Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:31 pm

Flightglobal reports that Boeing is contemplating a completely new jet trainer as its entry for the planned USAF T-X competition. But with first delivery targeted for 2014 and IOC in 2017, would Boeing have enough time to develop a clean-sheet design?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Dunn - Global Aviation Resource


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...new-airframe-to-replace-t-38s.html

Quote:
"Boeing could propose developing a "purpose-built" airframe as one of several options to replace the US Air Force's fleet of Northrop T-38 jet trainers, say industry officials.

[.....]

According to industry officials, the Boeing concept pre-supposes that the USAF does not want to select a future trainer aircraft that was developed in a previous decade. The service plans to reach initial operational capability for the T-X fleet in 2017 and operate the type for 30-40 years.

Boeing's concept also may add a 'homegrown' dimension to a competition dominated by aircraft developed substantially in foreign countries."



The home turf advantage is real but timeframe is very tight. However, the potential order plus any subsequent navalised and light attack variants compel major manufacturers to have their own candidate, instead of just fronting for someone. Might Boeing have a design all ready for development, or would they settle for a sweeter partnership with Alenia?
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6678
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:48 pm



Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
would Boeing have enough time to develop a clean-sheet design?

Not picking on you per se, but we see this all the time so my question would be this: When you say have the time do you mean the time it would take to use their massive computer technology to design, test and build a clean sheet new a/c or do you mean the time it would take for the program design stage to contribute positively to the bottom line, the development phase have produce enough test frames to significantly impact next ROI, earnings etc. and the production phase ensure that the company is viable for the next 10-20 years producing sufficient frames for the US and other export customers?

Years ago a/c were designed and built using slide rules and less exotic materials, even when such materials were used it never took the decades that we talk about today, wind tunnel test were either a water tank or a full size production frame being flown by a human. If an OEM chooses they can design and build a test frame within a year faster if they use an engine already in production, the issue in my line of thinking is not whether they can, but whether some financial person justifies the financial decision to them, in which case we should be looking at financial data such as last quarter earning, current income, expenses, projects in the pipeline, future initiative, stimulus packages hoped for, next economic upturn / downturn etc. and not whether there is a need for a new a/c, how efficient it should be, easy to fly, adequately train pilots for a/c presently in inventory etc. etc. etc.

I guess this whole post was a rant, apologies.  Smile
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:43 pm

I doubt a clean sheet design.
Likely a US version of the Macchi M-346 or the Korean aircraft.

When was the last time the US built a clean sheet trainer.
1982, the BAe Hawk was picked for the USN.
The T-6 'Texan' is a modified Swiss design.
Just two examples off the top of my head.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:38 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
When was the last time the US built a clean sheet trainer.
1982, the BAe Hawk was picked for the USN

Not clean sheet either, As you note it was a Hawk derivitive.

I would go for the Slingsby Firefly, which was unsuccessfully used by the USAF Acadamy.

Of course they where replaced by the Katana, so that probably can be called the latest trainer.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:01 pm

I doubt that Boeing would have time to design a clean sheet trainer. Does the USAF want a supersonic trainer like the T-38 is? If so, I doubt anyone could deliver a new airplane by 2014 with an IOC of 2017.

Boeing may be wanting to join up with someone else who already has a trainer in production. Perhaps the Japanese Kawasaki T-4, if they reopen the production line?
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:46 pm



Quoting L-188 (Reply 3):
I would go for the Slingsby Firefly, which was unsuccessfully used by the USAF Acadamy.

That was a somewhat bizarre case, since the Firefly is used successfully enough by other AF's and/or contractors.
Not sure if they ever got to the bottom of that.

My money, for the T-38 replacement, is on a US version of the Macchi M-346, it's being touted as suitable for training modern generation combat aircraft, in terms of both it's systems and aerodynamics.
Which is the rationale, apart from age, of replacing the T-38's.

