still keep the cost under say $40m so its cost would still be its most attractive feature. Obviously would need an AESA, ECM, internal gun, external missiles maybe an IRST from Saab too but any additional weight could be alleviated by putting in the 13,000/22,000lb F414. This airframe/engine combination has future potential in that regard which Boeing/Saab will no doubt not be slow to exploit once trainer sales are well under way.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 00:41
by weasel1962
With twin vert stablizers, would the new trainer have more similar flight performance akin to the F-35/F-22 than the standard trainers? At least the pilot trainee would be able to experience the control differences rather than this being theoretically explained.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 00:58
by litzj
weasel1962 wrote:With twin vert stablizers, would the new trainer have more similar flight performance akin to the F-35/F-22 than the standard trainers? At least the pilot trainee would be able to experience the control differences rather than this being theoretically explained.


Except high AoA range, flight characteristics with FBW is almost same among different jets.

At high AoA, Boeing's design seems like having characteristics that of F/A-18E or F-35; characteristics of F-22 with TVC cannot be repeated because of lack of TVC. However, there is no Air-force trainer having expensive TVC for just one-reason.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 09:47
by zero-one
Could it be another case of giving what the AF wants and not just what they need (ATF program)
Far as I know, the only major maneuvering consideration was sustained 6.5 to 7.5G turns. High AOA may have been a little extra Boeing decided to add

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 11:19
by marsavian
Could it be another case of giving what the AF wants and not just what they need (ATF program)


Helped but the fixed priced deal clinched it too. Looks like a single engine cross between a Hornet and a Fulcrum ;).

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 12:54
by madrat
Fulcrum? Not even remotely similar in its detail. More like a miniaturization of a cross between F-16 and Super Hornet. The really cool design feature is using McDonnell engineering to go twin verts rather than one proportionately extra tall vert like in the T-50. This is a much easier on the eye design. Those extra tall single vertical tails in the T-50 allow it to do high angle of attack maneuvers. But so does this twin design. The single is slightly more efficient weight-wise, but otherwise offers very little difference other than standing out as big and ugly.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 12:57
by sferrin
madrat wrote:Fulcrum? Not even remotely similar in its detail. More like a miniaturization of a cross between F-16 and Super Hornet. The really cool design feature is using McDonnell engineering to go twin verts rather than one proportionately extra tall vert like in the T-50. This is a much easier on the eye design. Those extra tall single vertical tails in the T-50 allow it to do high angle of attack maneuvers. But so does this twin design. The single is slightly more efficient weight-wise, but otherwise offers very little difference other than standing out as big and ugly.


The YF-22 was a horror from the side. (God only knows how big it would have been had they gone with a single tail.) Giant tail on the Tornado doesn't look too bad.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 13:22
by marsavian
Fulcrum? Not even remotely similar in its detail.


The nose and especially the actual shape and proportions of the LERX, the Hornet's are longer.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2018, 23:08
by strykerxo
What is the possibility that the AF ends up with the T-X as a F-16 replacement for the Thunderbird's. Considering the cost of F-22/35, the T-X would have the performance at substantially less costs. The SH is slated for the Navy Blue Angels at a considerable cost, but not much more performance.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2018, 15:57
by mixelflick
strykerxo wrote:What is the possibility that the AF ends up with the T-X as a F-16 replacement for the Thunderbird's. Considering the cost of F-22/35, the T-X would have the performance at substantially less costs. The SH is slated for the Navy Blue Angels at a considerable cost, but not much more performance.


Certainly possible. A lot more possible if another energy crunch hits, in the same way the team switched from F-4's to T-38's in the 1970's. As a young boy, I saw the T-38 team and was really impressed. They were fast, maneuverable and inspired awe.
I'm betting I would have LOVED the F-4 team a lot better though.

The Thunderbirds really need a new bird to fly. I've seen so many demo's with F-16's, I actually start leaving the show early to beat the traffic. If they were flying F-35's, you can bet I'd be there studying every move. Hopefully, they can bring the cost per flight hour down. God knows it'd be an incredible aircraft to showcase American air power. The post stall stuff alone would be worth it..

