Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting mmo (Reply 1): Sustained G min 6.5 desired 7.5 with 80% fuel load |
Quoting mmo (Reply 1): if FBW then auto-CGAS required |
Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 4): How does that compare to the capabilities of current trainer aircraft in the US and elsewhere? |
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 8): it might be a mistake not to include A/R as standard in my opinion. |
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. |
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. |
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 10): I think the USAF wants one jet not different versions. |
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. |
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? |
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? |
Quoting MMO (Reply 16): The engines could be bigger |
Quoting MMO (Reply 16): The F-20 was a great design, it was subject to politics and the wrong place at the wrong time. |
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..... |
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 19): Or, the KAI T-50 would be a near perfect option: |
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 22): any links to that impression? |
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 24): http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ng-t-x-and-f-x-plans-under-420044/ |
Quoting Ozair (Reply 29): Not the easiest looking jet on the eyes... |
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. |
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 26): when I look at it i see the f/a-18 (figuratively speaking) |
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... |
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 42): Interesting no horizontal stabilizer... |
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 |
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 |