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

[NeilChapman]

It has to be difficult for the Primes. The AF "seems" to know what they want but... It seems that they really want to know what they can get.

Do the Primes have insight into what the AF is paying now for the ATP FoS?

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/

 

[NeilChapman]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/

That's good news for Boeing.

It boggle the mind that in 2016 it will take 12 years to produce a trainer for a platform that may outdated in 12 years. Carpe noctem. We've got to figure out ways to get these project done more expeditiously.

 

[Airplane]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/

That's good news for Boeing.

It boggle the mind that in 2016 it will take 12 years to produce a trainer for a platform that may outdated in 12 years. Carpe noctem. We've got to figure out ways to get these project done more expeditiously.

The USAF could save time and just buy some Saab Gripens... Yes, that's a dig at Sweden's indigenous airplane!

 

[NeilChapman]

“We intend to fly the aircraft at a time which we believe aligns with the competition. So we will fly it when the competition dictates it,” Vice said. “Obviously we’re trying to hold on to the uniqueness of the design, but we will be flying that airplane probably in the first half of 2016.”

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2016/01/19/northrop-fly-t-x-prototype-year/78966566/

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

LM formally announced the T-50 for the TX competition.

http://www.combataircraft.net/view_article.asp?id=9435

 

[cluttonfred]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-wins-10-year-t-38c-contract-as-usaf-looks-to-420533/

That's good news for Boeing.

It boggle the mind that in 2016 it will take 12 years to produce a trainer for a platform that may outdated in 12 years. Carpe noctem. We've got to figure out ways to get these project done more expeditiously.

+1000 on this comment. The USAF could pick any one of a number of existing, off-the-shelf jet trainers and an have it *modestly* customized to simulate various current and future fighters, especially in terms of avionics. It would not be the 100% solution, but it would be the 80-90% solute that would save millions, perhaps billions of dollars. BAE Hawk with all-digital, all-glass re-configurable panel, for example?

 

[AeroFranz]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/why-skunk-works-ditched-its-clean-sheet-t-x-for-kore-421946/

"Weiss says the clean-sheet alternative might have cost approximately eight times more to develop, without adding significant capability “beyond a modernised T-50”. Moreover, it would struggle to meet the air force’s recently revised initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2024.

“Our team thought we had a really, really fine airplane . . . but it doesn’t do any more than the T-50 already does, so at the end of the day – it costs more, takes longer, has higher risk and without adding significant value beyond the T-50," Weiss says. “That baseline [T-50] aircraft has over 100,000 flight hours. It’s very mature. It’s trained more than 1,000 pilots today.”

Seems to me this applies to every clean sheet design. Of course the T-50 was already very close to meeting specs, so the delta in cost may not be as large as for the other competitors. still, makes you wonder how you can justify the costs if you're starting from scratch.

 

[Moose]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/why-skunk-works-ditched-its-clean-sheet-t-x-for-kore-421946/

"Weiss says the clean-sheet alternative might have cost approximately eight times more to develop, without adding significant capability “beyond a modernised T-50”. Moreover, it would struggle to meet the air force’s recently revised initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2024.

“Our team thought we had a really, really fine airplane . . . but it doesn’t do any more than the T-50 already does, so at the end of the day – it costs more, takes longer, has higher risk and without adding significant value beyond the T-50," Weiss says. “That baseline [T-50] aircraft has over 100,000 flight hours. It’s very mature. It’s trained more than 1,000 pilots today.”

Seems to me this applies to every clean sheet design. Of course the T-50 was already very close to meeting specs, so the delta in cost may not be as large as for the other competitors. still, makes you wonder how you can justify the costs if you're starting from scratch.

I would be very wary of taking one competitor's statement and treating them as the immutable truth for the others, they all have their reasons for going down the path they are. If I were to speculate, I think those behind clean-sheet approach are focused on bringing recurring costs down significantly below the off-the-shelf options.

 

[Sundog]

Air Force Delays TX Solicitation.

 

[AeroFranz]

Any delay will invariably help clean sheet designs.

 

[sferrin]

Any delay will invariably help clean sheet designs.

It will give them more time to get their proposals together but a clean sheet is still going to cost more than a pre-existing design (assuming they're remotely similar in capability).

 

[AeroFranz]

That seemed to be Lockheed's argument for going with the T-50 after doing their internal evaluation

 

[NeilChapman]

Air Force Delays TX Solicitation.

Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end

 

[NeilChapman]

That seemed to be Lockheed's argument for going with the T-50 after doing their internal evaluation

Isn't LM already providing flight simulators for F-35? How is another company supposed to come in and provide a new system without understanding all the flight characteristics and the differences in the various software loads?

 

[TomS]

Air Force Delays TX Solicitation.

Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end

It's terrible writing; that's not actually what happened. FOC got delayed by two years, probably to deal with some sort of budget constraint, but that is not caused by the delay in the solicitation. Note that IOC is unchanged, so the delay in the solicitation does not actually delay production at all.

Seriously, go read the actual statement on the FedBizOps website.

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

.

 

[Sundog]

Air Force Delays TX Solicitation.

Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end

It's terrible writing; that's not actually what happened. FOC got delayed by two years, probably to deal with some sort of budget constraint, but that is not caused by the delay in the solicitation. Note that IOC is unchanged, so the delay in the solicitation does not actually delay production at all.

Seriously, go read the actual statement on the FedBizOps website.

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

.

Thanks, I couldn't figure out why development would have been pushed back now because of something so many years in the future. Aren't we supposed to be seeing these designs in the near future?

 

[NeilChapman]

Air Force Delays TX Solicitation.

Only with the government does a three month delay on the front end equate to a two year delay on the back end

It's terrible writing; that's not actually what happened. FOC got delayed by two years, probably to deal with some sort of budget constraint, but that is not caused by the delay in the solicitation. Note that IOC is unchanged, so the delay in the solicitation does not actually delay production at all.

Seriously, go read the actual statement on the FedBizOps website.

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

.

This seems very good for the competition. Delaying the FOC ensures less decision "weight" given to existing systems e.g. a competitor has an extra couple of years to get the F-35 and F-22 flight software into simulators, training materials, etc etc etc.

That being said, LM is likely to have 100 flight simulators out by 2019, with ~240 total in Plan of Record. They don't look cheap. What do you do with those, pay to integrate them into the new system, operate them separately or phase them out?

 

[TomS]

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

The T-X Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems (APT FoS) includes flight simulators. Those simulators are supposed to prepare new pilots in general terms to fly advanced aircraft like the F-35 and F-22 , as well as any other fighter aircraft remaining in the USAF inventory. The APT FoS simulators are not the same as the actual type-specific F-22 and F-35 flight simulators that train pilots assigned to those particular aircraft. The type-specific simulators are not part of the APT curriculum -- they're later in the training process.

 

[NeilChapman]

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

The T-X Advanced Pilot Training Family of Systems (APT FoS) includes flight simulators. Those simulators are supposed to prepare new pilots in general terms to fly advanced aircraft like the F-35 and F-22 , as well as any other fighter aircraft remaining in the USAF inventory. The APT FoS simulators are not the same as the actual type-specific F-22 and F-35 flight simulators that train pilots assigned to those particular aircraft. The type-specific simulators are not part of the APT curriculum -- they're later in the training process.

You nailed it - answered my question perfectly. It was my mis-understanding of the process. Thank you for that.

To make sure I got it, I'll reiterate what I understand.
1. APT FoS is for basic flight training
2. APT simulators are for basic flight training - with the advantages specified in the new program.
3. After basic flight training - your assigned to a aircraft type.
4. Type specific simulators are then used (not part of APT) for that training.

 

[kcran567]

Sundog

Thanks, I couldn't figure out why development would have been pushed back now because of something so many years in the future. Aren't we supposed to be seeing these designs in the near future?
[/quote]

I agree, am getting very interseted in the Northrop and Saab/Boeing clean sheet designs and what they look like!

So far the glimpse of the Northrop design is very similar to a T-38, but has a fuselage chine. With Saab/Boeing I am hoping that the design
is almost 6th generation in appearance. Something tailless with levcons or canards, yet very flattened fuselage, and with room for growth. New manufacturing techniqes for affordability. If used as trainer and possibly Agressor/emulator later on, and also as an affordable export fighter to supplement F-35 why not put some very advanced features to make it worth the cost. Later options for a small AESA, and DAS, IR sensor?

