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

[Stargazer]

Yes It is ugly .

Such comments are completely partial. Beauty, the eye of the beholder, bla bla...
To me, "ugly" is the Japanese Shinshin, which other forum members find absolutely cute.
And for nearly every aircraft design, there will be lovers and haters..

That is why adding a slight disclaimer, as in "Personally I find it ugly" may prevent endless and pointless "ugly vs. beautiful" arguments such as we've had in the past elsewhere! At the very least it doesn't sound so much like the person is trying to impose their tastes upon others or make it sound like the proponents of good aeronautical taste... ;-)

 

[Sundog]

It looks like an F-16 without the ventral inlet and the large spine reminds me of the F-16's with the large spine. It obviously has less thrust and a greater aspect ratio than an F-16, but I don't see anything ugly about it. I just keep trying to visualize it in the Thunderbirds paint scheme, as I think it's obvious that whatever the next T-X is, it is what the Thunderbirds will be flying once the F-16 is retired.

 

[kaiserd]

Yes It is ugly .

Such comments are completely partial. Beauty, the eye of the beholder, bla bla...
To me, "ugly" is the Japanese Shinshin, which other forum members find absolutely cute.
And for nearly every aircraft design, there will be lovers and haters..

That is why adding a slight disclaimer, as in "Personally I find it ugly" may prevent endless and pointless "ugly vs. beautiful" arguments such as we've had in the past elsewhere! At the very least it doesn't sound so much like the person is trying to impose their tastes upon others or make it sound like the proponents of good aeronautical taste... ;-)

I agree beauty or the lack of it in the eye of the beholder.
Apart from early post war Soviet night/all weather jet fighters (some prototypes only). Virtually all as ugly as sin

Unless your happy to do a Gnat and make the cockpit too small for many pilots jet trainers always likely to look a bit dumpier than their jet fighter contempories

Don't think any of the known T-X entries are hard in the eye; both are fine proven aircraft capability wise.

 

[Dragon029]

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.

It'll be kinda weird if the USAF chooses the T-100; having both the US and Russia using training aircraft with the same roots / base design.

 

[Deino]

Anyone noticed this ?

https://twitter.com/GripenNews/status/742334400415858688

 

[CiTrus90]

Most interesting!!

Thanks for sharing Deino.

I suspect a delta canard planform in the making: after the "lil draken" the "lil gripen"? ;D

Regards.

 

[Deino]

Indeed, but the question is: is it a new design, or based on the Gripen-trainer ???

 

[TomS]

Boeing and Saab have both specifically said that T-X is a clean-sheet design and definitely not a Gripen.

 

[CiTrus90]

I'd say it's a new design, the wing position looks higher than on the Gripen.

As a side note...I think they had some issues while trying to load it onto the Il-76.
In one picture (like most in the set) it's getting loaded rear side first, but in another picture it's front first ???
Change of plans at the last minute?

Regards.

 

[Moose]

Its also possible they sent more than one. One for flight and one for ground testing, for instance.

 

[TomS]

I don't think there were two. There's a Swedish news story here with a few other pictures. There were two trucks, one with the fuselage and one with an enclosed cargo cab. It looks to me like they did pick up the pallet and turn it around on the truck bed before loading it. Possibly a fit problem of some sort?

http://www.corren.se/nyheter/linkoping/har-ar-den-hemliga-lasten-om4176561.aspx

 

[Trident]

So arguably the Boeing/Saab T-X had its first flight (... inside a Il-76TD-90)

 

[Deino]

Most likely the wrong thread but fitting the topic !

Does anyone knows what this design is ?

 

[AeroFranz]

The two aircraft in the picture have different wings (see the difference in sweep). I thought i had seen something similar in another thread, a proposal from some startup, definitely not one of the primes. I'm going to say it was a British company. Sorry, not being super helpful here!

 

[Grey Havoc]

The two aircraft in the picture have different wings (see the difference in sweep). I thought i had seen something similar in another thread, a proposal from some startup, definitely not one of the primes. I'm going to say it was a British company. Sorry, not being super helpful here!

You're probably thinking of the DART modular trainer.

 

[fightingirish]

I also can confirm, that that picture shows the British DART modular trainer.
I saw this picture on Twitter a few days ago. Dart Jet might be present at Farnborough International Airshow 2016.
Source: https://twitter.com/RAeSTimR/status/747428369105563648

 

[Deino]

Thank You so much !

 

[AeroFranz]

The two aircraft in the picture have different wings (see the difference in sweep). I thought i had seen something similar in another thread, a proposal from some startup, definitely not one of the primes. I'm going to say it was a British company. Sorry, not being super helpful here!

You're probably thinking of the DART modular trainer.

That's the one - thanks for filling the blanks!

 

[Stargazer]

So this new Dart design follows the idea introduced on the Scorpion to offer both a straight-wing and a swept-wing variant? Is this a new trend? Are there more examples of this thinking?

 

[NeilChapman]

I'd say it's a new design, the wing position looks higher than on the Gripen.

As a side note...I think they had some issues while trying to load it onto the Il-76.
In one picture (like most in the set) it's getting loaded rear side first, but in another picture it's front first ???
Change of plans at the last minute?

Regards.

No news of where it was dropped off? Where is Boeing doing this work?

Thanks!

 

[TomS]

No news of where it was dropped off? Where is Boeing doing this work?

Thanks!

It went to St Louis.

 

[CiTrus90]

No news of where it was dropped off? Where is Boeing doing this work?

Thanks!

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/support/2016/06/14/boeing-saab-tx-prototype/85873702/

Confirmed St. Louis, where they have definitely better OPSEC than in Norrköping, unfortunately for us

Regards.

 

[NeilChapman]

FYI...

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/raytheon-unveils-its-next-gen-air-force-trainer/

 

[NeilChapman]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-usaf-considers-expanded-role-for-t-x-427313/

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Force releases T-X draft RFP; final RFP expected in December

The Air Force has released a draft request for proposals for the next-generation T-X trainer family of systems -- a precursor to the final RFP, which it expects to release in December.

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said during a Defense One event this morning that the service has engaged in "an unprecedented level of discussion on requirements" with industry for the T-X program. That engagement has allowed the Air Force to conduct a cost capability analysis for the program, a process that helps the service prioritize requirements and make trades where needed.

"At the end of the day when we do the final RFP, which should be by the December time frame, we should have a really good grasp on how we're going to do this cost capability analysis for the T-X," James said.

The cost capability analysis concept is an outgrowth of the service's Bending the Cost Curve initiative, which stemmed from the Defense Department's Better Buying Power push. T-X is one of the first Air Force programs to incorporate the construct.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=eb00a01f5020fdc82b46de91ab1a5e38&_cview=0

 

[sferrin]

IMO this is Lockheed's to lose.

 

[GTX]

IMO this is Lockheed's to lose.

Agreed

 

[Triton]

Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

 

[GTX]

Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

What do you mean?

 

[sferrin]

Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.

 

[Sundog]

Based on the shadow it looks like it has a swept wing; I was expecting a delta or a trapezoidal wing. It's definitely nice looking.

I don't know if this is LM's to lose as the clean sheet designs could win extra points based on performance. Of course, I don't think the air frame itself will win the competition. A lot of it will be based on the training system itself. It will definitely be interesting and be a hell of a fight.

 

[bring_it_on]

The Draft RFI gives plenty of opportunity for higher performance to overcome higher independent cost estimate and nicely quantifies in important performance metrics. This will definitly be something to watch out for with the clean sheet designs mixed with a couple of proven in service designs.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Well it looks like I'm fashionably late to the party. But I did bring potato chips. :-D

 

[marauder2048]

Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.

The politics are almost unfathomable though. Do you piss off two (or possibly three) nations purchasing F-35 by not buying their trainer? Do you run Boeing out of the fast jet business? Do you reward NG for their rapid prototyping and IRAD deployment?

 

[sferrin]

Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.

The politics are almost unfathomable though. Do you piss off two (or possibly three) nations purchasing F-35 by not buying their trainer? Do you run Boeing out of the fast jet business? Do you reward NG for their rapid prototyping and IRAD deployment?

The trainer/F-35 customer angle is nothing. They're already getting something for their money (a stealth fighter and workshare). Boeing and NG? This is a competition for a trainer, not welfare. If they awarded to Boeing to keep them in the fighter business, and their entry wasn't demonstrably better than LM's, there would a a protest (justifiably so) and LM would win. Same with NG. The only way to beat LM, and not lose an inevitable protest, is to bring a superior solution to the table.

 

[Airplane]

If they're looking for something that can be weaponized, its Lockheed's contract. Hard to believe the company that brought us the yf23 and the b2, brings us this "kit plane" looking thing. No afterburner too? Hell Lockheed will win just to keep the NG bid from becoming the next Thunderbird. Were all their real engineers busy with the b21?

 

[Sundog]

If they're looking for something that can be weaponized, its Lockheed's contract. Hard to believe the company that brought us the yf23 and the b2, brings us this "kit plane" looking thing. No afterburner too? Hell Lockheed will win just to keep the NG bid from becoming the next Thunderbird. Were all their real engineers busy with the b21?

Good engineers don't need to over build an airplane. In fact, it's usually about meeting the specifications with the minimum amount of material (lower cost). They also know more about the requirements than you do; that's why this airplane looks the way it does. Without knowing every single one of those requirements, none of us know which design is the best. The requirements drive the design, not the other way around.

The T-50 was <i>not</i> designed to those requirements; it was modified to meet them the best Lockheed-Martin knows how. The Northrop-Grumman design actually <i>is</i> designed to the requirements. The next move is Boeing-SAAB's to make.

 

[NeilChapman]

Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

It's going to be a fair competition- to be won by LM.

The politics are almost unfathomable though. Do you piss off two (or possibly three) nations purchasing F-35 by not buying their trainer? Do you run Boeing out of the fast jet business? Do you reward NG for their rapid prototyping and IRAD deployment?

Israeli's seem happy with their M-346 decision over the T-50. Of course, they negotiated a great deal with the Italians.

 

[bring_it_on]

Deleted

 

[bring_it_on]

^ True. I still think Boeing will be putting in a lot of money given how important this program is to their defense division. Below are the 3 interesting tables on exactly how much you can pull back your ICE $ amount on account of better performance -

Other cost incentives for exceeding threshold are in the following categories -

1) High G Maneuvers ( 6.5G Threshold , 7.5 G Objective with a MAX $88 Million Value Adjustment for those that achieve 7.5G or above)
2) High AOA ( 20 Threshold, 25 Degrees Objective with a MAX of $51 Million for those that achieve 25 or above)
3) Terrain Warning and Avoidance (Up to $27 Million Value adjustment for meeting Objective)
4) GBTS Connectivity (Up to $13 Million adjustment for meeting objective)
5) Aerial Refueling Subsystem Full Integration (Max adjustment of $20 Million)
6) Targeting Pod System Simulation ( Max of $17 Million)
7) Ground Support Station Connectivity (Max $24 Million)
8) Turn Around Time (Max of $51 Million in 1 minute increments up to the objective of 33 Minutes vs a 45 minute threshold)

Is T-X going to be a "fair competition" to be won by Boeing-Saab?

The amount of detail in the RFP is enough to prepare a firm ground for appeal if a particular team feels that they haven't been given the credit they deserve. Its very closely aligned with the better buying power initiative pushing through incentives for proposing a solution closer to the objective performance requirements. Boeing could well win this but by most likely investing lot of company money into design, development and proposing a very robust solution. I don't think there's room to play politics or make 'industry concern' decisions on this one but those things should give the individual teams plenty of incentive to aggressively spend on their particular designs and solutions both in the aircraft and the other equally as important aspects (training).