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

[marauder2048]

No need for a Mako type light aircraft? The TX could have been the perfect aggressor training red air threat aircraft, it is also a very important need to continue that type of training for future pilots. The Boeing TX will not be used for that role based on strict AF requirements for TX. So now the AF needs to build another new aircraft to simulate future more advanced and LO type threat aircraft? Or thenAF could just use modified F-35s, but that seems ridiculous not to mention cost prohibitive.

See "5GAT" or 5th Generation Aerial Target. Plus, whatever active and passive RCS reductions they can eke out of QF-16.

 

[kaiserd]

It went beyond aesthetics; EADS specifically described Mako as having LO features.

For example, see the link below to a paper titled "Aerodynamic Assessment of Low-observable Forebody Configurations for a Light Combat Aircraft." I can't read the whole report, but page one specifically refers to Mako.

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2003-3419

To perhaps generalise it's probably broadly correct to characterise the Mako design having a similar level of intentional designed-in low observability as a Rafale or Typhoon but nowwhere near a more tailored design such as the F-35 or F-22.
As such perhaps somewhat better than an earlier design like the F-16 but not the order of magnitude necessary to make that much of a difference.
Relatively common and likely design features like s-bend intakes, and relatively straight forward measures like gold-lined canopies, some RAM in leading edges and other key areas, and large scale use of composites will likely be seen in a version/ one-off prototype of the winning T-X (even if just in a low-tier combat version that's its manufacturer will at least try to sell) would be suitable and likely for an aggressor version (if the US airforce should want to acquire it).

 

[NeilChapman]

If it doesn't have a lot based on the Gripen why would they even need SAAB? ???

Perhaps Boeing feels they have a bit of a credibility problem?

JSF X-32
LRS-B loss
KC-46 program problems

 

[NeilChapman]

No need for a Mako type light aircraft? The TX could have been the perfect aggressor training red air threat aircraft, it is also a very important need to continue that type of training for future pilots. The Boeing TX will not be used for that role based on strict AF requirements for TX. So now the AF needs to build another new aircraft to simulate future more advanced and LO type threat aircraft? Or thenAF could just use modified F-35s, but that seems ridiculous not to mention cost prohibitive.

Perhaps the point is that they can 'program' in any level of LO or other necessary conditions into the training system. It's basically a flying, networked, video 'game'.

 

[NeilChapman]

Interesting T-38 article from 2005. Points out some of the shortcomings of the aircraft.

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/white-rocket-7997558/?all

NG seems to have concluded that the T-38 was a great plane so 'Let's build a NextGen T-38 for the 21st century'. That got me to thinking about what needed improving from the T-38 which led me to the article above and some other material.

Thinking about

A. Weight
B. Thrust

With the ~1800lb vs ~1200lb of engines, how much extra weight will the N400 need to be over the T-38 to support the larger, heavier, higher output engine?
Is it likely that the N400 will have empty weight of a T-50, ~14500lbs vs the T-38's 7200lbs?
Will new materials, manufacturing techniques or consolidated avionics eliminate any weight gain?

There are issues reported in the article with lift response @ low speeds on the T-38. Will the new engine have the dry thrust required to mitigate the problem - or - has the underlying aerodynamic problem been engineered out of this new airframe?

--

My thoughts are that NG sought to engineer out all the problems they have identified over the last 50 years of the T-38's lifecycle, added power and kept the empty weight down to between 10-12klbs. The F404 has ~20kN of additional thrust dry over the wet pair of J85's. If they've managed to keep the weight way down this could be a little beast...er... more appropriately powered to exceed performance targets.

The F404 is a great choice. Lots of existing manufacturing to keep costs down, well known article w/in the military so global support/maintenance is a no brainer.

There will be a great deal of confidence in the NG design based on T-38/F5 experience. Mimicking the OML probably makes sense based both on requirements and to reinforce that confidence. It's a new airframe but decision makers will look at it with 50 years of wisdom. It's like going from an older Volvo to a new Volvo. The impression will be, "I trust this car with my family and this one is even better, right?".

Two questions...

Any thoughts from the AE's on whether this airframe is designed to be sub, trans or supersonic?
What's the chances that the refueling receptacle is in the nose?

N

 

[TomS]

To perhaps generalise it's probably broadly correct to characterise the Mako design having a similar level of intentional designed-in low observability as a Rafale or Typhoon but nowwhere near a more tailored design such as the F-35 or F-22.

Oh, absolutely it wasn't in the class of the F-22/-35; Tornado/Rafale/possibly Super Hornet seems about right as a comparison. But it clearly had some costs associated with that limited degree of LO, which can't have helped it in the advanced trainer market. And no one was lining up for a light combat aircraft with limited LO, then or now.

 

[marauder2048]

If it doesn't have a lot based on the Gripen why would they even need SAAB? ???

Perhaps Boeing feels they have a bit of a credibility problem?

JSF X-32
LRS-B loss
KC-46 program problems

Or maybe Saab recognizes that a Fighter-Attack variant of T-X represents a huge threat to Gripen "classic" on the market.

 

[Trident]

Added a couple of nips and tucks, including LERX fences as spotted by Sundog (h-stab & wing span slightly reduced, wing LE dog tooth).

Any opinions on whether the presence of LERX fences makes a twin tail more likely? Sure, the M-346 has them and is fitted with a single fin, but the original example of this aero band aid is the Hornet classic (to alleviate buffeting loads on the vertical tails from LERX vortex impingement, IIRC).

 

[CiTrus90]

Added a couple of nips and tucks, including LERX fences as spotted by Sundog (h-stab & wing span slightly reduced, wing LE dog tooth).

Any opinions on whether the presence of LERX fences makes a twin tail more likely? Sure, the M-346 has them and is fitted with a single fin, but the original example of this aero band aid is the Hornet classic (to alleviate buffeting loads on the vertical tails from LERX vortex impingement, IIRC).

Definitely single vertical tail.

 

[NeilChapman]

If it doesn't have a lot based on the Gripen why would they even need SAAB? ???

Perhaps Boeing feels they have a bit of a credibility problem?

JSF X-32
LRS-B loss
KC-46 program problems

Or maybe Saab recognizes that a Fighter-Attack variant of T-X represents a huge threat to Gripen "classic" on the market.

That's a great point. I was only looking at it from the Boeing side. The collaboration makes sense for myriad reasons.

The USAF will have difficult choices to make. We'll just have to wait for the final RFP to see how the different attributes are weighted. Perhaps that will give us a clearer perception on what they need.

I get the 'political' advantages of the T-50. Personally I'd like to see this be a very low operating cost solution set as well as a fantastic airframe that generations of airmen will build their skills.

 

[Trident]

Added a couple of nips and tucks, including LERX fences as spotted by Sundog (h-stab & wing span slightly reduced, wing LE dog tooth).

Any opinions on whether the presence of LERX fences makes a twin tail more likely? Sure, the M-346 has them and is fitted with a single fin, but the original example of this aero band aid is the Hornet classic (to alleviate buffeting loads on the vertical tails from LERX vortex impingement, IIRC).

Definitely single vertical tail.

Yeah, that settles it - thanks!

 

[bring_it_on]

That's a great point. I was only looking at it from the Boeing side. The collaboration makes sense for myriad reasons.

The USAF will have difficult choices to make. We'll just have to wait for the final RFP to see how the different attributes are weighted. Perhaps that will give us a clearer perception on what they need.

I get the 'political' advantages of the T-50. Personally I'd like to see this be a very low operating cost solution set as well as a fantastic airframe that generations of airmen will build their skills.

If they are successful, SAAB gets access to what appears to be an at least 400-500 unit strong production run for the trainer alone (US and Export) and yet another platform to build a low cost attack aircraft on. Programs and partnerships of this magnitude do not come very often so there is a fairly substantial business case for them in this collaboration. For Boeing, they get to spread the design, and production risk with another company, one that has been making single engine, light fighters for a while. Given the nature of other players in the space with experiences that Boeing was looking for, its a bit tough to see where else they could have gone. Even if no light attack aircraft emerges, SAAB still gets to add billions to its business over the next decade and more.

I would also not expect any drastic changes to the RFP that comes out in December. The one released in July is extensive, and there is really no reason to expect anything more than some tweaks to it in Dec.

 

[CiTrus90]

For what I've understood of the T-X program so far, I can't help but wonder how important will be, for the final adjudication, the simulation portion of the system. In this regard, the offers from Raytheon and Northrop should have a clear advantage, thanks to their partners experience in the sector.
Lockheed and Boeing, in my opinion, seem to be focused only on the aircraft and not so much on the overall training system as a whole.

 

[bring_it_on]

Lockheed and Boeing, in my opinion, seem to be focused only on the aircraft and not so much on the overall training system as a whole.

What leads you to believe this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvXmOW8L3mU

 

[marauder2048]

For what I've understood of the T-X program so far, I can't help but wonder how important will be, for the final adjudication, the simulation portion of the system. In this regard, the offers from Raytheon and Northrop should have a clear advantage, thanks to their partners experience in the sector.
Lockheed and Boeing, in my opinion, seem to be focused only on the aircraft and not so much on the overall training system as a whole.

Just about everything that the Air Force wants in terms of LVC for T-X, Lockheed demonstrated for the Air Force (on a F-16 Block 50 no less) two years ago. NG did something similar (albeit on a larger scale) 2 weeks ago. Everyone else, not so much.

 

[CiTrus90]

I beg your pardon bring_it_on and marauder, I didn't mean to say "only" focused but rather more focused on the aircraft portion of the system.
Lockheed appears to be the only contender offering a supersonic capable aircraft with an afterburner, while Boeing, unless they will pull an ace up their sleeves, seems to be playing its effort on the black diamond technology as their triumph card.
So, once again, in my opinion, they seem to be focused more on one portion of the whole training system (the flying one) rather than on the whole.

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

I'm rather puzzled by the apparent lack of an afterburner in Scaled's prototype. Especially considering the sustained-g requirement (6.5 g at 15,000 ft MSL), I'm rather skeptical that the required thrust can be achieved without afterburner. Also raises questions about the supersonic capability of the airplane. I don't recall the F404 being known for its specific thrust.

 

[bring_it_on]

There is no mention of a supersonic requirement in the RFP. Northrop and Raytheon's lack of an After-Burner is equally likely to suggest that they can meet the G requirements without it.

 

[Airplane]

I'm rather puzzled by the apparent lack of an afterburner in Scaled's prototype. Especially considering the sustained-g requirement (6.5 g at 15,000 ft MSL), I'm rather skeptical that the required thrust can be achieved without afterburner. Also raises questions about the supersonic capability of the airplane. I don't recall the F404 being known for its specific thrust.

Gripen supercruised with a 414. T-X certainly weighs less than Gripen, so lacking AB isn't a death knell if aerodynamics and mass are there to support supersonic flight with with a non-AB 404. There are other aircraft capable of sustained supersonic flight without ABurners that aren't thought of as supercruisers.

 

[Sundog]

Aviation Week is reporting that the Northrop T-X made it's first flight. However, it's in the Aerospace Daily section, which I don't have access to; my subscription is just to Aviation Week.

 

[NeilChapman]

I beg your pardon bring_it_on and marauder, I didn't mean to say "only" focused but rather more focused on the aircraft portion of the system.
Lockheed appears to be the only contender offering a supersonic capable aircraft with an afterburner, while Boeing, unless they will pull an ace up their sleeves, seems to be playing its effort on the black diamond technology as their triumph card.
So, once again, in my opinion, they seem to be focused more on one portion of the whole training system (the flying one) rather than on the whole.

Hmmm. That's a good point. If the three performance areas are:

Simulator visual acuity and performance
Sustained G &
aircraft sustainment

don't you pretty much have to focus on the aircraft portion of the system?

I'm not sure how mature the training tech is but if it's anything like the VR/Gaming industry there's not going to be much that separates the teams. You've either got the requirements checked off or you don't. Perhaps differentiators e.g. open system based - some easy method to upgrade modules going forward, COTS video processors, etc. The tech changes so rapidly that it's got to be cheap and quick to add capabilities as they become available.

My point is that the airframe may well be the sexiest part of the program - way to clearly stand apart from the competition.

For LM, if you've got an airframe already, and its engine includes an afterburner then you may as well keep it. The T-50A will have to lug around the extra 500 lbs of engine all the time. That will increase acquisition cost as well as cost of operations. On the other hand it will help to meet the sustained G objective among other things. But if the competition can meet the same requirements w/o the burner then I'd suspect LM will be at a disadvantage in the sustainment arena. The AE's here will know better what's possible based on the designs, guess of the weight and documented engine choices.

The real advantage for T-50A seems to be that it's ready - today and you don't have to look far to see that LM's marketing group is certainly focused in this area. Since the USAF's got the Pacer Classic III program that extends the life of 150 T-38's to 2029 the 'ready - today' feature might be less convincing.

Isn't IOC 2023 or 24 & FOC 2034? That's 4 airframes a month - LRIP rates. Neither helps with the 'ready-now' argument

Recall back in February that LM decided against a clean sheet design with Skunk Works GM Rob Weiss stating a new plane would be 8x more expensive than the T-50A. Weiss also said their new design would not meet the USAF's IOC date without significant schedule risk and unacceptable levels of concurrency.

Might be true. Might not. Could be they made a corporate decision based on the risk of program loss (based on the # of competitors) and decided the FUD sales pitch (fear, uncertainty & doubt) would hurt Boeing and NG more than anything else.

Lara Seligman (in DefenseNews, 2/11/16) reported Weiss said, “At the end of the day, it costs more, takes longer, is higher risk and does not add any capability beyond what our modernized T-50 will do”.

At least the USAF expects to enter a CRADA for the FA-50. This will lend credibility to offering the FA-50 around the world for all those countries looking for an aircraft with it's capabilities - also using US military assistance $'s. Not sure if it helps with T-X or not. Maybe that ends up being a consolation prize if the T-50A doesn't work out. Personally, with countries around the world looking for ~500 fighters a year I think that this has been LM's focus the entire time. They 'own' the US$85Million fighter market with the F-35. They were looking for a US$30Million 'entry-level' model. What better than one that can be sold using US taxpayer dollars. The T-X would be a nice win for them but it's not the cake.

--

NG has the existing F-35 center fuselage production line. They made an announcement at least a year ago that they had signed the company that helped build that line, onto the T-X program. Wouldn't be surprised if they've already got plans to build more than one airframe that existing line. Whether that's NGAD/FA-XX or T-X we'll have to see. Either way I don't see them 'coming to the party' without a solution to spin up N400 production quickly. But again, at such low rates of production it probably doesn't matter too much other than to nix the LM 'ready - today' argument.

According the article I referenced earlier the T-38 can't maintain airspeed and altitude in a 5G turn. Global Security.org's TX description included the following...
"
According to a July 2015 statement from the USAF's Air Education and Training Command, the service wanted an aircraft capable of 7.5g turns “while losing no more than 2,000ft of vertical altitude and 10% of the initial airspeed”. The sustained G maneuver would be flown with a standard configuration (i.e., clean with no external stores), at or above 80% fuel weight (relative to maximum fuel capacity), steady state flight, and standard day conditions. The maneuver will begin in level flight (flight path angle no lower than zero and no higher than two degrees nose high), wings level (+/- 5 degrees of bank), at or above 15,000 feet pressure altitude, and at or below 0.9M. From this point, the pilot shall immediately initiate bank and back pressure to achieve the sustained G. The sustained G must be maintained for a minimum of 140 continuous degrees. The pilot may begin reducing the load factor and rolling out after a minimum of 140 degrees in order to roll out at approximately 180 degrees of turn.

The flight path angle shall be no lower than 15 degrees nose low and the aircraft shall descend to no lower than 13,000 feet pressure altitude during any portion of the entire 180-degree maneuver. There is no power setting specified for this maneuver. The aircraft may lose no more than 10% of the initial airspeed during the 180-degree maneuver. There are no specified degrees of turn for roll in or roll out. “Approximately 180 degrees of turn” is meant to describe a recognizable maneuver without mandating exactly 180 degrees. There is no specified length of time for the 140-degree portion of the maneuver or for the 180-degree maneuver as a whole.

Minimum acceptable load factor will be 6.5 sustained for a minimum of 140 degrees. The lowest load factor registered during the 140-degree period will establish sustained G for the maneuver. For example, if the aircraft maintains 7.2Gs for less than 140 degrees and then drops to 6.9Gs by the end of the 140-degree period, 6.9Gs will be used as the maximum sustained G. There is no requirement to exceed 7.5Gs.
"

So the N400 must be a better design than the T-38 for the sustained G requirement - w/o the afterburner - or they (and Boeing) have got nothing. My point is that NG is probably just as focused on the airframe but they're strategic plan is different than LM. They're doing what's necessary to win T-X.

--

I can't imagine any advantage that Boeing has w/Black Diamond will be obvious w/the test article. I get your point that it might be the "ace of their sleeve" but I guess we won't know until the bids are opened. Not sure it will make a huge difference in the program outcome though.

As I understand it, Black Diamond is supposed to drop costs by the 10th airframe that you see in the 100th airframe today. Since T-X is based on simulator visual acuity and performance, sustained G & aircraft sustainment it doesn't give much precedent to the acquisition cost of a US$20-30million airframe, especially if sustainment costs are amortized over 30-50 years w/Billion dollar AETC budgets.

It's also going to be hard for Boeing to get past the KC-46 problems. It's not fair to them since it's a completely different program but a lot of folks can't get past the fact that the KC-10 has been around for a long time. How do you piss through US$5Billion on something that's been done before? Boeing builds ~50 737's per month. With the budgets as tight as they and, more importantly, the T-38's aging out in 2029 will the USAF want to risk an award to Boeing for whom 350 over 9 or 10 years is just not on their radar screen? Maybe other countries will purchase T-X. I don't know where the figure of 1000 comes from. Just doesn't add up.

Boeing can't seem to get firing on 8 cylinders. They are definitely a money pit. Perhaps working w/Saab will make a difference. For the folks in St. Louis, I hope so.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

It's amazing to essentially see the "Tigershark" get another chance. Practicality be damned, let's hope for an afterburning F404 in that puppy!

What immediately caught my eye on N400NT was the retaining of the after lower fuselage "shelves" that were necessary on the F-20 to preserve the F-5's excellently designed body lift concept. The wing, horizontal stab and LERX are all thicker than any built N-156 variant I've seen, likely a nod to high-subsonic performance being of more importance, perhaps a supercritical airfoil to further stress high subsonic cruise efficiency as opposed to max speed. I'm not sure how a supercritical wing would pan out for high-G maneuvering and the heavy use of LERX vortex lift though.

One thing that bothers me about the design is the what could be seen as limited ground clearance for stores, especially the theorized close support role that so many want to see the T-X pushed into.

 

[kcran567]

Am really liking the NG Scaled plane too as an updated t-38/f-5/f-20.

Maybe the afterburner isn't included in the initial trainer but it is probably a future upgrade that will be added?

And the press conference where the model was shown it was promised it would be "innovative" and more so than the other competitors. Is there more going on with that nozzle than we can conclude so far?

 

[icyplanetnhc (Steve)]

I'm rather puzzled by the apparent lack of an afterburner in Scaled's prototype. Especially considering the sustained-g requirement (6.5 g at 15,000 ft MSL), I'm rather skeptical that the required thrust can be achieved without afterburner. Also raises questions about the supersonic capability of the airplane. I don't recall the F404 being known for its specific thrust.

Gripen supercruised with a 414. T-X certainly weighs less than Gripen, so lacking AB isn't a death knell if aerodynamics and mass are there to support supersonic flight with with a non-AB 404. There are other aircraft capable of sustained supersonic flight without ABurners that aren't thought of as supercruisers.

True, I neglected to consider that the T-X may very well be substantially lighter than a tactical fighter. The F404's military power is more than the combined power of the T-38's two J85s in afterburner (static sea-level anyways).

 

[bring_it_on]

Northrop T-X Makes First Flight AWIN-Guy Noris

LOS ANGELES—Northrop Grumman’s contender for the U.S. Air Force’s T-X next-generation trainer competition made its first flight at Mojave, California, on Aug 24.
The aircraft, which was first seen publicly on Aug. 19 making high-speed taxi runs, is believed to have taken off at around 12:48 p.m. Pacific time and remained airborne for at least two hours. The aircraft, which was designed by Northrop’s Scaled Composites special projects company, underwent basic handling and systems tests during the flight, which was conducted in a series of racetrack patterns over the northern Mojave Desert.....

 

[totoro]

N400nt seems to be about t38 in size. a bit shorter, a bit larger tail, possibly a bit larger wings, but we don't know that yet.

t38 weighs just 3300 kg.

Where can n400nt save some weight?
It has shorter landing gear. It may use lighter materials and more weight efficient internal construction. It uses digital subystems, usually lighter than analogue ones.

But it also has powerplant section weighing some 450 kg more. Which needs more air and larger intakes. Which means more fuselage volume. And a stronger rear part construction, supporting that heavier engine and tail.

F-5b weighs 3800 kg, adding 500 kg of fairly basic equipment like rangefinger radar, some additional systems in cockpit and weapons carriage capacity, as well a sturdier construction to carry those weapons.

N400nt, like t38, doesn't need strengthened construction for weapons. But NG may have added some leeway there for future requirements.

All in all, i'd expect N400nt to weigh around 4 tons empty. Perhaps up to 4,5 tons if weapons carriage was planned into design but certainly not over.

 

[Airplane]

I'm rather puzzled by the apparent lack of an afterburner in Scaled's prototype. Especially considering the sustained-g requirement (6.5 g at 15,000 ft MSL), I'm rather skeptical that the required thrust can be achieved without afterburner. Also raises questions about the supersonic capability of the airplane. I don't recall the F404 being known for its specific thrust.

Gripen supercruised with a 414. T-X certainly weighs less than Gripen, so lacking AB isn't a death knell if aerodynamics and mass are there to support supersonic flight with with a non-AB 404. There are other aircraft capable of sustained supersonic flight without ABurners that aren't thought of as supercruisers.

True, I neglected to consider that the T-X may very well be substantially lighter than a tactical fighter. The F404's military power is more than the combined power of the T-38's two J85s in afterburner (static sea-level anyways).

Exactly. If intakes are done right and aerodynamics are ok, I bet its at least as fast as t38 with lit burners. Something below 1.3M. I still think the LM entry is the one to beat. It actually carries weapons and can be weaponized into a real fighter for low into intensity fights. Not a reqmnt but a hell of a capability to walk away from.

 

[bring_it_on]

I still think the LM entry is the one to beat. It actually carries weapons and can be weaponized into a real fighter for low into intensity fights. Not a reqmnt but a hell of a capability to walk away from.

That it offers all this extra capability that isnt officially a part of any requirement is one thing, but at what cost is completely another. The contract is more likely to come down to cost with adjustments made for better performance. Currently, none of those adjustments cover the weaponization aspects for future needs and this is unlikely to emerge. The question then becomes: Can Lockheed stay competitive within the realms of the RFP and still offer all this added capability that while not requested for, is still beneficial? I guess same applies to to the Raytheon proposal.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

First flight rumor going around.


http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/08/25/first-flight-for-northrop-t-x/

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Oh....wait. Guess I'm late to the party again.

 

[NUSNA_Moebius]

I still think the LM entry is the one to beat. It actually carries weapons and can be weaponized into a real fighter for low into intensity fights. Not a reqmnt but a hell of a capability to walk away from.

That it offers all this extra capability that isnt officially a part of any requirement is one thing, but at what cost is completely another. The contract is more likely to come down to cost with adjustments made for better performance. Currently, none of those adjustments cover the weaponization aspects for future needs and this is unlikely to emerge. The question then becomes: Can Lockheed stay competitive within the realms of the RFP and still offer all this added capability that while not requested for, is still beneficial? I guess same applies to to the Raytheon proposal.

It's a pretty significant issue that I think the N400NT might not be able to compete if the RFP starts requiring weapons training, unless growth and modification is built into the airframe. However, if the RFP sticks to being as spartan as it currently is, the N400NT is likely by far the most optimized proposal.

Right now, the T-50 is easily the most "above & beyond" of the current competitors, with the M-346 sort of in the middle in my eyes. Both can offer advanced weapons training as well as light combat capabilities. Without going into avionics, the T-50 being an F-16 derivative is quite good in the knife fight, esp with an afterburner, since it needs it and of course it's the fastest of the competitors. The M-346's two engine survivability, big wing and likely better sustained turn performance without needing an afterburner would make it a better candidate for replacing the A-10 in close air support. Interestingly, the F124s in the M-346 have about the same military power SFC as the F404, and with two of them deliver more thrust than the F404 at military. However, a single F404 is cheaper to procure and likely cheaper to maintain. I wonder if a single engined M-346 variant was looked at.

 

[Trident]

Final minor revisions, pending any new clues. I had the intakes wrong in plan view.

EDIT: Marked what would be the Saab-built section that we saw wrapped in a tarpaulin for shipping a couple of weeks ago.

 

[bring_it_on]

Speaking on the eve of the Swedish Air Force’s 90th anniversary celebrations here, Tomas Karlsson, Saab’s head of T-X Global Sales and Marketing, said the program had provided an opportunity to invest “in the future of training and training systems from the ground up." Saab is partnered with Boeing on a bid to replace the U.S. Air Force’s aging T-38.

“The winner of this competition will own the market for training for decades,” Karlsson suggested to delegates.

Cecilia Perez, Boeing’s head of T-X sales and marketing, suggested there could be a global market for as many as 2,100 aircraft in the T-X’s class, including lightweight ground-attack aircraft.Perez said Saab had been selected because the Swedish company had a pedigree of moving fast on programs and designing small aircraft. The program has seen each company co-locate personnel in St. Louis and Linkoping, Sweden.

Perez said the draft request for proposals (RFP) published in late July by the U.S. Air Force would “deliver gaps in training” in key areas such as aerial refueling, the use of night vision aids, air-to-air combat and the use of the datalinks, the latter being a particular specialty of Saab. The RFP calls for 350 aircraft in as well as 60 training devices.

“While there is lots of interest in the aircraft, the platform is a system of simulation tools,” said Saab CEO Hakan Bushke.....

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/t-x-winner-seen-dominating-market-decades

 

[NeilChapman]

Speaking on the eve of the Swedish Air Force’s 90th anniversary celebrations here, Tomas Karlsson, Saab’s head of T-X Global Sales and Marketing, said the program had provided an opportunity to invest “in the future of training and training systems from the ground up." Saab is partnered with Boeing on a bid to replace the U.S. Air Force’s aging T-38.

“The winner of this competition will own the market for training for decades,” Karlsson suggested to delegates.

Cecilia Perez, Boeing’s head of T-X sales and marketing, suggested there could be a global market for as many as 2,100 aircraft in the T-X’s class, including lightweight ground-attack aircraft.Perez said Saab had been selected because the Swedish company had a pedigree of moving fast on programs and designing small aircraft. The program has seen each company co-locate personnel in St. Louis and Linkoping, Sweden.

Perez said the draft request for proposals (RFP) published in late July by the U.S. Air Force would “deliver gaps in training” in key areas such as aerial refueling, the use of night vision aids, air-to-air combat and the use of the datalinks, the latter being a particular specialty of Saab. The RFP calls for 350 aircraft in as well as 60 training devices.

“While there is lots of interest in the aircraft, the platform is a system of simulation tools,” said Saab CEO Hakan Bushke.....

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/t-x-winner-seen-dominating-market-decades

Sounds like Boeing had the same idea as LM. LM will have several years head start using US Foreign Military Assistance $'s to spur sales.

It will be interesting to see how competitive that leaves their airframe for T-X specific requirements.

 

[bring_it_on]

Update: Earlier this month the USAF updated/revised the RFP and made some changes to the Total Estimated Price adjustments for the various capabilities where objective performance (or better) will get a defined, downwards revision of the TEP for those that demonstrate it.

For the GBTS Connectivity the new VATEP is $67 Million, compared to an earlier (July,2016) specified $13 Million, and for Aerial Refueling Subsystem Full Integration it is now $13 Million, compared to the earlier $20 Million.

Additionally, they have provided an updated timeline and production schedule. Peak Production is now expected to be 48 aircraft per year.

GBTS specs have also been released:

https://www.scribd.com/document/322373908/Ground-Based-Training-System

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-08-09/f-16s-operate-virtual-f-22s-during-training-event?


Wonder if this LEXIOS system will be included in NG's T-X proposal. Any thoughts?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/09/09/boeing-to-reveal-new-details-on-its-t-x-trainer-next-week/?comp%3D1199442010954%26rank%3D0

 

[NeilChapman]

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/09/09/boeing-to-reveal-new-details-on-its-t-x-trainer-next-week/?comp%3D1199442010954%26rank%3D0

from above...

"For three years, Boeing has been secretive about its proposal to manufacture the new twin-engine, supersonic jet trainer. "

I read this the other day. Is this news, ignorance of the requirements or just crappy sentence structure?

 

[KoV]

The shape you can see in the video

 

[Sundog]

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/09/09/boeing-to-reveal-new-details-on-its-t-x-trainer-next-week/?comp%3D1199442010954%26rank%3D0

from above...

"For three years, Boeing has been secretive about its proposal to manufacture the new twin-engine, supersonic jet trainer. "

I read this the other day. Is this news, ignorance of the requirements or just crappy sentence structure?

We'll find out in a couple of days.