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

[yasotay]

Lowest cost, lowest risk wins 95% of the time. Unless it is real ugly, then the Air Force will get creative.

 

[NeilChapman]

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.

I agree. You don't put marble in the upstairs bathroom. I'd like to see a beautiful T-X airframe as well. The reality is that I'd rather see the money spent on an F-22 replacement. If the T-X program costs can be reduced then I'm all for it.

Of course, it will be great if it's inexpensive but also capable. I'm looking forward to seeing the capabilities of the NG design.

 

[AeroFranz]

Still don't get all the fuss about designs not being 'exciting'. Not incorporating 'cheap stealth' (there's an oxymoron if ever there was one!).
I repeat my question: can anyone point at a feature on these reputedly unexciting designs that in any way impairs their ability to meet the design requirements of the Air Force? Because that's the only thing that matters.

 

[marauder2048]

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 Outdated, a step backwards, however you want to call it.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?

The value of a winning clean-sheet design is the huge economies of scale and growth path from which any prospective export customer will benefit.

Let's step back for a moment: most of the pilots coming to T-X will have flown nothing more sophisticated than a high performance turboprop.

Now they'll be flying nearly twice as high and nearly twice as fast while at the same time learning how to cope with the strain of ACM while managing:

1. A helmet mounted display
2. HOBS weapons
3. AESA radar (A2A, SAR)
4. Defensive Systems
5. A Targeting pod
6. An Electronic Warfare pod
7. Future sensors and future offensive and defensive systems

Mastering all of the above is vital to survival and effectiveness in combat.

It's really unclear how a cool or futuristic outer mold line/ planform provides
any educational enhancement.

 

[kcran567]

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.

I agree. You don't put marble in the upstairs bathroom. I'd like to see a beautiful T-X airframe as well. The reality is that I'd rather see the money spent on an F-22 replacement. If the T-X program costs can be reduced then I'm all for it.

Of course, it will be great if it's inexpensive but also capable. I'm looking forward to seeing the capabilities of the NG design.

Whatever...technology should be in development (or already exists) to make air-frames more cheaply you guys sound like cheerleaders for the status quo lets pay these contractors a huge amount of money for more of the same, in fact the technology is stagnant. You think the TX contract is really going to be "doing more with less" I have a bridge I want to sell you. I don't buy you're argument that cutting edge needs to be necessarily more expensive. Were just buying the brand that they are offering without demanding more. And why cant the TX be cutting edge? Its supposed to train pilots for all sorts of scenarios well into 50 years from now. It should be a springboard for follow on aircraft and F-XX or whatever replaces the F-22. When you are one of the few remaining contractors around you can charge a premium for whatever is offered that is what the problem is, and also that these contractors have monopolies-There is no competition! Not so long ago there were 10x more aircraft manufacturers. Sure the Boeing TX might meet the requirements but there is no denying it isn't a step forward. Am skeptical of their claims at cheaper manufacturing as well, will be paying typical price for a similar aircraft before all said and done.

 

[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?

The value of a winning clean-sheet design is the huge economies of scale and growth path from which any prospective export customer will benefit.

Let's step back for a moment: most of the pilots coming to T-X will have flown nothing more sophisticated than a high performance turboprop.

Now they'll be flying nearly twice as high and nearly twice as fast while at the same time learning how to cope with the strain of ACM while managing:

1. A helmet mounted display
2. HOBS weapons
3. AESA radar (A2A, SAR)
4. Defensive Systems
5. A Targeting pod
6. An Electronic Warfare pod
7. Future sensors and future offensive and defensive systems

Mastering all of the above is vital to survival and effectiveness in combat.

It's really unclear how a cool or futuristic outer mold line/ planform provides
any educational enhancement.

"It's really unclear how a cool or futuristic outer mold line/ planform provides
any educational enhancement." quote...

Because Boeing is making a big issue that they are going to sell internationally and its obvious they had contact with Lockheed to make sure there was nothing to remotely compete internationally with the F-35. And this is an aircraft that will have to be around for 50 more years, it should be cutting edge and able to do realistic Aggressor training so that the aggressor mission doesn't just go to drones. It should be a manned real aircraft.

