T-X Thread

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

slapshot!

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 162
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 00:26

Unread post22 Aug 2016, 20:20

Who cares, Lockheed will probably win.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post22 Aug 2016, 21:49

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.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post22 Aug 2016, 23:01

Boeing might roll theirs out next month

Image

Image
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post22 Aug 2016, 23:53

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.
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 283
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 06:05

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5711
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 08:51

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:
Offline

jakobs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 70
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2015, 11:38

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 14:07

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.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2117
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 22:12

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.
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 791
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post23 Aug 2016, 22:42

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?
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2117
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post24 Aug 2016, 06:51

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.
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 434
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post25 Aug 2016, 20:45

This is for all you keep the T-38 flying. cheap modernized F-5 variant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HESA_Saeqeh
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post26 Aug 2016, 01:30

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'
Offline

jakobs

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 70
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2015, 11:38

Unread post26 Aug 2016, 08:08

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
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post26 Aug 2016, 13:46

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.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 283
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post26 Aug 2016, 14:07

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
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 18 guests