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

[TomS]

Reuters is reporting a Boeing win.

It's official now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BoeingDefense/status/1045405825907527680

“Thank you, @USAirForce. We’re honored and excited to deliver #NewBoeingTX for future generations of pilots, trainers and maintainers!”
@BoeingDefense CEO Leanne Caret (link: http://Boeing.com/T-X) Boeing.com/T-X

 

[TomcatViP]

Same on Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-27/boeing-beats-lockheed-for-9-2-billion-air-force-trainer-program

EDIT: sorry redundant

 

[mrmalaya]

Surprising, but a great win none the less. Great news for SAAB too.

 

[TomS]

I'm not really surprised. Boeing is going hard on low cost in all of these recent wins. Their TX is very minimalist compared to the high-spec T-50, so it should be very cheap compared to the Lockheed option. (The Leonardo T-100 was never serious once Raytheon dropped out.)

 

[TomcatViP]

They can be hard on cost since they have worked hard on new materials and methodologies for airframe. The LM design is one generation behind in that domain what would have had an impact on the USAF with extra cost on sustainement.

Notice that the USAF has obligated only 810M$ for the first phase of the program.

 

[fightingirish]

Congratulations to Boeing and the USAF for a successful week!
First the MH-139, now the T-X. B)

 

[yasotay]

Congratulations to Boeing and the USAF for a successful week!
First the MH-139, now the T-X. B)

It has been a VERY good month for Boeing.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Yes!

http://www.boeing.com/features/2018/09/tx-wins-09-18.page

 

[Mike Pryce]

Hopefully it gets a better name/designation than T-X. T-51? There was not a T-49 that I can see, and LM used T-50 already of course.

As for a name, something 'spooky' from St Louis again?

 

[sferrin]

Surprised and disappointed but I get it. I had the T-50 winning easily but there's maintaining the industrial base and all that so. . .

 

[litzj]

T-38 design has evolved F-5, YF=17, F/A-18A/C/E, YF-23... then turning again to trainer T-X for 60 years

 

[Moose]

Surprised and disappointed but I get it. I had the T-50 winning easily but there's maintaining the industrial base and all that so. . .

No need to be disappointed, this is a really good platform. T-50 will continue to tick along, and will no doubt be raised as a fallback option if Boeing screws up badly enough.

 

[sferrin]

Surprised and disappointed but I get it. I had the T-50 winning easily but there's maintaining the industrial base and all that so. . .

No need to be disappointed, this is a really good platform. T-50 will continue to tick along, and will no doubt be raised as a fallback option if Boeing screws up badly enough.

I hope they do a decent job. (Then again look at the circus the KC-46 is and that's with them ALREADY having converted the 767 to a tanker before.)

 

[TomcatViP]

The tanker war with Airbus led to some surrealistic pricing (should I remind you that Airbus had no boom design finalized (or even demonstrated)). Here Boeing enjoyed a realistic competition... and won. I am much expecting falls out on the Mach 5 jetliner.

 

[Airplane]

Well, that settles it: the Thunderbirds will be flying 16s for a while more and then migrate to the 35. No way will they be flying that ugly duckling.

 

[Desertfox]

Any word from Boeing if there will be a light fighter version of the T-X? Lots of F-5s, Mig-21s, and old F-16s out there needing replacing.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I doubt it sense it has no sensors and no structural provisions for weapons.

 

[TomcatViP]

Well, that settles it: the Thunderbirds will be flying 16s for a while more and then migrate to the 35. No way will they be flying that ugly duckling.

We certainly don't share the same aesthetic values

https://youtu.be/P06xAcBrosQ

 

[Sundog]

Well, that settles it: the Thunderbirds will be flying 16s for a while more and then migrate to the 35. No way will they be flying that ugly duckling.

Actually, I think the TX looks great and it will be the next T-Bird. It's very doubtful that the F-35 will ever be a team demo plane.

 

[Desertfox]

Its definitely better looking than the hunchback of Fort Worth....

Ive seen the F-35 demo, even the C-17 demo was more impressive.

 

[AeroFranz]

I doubt it sense it has no sensors and no structural provisions for weapons.

is that a fact? that's really surprising!
I mean, sensors can be podded, but making no structural provisions for hardpoints seems foolish.

 

[TomS]

When Boeing rolled out their T-X, they specifically noted that the wings can be modified to accept two pylons each. And the RFP required quite a bit of growth margin for simulated sensors. Real ones could certainly be accommodated.

 

[Mike Pryce]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-92b-t-x-trainer-contract-with-usaf-452263/

IOC 2024
FOC 2034

Ten years to add what? Presumably weapons and software/simulation if the airframe is 'production ready', as claimed.

 

[totoro]

I too remember reading about hardpoint allowance when it comes to Boeing's T-X. Allegedly five hardpoints can be added, as in, spots for them are already part of the design. And the nose is certainly large enough for a small radar, if funding for such a variant can be justified. (unlike with NG's Swift which has a tiny, tiny nose)

Most importantly for a combat variant, Boeing doesn't have anything of the sort, in that class. Had LM won, combat variant would have remained whatever KAI does, without too much willpower from LM to actually fund and market the type around Europe/Americas. They have their second hand F-16 sales to protect.

But with Boeing winning, there might well be a market for 100+ such light combat planes around the world, and Boeing-SAAB plane might outdo a second-hand F-16 for the customers who are looking for absolute minimum of "supersonic" combat capabilities. We'll see in some 10 years time, I guess...

 

[sferrin]

Anybody know if the thing is even supersonic? (I'm guessing it is but I could be wrong.)


Hmm. Barely. 800 mph. 'bout 350 mph slower than the T-50.

 

[TomcatViP]

Regarding a LWF derivative:

Tomorrow any bad guys out there would have long range missiles fielded with multi-target tracking. It means that you gonna have to light your afterburner 100 miles both ways (ingress / egress). That doesn't leave ANY rooms for a lightweight fighter able to survive the fight.

Demo:
F-404 reported SFC: 177.5 kg/(kN·h)
Max thrust: 77.7 kN

1h with full afterburner -> 177.5*77.7=13.8t

Flight time Mach 1.3 (average speed from M.0.8 cruise to Mach1.6 dash speed @30kft): 100/678= 0.15hr (one way)

Mass of fuel needed for the dash (both way) -> 0.15*2*13.8= 4t

So, without reserve, fuel for the fight (!) and considering you spanned at 30kft and Mach 0.8 by magics like in a dumb simulator, you'll need at least 4t of fuel for the mission...


Conclusion:
You'll be better building a new airframe tailored around the need

What you can have however is a DHS occasional fighter to police the skies (since sensors would be offboarded, a simple podded seeker (like a heat seeking modern missile) would do the trick).

 

[totoro]

Hmm. Barely. 800 mph. 'bout 350 mph slower than the T-50.

Trying to find the source of that figure, but aside from some aeronewstv.com website, no luck. Could you help me with a link?

 

[sferrin]

Hmm. Barely. 800 mph. 'bout 350 mph slower than the T-50.

Trying to find the source of that figure, but aside from some aeronewstv.com website, no luck. Could you help me with a link?

It's on a couple different sites but it could all be copied from one. Don't see one from Boeing.

 

[TomS]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-92b-t-x-trainer-contract-with-usaf-452263/

IOC 2024
FOC 2034

Ten years to add what? Presumably weapons and software/simulation if the airframe is 'production ready', as claimed.

Ten years to build out the 300+ aircraft and 30+ additional simulators needed after IOC, for starters. That FOC date was baked into the T-X RFP, so it's not based on this specific aircraft but rather on what the Air Force wants to spend on the whole program. This isn't going to be a high-rate production program, because the Air Force wants to keep the budget impact relatively low year-over-year.

 

[fightingirish]

I wonder, if the Boeing engineers are already planning or have in their backmind a USN variant to replace the T-45 Goshawk in 15-20 years or so.

 

[totoro]

I would say the large twin tails may have already been designed partly in mind for that very competition. Carrier ops do need even more tail control at slow speeds... I'd say Boeing-SAAB is in better position to win that one than T-50.

 

[Mike Pryce]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-92b-t-x-trainer-contract-with-usaf-452263/

IOC 2024
FOC 2034

Ten years to add what? Presumably weapons and software/simulation if the airframe is 'production ready', as claimed.

Ten years to build out the 300+ aircraft and 30+ additional simulators needed after IOC, for starters. That FOC date was baked into the T-X RFP, so it's not based on this specific aircraft but rather on what the Air Force wants to spend on the whole program. This isn't going to be a high-rate production program, because the Air Force wants to keep the budget impact relatively low year-over-year.

I can't believe nothing will be learned or added in that time. Low rates make fiddling more likely unless it is very clear it is all good from the get go. That would be an achievement.

