T-X Trainer - Boeing T-7A Red Hawk

Saab's Facebook just posted a short clip of their taxi testing.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1425374817503214&id=206280006079374&fs=1&ref=m_notif&notif_t=like :)

Also available on Boeing's website.

http://www.boeing.com/defense/t-x/index.page#/video-player/boeing-t-x-taxi-test
 
And what kind of pre-April-joke is this ???

http://aviationweek.com/defense/sierra-nevada-corptai-team-offer-freedom-trainer-t-x

Sierra Nevada Corp./TAI Team To Offer Freedom Trainer For T-X

Dec 16, 2016 James Drew | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) and Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) are betting that the U.S. Air Force is seeking a fuel-efficient advanced pilot trainer to succeed the outdated Northrop T-38 Talon, like the one the companies plan to offer. With the spotlight shining on the major primes until now, the two businesses have quietly set up shop in Centennial, Colorado, as Freedom Aircraft Ventures LLC, to develop a lightweight, all-composite trainer powered by two business jet-class ...
Click to expand...
 
https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/809825182516998144

No joke..

TAI is working new aircraft also called T-X to replace TurAF's 55 T-38Ms since 2013. TAI had several conceptual design for the project. The airctaft has already a buyer Turkey with more than 60 aircraft.


Taiwan also co-operate with SNC for their project
 
ocay said:
...
Taiwan also co-operate with SNC for their project
Click to expand...


Interesting & THANKs ... Do You have any more information on this cooperation with Taiwan ? Is it also for a trainer ? ... or for a small fighter?

Deino
 
"....Despite the 'indigenous' requirement, the NCSIST and AIDC have already reached out to US-based Sierra Nevada Corporation for a possible co-design deal, according to local defence industry sources. Sierra Nevada did not respond for comment..."

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/taiwan-jet-trainer-delayed-10-years/

For Taiwan XAT-5 Project to replace AT-3 Trainer; SNC will provide techincal assitance.

Here is inital designs of XAT-5 and inital design of Turkish TAI T-X, they want very similar design and similar number of platform. But recent "Freedom Trainer" could be common solution
 

Attachments

  • TAI T-X.jpg
    TAI T-X.jpg
    35.3 KB · Views: 542
  • Taiwan XAT-5.jpg
    Taiwan XAT-5.jpg
    120 KB · Views: 536
  • XAT-5.jpg
    XAT-5.jpg
    53.7 KB · Views: 527
  • SNC-TAI Freedom Trainer.jpg
    SNC-TAI Freedom Trainer.jpg
    104.8 KB · Views: 526
CiTrus90 said:
The silence from Northrop is deafening...
Click to expand...

Given how difficult it is to dislodge incumbents (NG is both on the trainer and LVC/DMON)
I don't think NG is overly concerned with a PR blitz.
 
Deino said:
And what kind of pre-April-joke is this ???

http://aviationweek.com/defense/sierra-nevada-corptai-team-offer-freedom-trainer-t-x
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing anyone in this team that can deliver the integrated ground training and simulation capability that T-X needs. The aircraft is only part of the project.
 
marauder2048 said:
CiTrus90 said:
The silence from Northrop is deafening...
Click to expand...

Given how difficult it is to dislodge incumbents (NG is both on the trainer and LVC/DMON)
I don't think NG is overly concerned with a PR blitz.
Click to expand...

Well, just writing a couple of lines with a picture of N400NT saying that they have already done taxi tests and a first flight wouldn't really be a huge PR marketing effort.
It's not like they should be challenging LockMart or Boeing-Saab on that field, but at least they should say something.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
 
Is there really going to be a need to train pilots this far into the future when drones are mooted as a replacement and the F-35 suggested as the last manned fighter in the USA?
 
Foo Fighter said:
and the F-35 suggested as the last manned fighter in the USA?
Click to expand...
by whom?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.0.html
 
Foo Fighter said:
Is there really going to be a need to train pilots this far into the future when drones are mooted as a replacement and the F-35 suggested as the last manned fighter in the USA?
Click to expand...

Don't count your chickens etc.
 
This just in.... the Boeing TX just went airborne!

http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/12/20/boeing-t-x-takes-flight/
 

Attachments

  • C0Is4XwVEAAjxXg.jpg
    C0Is4XwVEAAjxXg.jpg
    47.1 KB · Views: 471
XP67_Moonbat said:
This just in.... the Boeing TX just went airborne!

http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/12/20/boeing-t-x-takes-flight/
Click to expand...

Looking good! B)
 
You can see video of ithe flight at the Boeing T-X web site.
 
Really nice plane, would be a waste if it doesn't get a very cheap combat aircraft variant as well in the near future. Hopefully Boeing would be willing to sell it to any western-aligning country.
 
Good Day All -

I made it up to catch the maiden flight of the Boeing-SAAB T-X. Good looking aircraft and interesting to see it with the Boeing chase T-38s - gave it some scale and not as small as I thought it appeared in the Boeing-SAAB promotional images/videos. Apparently the first flight was a stellar one as they are planning on three more flights before Christmas and #2 will fly right after the first of the year.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zMG_8756.jpg
    zMG_8756.jpg
    380.3 KB · Views: 121
  • zMG_8741.jpg
    zMG_8741.jpg
    414.2 KB · Views: 122
  • zMG_8735.jpg
    zMG_8735.jpg
    93.2 KB · Views: 118
  • zMG_1488.jpg
    zMG_1488.jpg
    290 KB · Views: 123
  • zMG_1454.jpg
    zMG_1454.jpg
    289.5 KB · Views: 125
  • zMG_1411.jpg
    zMG_1411.jpg
    771.7 KB · Views: 314
  • zMG_1367.jpg
    zMG_1367.jpg
    314.3 KB · Views: 329
  • zMG_1336.jpg
    zMG_1336.jpg
    326.4 KB · Views: 329
  • zMG_1333.jpg
    zMG_1333.jpg
    719.8 KB · Views: 349
flateric said:
Foo Fighter said:
and the F-35 suggested as the last manned fighter in the USA?
Click to expand...
by whom?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.0.html
Click to expand...

The statement was made by someone I took to be a company rep in a program about the competition for this aircraft. Not sure but I think it was linked from this site.
 
Foo Fighter said:
flateric said:
Foo Fighter said:
and the F-35 suggested as the last manned fighter in the USA?
Click to expand...
by whom?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.0.html
Click to expand...

The statement was made by someone I took to be a company rep in a program about the competition for this aircraft. Not sure but I think it was linked from this site.
Click to expand...

A lot of people made statements like that in the early stages of F-35 development, when there was a lot of excitement about UCAVs replacing manned aircraft for all roles. But I think that's faded quite a bit recently. Strike may end up going more to UAVs, but no one is making much progress on UAVs for air combat, yet. Witness the fact that both the USAF and USN have (early) programs for next-generation manned air-superiority fighters.
 
Great picture to compare the designs. Then and now.
 

Attachments

  • zMG_1367.jpg
    zMG_1367.jpg
    314.3 KB · Views: 144
The one on the left looks like something from Pixar's "Planes". It's strange how much more chunky it is than the T-38.
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Good Day All -

I made it up to catch the maiden flight of the Boeing-SAAB T-X. Good looking aircraft and interesting to see it with the Boeing chase T-38s - gave it some scale and not as small as I thought it appeared in the Boeing-SAAB promotional images/videos. Apparently the first flight was a stellar one as they are planning on three more flights before Christmas and #2 will fly right after the first of the year.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing those! Yeah, the huge canopy is deceptive - with people inside you realize how big it and the entire aircraft are.
 
Engine size and frontal area accounts for some of the increased cross section in the aft end - the T-38 spreads that out laterally with the two smaller engines.

I'm curious what the fuel burn is for a F404 vs. two J85 with burners. Would guess that is part of the reason for more volume plus some growth factor for other potential missions.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
is that narrow track landing gear (much compared with T-38) won't be a safety issue to trainee pilots?, Looks like only NGC plane has ample room for 'landing mistakes'....
 
TomS said:
Foo Fighter said:
flateric said:
Foo Fighter said:
and the F-35 suggested as the last manned fighter in the USA?
Click to expand...
by whom?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.0.html
Click to expand...

The statement was made by someone I took to be a company rep in a program about the competition for this aircraft. Not sure but I think it was linked from this site.
Click to expand...

A lot of people made statements like that in the early stages of F-35 development, when there was a lot of excitement about UCAVs replacing manned aircraft for all roles. But I think that's faded quite a bit recently. Strike may end up going more to UAVs, but no one is making much progress on UAVs for air combat, yet. Witness the fact that both the USAF and USN have (early) programs for next-generation manned air-superiority fighters.
Click to expand...

That and the Air Force dropped out of the UCAV/J-UCAS effort to focus on an optionally unmanned strategtic bomber while the Navy just dropped the ball on UCLASS.

For a good account of the latter, two Air Force PhDs set out to determine how/why the Navy botched it so badly.

"Innovation Lost: The Tragedy of UCLASS" by Turner and Wickert. Because it does explore some of the training/manning implications, I'll attach it here.
 

Attachments

  • turner_m.pdf
    588.9 KB · Views: 50
Mark Nankivil said:
Engine size and frontal area accounts for some of the increased cross section in the aft end - the T-38 spreads that out laterally with the two smaller engines.

I'm curious what the fuel burn is for a F404 vs. two J85 with burners. Would guess that is part of the reason for more volume plus some growth factor for other potential missions.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Click to expand...

That and the stagger of the two seats, forward visibility (and head room, going by the profile shots) for the instructor ought to be vastly improved.

It (and the other T-X contenders) is/are also required to provide abilities that the T-38 never had, e.g. a refueling receptacle.
 
doolyii said:
is that narrow track landing gear (much compared with T-38) won't be a safety issue to trainee pilots?, Looks like only NGC plane has ample room for 'landing mistakes'....
Click to expand...

And why is it so tall? Are they going to put some big stores on there?
 
The canopy is certainly deceiving. It is quite a bit bigger than I'd imagined given the Talon.

sferrin said:
The one on the left looks like something from Pixar's "Planes". It's strange how much more chunky it is than the T-38.
Click to expand...

Did not think that before, but now that you've said it ...
 
May be requirement is not clear enough.. I see two purpose built trainer proposals and two dual purpose full fledged light weight high performance fighters..one existing and one clean sheet.. If history is any lesson, USAF will pick high risk/low risk at each group ? (FA50 and NGC or TX and Raytheon)... it's very confusing design proposals..
 
MZ, the landing gear is stock F-16 so that should not be an issue in terms of handling. Also helps on the equipment/support side when it comes to the proposal.

Canopy depth on the T-X is far more than the T-38 - really adds to the "big" look. Look at the landing shots for the T-X and the T-38 and see how much lower the crew sits in the T-38 cockpit tub.

Packaging wise, the T-X is pretty compact when you realize the gear geometry and location, the size of the F404 and how you need to fair it all in to make the fuselage. I see what look to be air refueling marks on the upper aft fuselage - if adding the capability doesn't mess with the lines, it appears to be a tidier installation than the T-50's hunchbacked approach.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
TomS said:
Foo Fighter said:
flateric said:
Foo Fighter said:
and the F-35 suggested as the last manned fighter in the USA?
Click to expand...
by whom?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.0.html
Click to expand...

The statement was made by someone I took to be a company rep in a program about the competition for this aircraft. Not sure but I think it was linked from this site.
Click to expand...

A lot of people made statements like that in the early stages of F-35 development, when there was a lot of excitement about UCAVs replacing manned aircraft for all roles. But I think that's faded quite a bit recently. Strike may end up going more to UAVs, but no one is making much progress on UAVs for air combat, yet. Witness the fact that both the USAF and USN have (early) programs for next-generation manned air-superiority fighters.
Click to expand...

Thanks, good to know.
 
mz said:
doolyii said:
is that narrow track landing gear (much compared with T-38) won't be a safety issue to trainee pilots?, Looks like only NGC plane has ample room for 'landing mistakes'....
Click to expand...

And why is it so tall? Are they going to put some big stores on there?
Click to expand...

When watching the video "ready for its close up" I realized the first time how tall the whole aircraft is!

http://www.boeing.com/defense/t-x/index.page#/video-player/boeing-t-x-ready-for-its-close-up
 

Attachments

  • TX.JPG
    TX.JPG
    113.2 KB · Views: 637
yasotay said:
Great picture to compare the designs. Then and now.
Click to expand...

Looks like it would be significantly more expensive to operate than a T-38, if mass equates to cost per flying hour.
 
sferrin said:
The one on the left looks like something from Pixar's "Planes". It's strange how much more chunky it is than the T-38.
Click to expand...

Boy, it does, doesn't it?

3023476.png
 
NeilChapman said:
yasotay said:
Great picture to compare the designs. Then and now.
Click to expand...

Looks like it would be significantly more expensive to operate than a T-38, if mass equates to cost per flying hour.
Click to expand...

For designs of such radically different vintage, does it though? Bit like a 707 vs. a 787.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom