T-X Requirements Released

mmo · Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:32 pm

Apparently, the T-X requirements were released late yesterday. For your viewing pleasure..... http://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportuni...64c1ed3ebc1fa8b1&tab=core&_cview=1

mmo · Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:21 am

Just some highlights from the list of requirements for the T-x

10% more fuel efficient than current T-38
Adaptable for air refueling gear to be fitted (built in A/R preferred)
25Knot X-wind (Dry) 20Knot (Wet)
8000' runway (7400' density altitude and 10Knot tailwind)
Large MFD displays
Switchology to simulate air-air/air-ground weapons release
Sustained G min 6.5 desired 7.5 with 80% fuel load
ADS-B/TCAS
RNP/RNAV Capable
95% mission completion rate
$1 billion/year for fleet of 350 aircraft for 20 years
Ground Prox warning and radar altimeter, if FBW then auto-CGAS required
Anti-skid braking with no drag chute
Full body G suit capable
Full IFR capability (ILS/Tacan/GPS)
Minimum 2 VHF/UHF capable radios
Ability to penetrate 5000' light rime icing from surface to 22,000MSL

Those are just some of the highlights.....should be interesting.

angad84 · Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:22 am

Awesome, thanks for sharing. Looks interesting. Are there public numbers on the sustainment costs for the present T-38 fleet? I suspect that and the fuel costs are the major differences, of course in addition to updated avionics and MMI.

Cheers
Angad

queb · Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:38 am

T-38 J85-GE-5H/J/L/M's TSFC (lbm/lbf-hr) baseline values:
Cruise: 0.96; Max Dry: 1.03; Max Afterburner: 2.20

10% TFSC improvement values to the T-38 J85-GE-5H/J/L/M's TSFC (lbm/lbf-hr):
Cruise: 0.864; Max Dry: 0.93; Max Afterburner: 1:98

Values are for uninstalled J85 engine (no installed inlet or external nozzle losses) in a SLS engine production test cell. Afterburner values not required for engines offered without afterburner capability.

Chaostheory · Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:42 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 1):
Sustained G min 6.5 desired 7.5 with 80% fuel load

How does that compare to the capabilities of current trainer aircraft in the US and elsewhere?

Quoting mmo (Reply 1):
if FBW then auto-CGAS required

Cool stuff.

I know there is a plan to install such a system on the F-16 and F-35.

Development and Flight Demonstration of a Vairiable Autonomy Ground Collision Avoidance System.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkBA9cCAtTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWx6-aK8Ick

It can't be too long before such as system becomes standard in civil aviation.

mmo · Mon Mar 23, 2015 1:16 pm

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 4):
How does that compare to the capabilities of current trainer aircraft in the US and elsewhere?

The current T-38 will sustain about 41/2 G in level flight at 11,000MSL in Mil power. As altitude increases the sustained G drops to 4 and you have to lose airspeed or altitude to really maintain that. The current G requirement in the T-x will match current generation of aircraft.

Devilfish · Wed Dec 02, 2015 6:07 pm

Seems there could be a few clean-sheet designs for the T-X competition...

...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...99s-next-big-aircraft-contest.html

angad84 · Thu Dec 03, 2015 10:30 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 6):
Seems there could be a few clean-sheet designs for the T-X competition... ...

Well, the programme is certainly big enough (as planned at the moment) to make a new design viable. Of course, if you have something ready to go, that helps.

Cheers
A

INFINITI329 · Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:01 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 1):
Adaptable for air refueling gear to be fitted (built in A/R preferred)

it might be a mistake not to include A/R as standard in my opinion.

Ozair · Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:42 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 8):
it might be a mistake not to include A/R as standard in my opinion.

It’s probably not necessary for a vast majority of the fleet. The simulators can do a lot of the training and given the USAF use boom refuelling keeping station on a tanker is something they can learn when converting onto their respective front line jets. AAR will be beneficial though if/when the T-X is used as an aggressor aircraft allowing it to stay up in the airspace for longer.

Question is, will any contender be able to reduce the cost of the jet by removing AAR from the training version and will USAF award points for AAR or will it simply be nice?

With any of the potential new designs, with the USAF moving to an all 5th gen twin tailed fleet, will we see a twin tail T-X?

INFINITI329 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:32 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 9):
It’s probably not necessary for a vast majority of the fleet. The simulators can do a lot of the training and given the USAF use boom refuelling keeping station on a tanker is something they can learn when converting onto their respective front line jets. AAR will be beneficial though if/when the T-X is used as an aggressor aircraft allowing it to stay up in the airspace for longer.

