User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: T-X Requirements Released

Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:15 pm

It's final...KAI's T-50A will be Lockheed's entry for the T-X competition.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...a-for-t-x-over-skunk-works-421837/

Quote:
"Lockheed Martin will offer an upgraded version of the T-50 fighter it jointly developed with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) for the US Air Force's T-X trainer programme, forgoing a clean-sheet alternative designed by its Skunk Works division.

The company revealed at a press conference in Washington DC today that it will build the aircraft in Greenville, South Carolina and is already standing up a 'warm' final assembly and checkout facility there that should be ready by year’s end.

The company has invested heavily in a block upgrade of the T-50 that adds an aerial refuelling receptacle on the dorsal of the aircraft, as seen on the first production example unveiled in South Korea in December. It includes an embedded training system and fifth-generation cockpit similar to what’s installed in the F-35 Lightning II."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Feb 19, 2016 1:15 am

More on why LM dumped a clean-sheet alternative for the T-50A:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-clean-sheet-t-x-for-kore-421946/

However, this does say it all:

Quote:
Weiss says the clean-sheet alternative might have cost approximately eight times more to develop, without adding significant capability “beyond a modernised T-50”. Moreover, it would struggle to meet the air force’s recently revised initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2024.

In short, a clean-sheet option would be substantially more expensive for little gains, while struggling to meet deadlines.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:31 pm

Raytheon, for its part, is now officially fronting for a U.S.-built M-346.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...merican-made-t-100-for-t-x-422269/

Quote:
"Raytheon has officially jumped into the US Air Force's T-X race, offering the Italian Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi M-346-based T-100 with twin Honeywell F124 turbofan engines and training support from CAE.


https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=65947

Once allied with General Dynamics, the T-100 will now compete against the Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries T-50A and clean-sheet alternatives proposed by Boeing/Saab and Northrop Grumman/BAS Systems for US Air Education and Training Command’s procurement of 350 high-performance training jets to replace the 48-year-old Northrop T-38 Talon.

Once outfitted with wide-screen avionics displays and a boom refuelling mechanism, company officials expect the T-100 to meet all of the air force’s requirements, but with less cost and schedule risk than the completely new designs pursued by Boeing and Northrop."



https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=65950

Wonder if they would reopen the plant in Mobile, Alabama where the C-27J was built should they win?   
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Jun 05, 2016 7:37 am

LM's T-50A has flown:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...-Martin-flies-T-50A/8401464895902/

Quote:
FORT WORTH, Texas, June 2 (UPI) -- Lockheed Martin has conducted an initial flight test of its T-50A jet aircraft, which it is offering the Air Force in the Advanced Pilot Training competition.

The newly configured T-50A is a variant of the T-50 developed by Korea Aerospace Industries and Lockheed Martin.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Jun 07, 2016 6:05 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 53):
LM's T-50A has flown:

Video here.....    .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQhFJjgWWq0
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
angad84
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:57 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 54):
Video here..... .....

We will call it... "Quasimodo"

:D

Cheers
A
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:19 am

Northrop Grumman has publicly unveiled its entry for the T-X competition.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ay-428674/

Image
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqPwqOUUMAAxrQR.jpg

I'd say apart from the air intake, there are no obvious similarities to the T-38. Even the wide vertical stab and tail exhaust look different...though it does share the single F404 engine from GE with the F-20 Tigershark. The sharp front body angle and line are reminiscent of the Mako. I wonder what they would call their trainer?
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9243
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 7:20 am

Image

My first impression is this proposal is optimized for low costs.

Light, uncomplicated, functional, smaller single engine..

Not the performance of the T-50 and T-100 but probably superior low costs.

Configuration very similar to T-38. Might help (infrastructure, procedures, base comparisons, perceived risks.)

Comes down to the USAF how much room they get from congress .

The reason NG lost KC-X round 3 was a surprising "too capable", when requirements changed into min.cost for min. performance. So who knows..