While I'd love to see the USAF buy the latest BAE Hawk version, or to be more correct, a new 'de-navalised' T-45 version, which could systems wise do the job, I suspect the USAF will want something more modern aerodynamically.
(The Hawk's best shot at the USAF was about 20 years ago, when it was briefly considered for the lower end of the T-38 mission, restricting the subsequent modernization of the T-38 to just the newer frames for the upper end part of the training syllabus).
 
Oroka
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:13 am

Depends on what the USAF wants. I am sure that Boeing could field a simple design. No light attack version, no crazy high tech new gear, using existing or lightly modified avionics, current engines... just a simple trainer. If they want to develop more capacity after the fact, sure, but if they want to get a order, they better follow the KISS mentality.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:15 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
That was a somewhat bizarre case, since the Firefly is used successfully enough by other AF's and/or contractors.
Not sure if they ever got to the bottom of that.

I don't think it was an airframe issue, it was an engine problem, it would vapor lock at the high density altitudes at Colorado Springs in the summer.

I don't think that anybody else used that engine/frame combo.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:16 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 5):
or to be more correct, a new 'de-navalised' T-45 version

T-45 production should be ending soon. Kind of a shame since I enjoyed seeing those flying around STL. I think that Boeing could, and should come up with a clean sheet design for the T-X. The T-38 is a great plane, but its time may have come.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:31 pm



Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
Flightglobal reports that Boeing is contemplating a completely new jet trainer as its entry for the planned USAF T-X competition. But with first delivery targeted for 2014 and IOC in 2017, would Boeing have enough time to develop a clean-sheet design?

Would it be that hard to field a simple jet trainer in four years and have it fully operational in seven? I suspect that Boeing has already done some initial design work and has a good idea what they want to propose for the competition. That being the case, their head start would give them an edge and make possible the proposed service introduction.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:21 pm

It should be a T-45 derivative.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3151
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:44 pm



Quoting L-188 (Reply 7):
I don't think it was an airframe issue, it was an engine problem, it would vapor lock at the high density altitudes at Colorado Springs in the summer.

I'm on the other side of the hill from the USAFA, and we're only at 6,700 feet. The Piper Cubs are up here all day every day towing gliders, and the T-41s soldier on. Nothing that couldn't be fixed with the correct fuel.

I'd be wary about a vapor locking engine at this low altitude, but I suppose it could happen.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
Kukkudrill
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:11 pm

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:44 am



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 9):
Would it be that hard to field a simple jet trainer in four years and have it fully operational in seven?

But would an all-new design be competitive financially, assuming that an existing design like the M-346 can meet the USAF's requirements?
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:03 am

Good point.

The adoption of an advanced T-45 derivative by the USAF would be low cost (the line is up and running) and would provide massive savings in logistics and support costs thanks to commonality with the Navy's T-45 fleet.

The USAF could usefully build on some of the work already undertaken for the Hawk 128, and might look hard at some of the support and training system solutions now being delivered to the UK RAF.

With such a potentially large order, though, it would be desirable for the US to take on the remaining airframe manufacture of the T-45 (at the moment the rear fuselage still comes from Brough), cutting BAE Systems out of the loop.

Providing supersonic performance imposes significant cost and compromises on a trainer design and has been proven to be irrelevant to the advanced training role.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Mon Oct 05, 2009 10:50 am



Quoting DEVILFISH (Thread starter):
But with first delivery targeted for 2014 and IOC in 2017, would Boeing have enough time to develop a clean-sheet design?

Twenty years ago the answer would have been yes. Today? I seriously doubt they could pull it off.

The problem is that after losing the JSF to Lockheed, Mc Boeing in St Louis has lost most of the critical personel with the skills required due to retirement, layoffs and departure to Lockheed for the F-35.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3151
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:53 pm



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 13):
The adoption of an advanced T-45 derivative by the USAF would be low cost (the line is up and running) and would provide massive savings in logistics and support costs thanks to commonality with the Navy's T-45 fleet.

