Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

T-X Competition

Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:46 pm

The t-X competition to replace the T-38, i feel will be a blood bath. If you think the KC-X competition was bad I think this will 10x worst. Most of the largest US defense contractors want in on this competition and dont mind teaming up with others to do it. Once this competition officially opens up again (has been delayed for budget reasons) this should get very interesting. Here are the potential products and teams. What do you think? Who would have the upper hand?

-Alenia Aermacchi M-346 (Alenia, General Dynamics)
-BAE Hawk (BAE, Northrop Grumman, Rolls-Royce, L-3)........ USN operates the T-45 variant of the Hawk
-KAI T-50 (KAI, Lockheed Martin)
-T-X Gripen (Saab, Boeing)
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Thu Nov 07, 2013 3:14 am

I think it will be the Hawk or the T-50.

The Hawk is an established platform and its only major drawback is that it is not supersonic and the USAF generally wants a supersonic trainer. One of the main benefits of it is that NG has a big hand in the F-35 sensor and sensor fusion so could help replicate that environment to a degree in there.

The T-50 is supersonic and has the obvious advantage of having the builder of the major USAF fighter of the future as part of the team. I personally think it is the favorite.

Gripen will be too expensive. I don't see the Aermacchi having much chance at all.
 
STOOBIE
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:43 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:10 pm

I'm worried every acquistion from now on will be ugly. With the estimated costs of the next-generation bombers, I think the F-35 will be an afterthought.
 
bigjku
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:51 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:29 pm

Quoting Stoobie (Reply 2):
With the estimated costs of the next-generation bombers, I think the F-35 will be an afterthought.

I am not sure why you are all that worried about the next bomber, I mean anymore than any other defense project I should say. It should actually benefit a lot from the F-35 program for skins and technology. It is almost assured to be some kind of flying wing as well. But I don't see them really stretching technological boundaries on the bomber project all that much because they really don't have to.
 
mechatnew
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 5:59 am

RE: T-X Competition

Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:50 am

As for the Hawk and its lack of supersonic capability. It sould not hurt it. The current T-38C had modified intakes and exhaust to improve its subsonic performance and is no longer supersonic. I believe the supersonic syllabus in USAF training was dropped in the 1990s.
 
User avatar
larshjort
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:54 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:00 am

How is training done in the US? Are Air force and Navy/Marine pilots seperated from the start or do they go through a common facility? Would it be an idea to put the 2 programs together if they are seperate? If so it might be an advantage to choose a Hawk version to ease transition to the T-45.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1):
Gripen will be too expensive. I don't see the Aermacchi having much chance at all.

Although it could be funny if both the USAF adn the Russian air force trainer aircraft were deveoped from the same aircraft.
139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
 
evil8er2006
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:50 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:03 am

Quoting larshjort (Reply 5):
How is training done in the US? Are Air force and Navy/Marine pilots seperated from the start or do they go through a common facility? Would it be an idea to put the 2 programs together if they are seperate?