If NG wins this together with the LRS-B contract it could replace Boeing as the second most influential USAF contractor, after LM.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:23 am

The whole design seems to be a bit off, Kind of reminds me of the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo. But perhaps you are right: Light, uncomplicated, functional, smaller single engine might be the key here.

Since there is no two seat F-35 or F-22, might the USAF not oppt for a more capable trainer in order to take the training syllabus a bit further before letting students loose on the real thing?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
DidziuojiA
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:24 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:26 am

may press T-X into service as an aggressor later on :)
 
mmo
Topic Author
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:50 am

The problem with asking more out of any T-x is the simple fact the requirement hasn't been asked for. The T-x requirements are specifically set for UPT and that training syllabus. It is not designed use in the F-22 or F-35 training program. AETC made it very clear in the lead up to the RFP. There has been talk about having the T-x used for "Red Air" but AETC has had no formal request from ACC and again made it clear it would add $$ to the cost. Something they did not really want.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
VSMUT
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:33 am

Devilfish wrote:
I'd say apart from the air intake, there are no obvious similarities to the T-38. Even the wide vertical stab and tail exhaust look different...though it does share the single F404 engine from GE with the F-20 Tigershark. The sharp front body angle and line are reminiscent of the Mako. I wonder what they would call their trainer?



The overall configuration is almost completely identical to the T-38 or F-5F, with a long slender fuselage, single tail fin, low set wings and horizontal stabilizers.

The landing gear also looks almost identical to the T-38's. The nose gear is even located at the exact same location as on the T-38. Although it is a bit hard to see from current images, the wings and horizontal stabilizers look very similar to the T-38's, but with LERX's that look very similar to the F-5E/Fs. It even has a NACA inlet in the exact same location where the T-38 has an inlet scoop, at the base of the fin.

Could it be a mere redesign of the fuselage with a larger/wider cockpit and newer engine, while reusing as much as possible from the original design?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:40 am

What is the timeframe for this competition? We have a number of prototypes in existence and a number to go.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:42 am

VSMUT wrote:
The landing gear also looks almost identical to the T-38's. The nose gear is even located at the exact same location as on the T-38. Although it is a bit hard to see from current images, the wings and horizontal stabilizers look very similar to the T-38's, but with LERX's that look very similar to the F-5E/Fs. It even has a NACA inlet in the exact same location where the T-38 has an inlet scoop, at the base of the fin.

Could it be a mere redesign of the fuselage with a larger/wider cockpit and newer engine, while reusing as much as possible from the original design?


Could be, keeps risk and development cost down. The landing gear is probably the same, could be quite expensive to disgin and manufacture for a prototype, better to reuse an existing gear.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
VSMUT
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:33 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Could be, keeps risk and development cost down. The landing gear is probably the same, could be quite expensive to disgin and manufacture for a prototype, better to reuse an existing gear.


True, and that has been seen before, especially with the F-5s landing gear. But there is just so much about this design that screams reuse of the F-5/T-38. Look at the size of the wings and the long slender fuselage. That's how aircraft were designed in the 50s and 60s (F-105, Sepecat Jaguar, TSR-2, F-104, F-5). Pretty much every aircraft designed in the last 30 years has featured big wings and flat lifting body fuselages. That goes for supersonic fighters like the F-15, F-35, Typhoon, PAK-FA, Su-27 and Rafale, and also trainers like the M-346/Yak-130, KAI T-50, Hongdu L-15, EADS MAKO and even the Boeing/SAAB T-X concept that has been floating around.

Northrop Grumman should have more experience with this than any other company, seeing as they are pretty much the pioneers when it comes to flying wing designs. The YF-23 and the concept for the NG JSF only confirm this. IMHO, this points in the direction of a significantly upgraded T-38 with a new fuselage and some other improvements, rather than an all-new design.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 4:24 pm

DidziuojiA wrote:
may press T-X into service as an aggressor later on :)

mmo wrote:
There has been talk about having the T-x used for "Red Air" but AETC has had no formal request from ACC and again made it clear it would add $$ to the cost. Something they did not really want.