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 17:15
by strykerxo
mixelflick wrote:
strykerxo wrote:What is the possibility that the AF ends up with the T-X as a F-16 replacement for the Thunderbird's. Considering the cost of F-22/35, the T-X would have the performance at substantially less costs. The SH is slated for the Navy Blue Angels at a considerable cost, but not much more performance.


Certainly possible. A lot more possible if another energy crunch hits, in the same way the team switched from F-4's to T-38's in the 1970's. As a young boy, I saw the T-38 team and was really impressed. They were fast, maneuverable and inspired awe.
I'm betting I would have LOVED the F-4 team a lot better though.

The Thunderbirds really need a new bird to fly. I've seen so many demo's with F-16's, I actually start leaving the show early to beat the traffic. If they were flying F-35's, you can bet I'd be there studying every move. Hopefully, they can bring the cost per flight hour down. God knows it'd be an incredible aircraft to showcase American air power. The post stall stuff alone would be worth it..


I wouldn't doubt the T-X will have F-18/35 type performance, The Blue Angels F-18 already has post stall capability, but is not showcased in their routine. The Fry's Patriots team has a segment that 2 or 4 jets pull into the vertical climb a couples thousand feet and preform a simultaneous stall and recovery.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 17:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
strykerxo wrote: The Fry's Patriots team has a segment that 2 or 4 jets pull into the vertical climb a couples thousand feet and preform a simultaneous stall and recovery.

The back to back tailslides?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 17:08
by strykerxo
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
strykerxo wrote: The Fry's Patriots team has a segment that 2 or 4 jets pull into the vertical climb a couples thousand feet and preform a simultaneous stall and recovery.

The back to back tailslides?


Right, if a 40 year old plane can do that what can a modern 5th? gen. trainer do. twin tails, chines, FCS, engines controls etc. If a legacy F-18 can do these kinds of maneuvers, the T-X at least can replicate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf5A13atLHQ

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2018, 16:56
by KamenRiderBlade
I'm sure Boeing would be chomping at the bits to get the Blue-Angels / Thunderbirds to choose the T-X as their demonstrator plane.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2018, 23:07
by strykerxo
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I'm sure Boeing would be chomping at the bits to get the Blue-Angels / Thunderbirds to choose the T-X as their demonstrator plane.


I think the T-X will be nimble and quick enough to be a nice Demo AC for the services, as well as overall cost and maintenance value. The Blues have already selected the Super as its next demo plane, but I believe it is a high value AC and could be better off being used operationally. Navy, lets hear a big hell no to using an AF AC!!!! I wonder if the services used service specific F-4 as their demo AC?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2018, 06:42
by Corsair1963
The Boeing T-X is not a Naval Type. So, forget the USN/USMC.... 8)

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2018, 17:13
by strykerxo
Corsair1963 wrote:The Boeing T-X is not a Naval Type. So, forget the USN/USMC.... 8)


Yeah, The F-4 demo were service specific. Thunderbird's F-4E USAF, Blue Angels F-4J USN
I would imagine the Navy/Marines are going to need a modern trainer beyond the capabilities of the Hawk and maybe an aggressor squadron.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2018, 01:27
by Corsair1963
strykerxo wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:The Boeing T-X is not a Naval Type. So, forget the USN/USMC.... 8)


Yeah, The F-4 demo were service specific. Thunderbird's F-4E USAF, Blue Angels F-4J USN
I would imagine the Navy/Marines are going to need a modern trainer beyond the capabilities of the Hawk and maybe an aggressor squadron.


Point is the USN isn't going to operate a non-Naval Type with the Blue Angels.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2018, 02:00
by weasel1962
Didn't know the Goshawks are originally "naval" types...that's a first.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2018, 16:34
by KamenRiderBlade
With all the retiring F-18's / F-16's are there not enough spare parts to keep the "Blue Angels" / "Thunder Birds" going?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2018, 21:17
by strykerxo
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/201 ... apitalism/

of interest: export sales, aggressor trainer and a naval version

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2019, 10:55
by KamenRiderBlade
My only issue with the design is the "Side Opening" canopy.

