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

[Triton]

Model of BAE Systems/Northrop Grumman Hawk AJTS

Source:
http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/09/six-planes-industry-wants-dod-and-other-militaries-to-buy/

 

[Triton]

Model of Alenia Aermacchi/General Dynamics T-100

Source:
http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/09/six-planes-industry-wants-dod-and-other-militaries-to-buy/

 

[Stargazer]

Model of BAE Systems/Northrop Grumman Hawk AJTS

I find it odd, given the history of McDonnell Douglas with the U.S. production of the T-45 Goshawk, that this new Hawk derivative should be proposed by Northrop Grumman and not Boeing...

 

[Triton]

I find it odd, given the history of McDonnell Douglas with the U.S. production of the T-45 Goshawk, that this new Hawk derivative should be proposed by Northrop Grumman and not Boeing...

Maybe, but we don't know the terms of the license agreement between McDonnell Douglas, now Boeing, and BAE Systems.

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4lAhcsVQyU&feature=share&list=PLA677A1C5C38400BD&index=4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xijv6ZNvimk&feature=share&list=PLA677A1C5C38400BD&index=5

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhxeJu8T9mM&feature=share&list=PLA677A1C5C38400BD&index=6

 

[sferrin]

Why reinvent the wheel? Better still, a US contractor is already involved.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Boeing clean sheet T-X trainer concept. No word yet if this concept resembles the clean sheet T-X trainer that Boeing and Saab have agreed to develop and announced on December 6, 2013.

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/31245/boeing-and-saab-to-team-for-usaf-t-x-requirement

 

[Triton]

"Boeing and Saab to team for USAF T-X requirement"
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
05 December 2013

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/31245/boeing-and-saab-to-team-for-usaf-t-x-requirement

Boeing and Saab AB have signed a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) to offer a solution for the US Air Force's (USAF) T-X trainer requirement, the companies announced on 6 December.

Boeing will lead the effort to develop and build a replacement platform for the USAF's aging fleet of Northrop T-38C Talon aircraft, with Saab acting as the primary partner.

"We will invest in development of this completely new aircraft design over the coming years," Saab President and CEO Håkan Buskhe said in a statement. As noted by Bushkhe, and reiterated to IHS Jane's by a Saab spokesperson, the new aircraft will be a completely 'clean sheet' design, and will in no way be a variant of the Saab JAS 39 Gripen fighter.

The JDA is still very much in its early stages, but Boeing has previously released conceptual images of a proposed design for T-X that reveal a twin-seat, single-engined jet with a front end that resembles that of the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 and KAI T-50, and a diamond-wing and V-tail platform that is reminiscent of the Northrop Grumman YF-23. The Saab spokesperson declined to say if this would form the basis of the JDA T-X offering.

"It's no secret that Boeing is looking at a completely new design [for T-X], but we are not ready to talk about the design or performance specifications just yet," he said, adding; "More information will be forthcoming in the coming months."

According to the source, Boeing and Saab have opted to go down the route of a new design to exactly match the USAF's requirements. "Everyone else is trying to make existing aircraft fit the [T-X] requirements, but we are looking to make something that matches them exactly," he said.

Although the USAF has a stated requirement to replace its more than 300 T-38C aircraft, no programme-of-record currently exists. However, in launching the JDA, Boeing and Saab have demonstrated that an investment is being made and that a request for proposals (RfP) is expected. "This [JDA] is real, and is not just some marketing announcement," the Saab source told IHS Jane's , adding: "T-X will only happen if it is cost effective. The programme has to be delivered on time and on budget, and Saab knows how to do that."

The USAF is expected to release a draft RfP for T-X in 2016, with an anticipated initial operating capability for about 2023. Other companies that have stated their intentions of entering the T-X competition include BAE Systems with the Hawk, Alenia Aermacchi with the M-346, to be designated T-100 in the United States, and Lockheed Martin with the Korean Aerospace Industries T-50 Golden Eagle.

 

[Triton]

Why reinvent the wheel? Better still, a US contractor is already involved.

Artist's impression of Lockheed Martin T-50 T-X proposal.

Model of Lockheed Martin T-50 T-X proposal.

Print advertisement of Lockheed Martin T-50 T-X proposal.

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/12/ageing-aircraft-3-tweaking-the/
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LOCKHEED-MARTIN-1-40-T-50-MULTIROLE-TRAINER-FACTORY-DESK-DISPLAY-MODEL-AIRPLANE-/350629568698
http://www.ebay.com/itm/THE-FUTURE-Lockheed-Martin-T-50-Aircraft-Magazine-Article-Print-Ad-/161168104741?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25865e1d25

 

[sferrin]

Nice. The T-50 seems the best option all things considered. All R&D done and paid for, in production, etc. The Boeing/SAAB idea just looks like a good way to blow a lot of money.

 

[Triton]

Hopefully, Boeing and Saab can provide "disruptive innovation" in their clean-sheet T-X proposal.

 

[Stargazer]

Why reinvent the wheel? Better still, a US contractor is already involved.

My feelings totally!

 

[sferrin]

Hopefully, Boeing and Saab can provide "disruptive innovation" in their clean-sheet T-X proposal.