Proposed change to the RFP that will incentivize extra performance could well lead to a similar outcome.....

http://aviationweek.com/defense/who-has ... es-1494601


VSMUT wrote:
Could it be a mere redesign of the fuselage with a larger/wider cockpit and newer engine, while reusing as much as possible from the original design?

Possibly aerodynamic updates mostly...related to the new, more powerful single engine.

With Northrop Grumman's design now out in the open, will Boeing/SAAB's entry look the same as the teaser image in the previous page (post#24) or closer to the ATG Javelin?.....

Image
http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/41 ... 594810.jpg

Image
http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/41 ... 572214.jpg
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:02 pm

Boeing Defense says more details of their design will be released on 13 Sep next.....

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tx- ... oeing-saab


Image
http://snagfilms.s3.amazonaws.com/6b/ca ... -promo.jpg


Peek-a-boo show #1.....

http://www.boeing.com/defense/t-x/index ... eak-peek-1
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
VSMUT
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:12 am

Image

It looks very similar to the SAAB 38 concept:
Image

And a few images of the shrink wrapped fuselage, as it left the factory in Sweden:
https://twitter.com/GripenNews/status/7 ... 88/photo/1
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Thu Aug 25, 2016 5:03 pm

I think this will come down between Boeing and Lockheed.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:18 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Image

It looks very similar to the SAAB 38 concept:
Image

And a few images of the shrink wrapped fuselage, as it left the factory in Sweden:
https://twitter.com/GripenNews/status/7 ... 88/photo/1


Looks like the Alpha Jet and the Hawk had a love baby :-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
angad84
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Aug 26, 2016 7:27 am

Still want to see the rear end of that thing though.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 21561
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:18 pm

Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:33 pm

KarelXWB wrote:


Interesting - similar to the Textron Scorpion, but different enough not to be related.
 
User avatar
SAS A340
Posts: 721
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 5:59 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:48 pm

Looks very nice! If all goes well we can perhaps see it in the sky here in Sweden aswell :)
It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Posts: 21561
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:48 pm

Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:58 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Boeing just unveiled the T-X, here is a photo:

Looks like it will be a battle between single-engined, low and high-winged, single and twin vert stabs candidates.....

Image
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsPrEGCUsAA8pSM.jpg

Image
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsPrEGAUAAAb3mw.jpg


angad84 wrote:
Still want to see the rear end of that thing though.

Here you are...courtesy of Karel.....

Image
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CsPrEGJVUAAq0yK.jpg


It's clearly a single tailcone...though the reflections prevent a clear view of the hor stab. Apart from the single engine, tandem cockpit, and splayed gears, it positively has the Cobra's genes -- scaled down a bit.....


Image
http://www.air-and-space.com/19771113%2 ... nt%20l.jpg


I wonder if Boeing's T-X entry would also use GE/Volvo's F414 engine :?:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
LMP737
Posts: 4973
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:18 pm

One thing is for sure. Boeing's St. Louis operation badly needs this contract.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:27 am

LMP737 wrote:
One thing is for sure. Boeing's St. Louis operation badly needs this contract.

It will be questionable if Boeing can. Boeing has a big fight ahead of it, considering that they are up against a current production trainer in the LM T-50A that's already flying, so they will have to do something spectacular to make their plane cost effective.
 
duboka
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:07 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:08 am

I've read that Germany has a cooperation with the USAF for training their pilotes, which means that Germany buys the same training equipment, the USAF does, like the T-38 or exchanged the T-37 with the T-6 at the same time the US did it. So can you expect that the Luftwaffe will buy the T-X, too?
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:06 pm

As it turns out, Boeing's N381TX (for lack of a proper name) could be the highest powered contestant in the T-X competition.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... me-429293/

Quote:
"Showing off a design featuring twin, canted tails and a shoulder-mounted, anhedral wing, the Boeing/Saab team will compete with a high-powered trainer with a 17,700lb-thrust GE Aviation F404-GE-402 with full afterburner. [.....]