Other than that, I'm really likeing the Boeing / Saab T-X winner.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2019, 03:00
by crosshairs
mixelflick wrote:
strykerxo wrote:What is the possibility that the AF ends up with the T-X as a F-16 replacement for the Thunderbird's. Considering the cost of F-22/35, the T-X would have the performance at substantially less costs. The SH is slated for the Navy Blue Angels at a considerable cost, but not much more performance.


Certainly possible. A lot more possible if another energy crunch hits, in the same way the team switched from F-4's to T-38's in the 1970's. As a young boy, I saw the T-38 team and was really impressed. They were fast, maneuverable and inspired awe.
I'm betting I would have LOVED the F-4 team a lot better though.

The Thunderbirds really need a new bird to fly. I've seen so many demo's with F-16's, I actually start leaving the show early to beat the traffic. If they were flying F-35's, you can bet I'd be there studying every move. Hopefully, they can bring the cost per flight hour down. God knows it'd be an incredible aircraft to showcase American air power. The post stall stuff alone would be worth it..


The rhino was a beast in airshow trim. Clean, she was fast and could really pull some g's a few hundred feet high. Remember when the Eagles came along it was still pilot versus pilot and double ugly won quite a lot of engagements in those days.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 04:38
by huggy
strykerxo wrote: The SH is slated for the Navy Blue Angels at a considerable cost, but not much more performance.

According to former Blue Angel pilots that I know, what they will be able to do with the SH is a pretty big... and cool... step up.

mixelflick wrote:
strykerxo wrote:The Thunderbirds really need a new bird to fly. I've seen so many demo's with F-16's, I actually start leaving the show early to beat the traffic.

Really?
The Thunderbirds aren't there to impress you. They are a recruiting tool for the Air Force. I'm guessing you don't fit their demographic as a potential recruit.

strykerxo wrote:The Fry's Patriots team has a segment that 2 or 4 jets pull into the vertical climb a couples thousand feet and preform a simultaneous stall and recovery.


It's just "The Patriots Jet Team". Fry's Electronics has not been a sponsor for 3 years. I think you're referring to #3's vertical stall and tail slide that he does three times during their show.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 14:59
by mixelflick
Really?
The Thunderbirds aren't there to impress you. They are a recruiting tool for the Air Force. I'm guessing you don't fit their demographic as a potential recruit.

Really.

Don't fit the demographic? Perhaps. I'm a white male, 49 years old with a love of all things combat aviation. I enjoy their professionalism, precision and skills. But it gets tiring after seeing the same show for the past 10 years.

Perhaps they're aiming for a new demographic though. Given all the PC nonsense, maybe they're looking to attract (any) minority's to join the air force? Even better, maybe they can sign up some "transgender" freaks who can't look at their "parts" and figure out they're a girl or a boy??

I've got the solution though: I'm going to "self-identify" as a 20 year old minority woman transgender freak! At a minimum, that'll get me in the pool for pilot training. Let's not forget the recent Blue Angel commander who, upon getting one too many white males applying said (paraphrasing), "This isn't good enough. We can do a lot better representing the DIVERSITY of the Navy...". How many white male pilots were passed over because they weren't "DIVERSE" enough?

In, before the liberal playbook 101 is put into action: "You're a racist, sexist homophobe" etc.. It's getting old people, we know your game..

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2019, 21:25
by strykerxo
I hope the Navy Blue Angels F-18E will include post stall and high alpha maneuvering in the demo routine. The SH has an eye watering routine and if it can be incorporated into a team demonstration, I'm there. My point about SH solo demo and the legacy Hornet Demo as seen in Sion, Switzerland, are similar and could have used that kind of maneuvering years ago. I also, believe the TX will have similar characteristics, at far fewer $$$, for the AF Thunderbird's demo team.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2019, 19:24
by zerion
Boeing’s T-X could be coming to the Middle East — and not just as a trainer jet

ABU DHABI — Boeing and Saab’s T-X trainer jet, fresh off of winning the U.S. Air Force’s next-generation trainer competition, could be bought by nations in the Middle East for a variety of different missions, according to a Boeing executive at the International Defense Exhibition in the United Arab Emirates.