Why the dearth of concept sketches? will have to make some. Would like to see what others think it will look.

Makes sense that this airplane would need to train 6th gen pilots as well as current pilots if it will be anything like the T-38 was.

 

[Sundog]

So, has anyone heard any news on the new designs rolling our from Northrop and Boeing/SAAB.

 

[Moose]

The members of both teams seem to have focused their media/pr efforts on other programs of late. However Sweden has started talking openly about their trainer options and it wouldn't shock me if SAAB starts putting out some artwork as they campaign to keep that contact on home turf.

 

[flateric]

http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/BusinessSectors/AerospaceSystems/Documents/magazine/IA_Magazine_Mar_Apr_2016.pdf

 

[sferrin]

Makes me think of an F-5.

 

[totoro]

I do hope NG wins, as that'd mean a fair chance of their plane getting extra variants during the project's lifetime, including an actual low-cost fighter for poor countries. (f-20/f-5 reborn!) And unlike LM with T50 which seem to be against any TA/Fa50 sale they fear might endanger their own used f16 sales, i could see NG actually market it as such as NG doesn't have anything else in the fighter roster.

That being said, with NG winning the bomber competition, i somehow don't see it winning this as well.

 

[sferrin]

I do hope NG wins, as that'd mean a fair chance of their plane getting extra variants during the project's lifetime, including an actual low-cost fighter for poor countries. (f-20/f-5 reborn!) And unlike LM with T50 which seem to be against any TA/Fa50 sale they fear might endanger their own used f16 sales, i could see NG actually market it as such as NG doesn't have anything else in the fighter roster.

That being said, with NG winning the bomber competition, i somehow don't see it winning this as well.

Considering LM has the F-35 I'd say they're equally as likely. I would probably scratch the Boeing/SAAB joint venture from the list. Apparently Raytheon is in the mix as well? Probably scratch them as well. Just my opinion.

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/BusinessSectors/AerospaceSystems/Documents/magazine/IA_Magazine_Mar_Apr_2016.pdf

Hey flateric, thanks for posting this link. I've been watching for this issue for weeks. Got busy this last week and didn't look at all.

I hope NG remembers, don't give them what they ask for, give 'em what they want!

 

[NeilChapman]

I do hope NG wins, as that'd mean a fair chance of their plane getting extra variants during the project's lifetime, including an actual low-cost fighter for poor countries. (f-20/f-5 reborn!) And unlike LM with T50 which seem to be against any TA/Fa50 sale they fear might endanger their own used f16 sales, i could see NG actually market it as such as NG doesn't have anything else in the fighter roster.

That being said, with NG winning the bomber competition, i somehow don't see it winning this as well.

Considering LM has the F-35 I'd say they're equally as likely. I would probably scratch the Boeing/SAAB joint venture from the list. Apparently Raytheon is in the mix as well? Probably scratch them as well. Just my opinion.

I just can't get over how badly Boeing has screwed up the tanker project. And with the issues in the SCS, buying Korean jets might be a good political move. That being said, I'd love for NG to win this.

You know there is a lot of company pride going into this project. The T-38 is an icon. This is all about the "rest of the system". Hopefully BAE/L3 is as good as I'm sure the airframe will be.

 

[totoro]

Considering LM has the F-35 I'd say they're equally as likely. I would probably scratch the Boeing/SAAB joint venture from the list. Apparently Raytheon is in the mix as well? Probably scratch them as well. Just my opinion.

I just fear that with LM being twice as large company it will have significantly more clout lobbying wise. After one two punch with f-22 and f-35 that wasn't enough, but since NG was given piece of the cake with the new bomber and since it's enough for it to survive a decade or more - LM might have the upper hand.

Politics aside, (which can never really be set aside) i'd say the cheapest plane should win here. Providing it meets the requirements. It doesn't seem as if USAF will reward extra capability. So a wholy new design seems just unlikely to win. That'd put Boeing/Saab out of the running. LM is in good position as it's a developed plane, though it *may* be too much of a plane for a trainer. MEaning in the long run, with the ops costs - it may be too pricey. Raytheon/Alenia actually seem to have a very good product there - unless requirements are higher than what m346 offers (though i doubt it). But if requirements are higher then that's right up in the LM's alley with T-50. (Of course, politics dictate low-ish chances for Raytheon/Alenia)

NG says it will be offering a new design - sounds too costly. Though if it is, in reality, a reworked f-5/t-38 then it might actually work. Especially if requirements are for a smaller plane like that, not something in the class of T-50.

AirLand Scorpion seems like a no-go to me. They'd need a substantially reworked plane from Scorpion to compete and even if they somehow manage, they have next to zero influence on the Hill to make it work.

If transsonic performance is not a requirement and if low fuel consumption will be rewarded extra for going lower than the required 10% below T38 fuel consumption - then i'd say M346 and reworked T38 have best chances. And out of those, due to politics, NG might even have better chances. But with politics and large money sacks of LM included - who knows.

 

[bring_it_on]

T-50A takes flight

Lockheed Martin announced today it completed a successful first flight of its offering for the Air Force's next-generation T-X competition.

The company's T-50A features a fifth-generation cockpit and was developed jointly with Korea Aerospace Industries. Lockheed is currently standing up its assembly and checkout site for the aircraft in Greenville, SC.

To date, Lockheed's competitors on T-X include a Raytheon, Finmeccanica and CAE team offering the T-100; a Boeing-Saab team putting forward a clean-sheet design; and a Northrop Grumman, BAE and L-3 team also proposing an original design.

 

[seruriermarshal]

any video with T-50A first flight ?

 

[Boxman]

Here's a photo of the aircraft in flight along with the accompanying press release from the LockMart site:

http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/june/T50AFirstFlight.html

Lockheed Martin Flies First T-50A Upgraded Aircraft for T-X Competition
Fort Worth, Texas, June 2, 2016 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) successfully completed the initial flight test of its T-50A configured aircraft. The T-50A is the company’s aircraft offering in the U.S. Air Force’s Advanced Pilot Training competition.
“The aircraft in its new configuration with the 5th Gen cockpit and other upgrades performed flawlessly,” said Mark Ward, Lockheed Martin T-50A lead test pilot, after his flight in Sacheon, South Korea. “I have no doubt this aircraft will close the gap which currently exists between the trainer fleet and 5th Generation fighters.”
The T-50A is low risk and ready now. It builds on the proven heritage of the T-50 with more than 100 T-50s flying today—100,000 flight hours and counting—and more than 1,000 pilots trained.
The T-50A is the only offering that meets all APT requirements and can deliver those capabilities on schedule at the lowest risk to the customer. Lockheed Martin teams studied clean-sheet alternatives and determined they pose prohibitive risk to APT cost and schedule requirements. The T-50A delivers the performance and capabilities needed to prepare pilots to fly, fight and win with 5th Generation fighter aircraft.
Lockheed Martin is currently standing up its T-50A Final Assembly and Checkout site in Greenville, South Carolina.
The T-50A was developed jointly by Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries. The accompanying T-50A Ground-Based Training System features innovative technologies that deliver an immersive, synchronized ground-based training platform.

 

[sferrin]

Looks like a baby big-spine F-16 from that angle.

 

[TomS]

Basically mini-F-16 back end married to Ching Kuo/IDF front end, it seems to me.

Ugly SOB, in any case.

 

[sferrin]

Basically mini-F-16 back end married to Ching Kuo/IDF front end, it seems to me.

Ugly SOB, in any case.

And that's the NICE looking entry.

 

[TomS]

I kind of like the T-100. It does look like someone took a piece out of the middle (big cockpit, big tail, no center), but at least it has clean lines.

Who knows what the others will look like? I'm hoping Being's offer looks like the old T-X slides they threw out a few years ago (basically a baby MDD JSF).

 

[sferrin]

Donno, I kind of like the T-100. It does look like someone took a piece out of the middle (big cockpit, big tail, no center), but at least it has clean lines.

They're all kinda stumpy looking compared to the classic T-38 lines.

 

[seruriermarshal]

Yes It is ugly .

 

[Trident]

I find the T-100/M-346 relatively easy on the eyes. The really amusing thing about this entrant winning though would be that it'd arguably represent the first time since the C-47/Li-2 60+ years ago that the armed forces of Russia (or the USSR at the time), the People's Republic of China, Israel and the US all operated variants of the same basic aircraft design in significant numbers