You have a lot of good points in your post, but I think the T-45 is fundamentally wrong for one reason:

If this trainer is intended to be workhorse advanced trainer for fighter, bomber, and transport types, I think it really needs to have two engines. This would enable "engine-out" flight that simply would not be paralleled in a simulator. I suppose you could do engine-out in a goshawk, however that's an entirely new can of worms. I think this and the supersonic capability on the M-346 make it a much better option.

As I understand it, the T-45 is substantially changed from the basic Hawk. Would the USAF T-45 retain most of these Navy options?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:42 pm

Well, it looks like most here think the M-346 would be the best replacement for the USAF T-38s. I just don't see the USAF buying into a modified T-45, mostly because the USAF considers it a "USN aircraft".
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:18 am

Update:

Some clarifications on the program requirements and signs it could be moving ahead.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-prepare-for-t-38-replacement.html

Quote:
"The US Air Force may be within months of launching a contest to replace the Northrop T-38 Talon trainer that was introduced in 1962.

At least five companies are plotting potential bids to win the contract to replace 450 T-38s and become the go-to trainer option worldwide for Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation fighters - the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter."



The usual suspects are lining up to fill the bill --- with the renamed T-100 (M-346) leading the pack.....


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simone Bovi
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabio Ferioli - Spot IT


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Remco Donselaar - Touchdown Aviation
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stuart Freer - Touchdown-aviation


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Flyingvietcolin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © KianHong



However, most intriguing would be Northrop Grumman's response.....

Quote:
"As the legacy T-38 supplier, Northrop's preferred route may be offering a service life extension programme for the Talon fleet.

Dave McDonald, a plans, programmes and requirements manager for the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), confirms 'extending the life of the baseline system' remains one of the options on the USAF's list.

Northrop also has the ability to surprise the competition by producing an all-new, clean-sheet design. In addition to its long heritage in the trainer market, the company owns a major stake in Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites.

Among several ambitious design projects over the years, Scaled designed and built a jet-powered replacement for the Fairchild A-10 ground-attack aircraft in the early 1990s called the agile response effective support aircraft."


What could it be --- a two-seat version of the Tigershark?      

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Carlisle

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Oroka
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:56 am

Burt Rutan + F-20= 0_o

At least Northrop would get some return on the F-20.
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:39 am

From a distance, it seems the Italians have the best papers (again may I say).

It's modern/digital, proven, has engine redundancy, fighter like maneuverability.

http://www.aermacchi.it/files/M346A2523_0.jpg

It's original designers live in Russia, at Yakovlev, but thats a long story..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:38 pm

Big article in this week's Flight about the USAF trainer requirement.
The Korean design, done with major US design/technology input, always had the USAF T-38 requirement in mind.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-prepare-for-t-38-replacement.html

[Edited 2010-06-22 10:40:17]
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:12 pm

A bit of background perspective.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...reviewing-t-x-the-biggest-usa.html

Quoting Oroka (Reply 18):
Burt Rutan + F-20= 0_o

There are a few composite frames being offered with EDF engines (but no afterburners), mostly from China.   

Quoting Oroka (Reply 18):
At least Northrop would get some return on the F-20.

They'd have to build it first and win. But wouldn't it be some poetic justice if they did?   


Quoting keesje (Reply 19):
It's original designers live in Russia, at Yakovlev, but thats a long story..

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Zherdin
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dmitry Shirenin


Now, that would be the ultimate irony - "American trainer reverse-engineered from Russian design"!

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Big article in this week's Flight about the USAF trainer requirement.

The real 'biggie' according to the blog above is this.....

Quote:
"But there is one thing holding this story back, and it's a 'biggie'. So far, the USAF hasn't put any real funding into the budget for T-X, despite plans to award a full-scale development contract before 2013. Industry expects that oversight to be cleared up in the Fiscal 2012 budget request that will be released in early February."