The Air Force and the Navy/USMC pilot training programs are similar through the first two parts of training. The Air Force and Navy/USMC both have academics at the start. The Air Force calls it's academic portion Phase 1 (it's also nicknamed "slackademics" since it's the most relaxed portion); the Navy calls theirs API (aviation pre-indoctrination, I believe). After that phase is complete, student pilots hit the flight line (for the AF, it's called Phase 2), where they fly USAF T-6s for around five months at one of four AF bases. The Navy/Marine students fly T-34s or T-6s out of Pensacola, FL. Both services (lumping the Navy and the USMC together for this description) have exchange programs. Navy/Marine students can attend Phase 1/2 or Phase 3 of USAF Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) and USAF students can fly Navy T-34s/T-6s out of Pensacola and T-44s out of Corpus. When I went through UPT, I had three Navy and three Marines in my T-6 class. Once we hit Track Select (choosing whether to go fighters/bombers, heavies, helos, or C-130s), the Navy/Marine guys went to their respective follow-on training bases (T-45s at Meridian/Kingsville, T-44s at Corpus, helos at Whiting). We also sent several of my Air Force T-6 buddies to fly T-44s for their later follow-on to C-130s. When I tracked to T-1s, I had a Navy guy (who came from T-34s out of P-cola) in my class for the last half of UPT; his follow-on assignment was E-6s out of Tinker AFB, OK. Long story short, the training is similar in some ways, enough where you can go through parts of a sister service's training program. There are several USAF pilots I know who went through P-cola and flew Navy T-44s out of Corpus before going to fly C-130s at Little Rock AFB. However, there are still considerable differences in training that prevent the two programs from being completely interchangeable. For example, carrier qualifications in the T-45 would be pointless for USAF student pilots (but wicked awesome at the same time!!). Other differences mainly boil down to the services' training philosophies and regulatory approaches. In the end, I don't see the two programs ever merging into one big program.
 
NBGSkyGod
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 7:30 am

RE: T-X Competition

Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:35 pm

Like Evil8er2006 says, it is doubtful the two sides would ever find themselves with a totally combined training program due to the differences between their operations, fleet compositions, procedures, etc. However, initial flight training could be combined, like evil said, there is already a lot of crossover that has been going on for years. I 2004 I bummed a ride on a T44 with two USAF Majors as the drivers. And with the T6 now the basic trainer in both fleets, it is likely to see more of a blending of the services in the early stages of training.

Latter training will always be different because why does a F-15 driver need to worry about landing on a carrier, or an F-18 pilot...well I can't think of anything an F/A-18 pilot doesn't need to learn that an USAF pilot doesn't know, plus carrier operations. Common fleet types like the C-130, C20/37, etc will always have mixed training classes since their procedures are pretty much the same.

I think where you will see a lot more combination of branch training is with the enlisted rates.
Pilots are idiots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: T-X Competition

Mon Nov 11, 2013 4:59 pm

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1):
I think it will be the Hawk or the T-50.

I agree the T-50 has an edge by having Lockheed as partner. Especially seeing how Lockheed is producing two of the USAF newest fighters. The Hawk has an edge by being in the service with the Navy and BAE would use that as way to bring to down cost (it terms of parts and such as whole for the whole for DOD). What surprises me is why Boeing didnt partner with BAE for the hawk as they joint produce the goshhawk for the navy.

Quoting evil8er2006 (Reply 6):
In the end, I don't see the two programs ever merging into one big program.

As cost saving measure I agree with the merger of the beginning phases of the flight training syllabus. But yes latter portion should remain service driven.

On side note there is to much separatism among our military in both aviation and other components and thus costing the taxpayer millions of dollars wasted.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6966
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: T-X Competition

Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:56 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Thread starter):
Once this competition officially opens up again (has been delayed for budget reasons) this should get very interesting.

Initial funding for T-X requirement in 2015 budget...USAF hoping to award a contract in FY2017.....

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...TARS-Funded-2015-Air-Force-Request

Quote:
"The T-X trainer replacement program and the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) recapitalization will both receive funds in the 2015 budget request, according to Maj. Gen. James Martin, the service’s budget director.

[.....]

The T-X program will receive $600 million over the course of the five-year period known as the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), Martin said. The service hopes to award a contract in FY 2017, although he did not have information on when a request for proposal might be offered."



Quite an optimistic projection given how tightly contested the tender would likely be.   
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:30 am

The KAI T-50 has a massive advantage here. It's systems interface, avionics, flight computers etc. are compatible with those in the F-16C, making it extremely similar for pilots and maintainers used to the F-16. It's basically a smaller/cheaper/lighter version of the F-16. It will also serve very well in the aggressor squadrons as well, as armed versions of the T-50 exist.

And that's beyond the fact that it would make the F-35 purchase much easier to swallow for South Korea politically as well as they will see that they are getting offsets from the purchase.
 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: T-X Competition

Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:23 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
The KAI T-50 has a massive advantage here. It's systems interface, avionics, flight computers etc. are compatible with those in the F-16C, making it extremely similar for pilots and maintainers used to the F-16. It's basically a smaller/cheaper/lighter version of the F-16. It will also serve very well in the aggressor squadrons as well, as armed versions of the T-50 exist.

True but the future of the USAF is not the F-16. It is the F-22 & F-35 which still gives the adavantage to Lockheed and Kai.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6966
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: T-X Competition

Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:40 pm

The other main competitor has just come out in Israel Air Force markings.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=54803


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...aeli-m-346-lavi-rolled-out-397266/


Amusing that LM will, by extension, be competing against something named after a plane supposedly based on their F-16.   
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:39 am

It appears that in the interests of cost savings, the USAF is looking to downgrade a number of requirements:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...requirements-to-shave-cost-407923/

The speed requirement is the one they have mentioned in particular; they are looking to downgrade the requirement from 500mph to 450mph, as that would result in massive cost savings.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12888
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:23 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
they are looking to downgrade the requirement from 500mph to 450mph, as that would result in massive cost savings.

somehow I see a turboprop in the USAF future, 450mph is well within the reach of existing airframes, 500 may require a lot more rework.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12856
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:29 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 8):
Especially seeing how Lockheed is producing two of the USAF newest fighters.

You could also see this as a disadvantage, all the eggs in one basket, I think congress and the USAF might want to spread some of these contracts around.
 
jollo
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:24 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:28 pm

Go MB-346! I love this little gnat: home team, and clearly the underdog in this cutthroat competition...  

Besides, the avionics are impressive for a trainer (well, they need to be...)
 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: T-X Competition

Mon Jan 19, 2015 5:33 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 14):
somehow I see a turboprop in the USAF future, 450mph is well within the reach of existing airframes, 500 may require a lot more rework.

The USAF already operates a turboprop its the T-6 Texan II. This is to train fighter pilots so a jet would be necessary
 
tommy1808
Posts: 12888
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:40 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 17):
This is to train fighter pilots so a jet would be necessary

The PC-21 was specifically designed to handle much more jetlike with exactly that market in mind. The Swiss don´t have jet trainers and Spain may end up with all turboprop training as well. Ok, the USAF should be big enough to have two trainer types, but i don´t think that you really *need* a jet trainer between high performance turboprops and simulators anymore.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:50 am

The BAE Hawk is not going to be in contention as Northrop Grumman is going clean sheet:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/nort...rop-pivots-clean-sheet-t-x-trainer

Quote:
A Northrop Grumman-led team is dashing its plan to propose a modified BAE Systems Hawk trainer for the U.S. Air Force’s T-38 replacement program, opting instead for a clean-sheet design for the $1 billion program.

The reasons being cited is that the Hawk doesn't have the performance necessary to effectively simulate high performance fighters, namely the high AoA and turn radius performance specifications. Part of the issue is that the requirements for T-X has expanded to cover aggressor training that's currently being performed by F-16C's. Any new trainer must properly emulate the high performance that's present in potential adversaries aircraft, and do it well enough to trick the F-22 and F-35's sensors into thinking they are an actual enemy system, otherwise, both aircraft will literally see through the deception.

Scaled Composites, a Northrop Grumman-owned company has put together a team to design and build their entry in the program. Scaled Composites is expected to have a prototype ready by the end of the year.

This leaves only two off the shelf competitors; Lockheed Martin/KAI's T-50, and General Dynamics/Alenia Aermacchi M-346.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: T-X Competition

Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:51 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
It appears that in the interests of cost savings, the USAF is looking to downgrade a number of requirements:

This competition is not showing very good signs. A downgrade in speed specifications but a requirement to fulfill the aggressor role seems incompatible to me. The USAF will need to replicate T-50, J-20 and J-31 but I can't see any of the options being effective in that role.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):

This leaves only two off the shelf competitors; Lockheed Martin/KAI's T-50, and General Dynamics/Alenia Aermacchi M-346.

A Boeing/SAAB Gripen Lite would also fit the bill as it is practically off the shelf and would better emulate what the USAF is after from an aggressor perspective.

This should really be two competitions for two different aircraft.
 
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4900
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:20 am

Quoting larshjort (Reply 5):
How is training done in the US? Are Air force and Navy/Marine pilots seperated from the start or do they go through a common facility? Would it be an idea to put the 2 programs together if they are seperate? If so it might be an advantage to choose a Hawk version to ease transition to

Navy and Marine pilots go to the same training status until they get to their "Rag" outfit where they start their operational training. Marine pilots are experts at Ground Attack as are Airforce A10 Pilots , The Difference is that Marine pilots also have to Trap and launch from Carriers.
There Are Air Force pilots in some Navy squadrons as exchange pilots. as there are now Air force Electronic Warfare Officers flying as Radar intercept officers and
Tactical Coordinators on the P8 for the Navy. I was surprised to hear this as well until I met one of my old Squadron XO's at a reunion in Hawaii Recently.
 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: T-X Competition

Sun Feb 08, 2015 7:00 pm

Will BAE search for a new partner? It would have be someone other than the big three as they have their own projects already in the competition
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:56 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 23):
Will BAE search for a new partner? It would have be someone other than the big three as they have their own projects already in the competition

I think BAE will decide to stick with Northrop Grumman, and instead will become the sub-contractor and design avionics and possibly build certain sections of the clean sheet Northrop Grumman proposal. Because of the way the specifications are moving, the Hawk would be the least viable trainer of them all.
 
TGIF
Posts: 262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:01 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Feb 10, 2015 6:22 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 13):
It appears that in the interests of cost savings, the USAF is looking to downgrade a number of requirements:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
The reasons being cited is that the Hawk doesn't have the performance necessary to effectively simulate high performance fighters, namely the high AoA and turn radius performance specifications. Part of the issue is that the requirements for T-X has expanded to cover aggressor training

Am I the only one picking up mixed signals? On minute they're talking about relaxing the requirements in order to save money, the next they're adding more requirements to cover more roles.

The relaxation of the speed requirement (though it's only an example given) discussed in the first article doesn't really go hand in hand with simulation of high performance fighters.



[Edited 2015-02-10 10:23:13]
 
mmo
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:19 pm

Quoting TGIF (Reply 25):
The relaxation of the speed requirement (though it's only an example given) discussed in the first article doesn't really go hand in hand with simulation of high performance fighters.

No, but the requirement to be able to pull sustained G's does. That's where the Hawk lost it's edge. It's not about the speed so much, but about energy management. So, in ACT (Air Combat Training) for BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvers) you will be up against a similar aircraft. The current syllabus does not focus on DACT (Dis-similar Air Combat Training). That will come once you are in the RTU for the specific aircraft you are assigned to. But if you don't know the fundamentals of energy management then you will never make it.

Just for the record, some of the KPPs (Key Performance Parameters) are

1) 6.5Gs minimum for no less than 15 seconds using no more than 15° nose low between 10,000-20,000 feet at 80% fuel weight
2) Minimum 7.5Gs with an onset rate of not less than 3Gs/sec
3) At least a 12° per second instantaneous turn rate with a sustained turn rate of 9°
4) Angle-of-attack maneuvering at greater than the 20° angle-of-attack
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6966
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: T-X Competition

Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:19 pm

Lockheed Martin is saying they're ready in case the USAF wants a clean-sheet design.....

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...-clean-sheet-t50-trainer/24438549/

Quote:
"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'."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:05 am

General Dynamics is out:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/bre...tx-t100-prime-cotnractor/70510320/

Quote:
WASHINGTON — General Dynamics Information Systems & Technology has withdrawn itself as the prime contractor on the T-100, the offering for the T-X trainer replacement program based on the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 design.

The decision, revealed in a company statement to Defense News, calls into question the future viability of the T-100 bid just a week after the Air Force released its final program requirements.

"General Dynamics Information Systems & Technology group reorganized its businesses effective the 1st of 2015," the statement reads, "and in the course of that reorganization has decided to discontinue pursuit of T-X as a prime contractor."

Alenia still wants to be part of the competition, and is weighing their options, including finding a new American prime contractor, or go it alone:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...-talks-with-new-tx-prime/70552708/
 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: T-X Competition

Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:43 am

I didnt know textron was throwing their hat in ring as well, this is one place the scorpion can shine
 
mmo
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:08 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 29):
this is one place the scorpion can shine

In light of the requirements, I think it will have a very hard time. The requirements are pretty specific to the point I don't think any existing aircraft can meet the specs or at least without a great deal of work. Just the A/R requirements along are fairly stringent and specific.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: T-X Competition

Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:06 pm

After seeing some of the T-X requirements it seems like the USAF wants to shift its training philosophy. It appears they want to move something things out of the formal training units and into the UPT curriculum which makes sense from a financial standpoint. 12 out 18 advanced pilot training tasks cannot be completed by the T-38 causing it to be done at the formal training units.

I like the fact the USN is getting involved as well, because this could end up saving the government big bucks. Officially the T-X is for the USAF but if manufacture can get the Navy on board it could an easy 2 for 1 deal.
 
trex8
Posts: 5554
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: T-X Competition

Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:04 pm

Could one of the primes use the Taiwan IDF as the basis for a submission? Maybe LM ditching T50 for its original Asian progeny or NG picking it up with its long hx in Taiwan? IIRC there was some "rule" that the US contractors back then had to abide by whereby they couldnt use the design work they did on the IDF on another product but its been years since then. A 21st century revamp of the IDF may be exactly what the TX needs. AIDC had plans for a IDF LIFT which never got anywhere.
 
thegman
Posts: 513
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:30 am

RE: T-X Competition

Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:21 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 31):
After seeing some of the T-X requirements it seems like the USAF wants to shift its training philosophy. It appears they want to move something things out of the formal training units and into the UPT curriculum which makes sense from a financial standpoint. 12 out 18 advanced pilot training tasks cannot be completed by the T-38 causing it to be done at the formal training units.I like the fact the USN is getting involved as well, because this could end up saving the government big bucks. Officially the T-X is for the USAF but if manufacture can get the Navy on board it could an easy 2 for 1 deal.

Time will tell if the UPT syllabus will change...

And IMO, the T-6 JPATS thing made it more difficult in some respects causing the Air Force syllabus and training manuals to include stuff USN does and USAF doesn't do. If you find the right people they will tell you about the strange quirks of the Texan II and talk your ear off about how it seemed the Navy took the reigns on the project and inflated the cost.
 
JohnM
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:42 pm

Quoting thegman (Reply 33):
it seemed the Navy took the reigns on the project and inflated the cost.

That's karma for what the USAF did to the Army with the C-27 program.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:31 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 31):
After seeing some of the T-X requirements it seems like the USAF wants to shift its training philosophy. It appears they want to move something things out of the formal training units and into the UPT curriculum which makes sense from a financial standpoint. 12 out 18 advanced pilot training tasks cannot be completed by the T-38 causing it to be done at the formal training units.

Combination of multiple factors.

As you mentioned, the T-38 Talon isn't capable of the high performance that the current fighter force is capable of. As such, often the twin seater versions of the F-15 and F-16 are used for more advanced training.

With the USAF reequipping itself with F-22's and F-35's which have no dual seat versions, some of the training has to be pushed back onto the advanced trainers. Currently, F-22 pilots have to be trained in the T-38 and then the F-16D before moving into the F-22.

Also, high fidelity simulators are starting to come online. This will reduce the need for pilots to fly in the aircraft and practice, as the simulator becomes more realistic. For example, with the F-35, pilot are being expected to spend closer to 60% of their training in a simulator compared to a trainee F-16 pilot that spends closer to 40%.

These newer simulators are also much more realistic and capable compared to older simulators; with the F-35's simulator, the simulator runs the same operational flight software and hardware as the real aircraft itself. The environment is projected on a 360 degree screen that surrounds the pilot without seams, adding to the realism. And for additional realism, the simulators can be networked together either in the same building, or around the world with other F-35 simulators so that pilots can all train against and with each other. In short, a F-35 unit at Eglin AFB can exercise with a F-35 unit at RAF Lakenheath, while a F-35 unit at Misawa will operate as OPFOR.

Quoting mmo (Reply 26):
But if you don't know the fundamentals of energy management then you will never make it.

That's the essence of the air combat. It's critical to make the lead turn count, and get on the enemy's rear for a shot quickly.

The F-5 and T-38 aggressor jets have nailed everything including F-22s with surprisingly regularity. The usual way is that the F-22 lets the T-38 get above them, and they can trade altitude for energy and get onto the F-22's tail.

Technology does change the game a bit; tests have been done with the existing fighters and equipping the pilots with JHMCS during ACM, and allowing them to fire off boresight. The results are extremely humbling for the bandits expecting a standard dogfight.

Quoting mmo (Reply 26):
4) Angle-of-attack maneuvering at greater than the 20° angle-of-attack

I will highlight this requirement which I believe is very important. More importance is being placed on high AoA capabilities, as both the F-22 and F-35 have extremely good high AoA capabilities.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:43 am

Imho this is turning into a very capable light fighter. An armed version could probably replace many F-16 in the Guard.
 
angad84
Posts: 2077
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:26 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 36):
Imho this is turning into a very capable light fighter. An armed version could probably replace many F-16 in the Guard.

Agreed. But isn't the ANG going to equip with F-35s the same as regular USAF?

Cheers
Angad
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:32 am

That is the official line, but if you look at the airframe hours of the F-16 fleet and the operational cost of the F-35, I do not believe that.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:01 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38):
That is the official line, but if you look at the airframe hours of the F-16 fleet and the operational cost of the F-35, I do not believe that.

The ANG also operates the F-22, F-15, and the F-16. The ANG is often drawn upon by the USAF to help plug gaps in their ORBAT during a conflict, and that requires the ANG to be flying aircraft that are comparable to the inventory of the USAF.

The ANG will get their F-35's, but only after the USAF has finished getting theirs. Otherwise, the ANG will get the best examples of the F-16 Block 40/42 and 50/52's from the USAF.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:26 am

The Guard will fly the F-35 without any doubt, but i still see the option for some wings getting the T-X as a light fighter. It would make more sense then extending the life of the F-16 again.

The most sensible option of buying more F-35 at a faster rate is sadly not being considered.
 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:17 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 36):
Imho this is turning into a very capable light fighter. An armed version could probably replace many F-16 in the Guard

There shouldn't be different equipment between active and reserve forces
 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: T-X Competition

Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:41 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 39):
The ANG will get their F-35's, but only after the USAF has finished getting theirs. Otherwise, the ANG will get the best examples of the F-16 Block 40/42 and 50/52's from the USAF.

I think guard/reserve units that support operation noble eagle will get F-35s alot sooner
 
INFINITI329
Topic Author
Posts: 2517
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: T-X Competition

Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:53 pm

where can the full list of the T-X requirements be found?
 
mmo
Posts: 2054
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: T-X Competition

Sat Apr 11, 2015 7:14 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 43):
where can the full list of the T-X requirements be found?

I started a thread about them the day they were released. Here they are...

T-X Requirements Released (by mmo Mar 19 2015 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 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