A read several months ago that USAF wants to move some training out the Formal Training Unit syllabus and into UPT. I believe aerial refueling was one of them. The current aircraft are unable to perform some the tasks therefore they have to be done at the FTU's. I would be very surprised if a sim can replicate aerial refueling to the degree needed. I think the USAF wants one jet not different versions.

Ozair · Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:10 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 10):

A read several months ago that USAF wants to move some training out the Formal Training Unit syllabus and into UPT. I believe aerial refueling was one of them.

Makes sense I guess, do the refueling training on the cheaper per hour jet and then just have to re-qual on UPT.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 10):
I think the USAF wants one jet not different versions.

If they use the jet for aggressor work, as is planned, that will happen anyway. An aggressor will need some additional systems that they won't fit to the training jets.

mmo · Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:28 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 11):
If they use the jet for aggressor work, as is planned, that will happen anyway. An aggressor will need some additional systems that they won't fit to the training jets.

Right now, the T-x is not planned to join the aggressor program. There has been discussion regarding that with the bidders. However, the current requirements don't meet the aggressor criteria. The bidders have been told it is not part of the bid process, but it's not ruled out at a later date either.

angad84 · Fri Dec 04, 2015 2:13 pm

Quoting MMO (Reply 12):
The bidders have been told it is not part of the bid process, but it's not ruled out at a later date either.

Does that mean they may press T-X into service as an aggressor later on, but the bidders shouldn't design for it?

Cheers
A

mmo · Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:25 pm

Quoting angad84 (Reply 13):
Does that mean they may press T-X into service as an aggressor later on, but the bidders shouldn't design for it?

The bidders have been told the performance specs are what is needed to satisfy the requirement of a trainer. That is all they have to worry about. What the USAF does beyond that is really immaterial for the T-x bid.

Devilfish · Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:05 pm

Northrop has unveiled its entry to the press who were 'impressed' at how closely it resembles the T-38.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...eak-peek-of-full-t-x-conce-420004/

Quote:
"A private unveiling of a 'slightly' outdated Northrop Grumman’s T-X advanced trainer model reveals an unmistakeable likeness with the T-38 Talon and a strategic focus on cost control to win the hotly-contested US Air Force competition.

Northrop plans to publicly unveil and fly an internally funded prototype of the company’s T-X trainer concept early next year. Offering a sneak-peek to journalists on 10 December, Tom Vice, president of Northrop’s Aerospace Systems sector, appeared visibly conflicted over whether he should give away key features of the concept up to the last concept.

In the end, he decided to lift the veil on the model, but not allow pictures. The aircraft unveiled early next year at Northrop’s flight test base in Mojave, California, will include small changes, he adds."

I, OTOH wonder what its similarities are to the F-20 Tigershark...

...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/F-20_Northrop_colors_in_flight.jpg

Quoting angad84 (Reply 13):
Does that mean they may press T-X into service as an aggressor later on, but the bidders shouldn't design for it?

If that would be included in the KPP, a two-seat Tigershark clone might have a leg up on the competition.....

[Edited 2015-12-12 13:45:30]

mmo · Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:11 pm

Having over 2000 hours in the T-38, there is nothing wrong with the basic design of the aircraft. The engines could be bigger, it could have slats and a few other upgrades. The point is, it gets the job done and it's relatively cheap. The F-20 was a great design, it was subject to politics and the wrong place at the wrong time.

Devilfish · Sat Dec 12, 2015 10:46 pm

Quoting MMO (Reply 16):
The engines could be bigger

Would two Williams FJ44-3As with afterburners or FJ44-4 engines (may be too wide to fit) provide the required military thrust? Northrop could opt for a single, GE F414 engine but that would omit the OEI scenario from the training syllabus.

Quoting MMO (Reply 16):
The F-20 was a great design, it was subject to politics and the wrong place at the wrong time.

And it appears Northrop is following the same tack as before.....

Quote:
"an internally funded prototype of the company’s T-X trainer concept"

trex8 · Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:21 am

Some prime should take the Taiwan IDF put non afterburning versions of the engines on it (ie the F124 on the M346) and tweak a few things to bring it into the 21st century and be done. Except I think the folks in DC back when the program started had put some stipulation in the agreement with the ROC that something like that (a US company using any part of the design) can never happen.

ThePointblank · Sun Dec 13, 2015 3:33 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 15):
If that would be included in the KPP, a two-seat Tigershark clone might have a leg up on the competition.....

Or, the KAI T-50 would be a near perfect option:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Zeitler - Flying-Wings

It even has a US prime that co-developed it, and many systems onboard are similar to the F-16. And South Korea has purchased F-35's and needs industrial offsets, so acquiring the T-50 would significantly help satisfy those offset requirements.

Devilfish · Sun Dec 13, 2015 6:41 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19):
Or, the KAI T-50 would be a near perfect option:

Quite apart from that, KAI T-50 winning the T-X competition would be very good for the Philippine Air Force as it assures support and spares supply for its squadron of FA-50PH light fighter/trainer which just had the first two frames delivered two weeks ago. It might even allow adoption of future developments or lead to a top-up order.....

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/42/34/62/9030817/5/1024x1024.jpg

http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m...ilipinas40/FA50PH3_zpszoptidv3.jpg

Devilfish · Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:34 pm

Boeing refuses to follow Northrop's lead and won't show its hand...

...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ng-t-x-and-f-x-plans-under-420044/

Quote:
"Boeing Phantom Works president Darryl Davis is refusing to take Northrop’s bait by disclosing new information about his advanced research and design unit’s secretive 'T-X' and future fighter projects.

In an interview with Flightglobal in Washington this week, Davis stayed tight-lipped on when the company intends to fly the clean-sheet, next-generation trainer it is developing with Saab for the air force.

The most that has been revealed about the Boeing T-X alternative is an artist’s impression of the twin-seat advanced pilot trainer’s long nose and forward cockpit.

More was revealed to VIPs attending the Air Warfare Symposium in September, but reporters were not granted access."

Apparently, they believe the adage "loose lips sink ships".....

INFINITI329 · Wed Dec 16, 2015 5:12 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 21):
The most that has been revealed about the Boeing T-X alternative is an artist’s impression of the twin-seat advanced pilot trainer’s long nose and forward cockpit.

any links to that impression?

Devilfish · Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:20 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 22):
any links to that impression?

This was the image they teased the public with before...don't know if it's what the article is referring to or if indeed there is a new one.....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YYhWFP82Ky...c_QiUQ/s1600/LM_concept_-_main.jpg

INFINITI329 · Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:13 pm

Boeing going at it alone?

Wingtip1005 · Wed Dec 16, 2015 9:02 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 24):
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ng-t-x-and-f-x-plans-under-420044/

Boeing & Saab

http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...ve-boeing-t-x-first-look/72300372/

INFINITI329 · Thu Dec 17, 2015 12:01 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 23):
This was the image they teased the public with before...don't know if it's what the article is referring to or if indeed there is a new one.....

when I look at it i see the f/a-18 (figuratively speaking)

A350 · Thu Dec 17, 2015 7:40 am

The KAI T-50s look remembers me strongly to the F-16

Do you see chances for the Textron / Cessna Scorpion? It was discussed back in 2013 on anet

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Van Bel

A350

Edit: details precised

[Edited 2015-12-16 23:42:27]

rlwynn · Thu Dec 17, 2015 11:16 am

Textron has ruled the Scorpion out. It does not meet the requirements.

Ozair · Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:52 am

The Lockheed entrant has been unveiled.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...heed-rollout-t-x-prototype-420149/

Not the easiest looking jet on the eyes...

Devilfish · Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:03 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 29):
Not the easiest looking jet on the eyes...

The first photo in Reply 20 looks way better without that hump on its back...wonder what LockMart put in it?

Here's a bigger image.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=65140

Could it be a retractable refueling probe well?

[Edited 2015-12-17 20:39:48]

seahawk · Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:09 am

that just looks wrong.

mmo · Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:37 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 30):
Could it be a retractable refueling probe well?

I seriously doubt it. The USAF favors boom refueling and here are no fixed wing aircraft that have the probe for refueling. It is most likely additional fuel or space for avionics.

Ozair · Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:24 am

Quoting MMO (Reply 32):
I seriously doubt it. The USAF favors boom refueling and here are no fixed wing aircraft that have the probe for refueling. It is most likely additional fuel or space for avionics.

It is confirmed as the boom refueling point as well as additional fuel storage.

moo · Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:47 am

I quite like it, but once again another jet with a very F-16 like rear end...

INFINITI329 · Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:31 pm

Quoting MMO (Reply 32):
I seriously doubt it. The USAF favors boom refueling and here are no fixed wing aircraft that have the probe for refueling. It is most likely additional fuel or space for avionics.

The future generation of tankers will be able to support both so the USAF can change the philosophy if they choose.. but probably wont

Devilfish · Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:10 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 26):
when I look at it i see the f/a-18 (figuratively speaking)

Well, kinda...like this Boeing/SAAB concept design.....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4aq8jVh9Qn...AAD7Q/glg_WWRg7Bw/s1600/fs2020.jpg

Although no mystery since the "Bug" was (in a roundabout way) originally derived from Northrop's P530 Cobra.....

http://www.super-mystere.net/ci021/planche/images/full/ci06.jpg

Quoting a350 (Reply 27):
The KAI T-50s look remembers me strongly to the F-16

Quoting moo (Reply 34):
I quite like it, but once again another jet with a very F-16 like rear end...

Hard not too look like that with a design based on the Falcon.

Devilfish · Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:52 pm

Another image.....

http://www.afwing.com/d/file/aircraf...7547763cfe4a473a92311cff7e230a.jpg

Devilfish · Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:50 am

A modernized, two-seat, single-engine version of the LWF above may also be possible with PW F100 or GE F110 engine - as every OEM's unveiling of its purported entry has been mostly a smoke and mirrors show so far.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...mate-offering-for-t-x-next-420225/

Quote:
"Earlier this year, the company disclosed that its Skunk Works advanced design and development division has also been working on a clean-sheet alternative as a backup if the air force’s performance specifications for the next-generation replacement for the 55-year-old Northrop T-38 evolve.

Although Lockheed’s long-term relationship with Korea through the country’s indigenous T-50 programme was to form the basis for its T-X offering, Skunk Works would not explicitly confirm that the demonstrator unveiled in Korea would be offered for the $8 billion new-build trainer opportunity."

https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=65155

Devilfish · Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:12 pm

Not a very auspicious start for the KAI T-50's campaign in the T-X competition.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO9ALiGJx4U

Might it be related to the T-50's images disappearing above.....

.

Edit: Perhaps member mandala would care to provide a translation of the reporter's running commentary?

[Edited 2015-12-20 10:33:17]

moo · Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:57 pm

That looks very very similar to the Shoreham airshow crash earlier this year in the UK - loop with the aircraft not being able to recover.

Devilfish · Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:22 pm

G-LOC perhaps? Here's a clearer video of the incident. Seems the emergency responders took a while to get to the scene of the crash.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc5MazJwt5o

R.I.P. to the crew.....

[Edited 2015-12-20 11:44:48]

INFINITI329 · Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:56 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 23):
This was the image they teased the public with before...don't know if it's what the article is referring to or if indeed there is a new one....

Interesting no horizontal stabilizer...

Ozair · Sun Dec 20, 2015 9:59 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 42):
Interesting no horizontal stabilizer...

Boeing considered using a Pelikan tail for the X-32 but opted in their final configuration, an attempt to reduce the perceived redesign risk, for a more conventional design. A Pelikan tail is probably Boeing’s attempt to reduce their T-X weight while maintaining the manoeuvrability requirements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelikan_tail

It certainly looks better than a conventional tail.

INFINITI329 · Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:50 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 43):

Boeing considered using a Pelikan tail for the X-32 but opted in their final configuration, an attempt to reduce the perceived redesign risk, for a more conventional design. A Pelikan tail is probably Boeing’s attempt to reduce their T-X weight while maintaining the manoeuvrability requirements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelikan_tail

its actually heavier as I read, i dont see what why boeing would use it this since it hasnt worked in the past

Ozair · Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:47 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 44):
its actually heavier as I read, i dont see what why boeing would use it this since it hasnt worked in the past

It has worked with several UAVs equipped with a Pelikan tail. I'd be surprised if Boeing hadn't figured out a way to reduce the hydraulic pump weight, for example moving to electrohydrostatic, as well as manufacturing the entire tail out of composite to reduce the weight and improve the reliability.

It is great to see so much effort, and challenging specifications, for T-X. So far I think there are six contenders with four of those designs being clean sheet...

zeke · Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:22 pm

Will someone be offering the Hawk ?

mmo · Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:58 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Will someone be offering the Hawk ?

No, as it does not meet the require minimum performance requirements.

INFINITI329 · Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:48 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 46):
Will someone be offering the Hawk ?

Long before the requirements were released northrop grumman and bae were supposedly teaming to over a revamped Hawk. But they dropped it before the requirements were even released.

Confuscius · Wed Dec 23, 2015 7:33 pm

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 23):

Looks like it has stealth quality in the design. Perhaps it's a stealth trainer, so the enemy won't know you're training pilots.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net