“We are seeing quite a bit of interest in the T-X,” said Mark Ballew, director of sales and marketing for International Government Services at Boeing Global Services. “We are getting quite a few inquiries about T-X and when would it be available.”

Ballew declined to comment about which countries were interested in the aircraft--or what type of missions those countries were looking at...

And while it’s widely assumed that foreign militaries, particularly those that operate the F-35, could potentially buy the T-X, its been assumed that it would likely be in the trainer role. But in Boeing’s media briefing at IDEX, Ballew indicated that the company sees a much wider market for the jet, in things like aggressor training and even as a lightweight fighter.


“Part of that is talking to customers about what they really need us to go through and do. What do they need the platform to do?” Ballew said in the briefing. “As we’re out flying it, we’ll add more capabilities to it, and we’ll see what those world needs are.”

Before the T-X can hit the international market, it has to finish development and enter production, which its set for the early 2020s.

“There’s a little bit of a wait and see, how’s it going to work," Ballew added. “But we’re convinced that this is going to be a very popular solution and much desired throughout the world, including this region.”

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... a-trainer/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 00:28
by FlightDreamz
Reminds me of plans Fairchild Republic had plans to sell attack versions of the T-46 Eaglet back in the day... Hopefully Boeing will fair better https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/exhibits/exhibit-galleries/the_jet_age/t-46_flight_demonstrator.html

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:33
by madrat
Would be nice if they could get enough performance for F-5 replacement. No need for stealth as they largely serve as an air policy role. It's certainty going to be something F-50 can develop into, but if Boeing can beat them on price they can win head to head. What is the designation of a T-X as a fighter, F-24?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2019, 01:39
by Corsair1963
madrat wrote:Would be nice if they could get enough performance for F-5 replacement. No need for stealth as they largely serve as an air policy role. It's certainty going to be something F-50 can develop into, but if Boeing can beat them on price they can win head to head. What is the designation of a T-X as a fighter, F-24?



Honestly, see little reason why anyone would want a Fighter Version of the T-X??? Especially, we similar "Lightweight Fighters" already on the market. (F/A-50, Gripen, and even LCA) Which, even use the same engine....(GE F404)

That said, nobody says you couldn't tailor the existing Twin Seat T-X to the role of an Aggressor or Light Attack Aircraft.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 03:53
by madrat
The T-X is going to run considerably cheaper than Gripen, but won't offer anywhere near the performance or time on station.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 04:19
by weasel1962
Performance should be better since T-X a lighter aircraft with the same engine. Range is a function of fuel so carrying 2+k less fuel should accordingly reduce range. However the T-X can carry 600 gal tanks which the earlier gripen can't. That'd eliminate any endurance difference.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2019, 05:29
by Corsair1963
Personally, I see little reason to turn the Boeing T-X into some kind of single seat F-20. As the market already has a number of similar of types. Which, many already use the GE F404. (Gripen, F/A-50, and LCA)


My guess is Boeing is far more likely to customize the existing T-X for the Aggressor and possibly even the Light Strike Roles. So, I would expect them to retain the twin seats. Yet, may add some hard points to support the aforementioned.......

:2c:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 01:37
by weasel1962
Suspect the Boeing cross-sell team is in market overdrive. USAF is starting to look at what the T-X can do beyond training.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -aircraft/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 03:29
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Suspect the Boeing cross-sell team is in market overdrive. USAF is starting to look at what the T-X can do beyond training.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -aircraft/



If, the DoD want to throw a bone to Boeing. I would rather see the above than the F-15X. (just saying) :wink:

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2019, 04:57
by Scorpion1alpha
weasel1962 wrote:Suspect the Boeing cross-sell team is in market overdrive. USAF is starting to look at what the T-X can do beyond training.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -aircraft/


I don’t doubt that Boeing is pushing for the T-X to fill the lower density light attack jet and the aggressor role (in particular). For the AF, it was always in the cards. Just nobody mentioning it out loud.

Although any of the competing T-X designs could / would have fill these roles with little to no problem, I feel the Boeing / Saab design is the best out of the submitted designs to fulfill these additional roles (three particular design features), if the decision will be made, which there seems to be little doubt it will be.

I feel if Boeing and Saab keeps their design KISS, advanced where it needs to be and simple where it can be (to reduce complexity, cost and weight), it will be successful in these additional roles.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2019, 20:03
by zerion
Newest U.S. Air Force’s trainer aircraft completed its first EMD flight

U.S. aerospace giant Boeing has confirmed that the newest T-X trainer aircraft, developed in collaboration with Saab, completed its first flight under the engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) program.

On Monday, the Boeing’s officials said that the company has begun engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) flight trials of the T-X trainer aircraft in St. Louis, Mo.

“New Boeing T-X takes to the air and is flying high in support of the U.S. Air Force contract,” said on Twitter, pointing to a begin of EMD flight trials is an important milestone for the program...

https://defence-blog.com/news/newest-u- ... light.html


Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2019, 14:31
by mixelflick
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:Suspect the Boeing cross-sell team is in market overdrive. USAF is starting to look at what the T-X can do beyond training.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... -aircraft/


I don’t doubt that Boeing is pushing for the T-X to fill the lower density light attack jet and the aggressor role (in particular). For the AF, it was always in the cards. Just nobody mentioning it out loud.

Although any of the competing T-X designs could / would have fill these roles with little to no problem, I feel the Boeing / Saab design is the best out of the submitted designs to fulfill these additional roles (three particular design features), if the decision will be made, which there seems to be little doubt it will be.

I feel if Boeing and Saab keeps their design KISS, advanced where it needs to be and simple where it can be (to reduce complexity, cost and weight), it will be successful in these additional roles.


Makes a lot of sense in both roles, especially given the "do more with less" reality. If memory serves, it has a sprightly thrust to weight ratio, and while not perfect in either role having 350 on hand would be an important force multiplier. Particularly in the red air role, WVR. Maybe even BVR if its sensors and small RCS are anything to write home about. Cost per flight hour is the biggie, they're going to be using this for a lot more than training aircrews..

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2019, 00:36
by jetblast16
The Air Force’s all-new advanced trainer aircraft, the T-X, has officially been named the T-7A Red Hawk.
...
“The name Red Hawk honors the legacy of Tuskegee Airmen and pays homage to their signature red-tailed aircraft from World War II,” Donovan said. “The name is also a tribute to the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, an American fighter aircraft that first flew in 1938 and was flown by the 99th Fighter Squadron, the U.S. Army Air Forces’ first African American fighter squadron.”

Source: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... -red-hawk/

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2019, 13:49
by jetblast16

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2019, 13:51
by jetblast16
You know, I had a thought, probably a dumb one, but ... why build a new trainer? Why not overhaul some older Block 50/52 F-16Ds that have been replaced by F-35As? I mean, the performance would certainly be there :D

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2019, 16:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
cost of operation?

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2019, 16:51
by rheonomic
F-16Ds also wouldn't meet many of the requirements the AF wanted for T-X.

Performance is not one of the primary requirements for a trainer.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2019, 03:48
by madrat
There is no 'subspecies' of hawk that Red Hawk refers to, it simply implies a hawk in its first year.

I see no reason to tie it with the Tuskegee airmen and all that divisive political discussion.

Re: T-X Thread

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2019, 16:10
by mixelflick
madrat wrote:There is no 'subspecies' of hawk that Red Hawk refers to, it simply implies a hawk in its first year.

I see no reason to tie it with the Tuskegee airmen and all that divisive political discussion.


I agree 100%

Simply a PR move by USAF to keep the lib reps/senators happy. The Tuskegee airmen have been plenty celebrated over the years, everyone knows their story. This is pure PC nonsense, and that was then. The USAF has been an integrated force now for a LONG time. It's time to let go of the past, and look more toward the future.