They'll need something more than the latest buzz words to be more cost effective than a design that is already in production and in service.

 

[Triton]

They'll need something more than the latest buzz words to be more cost effective than a design that is already in production and in service.

Indeed. Boeing and Saab are entering a crowded market.

 

[F-14D]

Why reinvent the wheel? Better still, a US contractor is already involved.

My feelings totally!

One question that has to be being weighed in their minds is do we really want to give LM everything?

 

[Sundog]

One question that has to be being weighed in their minds is do we really want to give LM everything?

Well, word through the grapevine is the Pentagon is extremely disappointed with L-M's performance on the F-35, and to some extent the F-22, and contracts aren't exactly going their way lately. Which I think L-M is aware of and one of the reasons they are a sub on the Boeing NGB proposal and not a lead. The fact that the T-50 already exists is definitely a bonus, but I think they'll still be hard pressed to win the contract. Which I only see happening if the other competitors completely drop the ball.

 

[Triton]

It's probably worthwhile to buy the clean-sheet T-X from Boeing to keep Boeing St. Louis (MCAIR) in the manned fighter business. Otherwise, Lockheed Martin could become the sole U.S. contractor for manned fighters in the future.

 

[Triton]

"Boeing Defense Head: Saab Team-Up Offers 'Forward Thinking Approach'"
Jul. 13, 2014 - 03:56PM |
By AARON MEHTA

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140713/DEFREG01/307130014/Boeing-Defense-Head-Saab-Team-Up-Offers-Forward-Thinking-Approach-

LONDON — When Boeing and Saab unveil their co-design of a new trainer for the US Air Force, it will look different from the Swedish firm’s Gripen fighter, the head of Boeing’s defense arm said Sunday.

“I can unequivocally tell you it’s not Gripen, or son of Gripen,” Chris Chadwick said during a media briefing held at Boeing’s London office ahead of this week’s Farnborough International Airshow.

When Boeing announced last December that it was teaming with Saab to design a new plane specifically for the T-X requirement, it joined a crowded field that includes three other teams. All three of the competitors are offering designs that have seen extensive use in the past, leaving Boeing and Saab as the only group to create a new platform.

Analysts have been skeptical that a bespoke design could be cost efficient enough to win the service’s contract, but Chadwick expressed confidence in the strategy.

“Our design process is moving along very smartly and we will be able to fly in a timely fashion to show the Air Force that this is a viable option,” he said of the decision to offer a “clean sheet” design. “We’re going to see how it all plays out and how the requirements come together that will determine what we need to do to compete.”

He then elaborated on why Boeing chose to work with Saab, citing its ability to produce a very capable fighter in the Gripen despite a relatively small industrial base.

“When you think about Saab, [Sweden is a] small country that created a great capability in the Gripen and had to do it in a cost-constrained environment. When they design, they design in a more compact fashion,” Chadwick said. “So we’ve learned a lot about how they design and develop, and they’ve learned a lot from us about what we’ve done in terms of bringing some of our technology we’re able to pull out of Phantom Works.”

“So that collision of ideas, in terms of how do you design — how do you bring that capability in, how do you mature it, how do you simulate it in the virtual warfare center — it’s those different capabilities from the different companies that come together to offer a better offering in the long term.”

“When you mix those together, what is happening is we’re creating this culture that is allowing us to move faster, design smarter, and hit the price targets that we have that we think will differentiate ourselves from the other three competitors that are in the marketplace.”

Although not one of the “big three” recapitalization programs the Air Force is focused on, the T-X remains a priority for the service.

“The next-generation trainer, the T-X, is sort of existential to the Air Force,” service undersecretary Eric Fanning said in a May interview . “The trainers we’re using now are really old, well past their expected life, and if we do not have those, we cannot train to the next level of platforms.”

The T-X program will receive $600 million over the course of the five-year period known as the Future Years Defense Program, according to the service’s budget plan. The Air Force hopes to award a contract in FY 2017.

 

[kcran567]

That article is interesting in that Saab compact and low cost (plus) Boeing Phantom Works innovation will lead to a very interesting all new design. Just speculating, but maybe this leads to a scaled down order of still very expensive F-35's (yet very capable for the strike role) while this new trainer becomes the true 21st century "F-5" the Air Force can truly buy in larger numbers. The F-35 could simply not be bought in as many numbers with many partners complaining on cost, this could be the answer?

 

[flateric]

...

 

[sferrin]

T-50 Plz.

 

[Deino]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141202/SHOWSCOUT17/312020026/Boeing-Official-T-X-Design-Won-t-Unveiled-Soon

 

[LowObservable]

Way to get your daily 500 words out of a non-response.


The interesting question is "will it be supersonic?" Otherwise, I'd call a dry F414EE and something like this...

 

[GeorgeA]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141202/SHOWSCOUT17/312020026/Boeing-Official-T-X-Design-Won-t-Unveiled-Soon

I'd very much like an explanation of the concept of an "off-the-shelf custom design". I assume it's like "jumbo shrimp".

 

[TomS]

I'd assume it means basically "One from Column A, one from Column B" -- all the components are off-the-shelf, but the way they are arranged is custom. Whether that would extend to the airframe is anyone's guess.

