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."

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.

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?   

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.

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

Video here.....    .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQhFJjgWWq0

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

We will call it... "Quasimodo"

:D

Cheers
A

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

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


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?

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.

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?

may press T-X into service as an aggressor later on

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.

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?

What is the timeframe for this competition? We have a number of prototypes in existence and a number to go.

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.

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.

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?.....


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


http://images.gizmag.com/gallery_lrg/41 ... 572214.jpg

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

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



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

It looks very similar to the SAAB 38 concept:


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

I think this will come down between Boeing and Lockheed.

VSMUT wrote:

It looks very similar to the SAAB 38 concept:


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

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

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

https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/stat ... 4777556992
https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status ... 8747707392

KarelXWB wrote:

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

https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/stat ... 4777556992
https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status ... 8747707392

Interesting - similar to the Textron Scorpion, but different enough not to be related.

Looks very nice! If all goes well we can perhaps see it in the sky here in Sweden aswell

Few close-up photos:

https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status ... 8762398720

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.....


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


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.....


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.....



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

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

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.

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?

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.....



http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... -c-427166/

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

Talking about thrust is all well and good, but we need weights before we can really determine anything...

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

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


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

Devilfish wrote:

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

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

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

Devilfish wrote:

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

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

Acheron wrote:

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

Yeah, but minus the canards.....




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.

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/

Suddenly the T-100 is the best looking contender.

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.

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

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?

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

https://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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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... ...


http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/34 ... -34199.jpg

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.

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

workshare?