 

[TomS]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-92b-t-x-trainer-contract-with-usaf-452263/

IOC 2024
FOC 2034

Ten years to add what? Presumably weapons and software/simulation if the airframe is 'production ready', as claimed.

Ten years to build out the 300+ aircraft and 30+ additional simulators needed after IOC, for starters. That FOC date was baked into the T-X RFP, so it's not based on this specific aircraft but rather on what the Air Force wants to spend on the whole program. This isn't going to be a high-rate production program, because the Air Force wants to keep the budget impact relatively low year-over-year.

I can't believe nothing will be learned or added in that time. Low rates make fiddling more likely unless it is very clear it is all good from the get go. That would be an achievement.

I never said that there would be no changes. I'm sure we'll see several blocks within T-X aircraft manufacturing, and significant evolution in the training infrastructure and curriculum between IOC and FOC.

But I don't think we'll see major changes in aircraft capabilities between IOC and FOC; it will have to perform pretty much the full mission range at IOC. Pilots who start the APT pipeline in the T-X will have to complete the whole curriculum in that aircraft -- no way they will want trainee pilots to fly two advanced jets in the same course.

T-X FOC basically coincides with the T-38C end-of-service date, so achieving FOC is mostly based on having enough T-X aircraft and associated infrastructure in place to take over the full Advanced Pilot Training program.

 

[Mike Pryce]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-92b-t-x-trainer-contract-with-usaf-452263/

IOC 2024
FOC 2034

Ten years to add what? Presumably weapons and software/simulation if the airframe is 'production ready', as claimed.

Ten years to build out the 300+ aircraft and 30+ additional simulators needed after IOC, for starters. That FOC date was baked into the T-X RFP, so it's not based on this specific aircraft but rather on what the Air Force wants to spend on the whole program. This isn't going to be a high-rate production program, because the Air Force wants to keep the budget impact relatively low year-over-year.

I can't believe nothing will be learned or added in that time. Low rates make fiddling more likely unless it is very clear it is all good from the get go. That would be an achievement.

I never said that there would be no changes. I'm sure we'll see several blocks within T-X aircraft manufacturing, and significant evolution in the training infrastructure and curriculum between IOC and FOC.

But I don't think we'll see major changes in aircraft capabilities between IOC and FOC; it will have to perform pretty much the full mission range at IOC. Pilots who start the APT pipeline in the T-X will have to complete the whole curriculum in that aircraft -- no way they will want trainee pilots to fly two advanced jets in the same course.

T-X FOC basically coincides with the T-38C end-of-service date, so achieving FOC is mostly based on having enough T-X aircraft and associated infrastructure in place to take over the full Advanced Pilot Training program.

Ah,OK, thanks. The capability is not meant to change in a technical sense, just numbers.

Would be interesting to know more about what makes Boeing both certain that they will not have changes and at such a low cost.

 

[Archibald]

Why do they use the old F404 and not the Superbug F414 ? Because Grippen ?

 

[kaiserd]

Why do they use the old F404 and not the Superbug F414 ? Because Grippen ?

Well for a start presumably the Boeing T-X will generally operate at significantly lower weights than a Gripen-E so just doesn’t need the extra thrust. And that’s before you getting into things like cost, fuel efficiency, etc.
The latest developments of the F404 remains very up to date engines (used in the Indian LCA, Gripen C/D, T-50, etc.)

 

[robunos]

With the T-X competition complete and the winner announced, would it not be wise to start a new thread for the Boeing aircraft's subsequent development, and keep this thread for any further information about the losing competitors . . . ?


cheers,
Robin.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Sure!

 

[Airplane]

Thanks Sundog.

Scaled have never built anything that entered proper series production. The Beech Starship was the closest, and that got re-engineered.

The Model 400 looks like another POC design, which is a general aviation way of building a non certifiable prototype. So likely they would need to re-engineer and build another set of prototypes to meet USAF needs. More time, more money.

Boeing went for production ready out of the box.

But oh so sexy. Better looking than anything in the teen/20 series save for Tomcat. Off the top of my head I can't think of an ugly design by Northrop. Was it just an engineering exercise to keep their talent pool warm on fighters?

 

[fightingirish]

A Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) spokesperson confirmed to Yonhap that Boeing’s bid for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X competition was “unbeatably low.”
The company’s share lost 29.8 percent after the winner of the contract was announced.

Source: http://www.koreatimesus.com/s-korea-loses-u-s-military-trainer-jet-bid/