Northrop Grumman’s T-X offering, the Model 400, is powered by a single GE Aviation F404-GE-102D engine, FlightGlobal previously reported. However, that version of the F404 will not include an afterburner, limiting the aircraft to 11,000lb-thrust. Among the T-X bidders, Lockheed Martin/Korea Aerospace Industries’ T-50 features the same engine as the Boeing/Saab design, including the afterburner. Raytheon/Alenia, meanwhile, is offering the M346 powered by two Honeywell F124 engines generating 6,200lb-thrust each."



Boeing also provided the rationale for their twin, canted stabs T-X and its growth potential...which could come in handy should future requirements require an aggressor role.

So, it seems the process has come full circle...with Boeing/SAAB entering what may be loosely called a radically updated YF-17, LockMart/KAI a shrunk but modernized YF-16 of General Dynamics fame, and the progenitor of both designs -- Northrop Grumman fielding a comparatively sedate incarnation of its much lamented Tigershark. Hopefully, the tribulations of the past won't return and haunt this competition. Now, what do we call these nameless offsprings.....Little Bug, Adder and Catshark :?:


duboka wrote:
So can you expect that the Luftwaffe will buy the T-X, too?

I think that they'd be more inclined to consider the M-346.....

Image

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... -c-427166/
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:19 am

If Boeing can nail the performance they may have a light attack aircraft on their hands
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:23 am

Talking about thrust is all well and good, but we need weights before we can really determine anything...
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:41 am

A short video of Boeing's Li'l Bug (MiniBug if you prefer) in reheat -- for everyone's enjoyment... :D ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amiJwedNJYM


The wing plan form and other aerodynamic features are now fully revealed for commentary.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:53 am

Devilfish wrote:
A short video of Boeing's Li'l Bug (MiniBug if you prefer) in reheat -- for everyone's enjoyment... :D ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amiJwedNJYM


Definately can see the F/A-18's dna in the T-X
 
Acheron
Posts: 1848
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Thu Sep 15, 2016 4:32 pm

Devilfish wrote:
A short video of Boeing's Li'l Bug (MiniBug if you prefer) in reheat -- for everyone's enjoyment... :D ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amiJwedNJYM


The wing plan form and other aerodynamic features are now fully revealed for commentary.



Reminds me somewhat of those Sukhoi S-54/S-55 concepts of the 90's
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:28 pm

Acheron wrote:
Reminds me somewhat of those Sukhoi S-54/S-55 concepts of the 90's

Yeah, but minus the canards.....

Image


Another short video...this time replete with the requisite sound bytes.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO8R8Z8Jxro

In the previous week's dark teaser images, the twin stabs were intentionally obscured to pique viewers' interest.


INFINITI329 wrote:
If Boeing can nail the performance they may have a light attack aircraft on their hands

INFINITI329 wrote:
Definately can see the F/A-18's dna in the T-X

They could be reserving the thrust bump to ~19,000 lbs for that upgrade. While at it, Boeing might as well develop a single-seat fighter. Give it a low-cost AESA radar like Raytheon's previous proposal for the Gripen and Golden Eagle...but this time built to work with existing power and cooling systems and compact enough to fit the mounting plate and T/R array in the T-X's radome, call it the RNGR, add wingtip launchers for AAMs ... and they're good to go. 8-)
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Ozair
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:24 am

Devilfish wrote:


duboka wrote:
So can you expect that the Luftwaffe will buy the T-X, too?

I think that they'd be more inclined to consider the M-346.....

Not going to happen. The NATO training facility at Sheppard AFB in Texas currently use T-38 aircraft and will continue to use whatever aircraft is chosen for the T-X trainer requirement.