[Edited 2010-06-22 11:22:28]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:05 am

I'm not sure Boeing knows how to design and bring from the drawing board to reality, a modern military aircraft since they bought out McDD. Sure, the Super Hornet was a whole new aircraft, but not according to Boeing who said to the US Congress that it wasn't, so that they wouldn't need their financial blessing for the project. So what's that, the early 1980's since they won a bid for a newly designed military fighter jet aircraft? Personally, I think Boeing no longer has the muster to pull off the task, but I sure would like to see them try and prove me and all of us wrong.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Wed Jun 23, 2010 5:38 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 22):
I'm not sure Boeing knows how to design and bring from the drawing board to reality, a modern military aircraft since they bought out McDD

ST Loius is McDD... lock, stock and barrel...and they run the company. that's why on the commercial side the feeling is McDD bought Boeing just didn't chnage the name...
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Wed Jun 23, 2010 11:08 am

Who will be the partner for the 346? NG?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
trex8
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:09 am

one other possible "off the shelf" option and a proven design would be a updated Taiwanese IDF trainer variant, though you would think LM would be the preferred partner as GD was involved in that program, then there's always Bs brown nosing to Beijing to squash any idea of B using it. But maybe NG would be interested, over 200 F5Es were made by AIDC in Taiwan.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:10 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
The Korean design, done with major US design/technology input, always had the USAF T-38 requirement in mind.

The KAI T-50 is perhaps unique among the candidates in that it was envisioned from the outset to be an advanced, supersonic jet trainer tailored for 4.5 and 5th Gen fighters. It also doesn't do any harm that the five required training tasks are already covered under its LIFT envelope. Add to these LockMart's financial and political clout --- and you've got a formidable combination indeed.

Quoting keesje (Reply 24):
Who will be the partner for the 346? NG?

As stated in the Flight report, Boeing has an agreement with Alenia for marketing and international sales of the M-346 (T-100 for this tender). However, seeing how the JCA deal had gone, it could be a tenuous arrangement. Maybe that is why Boeing was considering a clean-sheet design, but they might compromise for the Master if the drop-dead date remained. Whichever the case may be, Northrop Grumman will almost surely be there to be the "significant other."

Quoting trex8 (Reply 25):
one other possible "off the shelf" option and a proven design would be a updated Taiwanese IDF trainer variant, though you would think LM would be the preferred partner as GD was involved in that program,

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dennis Chang


The Ching-Kuo is hampered by its engines, and will always be haunted by the mainland's ghost. Should it be able to cast those aside, LM isn't likely to cut its ties with KAI for what was virtually zero involvement in the IDF program.


Of course, any new design incorporating the Eurojet engine would be expected to take on all comers and prevail, though it goes without saying that it would be more expensive and take longer to develop.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:52 pm

Perhaps Boeing is thinking about shrinking the F/A-18F Super Hornet as a proposal, possibly with F-404 engines instead of the F-414 the SH has. Shrinking the SH to something smaller then even the F/A-18B/D Hornet, with no armorment, shorter range, and just a weather radar, and non-CVN landing gear could be a game winner for Boeing.

LM could do the same with a shrunk F-16B/D.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:06 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Perhaps Boeing is thinking about shrinking the F/A-18F Super Hornet as a proposal, possibly with F-404 engines instead of the F-414 the SH has. Shrinking the SH to something smaller then even the F/A-18B/D Hornet, with no armorment, shorter range, and just a weather radar, and non-CVN landing gear could be a game winner for Boeing.

Wouldn't this essentially be Northrop's YF-17 Cobra, though with tandem seats and GE F404s instead of the old GE YJ101?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...illa:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1

http://media.photobucket.com/image/y...tterf14/Hornets%2520Nest/YF-17.jpg

http://yanagi.0kr.net/aircraft/us/fighter/yf17/yanagi.0kr.net_YF-17_5273.jpg
http://yanagi.0kr.net/aircraft/us/fi...yf17/yanagi.0kr.net_YF-17_5273.jpg


Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
LM could do the same with a shrunk F-16B/D.

The T-50 Golden Eagle as well as the F-CK-1D Hsung Ying (Goshawk) are already just about 80% of the F-16's size.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © S.L. Tsai



Though for the M-346, living down the Russian connection may not matter much.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Piotr Biskupski
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kral Michal



[Edited 2010-06-24 13:26:10]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:44 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 28):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
Perhaps Boeing is thinking about shrinking the F/A-18F Super Hornet as a proposal, possibly with F-404 engines instead of the F-414 the SH has. Shrinking the SH to something smaller then even the F/A-18B/D Hornet, with no armorment, shorter range, and just a weather radar, and non-CVN landing gear could be a game winner for Boeing.

Wouldn't this essentially be Northrop's YF-17 Cobra, though with tandem seats and GE F404s instead of the old GE YJ101?

Well, it could be, but smaller. The YF-17 evolved into the F/A-18A/B. Northrop, now part of NG worked with MDD on the F/A-18, I believe they built the aft sections. NG and Boeing could make a joint offer for something like this, although NG wants to rebuild/rewing the T-38s.
 
trex8
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:54 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 26):
The Ching-Kuo is hampered by its engines

in what way? the hawk and M346 variants are slower, and the M346 actually uses a non afterburning version of the IDF CKs engine and Honeywell even tried to sell the navy on upgrading the T45 to the same F124 engines. if you want higher thrust there were 12K thrust variants on the drawing board before the F16s were released to Taiwan in 92
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Fri Jun 25, 2010 12:59 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Well, it could be, but smaller.

Maybe if they do away with the afterburner. I'm trying to find a photo of the stepped-cockpit N-285 carrier version to no avail. What I did find are rare photos of N-156F.....

http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w...266%40N07&q=Northrop+N-156F&m=text

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Northrop, now part of NG worked with MDD on the F/A-18, I believe they built the aft sections.

They may still be doing it at the El Segundo plant.....

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...lanes/lwf/f18ef-northrop-plant.jpg

Quoting trex8 (Reply 30):

in what way? the hawk and M346 variants are slower, and the M346 actually uses a non afterburning version of the IDF CKs engine

It was deemed that a power boost was the simplest and cheapest way to offset certain performance shortfalls of the F-CK-1A, though it could rightly be the airframe's problem. It's not known how much credit the USAF would assign to a contestant's speed, but it is plausible supersonic ability would be looked upon favorably as more closely representing the F-22 and F-35 fighters.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 30):
if you want higher thrust there were 12K thrust variants on the drawing board before the F16s were released to Taiwan in 92

I think costly ITEC work on the 12,000 lbf thrust TFE1088-12 was abandoned after the F-16A/Bs were made available.

[Edited 2010-06-24 18:03:42]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Fri Jun 25, 2010 1:28 am

Quoting keesje (Reply 19):
From a distance, it seems the Italians have the best papers (again may I say).

It's modern/digital, proven, has engine redundancy, fighter like maneuverability.

It looks good too. But alas, looks alone aren't going to win the contest.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:44 am

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 32):
But alas, looks alone aren't going to win the contest.

If it did, we would have never had the A-10.

              
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:03 pm

Looking at the AIDC F-CK-1B Ching Kuo I wondered if its a real trainer, it's a bit of an F16.

Probably it was better to name it a trainer..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/IDF_Pre-production.jpg/800px-IDF_Pre-production.jpg

Single seater..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:15 pm

Too bad Keesje doesn't have the MAKO to cheer for anymore.....

http://static.rcgroups.com/forums/at...-197-eads_mako_10.jpg?d=1141053928

.....the description is similar to the Ching-kuo --- Advanced Trainer and Light Attack Aircraft  yes 

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ojects/mako/images/eads_mako_3.jpg

[Edited 2010-06-25 10:08:40]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Wed Jun 30, 2010 4:41 pm

A little more insight into Boeing's thinking.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ospects-for-us-trainers-swiss.html

Quote:
"But Chadwick predicts that the USAF will favour a clean-sheet design to replace more than 450 T-38s over the next two decades.