That's why the contractors and Air Force kept back pedaling and only focused on Trainer aspect when it should also have met export fighter requirements (the F-35 is too expensive to buy in numbers for all types of missions from many nations) and also a true Red Air 21st century viable aggressor aircraft. Missed opportunity to build something for 50 years from now.

 

[marauder2048]

"It's really unclear how a cool or futuristic outer mold line/ planform provides
any educational enhancement." quote...

Because Boeing is making a big issue that they are going to sell internationally and its obvious they had contact with Lockheed to make sure there was nothing to remotely compete internationally with the F-35.

So how far back does the collusion between Boeing and LM go? Does it post-date the F-15SE and Advanced Super Hornet?

Does the collusion extend to F-35 principal partners Northrop Grumman & BAE and their clean sheet T-X design?

 

[NeilChapman]

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.

I agree. You don't put marble in the upstairs bathroom. I'd like to see a beautiful T-X airframe as well. The reality is that I'd rather see the money spent on an F-22 replacement. If the T-X program costs can be reduced then I'm all for it.

Of course, it will be great if it's inexpensive but also capable. I'm looking forward to seeing the capabilities of the NG design.

Whatever...technology should be in development (or already exists) to make air-frames more cheaply you guys sound like cheerleaders for the status quo lets pay these contractors a huge amount of money for more of the same, in fact the technology is stagnant. You think the TX contract is really going to be "doing more with less" I have a bridge I want to sell you. I don't buy you're argument that cutting edge needs to be necessarily more expensive. Were just buying the brand that they are offering without demanding more. And why cant the TX be cutting edge? Its supposed to train pilots for all sorts of scenarios well into 50 years from now. It should be a springboard for follow on aircraft and F-XX or whatever replaces the F-22. When you are one of the few remaining contractors around you can charge a premium for whatever is offered that is what the problem is, and also that these contractors have monopolies-There is no competition! Not so long ago there were 10x more aircraft manufacturers. Sure the Boeing TX might meet the requirements but there is no denying it isn't a step forward. Am skeptical of their claims at cheaper manufacturing as well, will be paying typical price for a similar aircraft before all said and done.

I'm not sure what your argument is. The USAF is demanding more.

I happen to believe that the AF knows what they want. They know that managing data and battlefield awareness are probably more important than flying the airframe.

They want a 'shell' that is capable of x, y and z performance characteristics.
The electronics in that shell will be changing fairly frequently. That needs to be easy to do.
The pilots will be interacting with other systems - AirSea battle etc. - so simulated integration is important.
They want to practice refueling.

You can simulate the stealth capabilities by managing the sensor returns in the simulation software. It's not that complicated.

So to me, cutting edge, for T-X, means cutting edge in battlespace simulation software.
Cutting edge means an engine thats very inexpensive to operate and maintain.
Cutting edge means electronics that utilize an open systems architecture so upgrades are competitive and easy.
Cutting edge means minimizing corrosion problems
Cutting edge means quick turn-around times for aircraft.

The current training systems don't offer cutting edge battlespace simulation software
The F404 is well utilized in the military; lots of experience, very reliable and inexpensive to maintain.
The F-15, F-16, F-18 and F-22 do not utilize open systems architecture. Pain in the ass to upgrade.
About 40% of programed depot maintenance is corrosion related.
I'd be looking for mmh/fh of 3 or less and a mtbm of over 6h. Compared to existing airframes, these numbers are cutting edge.

 

[NeilChapman]

Because Boeing is making a big issue that they are going to sell internationally and its obvious they had contact with Lockheed to make sure there was nothing to remotely compete internationally with the F-35. And this is an aircraft that will have to be around for 50 more years, it should be cutting edge and able to do realistic Aggressor training so that the aggressor mission doesn't just go to drones. It should be a manned real aircraft.

Yeah...I don't buy it.