Some info on Sheppard AFB and the NATO training program can be found here, http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a10741/the-texas-air-base-where-nato-fighter-pilots-are-forged-16920796/
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 3987
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:10 am

Suddenly the T-100 is the best looking contender.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:11 am

Ozair wrote:
Not going to happen. The NATO training facility at Sheppard AFB in Texas currently use T-38 aircraft and will continue to use whatever aircraft is chosen for the T-X trainer requirement.

Some info on Sheppard AFB and the NATO training program can be found here, http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a10741/the-texas-air-base-where-nato-fighter-pilots-are-forged-16920796/



Isn't the Luftwaffe's decision to use T-38s in the USAF based on it's history of operating F-104s and F-4s? Since the USAF has decided to head down the F-35 route, while the Luftwaffe has chosen to go down the Typhoon route, isn't it more likely that Germany teams up with Italy, or even France? Or just ends up purchasing hours on USAF T-Xs rather than actually buying any themselves.
 
angad84
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:26 am

seahawk wrote:
Suddenly the T-100 is the best looking contender.


The T-100 appears to have pretty significant power/manoeuvrability issues.

At the moment I'd rate Lockheed's chances the highest, with Boeing a close second. The Northrop entry simply doesn't look very inspiring, but hey, if it works... *shrug*

Cheers
A
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:36 pm

Ozair wrote:
Not going to happen. The NATO training facility at Sheppard AFB in Texas currently use T-38 aircraft and will continue to use whatever aircraft is chosen for the T-X trainer requirement.

That's for the training facility at Sheppard. The Luftwaffe didn't buy Falcons, Hornets or Eagles for themselves. What if they want something different?

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Germany- ... -A/2846195

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Italy-Ai ... 9A/3888927

There had been precedents of industrial cooperation (i.e. MB339 T-Bird II with Lockheed for U.S. JPATS).....geopolitical and economic realities could again influence national partnerships and see Italy collaborating with Germany on a common platform, especially as the Mako was stillborn. Never say never.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Ozair
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sat Sep 17, 2016 2:11 am

Devilfish wrote:
That's for the training facility at Sheppard. The Luftwaffe didn't buy Falcons, Hornets or Eagles for themselves. What if they want something different?

No they didn't buy any of those three yet their pilots are still trained at Sheppard.
Devilfish wrote:
There had been precedents of industrial cooperation (i.e. MB339 T-Bird II with Lockheed for U.S. JPATS).....geopolitical and economic realities could again influence national partnerships and see Italy collaborating with Germany on a common platform, especially as the Mako was stillborn. Never say never.

Happy to say never. The Germans have two seat versions of Typhoon and Tornado for conversion training. They don't need the T-X for conversion training for single seat 5th gen fighters, they will use it exactly as they use the T-38 now, as the first intro to fast jet operations.

VSMUT wrote:
Isn't the Luftwaffe's decision to use T-38s in the USAF based on it's history of operating F-104s and F-4s? Since the USAF has decided to head down the F-35 route, while the Luftwaffe has chosen to go down the Typhoon route, isn't it more likely that Germany teams up with Italy, or even France? Or just ends up purchasing hours on USAF T-Xs rather than actually buying any themselves.

The reason for US based training has a lot more to do with airspace and joint training with other NATO members than it does with specific equipment. They probably won't directly buy any T-X but the funds they provide to support the NATO training facility will be used in part (probably a very small part) to acquire and maintain T-X.

All German and Dutch fast jet pilots are trained at Sheppard, it has been that way for 30 years and will continue to be so for many years to come. There is no reason that the Germans would leave Sheppard to form a training program with the Italians or the French, they had ample opportunity to do that for years and years but haven't done so. Why would a change of equipment at Sheppard suddenly make a change to an established training scheme?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2590
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:27 am

angad84 wrote:

The T-100 appears to have pretty significant power/manoeuvrability issues.