 

[LowObservable]

It probably means "a custom design with off-the-shelf parts", but I think we knew that already.

 

[Moose]

Not a bad theory, Scorpion could arguably be labeled as a custom offf-the-shelf design.

 

[Moose]

Were we to assume that multiple bidders can come in close to each other in price/capabilities, T-X seeks to buy enough aircraft that it may offer a good opportunity. The DoD could hand a "stay in the game" contract to a company that is on the loosing end of the bomber competition. It wouldn't be a long term solution, but it should be able to keep the combat aircraft unit of a company like Boeing or Northrop together until the 6th gen fighter programs are at a more advanced stage. Which may help explain why those two are both working on clean-sheet designs rather than something off the shelf.

 

[Flyaway]

Aggressive, Not Aggressor.

The new T-X trainer's requirements don't call for it to be used as a future "Aggressor"-type aircraft, Air Education and Training Command requirements chief Brig. Gen. Dawn Dunlop told Air Force Magazine. Dunlop said AETC has incorporated into T-X the requirements of USAF major commands that now use the T-38 as a "companion trainer;" a function it performs for the B-2 and F-22 communities, but "we are not buying … a companion trainer.

See the link for the rest.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/February%202015/February%2012%202015/Aggressive,-Not-Aggressor.aspx

 

[Sundog]

Aggressive, Not Aggressor.

The new T-X trainer's requirements don't call for it to be used as a future "Aggressor"-type aircraft, Air Education and Training Command requirements chief Brig. Gen. Dawn Dunlop told Air Force Magazine. Dunlop said AETC has incorporated into T-X the requirements of USAF major commands that now use the T-38 as a "companion trainer;" a function it performs for the B-2 and F-22 communities, but "we are not buying … a companion trainer.

More weasel words from the Air Force, as later in the article it states;

That said, "I hope we have built into our requirements the adaptability" that would allow the T-X to be applied to other, "future missions."

So it's not "designed for it initially," but it's a role they may want in the future, which means the airframe itself has to be initially designed for the role.

 

[Flyaway]

Saab boss upbeat on T-X prospects with Boeing.

Saab chief executive Håkan Buskhe has provided a bullish assessment of the company’s prospects in pursuing the US Air Force’s future T-X trainer contract with its programme partner Boeing.

“I think we are strong partners,” says Buskhe. “We have set up criteria that we think we need to achieve to have a great chance of winning. Breaking the cost curve, increased performance – that’s something we’re working on.

“The work together and the co-operation with the Boeing company is going tremendously well,” he says, noting that “we have our team in St Louis, and they have people in Linköping”.

Rest on the link.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-boss-upbeat-on-t-x-prospects-with-boeing-408960/

Also this article.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/February%202015/February%2012%202015/T-X-Coming-Quick.aspx

 

[Flyaway]

AFA 2015: USAF prepares to unveil T-X requirement.

Key Points
The USAF is preparing to release requirements for its Northrop T-38C Talon combat aircraft trainer replacement programme

Although the service's FY 2016 budget request includes funding for the T-X as an aggressor training system, officials insist that the USAF intends the system only as an advanced pilot training system

http://www.janes.com/article/48958/afa-2015-usaf-prepares-to-unveil-t-x-requirements

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-will-downgrade-t-x-requirements-to-shave-cost-407923/

Oh for the love of....

 

[Reaper]

It should have two seats! But it's not a must!

 

[LowObservable]

Sounds like they want to scrub the requirement for the gremlins that add 10 per cent to the capability and 40 per cent to the cost. It also depends where the reqs were before they started the process.


Somehow, the rest of the world has gotten by without supersonic trainers. And even if you insist on supersonic, there's a difference between just that and wanting 7g sustained and M=1.5 for Aggressor missions. At that point, look at the cost of maintaining a dedicated Aggressor fleet versus making all your trainers 50 per cent bigger than most of the mission requires.

 

[fightingirish]

The cover of the new issue of Aviation Week shows what I assume to be the forward fuselage of the NG T-X design. I don't know if they have more images of it inside, since my issue never shows up until a couple of weeks after it's been released and every time I ask them to give me online access with my subscription, there isn't a reply.

No more images of the NG T-X design are shown in the latest issue of AW&ST, February 16th to March 1st, 2015.

 

[bring_it_on]

T-X KPP's

https://www.scribd.com/doc/259347717/T-X-KPP

 

[TomS]

Also here (see the Requirements matrix):

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=36bbba77ca454a9464c1ed3ebc1fa8b1&tab=core&_cview=1

There's no specific speed requirement, but the instantaneous G requirement is ≥8g at 0.9 Mach. Sustained is ≥6.5 (Threshold)/≥7.5 (Objective) at ≤0.9 Mach. There doesn't seem to be anything demanding supersonic performance.

Also, no requirement for real sensors, just simulated radar, targeting pod, and defensive countermeasures. There is a section in one document asking for a description of how much work would be required to add real rather than simulated systems, but they don't seem interested in buying them up front.

 

[Wahubna]

Ouch, those stats make the Scorpion seem less reasonable...