You don't think that LM wants to build T-50 in the US so it's available for foreign military sales dollars? There will be a TA-50 variant built in the US. They'll be competing head-to-head with Boeing/SAAB.

 

[marauder2048]

It's also slightly unclear just how big the export market for advanced Western trainers/light combat aircraft truly is.

LM/KAI were suggesting that the market potential (outside of Korea) for T-50/FA-50
was around 600+ aircraft through 2030.

Of that, the US was going to account for 400 aircraft.

If T-X and the LVC environment end up being as high fidelity and low cost as projected, I would think it
would be more cost effective for many of the Air Forces that would have been sales prospects
to just send their airmen to the US for advanced pilot training.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

By cutting corners you rob yourself of engineering input. By robbing yourself of engineering input you shrink your expertise. Expertise is a holy grail in industrial manufacturing, once you lose it , it`s gone forever. Japan is the king of industrial precision manufacturing for the sole reason they have kept their expertise intact. By outsourcing to third parties one can not remain a world leader in anything by any long term strategy. That is why top industrial companies will keep the engineering of most complex components to themselves. if Boeing wants to become a generic brand that just slaps logos on foreign brands they have a long way of dodo to go.

 

[TomS]

You're simply ignoring the fact that there is significant engineering expertise in these designs. It's just not in visible things like pseudo-LO shaping, it's in invisible things like producibility and system integration (especially links between aircraft and ground simulation and training). And frankly, the lesson that we should be learning from the last several major aircraft procurements in the US should be that we need to do much better at producibility, if we ever hope to manage cost escalation. "Bending the cost curve" sounds like jargon, but it's a real and important thing.

 

[kcran567]

Just don't see the cost curve changing until there is more competition and outside the corporate box innovation (which is not happening at the moment) there are not the # of aircraft manufacturers and competition like there was in the 1950's for example.

Also, a company like Boeing and Saab are not going to build anything more cheaply than they already are.

When I hint at collusion, come on we all know the big ones like Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc. "take turns" and are good at dividing up the competition so as to not step on each others' toes when it comes to the important contracts.

Hence a "de-tuned" uninspired TX from Boeing-Saab.

marauder2048 and NeilChapman I agree and you do a good job of explaining what the Air Force requirements are and that they expected this time, I'm just disapointed the clean sheet TXs were only slight improvements on existing competitors.

 

[NeilChapman]

Just don't see the cost curve changing until there is more competition and outside the corporate box innovation (which is not happening at the moment) there are not the # of aircraft manufacturers and competition like there was in the 1950's for example.

Also, a company like Boeing and Saab are not going to build anything more cheaply than they already are.

When I hint at collusion, come on we all know the big ones like Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, etc. "take turns" and are good at dividing up the competition so as to not step on each others' toes when it comes to the important contracts.

Hence a "de-tuned" uninspired TX from Boeing-Saab.

marauder2048 and NeilChapman I agree and you do a good job of explaining what the Air Force requirements are and that they expected this time, I'm just disapointed the clean sheet TXs were only slight improvements on existing competitors.

Public companies don't 'de-tune' to lose an opportunity. Boeing, having lost LRS-B and JSF is certainly not 'de-tuning'. My supposition is that LM and Boeing are both anticipating that what the AF is asking for is not what they really want. Further, Boeing and LM are positioning themselves to sell F or A variants to US overseas partners utilizing FMS $. They're expecting to win T-X and sell lots of the F/A overseas.

If anyone has a history of 'taking turns' it would be DoD. But those days are gone. When it's done today, it's above board, such as submarine production.

Perhaps I didn't articulate my point very well in my previous post. The 'wiz-bang' in T-X is not so much in the mold line of the airframe. Although NG has stated that they have been able to do some things differently with positive results. The USAF criteria for T-X is just not that ambitious. The 'wiz-bang' is in those items that increase costs over the lifetime of the program. It's also in the training systems integration - all that advancement in 'gaming' tech that we've had for the last 20 years.

New 'tech' takes years to get costs under control. T-X wants to minimize that exposure and get the job done.

You state that 'the clean sheet TXs were only slight improvements on existing competitors.' How do you know that? There's no information at all yet, other than looking at the airframes and the engines being used. Could be that Boeing/Saab or even NG have been able to do some transformational things with weight savings that wouldn't be exposed yet. Perhaps NG has done some things that gives them supercruise ability. We just don't know yet.

If the clean sheets can produce systems that
maintain an MC rate of 90% or better,
flight hour costs around 10k
and the new specified training tech...
I promise you, that would be transformational. A tremendous improvement on the existing competitors.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[Sundog]

Woohoo, NG finally unveiled their...logo? These guys just don't get it.

 

[NeilChapman]

Woohoo, NG finally unveiled their...logo? These guys just don't get it.

Man, I hope their using this time well and not sitting on their hands. It would be great if they're working on a 2nd iteration of N400NT. Perhaps a 2nd gen of N400NT to push the envelope of what they've learned w/gen 1.

 

[Talon_38C]

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.

It appears to have flown three times. All within a two week period after ASW published the initial story. I haven't seen since FlightRadar24.

 

[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.

It appears to have flown three times. All within a two week period after ASW published the initial story. I haven't seen since FlightRadar24.

Thanks!

What made you choose Talon_38 as your 'handle'? Love it btw!

 

[SpudmanWP]

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).

How'd that work out for the X-32

 

[sferrin]

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).

How'd that work out for the X-32

There's mildly ugly then there's, "okay, beer goggles and a paper bag aren't going to help that one".

 

[TomS]

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).

How'd that work out for the X-32

They didn't lose on looks. They lost (in part) because their VTOL performance was much worse than the X-35.

 

[sferrin]

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).

How'd that work out for the X-32

They didn't lose on looks. They lost (in part) because their VTOL performance was much worse than the X-35.

He was joking.

 

[Sundog]

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).

How'd that work out for the X-32

They didn't lose on looks. They lost (in part) because their VTOL performance was much worse than the X-35.

They lost mostly on that, since their design was actually faster and maneuverable than the X-35. So they were better at 2/3's of the requirements, but only really met those 2/3s of the requirements. They didn't meet the naval requirement, eventually, but that's because it changed during development.

 

[Moose]

I like the -32 despite its failings, but I think you're oversimplifying the plane's issues. At any rate, I don't see what's objectionable about the Boeing T-X's looks.

 

[ADVANCEDBOY]

Although X-32 might look somewhat eccentric and bizarre I consider it to be a very professional design. Even if it reminds me a pregnant whale. What was wrong was choosing only a sole winner for this program and allowing it to milk taxpayers money. Sustaining both programs ( x-32 and X-35 or even MDD contender for JSF) in manufacturing would be actually much cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run than using only one platform. Competition works much better than streamlining and unification.

 

[Sundog]

I like the -32 despite its failings, but I think you're oversimplifying the plane's issues. At any rate, I don't see what's objectionable about the Boeing T-X's looks.

There isn't anything objectionable about its looks, as I think it looks very sporty. I honestly don't understand the arguments of people who think it isn't advanced. From an engineering perspective, it's very advanced.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Although X-32 might look somewhat eccentric and bizarre I consider it to be a very professional design. Even if it reminds me a pregnant whale. What was wrong was choosing only a sole winner for this program and allowing it to milk taxpayers money. Sustaining both programs ( x-32 and X-35 or even MDD contender for ) in manufacturing would be actually much cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run than using only one platform. Competition works much better than streamlining and unification.

Let's see.... Double the development cost & loss of Economy of Scale.

btw, There is plenty of "competition" in the program as LM bids out the subcontracts and the Govt only lets them have a certain percentage of profit.

Don't forget the increased cost of having two of everything (supply chains, training regiments, CIP programs, upgrade cycles, etc) that the services will be burdened with.

 

[sferrin]

Although X-32 might look somewhat eccentric and bizarre I consider it to be a very professional design.

What is that even suppose to mean?

What was wrong was choosing only a sole winner for this program and allowing it to milk taxpayers money.

Sure, buying losing designs in the name of corporate welfare is good for the taxpayer. :

 

[marauder2048]

Popping back up to the T-X syllabus requirements: the Air Force envisions that the plurality of training (31%) will be
BFM which will consist mostly of transonic maneuvering (<= 0.9M) between 10,000 and 18,000 ft.

For those parameters and the CPFH/APUC/turn-around time/maintenance specs, the F-16 and F-18 planforms are probably Pareto optimal.

 

[NeilChapman]

Popping back up to the T-X syllabus requirements: the Air Force envisions that the plurality of training (31%) will be
BFM which will consist mostly of transonic maneuvering (<= 0.9M) between 10,000 and 18,000 ft.

For those parameters and the CPFH/APUC/turn-around time/maintenance specs, the F-16 and F-18 planforms are probably Pareto optimal.

You are referring to the LM and Boeing T-X airframes I take it. If the F-16 and F-18 planforms are efficient for the sum of the requirements then why the need for the afterburners? Is it the mass? Is it not possible to meet all the requirements w/o a wet engine? Or is it just S&G's (sh*ts&grins).

Afterburners for T-X seem like a huge pain in the tuckus. It's an extra 500lbs on your ass, capital and ops costs, maintenance etc.

 

[marauder2048]

Popping back up to the T-X syllabus requirements: the Air Force envisions that the plurality of training (31%) will be
BFM which will consist mostly of transonic maneuvering (<= 0.9M) between 10,000 and 18,000 ft.

For those parameters and the CPFH/APUC/turn-around time/maintenance specs, the F-16 and F-18 planforms are probably Pareto optimal.

You are referring to the LM and Boeing T-X airframes I take it. If the F-16 and F-18 planforms are efficient for the sum of the requirements then why the need for the afterburners? Is it the mass? Is it not possible to meet all the requirements w/o a wet engine? Or is it just S&G's (sh*ts&grins).

Afterburners for T-X seem like a huge pain in the tuckus. It's an extra 500lbs on your ass, capital and ops costs, maintenance etc.

Even NG's T-X looks like it could have a been an entrant to the LWF competition.
It's absolutely not a criticism but a recognition that planform design for the T-X flight regime @ cost is pretty heavily mined.

Meeting the takeoff and sortie time (amongst other) requirements may necessitate augmentation.

 

[bring_it_on]

From NG's Q3, 2016 conference call

Ronald Jay Epstein - Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Hey, yeah, good afternoon, guys. Just maybe a quick question, if we can circle back on some of the upcoming programs. So we were expecting to see, what, a T-X RFP final one come out sometime in December. If you could talk about that a little bit, and then maybe some other things you see on the horizon as potential opportunities for the company?

Wesley G. Bush - Northrop Grumman Corp. : Yeah, great. It is an interesting time, in that it's clear that there is a significant recapitalization wave that's underway across a number of our customer communities. And quite frankly, it's one that's been deferred for quite a long time. And so they're facing the need to address a number of, not only recapitalization of older existing assets, the trainer program is an example of that, but also the need to address what's going on around the globe in terms of the emergence of more aggressive threat profiles. And so there is a view to the future of new capabilities. I went through a little bit of that list in some of my prepared remarks, but let me just touch on some of the ones that have a lot of focus from us.

T-X is obviously a very interesting one, recapitalization of a significant fleet of aircraft for training. There are a number of competitors in this competition. And as you indicated, the Air Force is working on its sort of final round to come out with the RFP later this year. So we expect this to be quite an interesting competition and one that we're looking forward to participating in.

 

[NeilChapman]

Popping back up to the T-X syllabus requirements: the Air Force envisions that the plurality of training (31%) will be
BFM which will consist mostly of transonic maneuvering (<= 0.9M) between 10,000 and 18,000 ft.

For those parameters and the CPFH/APUC/turn-around time/maintenance specs, the F-16 and F-18 planforms are probably Pareto optimal.

You are referring to the LM and Boeing T-X airframes I take it. If the F-16 and F-18 planforms are efficient for the sum of the requirements then why the need for the afterburners? Is it the mass? Is it not possible to meet all the requirements w/o a wet engine? Or is it just S&G's (sh*ts&grins).

Afterburners for T-X seem like a huge pain in the tuckus. It's an extra 500lbs on your ass, capital and ops costs, maintenance etc.

Even NG's T-X looks like it could have a been an entrant to the LWF competition.
It's absolutely not a criticism but a recognition that planform design for the T-X flight regime @ cost is pretty heavily mined.

Meeting the takeoff and sortie time (amongst other) requirements may necessitate augmentation.

Would you (or anyone that might have insight) address the takeoff and sortie time (and whichever other) requirements might necessitate engine augmentation? My limited knowledge doesn't extend to this area.

Thanks!

 

[AeroFranz]

Engine augmentation increases the available thrust to weight ratio (T/W), so for performance parameters affected by T/W there is an improvement.
Notably: sustained turn rate, maximum speed (provided the aero shape is designed for it), anything related to acceleration (both in the air and on the ground). So, for example, the ground roll required to get to liftoff speed is reduced because the vehicle accelerates faster.

 

[bring_it_on]

T-X- Maintenance Training System (MTS) Request for Information

 

[bring_it_on]

I/ITSEC 2016: BOEING T-X SOLUTION ‘READY TO FLY’

Boeing’s solution for the US Air Force’s T-X advanced jet fighter trainer aircraft requirement is nearing its first flight, according to company officials at I/ITSEC 2016 in Orlando this week.

Briefing journalists on 29 November, Tom Conard, Director, Global Sales and Marketing and T-X Programme Capture Team Leader for Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said: “The T1 aircraft is ready to fly and we are looking for the first flight in the immediate future. In fact, the flight crews are training for that first flight in the ground based training system (GBTS) right now. The T-2 aircraft will be ready to fly early next year – so we are right at the conclusion of this phase of the risk reduction programme.”

Boeing’s solution from almost the start of the process has been to propose a system crafted exactly in line with the requirement as it has developed, according to Conard – despite the fact that at one point the USAF said it required an off the shelf rather than a developmental aircraft. Seen by many observers as a high-risk approach to winning the largest trainer aircraft programme in living memory (or for some decades to come, for that matter) conventional wisdom now seems to be grudgingly admiring. One long-time observer of the programme told Mönch today that, “Boeing may yet be vodicated: the runes are pointing towards their offering gaining traction in the minds of Those Who Matter.”

The USAF requirement alone amounts to 351 aircraft, Conard confirmed. It is not simply an aircraft, of course the GBTS and all the support, maintenance and logistics the fleet will require make this a potentially huge win for the selected contractor. And Boeing is determined to be that selectee.

https://vimeo.com/193730972

 

[bring_it_on]

Building Better Pilots:
Considerations to Ensure T-X Success
By Maj Gen Lawrence A. Stutzriem, USAF (Ret.)
Research Director, the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies
with Marc V. Schanz

 

[flateric]

...

 

[bobbymike]

Lockheed Regularly Flying Its T-X Entrant

—Brian Everstine 12/14/2016

Lockheed Martin’s entrant for the T-X program has been flying regularly around its new facility in South Carolina as the company tries to press the T-50A as a reliable aircraft for future Air Force training. The newest of the two T-50As built by Lockheed, the T-X2, has flown eight sorties for about eight flight hours of total flying time at a range near Greenville, S.C., test pilot Mark Ward said Tuesday. These include a basic functional check flight, and a series of sorties meant to show off the plane to visitors and to check out a training range at the Snowbird military operations area. Lockheed’s entry is based on the Korean Aerospace Industries T-50 Golden Eagle, and first flew in South Carolina last month. Lockheed has said the T-50 will have 80 percent commonality with the F-16’s design, and 70 percent commonality of parts. Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon are all in the running to build the next trainer for the Air Force, with a contract award expected next year and initial operating capability expected in 2024. The Air Force wants 350 of the aircraft and a high-fidelity simulator system, all bought and operated for $1 billion per year over 20 years.