At the moment I'd rate Lockheed's chances the highest, with Boeing a close second. The Northrop entry simply doesn't look very inspiring, but hey, if it works... *shrug*

Cheers
A

I agree. Lockheed T-50A appears to be the highest performing aircraft and one of the most proven of the options presented, while the Boeing offering appears to be close performer, but is a total unknown. It's still a developmental aircraft, with the accompanying risks for schedule slippage and cost overruns. Northrop's offering is also high up there in terms of risk, but it also appears to be a decent performer.

The T-100, while proven, doesn't appear to have the same performance on paper compared to the Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop offerings.

What I think will be the major deciding factor is does each of the options meet the minimum criteria as set out by the USAF, and if they do, what is the cost? Lowest cost compliant is probably going to be the evaluation criteria here, with an eye on watching risk as well.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 3987
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:35 pm

angad84 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Suddenly the T-100 is the best looking contender.


The T-100 appears to have pretty significant power/manoeuvrability issues.

At the moment I'd rate Lockheed's chances the highest, with Boeing a close second. The Northrop entry simply doesn't look very inspiring, but hey, if it works... *shrug*

Cheers
A


If was just commenting on the looks. The T-50 did not gain something in that department with the air-to-air refuelling receptacle hump. Overall I always wondered how anybody would hope to beat the T-50. It has the performance, it is proven and even armed versions are more or less ready.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:36 pm

Ozair wrote:
All German and Dutch fast jet pilots are trained at Sheppard, it has been that way for 30 years and will continue to be so for many years to come. There is no reason that the Germans would leave Sheppard to form a training program with the Italians or the French, they had ample opportunity to do that for years and years but haven't done so. Why would a change of equipment at Sheppard suddenly make a change to an established training scheme?


Only the Germans. The Dutch have begun using the Italian M-346's at Lecce Galatina for LIFT. The Germans do their Tornado training in the US, but are pulling that back to Europe in 2017 - 2019, leaving just the ageing T-38s.
France, Singapore, Italy, Poland and Spain manage just fine in Europe, so the airspace and joint training thing obviously isn't an issue. Further cooperation is only bound to increase with the EU's plans for a joint military, especially since France and Germany are spearheading the plans and the UK isn't in the way any more.
 
Ozair
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:04 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Only the Germans. The Dutch have begun using the Italian M-346's at Lecce Galatina for LIFT.

Thanks for that, I wasn't aware. A bit of research shows the agreement is a temporary arrangement to see how training progresses.
UPDATE 13 May | The Royal Netherlands Air Force confirmed that the first two pilots started training in Lecce on 12 May. The training is a 3 year experiment to see if the M-346 is suited for training F-35 pilots. If successful, current training in the US could partly move to Italy.

http://airheadsfly.com/2015/05/13/dutch-pilots-to-train-on-m-346/
while F-35 conversion training will continue to occur at Luke AFB.

VSMUT wrote:
France, Singapore, Italy, Poland and Spain manage just fine in Europe, so the airspace and joint training thing obviously isn't an issue. Further cooperation is only bound to increase with the EU's plans for a joint military, especially since France and Germany are spearheading the plans and the UK isn't in the way any more.

Joint training and airspace are issues and remain so. As for a joint military, I will believe it when I see it...
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Sun Sep 18, 2016 5:41 pm

Whatever its fate elsewhere would be, if Boeing's entry wins, the Goshawks' days are numbered. Pretty confident the Wasp would be beefed up, grow a tailhook and find itself on a carrier... :D ...

Image
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/34 ... -34199.jpg
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:11 pm

I'm rooting for Northrop-Grumman's submission- I just found out it uses a non-afterburning variant of the F404 and is able to supercruise. It (supposedly) significantly exceeds all the maneuverability requirements as well, and uses some F-20 design elements. If it performs as advertised, this should be the winner.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5413
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:14 pm

This Aviation Week article is 'subscribers only' and alleges a rift between the partners for their T-X bid.....

http://aviationweek.com/defense/raytheo ... er-t-x-bid


What could the 'bone of contention' be :?:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: T-X Requirements Released

Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:25 pm

workshare?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: f4u and 6 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos