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

[kcran567]

So evidently this thing is held together with adhesives, and "tools" are not being used according to Boeing: no fasteners, rivets, etc. I'm skeptical to say the least.
I'm sure when delivered it may work OK at first but what happens when it starts to delaminate due to combat stresses or if sitting in the hot desert sun.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/t-x-trainer-air-force-boeing


Some comments and observations:


"These processes enable Boeing to assemble the aircraft without any tools, Davis said."
And the Media was stupid enough to print it, or else it's made out of Play Dough.

....you don't get to define what is a tool and what isn't. I suppose Scotty beams them into place. The no tools used statement is utter BS.

they main airframe is glued together... the only tool is a caulking gun & clamps.
What they meant is a lack of fasteners , no rivet guns, wrenches, ratchets or hammers.

Just a big gluegun & clamps... also a drivethru autoclave

 

[TomS]

The actual quote was "no hard tooling" which mean something completely different from "without tools." It means none of the specially built dedicated stands and jigs we associate with a normal aircraft assembly line.

Just looking at the photos of the unpainted aircraft shows that your "no fasteners" rant is off the mark; there are rivets everywhere. In fact, Boeing has said that there is relatively little composite structure in the aircraft, though there are some complex shapes built using 3D printing.

 

[marauder2048]

Depending on how the election goes, 'American jobs' could be a deciding factor. Appearances might matter, especially against a Russo/Italian and South Korean design.

This is just silly. GAO alone sure as hell won't take "appearances" into account in evaluating the inevitable protest.

 

[kcran567]

The actual quote was "no hard tooling" which mean something completely different from "without tools." It means none of the specially built dedicated stands and jigs we associate with a normal aircraft assembly line.

Just looking at the photos of the unpainted aircraft shows that your "no fasteners" rant is off the mark; there are rivets everywhere. In fact, Boeing has said that there is relatively little composite structure in the aircraft, though there are some complex shapes built using 3D printing.

I honestly noticed all the rivets and fasteners too when looking at the pictures yesterday, thats why the press releases seemed misleading to me. And also very conventional looking design and materials. I'm guessing the NG-Scaled design is using much more composites but we will see.

 

[Sundog]

Boeing is going for top end performance with lower cost (Black Diamond).

Which is contradicted by:

The aircraft was designed to meet the "threshold" requirements for T-X, and if the Air Force does not give extra credit for capability beyond that, "we're going to win," Davis said.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2016/September%202016/Boeing-Unveils-Twin-Tail-T-X.aspx

So Northrop Grumman doesn't meet the threshold, since they use the same powerplant without an AB, much less the T-100 which doesn't use afterburners either? Non-sense. If you're just meeting the minimums, you don't need an AB. Boeing is thinking beyond T-X with this design and towards the aggressor side of the envelope. Either that, or Northrop Grumman is able to build an aircraft that is a hell of a lot more efficient than Boeing.

 

[fightingirish]

5 years ago...! :

Boeing's T-X four-post tail configuration shown in presentation at Dubai Air Show in September 2011

 

[marauder2048]

Compare:

Either that, or Northrop Grumman is able to build an aircraft that is a hell of a lot more efficient than Boeing.

While the twin tails are a weight and drag disadvantage ...

So Northrop Grumman doesn't meet the threshold, since they use the same powerplant without an AB, much less the T-100 which doesn't use afterburners either? Non-sense.

The spec has no preference for AB or non-AB; the threshold maneuvering specs were attainable by the non-AB A-4 Skyhawk.
For all we know, Boeing needs AB to meet the takeoff distance specs.

 

[CiTrus90]

Gotta say I was clearly wrong on the single vertical tail for the Boeing Saab T-X, but looking back at the leaked pictures it still seems the most reasonable assumption (but as the saying goes "assumption is the mother of all f***ups"). I suspect deliberate disinfo from the two companies, at this point. Well played.

Not surprising it doesn't sport anywhere the Saab logo, neither does the Raytheon T-100 with Leonardo (while, on the contrary, the Lockheed Martin T-50A does show the KAI logo).

Am I the only one worried by the fact that the landing gear of the Boeing-Saab T-X seems "small"? I mean, for a trainer aircraft, having the legs spread out a little more (mostly moving that front gear forward) would make it kinda easier to land, and reduce any flip-over risks. Looking at all 4 offers, it's the one with the smallest "footprint".

 

[Sundog]

B) #happyaviationday!

Yup. Now here's hoping Northrop Grumman PR doesn't go home early and puts up some high resolution pictures before the weekend

Not only did they go home early, apparently they're completely absent.

<i>Hey Bill, what the hell is going on over there? Haven't they learned anything about pushing their product in the last two decades? I'm not talking about pictures of flight crew with "cool" wording, either.</i>

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Is it too early to bet on Boeing? I'll go get some chips! B)

 

[NeilChapman]

B) #happyaviationday!

Yup. Now here's hoping Northrop Grumman PR doesn't go home early and puts up some high resolution pictures before the weekend

Not only did they go home early, apparently they're completely absent.

<i>Hey Bill, what the hell is going on over there? Haven't they learned anything about pushing their product in the last two decades? I'm not talking about pictures of flight crew with "cool" wording, either.</i>

I'm with you. It's ready early. It's flown. Get info out. Take it to an air show and wow some people. Show some 360-degree video of it flying through Death Valley. Do something!

Airplanes are never just about fuel consumption and operational costs. It's dreams, aspirations, speed!

Love watching this on my tablet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6SsB3JYqQg

 

[lantinian]

Love watching this on my tablet.

Indeed. I was showing this at work on an iPad yesterday and people were WOW.

 

[Trident]

All this time I felt the Boeing T-X strongly reminded me of some previous design, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Today I finally realized what it is:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,137.msg150751.html#msg150751

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27.msg22848.html#msg22848

So one could conclude that if the UTS competition is any indication regarding the outcome of T-X, the T-100 is gonna beat Boeing's design (though I guess it offers no clue as to the overall winner)

 

[kcran567]

Uninstalled TVC paddles for Northrop TX? Probably not but just an observation.

Nozzle has that curved triangular shape similar to X-31.

 

[FighterJock]

All this time I felt the Boeing T-X strongly reminded me of some previous design, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Today I finally realized what it is:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,137.msg150751.html#msg150751

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27.msg22848.html#msg22848

So one could conclude that if the UTS competition is any indication regarding the outcome of T-X, the T-100 is gonna beat Boeing's design (though I guess it offers no clue as to the overall winner)

I think that it depends on what the USAF requirement is, whether it is for subsonic or supersonic. It is still too early to say.

 

[Moose]

Uninstalled TVC paddles for Northrop TX? Probably not but just an observation.

Nozzle has that curved triangular shape similar to X-31.

Not much chance of that, I think. It is possible that they're reserving space/weight for a rather more standard AB nozzle, but 3D TVC seems like a huge stretch

 

[Trident]

All this time I felt the Boeing T-X strongly reminded me of some previous design, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Today I finally realized what it is:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,137.msg150751.html#msg150751

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,27.msg22848.html#msg22848

So one could conclude that if the UTS competition is any indication regarding the outcome of T-X, the T-100 is gonna beat Boeing's design (though I guess it offers no clue as to the overall winner)

I think that it depends on what the USAF requirement is, whether it is for subsonic or supersonic. It is still too early to say.

Of course. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

 

[NeilChapman]

Is this an overview of the NG N400NT first flight?

https://planefinder.net/flight/N400NT/time/2016-09-02T14:30:00%20UTC

 

[gtg947h]

Love watching this on my tablet.

I saw that exact demo in real life ;D It was the last practice session before the public airshow the next day; airport tenants got a private showing of sorts and my dad keeps his airplane there, so we went.


Back on topic, reuse of landing gear could save a lot of money, even if it's a bit oversized.

Advanced assembly and manufacturing methods can really bring down your production cost... but they can be a real pain in the rear to repair.

It really does look like they resurrected the BD-10

 

[kcran567]

it really looks like mini-F18 now..., strange landing gear, but looks more like full scale fighter. I wonder there was any of this configuration studied during F-16 / YF-17 evolution....

I think the SR-10 trainer from Russia looks very much like a mini (but single tail, forward swept) super hornet or f-18, much more than the Boeing TX does.

 

[martinbayer]

Apart from the inlet position, the EM-10 Bielik is an even closer match: http://stefenelli.com/bielik/new%20concept-02.pdf

Martin

 

[bring_it_on]

Despite the posturing, Air Force officials say the T-X competition will likely come down to something far less glamorous than mysterious trailers or high-G maneuvers: the price tag.

When choosing the industry team that will build 350 T-X aircraft to train the next generation of pilots, the service will weight affordability much more heavily than exceeding performance requirements, Air Education and Training Command (AETC) chief Lt. Gen. Darryl Roberson tells Aviation Week.Air Force is focused on getting an affordable T-X

High performance is incentivized but will not have a significant impact on the outcome

Latest Air Force thinking aligns with Boeing-Saab team’s approach

T-X program office will likely issue one more draft RFP before releasing a final version in December

“Affordability is one of the primary factors we are looking for,” Roberson said during an interview at the AFA conference. “Affordability overall is going to have a much bigger impact than the difference between threshold and objective performance.”

“The No. 1 mission is to meet the threshold requirements of the Air Force advanced pilot training,” Boeing Phantom Works President Darryl Davis told reporters after the rollout ceremony— an approach that aligns precisely with Roberson’s comments to Aviation Week. “If you are going to control cost, you have to drive how you actually meet all those requirements,” Davis said.

By contrast, Lockheed Martin and its partner, Korea Aerospace Systems, seem to be betting that the Air Force will ultimately pick a low-risk, high-performance T-X. The T-50As have proven in flight testing that they easily meet the service’s objective performance requirements for the T-X, with a maximum G-capability of 8, sustained G-capability of 7.5 and 25-deg. angle of attack, Lockheed’s chief T-50A test pilot, Mark Ward, said during AFA.......


The Air Force is certainly pushing for a high-performance T-X because leaders want the new fleet of trainers to replicate the capabilities of the F-35s and F-22s future pilots will fly, Roberson acknowledges. “The closer that we can get training-wise to replicating that fifth-generation environment, the more comfortable we are going to feel turning somebody loose for the first time on an airplane like that,” he says.

But the way the RFP is structured, contractors stand to win a total of $388 million in performance incentives, Roberson points out—just 2% of the estimated $16.3 billion T-X program. This is likely not a large enough amount to have a significant impact on the outcome of the competition, he says.

http://aviationweek.com/platforms-propulsion/affordability-trumps-performance-air-force-trainer-race

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

I missed the rollout of Boeing`s T-X. ( missed not in a sense of yearning) On the contrary to the nice CGI I had seen before they have rolled out a mere disappointment , at least for me. I have a haunting feeling that they have cut the corners . The canopy and front section looks extremely obsolete as if taken from an old aircraft. So what is going on there? Is it some Saab`s old canopy? Or Saab designed the rear part ( unique element) and then shipped to the US where Boeing attached some `vintage nosejob`?

 

[TomS]

I missed the rollout of Boeing`s T-X. ( missed not in a sense of yearning) On the contrary to the nice CGI I had seen before they have rolled out a mere disappointment , at least for me. I have a haunting feeling that they have cut the corners . The canopy and front section looks extremely obsolete as if taken from an old aircraft. So what is going on there? Is it some Saab`s old canopy? Or Saab designed the rear part ( unique element) and then shipped to the US where Boeing attached some `vintage nosejob`?

People seem really confused about what T-X is supposed to be. It's a fairly basic performance requirement and a demanding cost target. Why do people keep expecting it to be some super whiz-bang advanced technology design?

Look, basic aerodynamics haven't changed much in the last few decades. Without special needs like stealth or low-boom supersonic flight, the general shape of aircraft in well-known flight regimes like this aren't going to change much.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

Boeing is a Tier1 airframe designer and we expect nothing but alpha designs. They could have designed the front section at least as good as EADS Mako, bu they didn`t. I wonder if Boeing hasn`t bled too much expertise due to outsourcing and is even able to come up with solid designs in house. I hope I am wrong. Also, aerodynamic laws don`t make an airplane look like it made a maiden flight in late 60ies. I refuse to call it a new airplane; it is a patchwork. The same way I refuse to call 525 a new helicopter.

 

[marauder2048]

Keep in mind that the US Air Force's cost incentives for meeting/exceeding the non-kinematic objective requirements (e.g. AAR, Turn-around-time, Terrain Avoidance etc) are greater than the cost incentives for meeting/exceeding the high AoA + High-G maneuvering objective requirements.

 

[TomS]

Boeing is a Tier1 airframe designer and we expect nothing but alpha designs. They could have designed the front section at least as good as EADS Mako, bu they didn`t. I wonder if Boeing hasn`t bled too much expertise due to outsourcing and is even able to come up with solid designs in house. I hope I am wrong. Also, aerodynamic laws don`t make an airplane look like it made a maiden flight in late 60ies. I refuse to call it a new airplane; it is a patchwork. The same way I refuse to call 525 a new helicopter.

Boeing's designers know that their job is to deliver the specified performance at the desired cost. Looks aren't a factor. Only amateurs judge a plane by how "alpha" it looks (whatever that may mean).

 

[AeroFranz]

Exactly what aspect of the Boeing design is sub-par? can you point to something specific and tie to performance, or is it just a matter of looks?

 

[F-14D]

Keep in mind that the US Air Force's cost incentives for meeting/exceeding the non-kinematic objective requirements (e.g. AAR, Turn-around-time, Terrain Avoidance etc) are greater than the cost incentives for meeting/exceeding the high AoA + High-G maneuvering objective requirements.

...and as a recent article pointed out (I can't remember if it was in Avweek or Flight), the incentives are minuscule relative to the size of the expected contract. In other words, while they could tip the balance in an extremely close evaluation, from a business point of view it makes much more sense to insure you meet the minimum requirements at the lowest cost than to offer a good deal more performance at higher cost. That may very well be Boeing's strategy.

 

[marauder2048]

Keep in mind that the US Air Force's cost incentives for meeting/exceeding the non-kinematic objective requirements (e.g. AAR, Turn-around-time, Terrain Avoidance etc) are greater than the cost incentives for meeting/exceeding the high AoA + High-G maneuvering objective requirements.

...and as a recent article pointed out (I can't remember if it was in Avweek or Flight), the incentives are minuscule relative to the size of the expected contract. In other words, while they could tip the balance in an extremely close evaluation, from a business point of view it makes much more sense to insure you meet the minimum requirements at the lowest cost than to offer a good deal more performance at higher cost. That may very well be Boeing's strategy.

AvWeek missed some of the subtleties: to meet the threshold for some of the requirements you have to demonstrate (analytically) a growth path to meeting the objective.
Meeting the objective is demonstrated through flight testing, the results of which tend to be (rightly or wrongly) regarded as more convincing than analytical methods.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/clean-sheet-t-x-designs-stir-up-excitement-but-face-uphill-battle

Has the T-100 had an official rollout yet? It's rather interesting that what's essentially a Yak-130 derivative is competing for the USAF T-X. It would be quite amusing if the RuAF and USAF end up using similar trainers.

Then again, let's see how the competition between an underaged F-16, underaged F-18, T-38 update, and Yak-130 spinoff plays off.

 

[kcran567]

I missed the rollout of Boeing`s T-X. ( missed not in a sense of yearning) On the contrary to the nice CGI I had seen before they have rolled out a mere disappointment , at least for me. I have a haunting feeling that they have cut the corners . The canopy and front section looks extremely obsolete as if taken from an old aircraft. So what is going on there? Is it some Saab`s old canopy? Or Saab designed the rear part ( unique element) and then shipped to the US where Boeing attached some `vintage nosejob`?

I said the same thing a few posts back. All the secrecy, all the hype of Boeing and Saab partnership and the letdown...of a 30 year old obsolete looking design. No innovation or look or a "future" trainer to be used 50 years in the future.

And all the secrecy to HIDE the UNBELIEVABLE FEATURE OF...TWIN TAILS!!!

 

[kcran567]

I missed the rollout of Boeing`s T-X. ( missed not in a sense of yearning) On the contrary to the nice CGI I had seen before they have rolled out a mere disappointment , at least for me. I have a haunting feeling that they have cut the corners . The canopy and front section looks extremely obsolete as if taken from an old aircraft. So what is going on there? Is it some Saab`s old canopy? Or Saab designed the rear part ( unique element) and then shipped to the US where Boeing attached some `vintage nosejob`?

People seem really confused about what T-X is supposed to be. It's a fairly basic performance requirement and a demanding cost target. Why do people keep expecting it to be some super whiz-bang advanced technology design?

Look, basic aerodynamics haven't changed much in the last few decades. Without special needs like stealth or low-boom supersonic flight, the general shape of aircraft in well-known flight regimes like this aren't going to change much.

Even with aerodynamics "being the same as it was 20 years ago"
You would think a super team like Boeing Saab could have come up with something more representative of a design for the future (much like the T-38 was when it was first developed).

For such a big contract the design looks obsolete to train 21st century pilots well into 50 years from now. Was expecting something like a 2-seat Bird of Prey with advanced manufacturing techniques.
(Just using BOP as an example of innovation before anyone gets upset).
Why not go for something more advanced so as to train for Red Air, or to sell as international low cost fighter (F-5 for future) with some stealth features. How are they going to simulate that? They really "de-tuned" the TX to say the least. Maybe Lockheed had some influence on other contractors as to not having anything that could cheaply compete with the F-35 on the international marked is the real reason for such obsolete TX designs.

And why does basic stealth shaping of an aircraft have to cost Billions? the Germans were doing it at the end of WWII when all they had available was wood for air frames and carbon paint.

 

[NeilChapman]

I'm getting irritated with NG. Been waiting all summer for the latest "Inside Aerospace" to come out and - of course - they wait until October to release it.

Are there any "goodies" in there about N400NT? Nooooooo Just this goofy ad.

Their killing me. Has anybody heard anything? It doesn't even look like it's flown again.

 

[Sundog]

Aerodynamics of the future aren't any different than aerodynamics of the past. They (the contractors) could have gone with a tailless high T/W ratio powerplant using the latest propulsion technologies to make a very small design and they would have lost massively.

Why do the fan boys want our aerospace companies to lose contracts because their designs are created to meet the requirements instead of "Flash Gordon" expectations of the future? I've said it damn near a million times so I'll say it one more time; The mission requirements define the aircraft, not the other way around.

 

[Sundog]

I'm getting irritated with NG. Been waiting all summer for the latest "Inside Aerospace" to come out and - of course - they wait until October to release it.

Are there any "goodies" in there about N400NT? Nooooooo Just this goofy ad.

Their killing me. Has anybody heard anything? It doesn't even look like it's flown again.

Yeah, Northrop's ability to promote itself is amazingly lame.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

"For such a big contract the design looks obsolete to train 21st century pilots well into 50 years from now. Was expecting something like a 2-seat Bird of Prey with advanced manufacturing techniques".
Bingo! I totally agree with you. Solid design shows one`s ability to hire the best from the best. If you think your avionics and equipment is top notch I would expect the design input to be at the same level. The United States is a leader in military aircraft design and we expect nothing but stellar and consistent quality in design execution. By counting beans and cutting corners you show your weakness and inability to come up with the best solutions, especially, considering the T-X is a long term program spanning at least for the next 50 years. I really doubt guys at ATI would sit around the mock-up of T-X and say what a great job we did, we stuck and old nose on this one and saved a bunch of industrial clay.
When Sikorsky-Boeing rolled out Comanche that was a solid design throughout. It was a breakthrough and from every aspect it beat Apache in design execution. That is how you design choppers.( At least exterior-wise.) When Lockheed-Martin rolled out F-35 that was a breakthrough and a solid design throughout. In my humble opinion it is the best fuselage design in aircraft history. They have managed to create a very complex design without ruining it. I would say it has German -like attention to design details. Of course, was I 12 years old I would instantly vote F-23 as the best design ever
Another problem is Boeing was misleading us. They spread these wild CGIs with really solid designs, no one could suspect them of using `vintage nose jobs` in real life to save pennies. Well, unless you read a history about 737. Another issue is they promised it to be a clean sheet design, unfortunately I see skidmarks on this clean sheet.
If US can lead the pack in UAVs , in fighter aircraft, in VTOLs why can`t they do it in trainer jets?
If General Atomics can roll out an alpha beast Avenger, Bell can roll out a very solid Valor, Northrop-Grumman can release a top notch X-47B why can`t Boeing lead the pack by keeping its promise- a goddamned clean sheet design?

 

[kcran567]

Yes, thanks Advancedboy definitely a disappointment. There was a lot more potential for the TX clean sheet designs that won't be realized. Outdated, a step backwards, however you want to call it. The whole point of good design is to move the technology forward. These clean sheet designs especially the Boeing Saab, are barely different from current (m-346, Korea T-50) and their value as a threat trainer or export aircraft in a world that technology is improving so fast?

 

[cluttonfred]

While I like cool stuff as much as the next person, I am surprised by all these negative reactions to a competition to produce a trainer on a relatively tight budget. If the USAF or anybody else is actually being a good steward of the taxpayers' money and trying to do more with less, why should that be a bad thing? If anything, the one argument I would use is that the T-38 Talon has been in service more than 50 years, so its successor might aspire to similar longevity and therefore require great upgradablity and modularity to pave the way for long life. That would be a real innovation.

 

[TomS]

In terms of Boeing's T-X, one of the major claimed innovations is in manufacturing. If the changes claimed in the marketing material pan out (no standing hard tooling, major reduction in touch labor for assembly), that right there is a massive advance in aircraft manufacturing.