'My perspective is the customer would prefer that,' Chadwick says. 'That may seem like an obvious statement, but in today's constrained budget one could see that they could move in a different direction.'

In such an environment, the reverse may be true. With three viable off-the-shelf candidates to replace a trainer, spending billions to develop an all-new design may not seem the obvious path for the USAF.

But Chadwick disagrees that a natural replacement exists to fulfil the USAF's requirements for a T-38 replacement.

'Depending on what the requirement is, do you have to modify those existing platforms?' Chadwick asked. 'And, if you have to modify them and the cost is 'X', then is it potentially better to at least to look at what industry might go and provide?'

Chadwick's comments appear to further distance Boeing from teaming up with BAE's Hawk or Alenia's M-346 derivative for T-X."



I think Boeing's design (if ever) would feature a bit of stealth, be thoroughly up-to-date and supersonic. It might also have vectored thrust, like that proposed by Eurojet for the Tejas.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ng-thrust-vectoring-ej200-for.html


In that sense, it could be like the Mako in its own time, but with a clearer prospect. Now, wouldn't it be absolutely flabbergasting if Boeing licensed EADS' prior work, develop and upgrade it further, and enter it in the T-X competition?    From the first letters of the type description, ATTILA the Hun would be a phonetically close name.....

http://gryphonscry.files.wordpress.c.../05/attila_the_hun.jpg?w=290&h=353

[Edited 2010-06-30 10:49:21]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:14 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
I think Boeing's design (if ever) would feature a bit of stealth, be thoroughly up-to-date and supersonic. It might also have vectored thrust, like that proposed by Eurojet for the Tejas.....

Since this will be a pilot trainer, I don't see any need for stealth. Vectored thrust would not be desireable in a trainer, as that type training would have to come at a later time, not in the first year of training for new pilots. Supersonic capability is fifferent, the T-38 has proven that. A maximum airspeed of 1.25M to 1.5M would be all that is needed.
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:37 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
Chadwick's comments appear to further distance Boeing from teaming up with BAE's Hawk or Alenia's M-346 derivative for T-X.

Or strenghten it´s negotiation position towards those parties.

''We don´t really need you..´´ is so much better then ''We have no choice..´´
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:08 am

Quoting keesje (Reply 38):
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 36):
Chadwick's comments appear to further distance Boeing from teaming up with BAE's Hawk or Alenia's M-346 derivative for T-X.

Or strenghten it´s negotiation position towards those parties.

''We don´t really need you..´´ is so much better then ''We have no choice..´´

That could be true. The RFP is scheduled to be released in early 2011 with the first delivery scheduled for 2014. It would be very tough to design a new clean sheet trainer, but not impossible.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Fri Jul 02, 2010 3:27 pm

Quoting Oroka (Reply 18):
At least Northrop would get some return on the F-20.
http://home.claranet.nl/users/wbergmns/2max/f20.jpg

That's the ticket...
What the...?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:08 pm

I also think the F-20 would be a great trainer and replacement for the T-38. But the USAF rejected the F-20 as a light weight fighter back in the '80s.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:17 am

Rejected as a light weight fighter... sure, but with a new engine, some material refinements, upgraded avionics the F-20 would be a nice trainer. The selling point would be using an existing design to save money.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:52 am

Perhaps. It would share a lot of the current T-38 design, and the engine could be upgraded from the F-404 to the F-414.
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Jul 04, 2010 2:08 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Since this will be a pilot trainer, I don't see any need for stealth.

If it'd purely be a pilot trainer, yes. If Boeing were looking for plenty of LCA sales later on the side, then some stealth shaping would be helpful, eliminating the need for another airframe.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Vectored thrust would not be desireable in a trainer, as that type training would have to come at a later time, not in the first year of training for new pilots.

Again, that is a function of what they would want to do in the future. They could design it in (with an override for normal thrust) from the outset and have the most advanced pilot candidates transition from it to the F-35s and F-22s; or incorporate the feature in later batches, while progressing the training on current 4th Gen fighters in combination with simulator time.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 37):
Supersonic capability is fifferent, the T-38 has proven that. A maximum airspeed of 1.25M to 1.5M would be all that is needed.

And I believe the Tigershark betters that at 2.0M clean.

Quoting keesje (Reply 38):
Or strenghten it´s negotiation position towards those parties.

''We don´t really need you..´´ is so much better then ''We have no choice..´´

Alenia doesn't really have much of a leverage here. As the JCA contract had shown, even winning the competition was no assurance of great times ahead.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
The RFP is scheduled to be released in early 2011 with the first delivery scheduled for 2014. It would be very tough to design a new clean sheet trainer, but not impossible.

As pointed out by the blog, there's still no solid funding for this program. In these tough times, that could mean a while - which would give Boeing ample time to refine their design. They must have some detailed studies lying about waiting for the opportune moment of a need surfacing (they might be pushing the requirement, for all we know). Also, gigabytes of data on scale model wind-tunnel tests on the YF-23 which could be useful. Factor in the diminishing engineering work at Boeing and the trainer's position in the USAF's "wants list" and one will have a clearer picture.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 42):
but with a new engine, some material refinements, upgraded avionics the F-20 would be a nice trainer. The selling point would be using an existing design to save money.
http://www.x-plane.org/home/jacobp51/F414.JPG

Successful integration of the second seat, information processing and fusion would be the keys. The F-20 was already very agile and 9g capable. However, it will still be looked at as an 80's design.

[Edited 2010-07-04 07:37:46]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:16 pm

While I always like the F-20, I just don't see it selected as the T-X. Even with updates, it is still a single engine airplane and it would depend on the RFP which should state the number of engines wanted. For an advanced trainer, I would think the USAF would prefer two engines.
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:43 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 44):
Again, that is a function of what they would want to do in the future.
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 44):
If it'd purely be a pilot trainer, yes.

If you make the trainer supersonic and stealth it will probably be 2-3 x as expensive as competing trainers and trainers flying around with expensive capabilities not needed. It doesn't sound like a smart strategy.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:37 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 46):
If you make the trainer supersonic and stealth it will probably be 2-3 x as expensive as competing trainers and trainers flying around with expensive capabilities not needed. It doesn't sound like a smart strategy.

Was it those which killed the Mako?..... for it was described here thusly.....

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mako/

Quote:

Mako airframe

"The fuselage is of aluminium construction, with mainly carbon fibre air intakes and tail unit. The tailplane is all-moving.

Stealth technology is incorporated into the design. Mako has a radar cross-section of only 1m² at a 44km range. The forward section of the aircraft is chinned to give a low signature. Similarly, the wing and fuselage surfaces are blended and the shaped (non-right-angled) air intakes give low radar cross-section.

Performance

The Mako advanced trainer aircraft can fly at an altitude of 14,400m. The maximum speed of the aircraft is Mach 1.5. The airstrip take-off run and airstrip landing are 450m and 750m respectively. The ferry range of the aircraft is 3,700km."



No doubt Boeing would be grateful for the advice.   
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Jul 04, 2010 5:54 pm

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 47):
Was it those which killed the Mako?..... for it was described here thusly.....

Probably (don't know the "Mako") it seems inbetween a fighter and a trainer, not good at both.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5213
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: New Boeing Trainer For T-X Contest

Sun Jul 04, 2010 7:56 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 48):
Probably (don't know the "Mako")

Really?.....Here's an introduction then.....

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRAT2000.htm

Quoting keesje (Reply 48):
it seems inbetween a fighter and a trainer, not good at both.

Paradoxically, both the T-38 and the F-5 excelled at their respective roles.   


[Edited 2010-07-04 13:13:47]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests