Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 21 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 608

Thread: USAF T-X

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,408
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    I think SAAB has categorically denied that this would be a dumbed down Gripen.
    Hummm. I fear that it's marketing mainly. Nobody would buy an expensive 4++ Fighter if it said to be made out of a trainer. Until the desig is revealed, they can say everything they want that might help to sell more Gripen


    In this thread, so far, We've focused ard the Scorpion, but it cld well be a watered down BAE offer ard a new Hawk.

    I wrote that years ago, but with an aggressive approach, you can make a Super-hawk slightly supersonic. What can't be done with the Scorpion.

    Regarding the Scorpion, with it's new Carbon wing, I think that the 6G limit will probably be an old story.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 16th January 2015 at 21:41.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    Unless the KPP´s are upgraded (the document is still a draft), yes its sure.
    On that second link, the fbo link, on the bottom, there´s a downloable doc (an excell) that describes the KPP/KSA/APA/HSI that are required, the radar "capability" is described on KSA5:



    Its a simulator, not a real radar. Thats the common method/system used by almost everyone who has bought advanced jet trainers for quite some time.

    Cheers
    Ok, thanks for the clarification.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotshot View Post
    AESAs are said to be significantly cheaper to operate, so indeed this has to be taken into account, although I don't think a trainer would really need a high performance radar. We will see if they want a radar in the TX.
    AESA does not mean high performance. Vixen 500E, for example, has lower performance than many mechanically scanned radars. It's also much smaller & cheaper than those radars. PicoSAR is an AESA radar, & is intended for fairly small UAVs. It weighs about 10kg, & I expect it's quite a lot cheaper than an APG-66.

    But as said, it's unlikely that the USAF will want a radar in its trainers. It'll probably want to simulate a radar. Cheaper, & less to maintain.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    between the mountains and the desert
    Posts
    3,637
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    I'm still expecting supersonic and will be disappointed if its performance is worse compared to T-38A.
    Sorry - from the beginning the USAF has stated that T-X does NOT need to be supersonic, and that while it would be allowed no extra cost to achieve it would be allowed.
    Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    I expect any bid which has a Hawk derivative to be technically disqualified for inability to meet safety standards and the Adour's poor performance in the US Navy's T-45s.

    The USAF probably wants it in the competition because it is cheap and would drive down the cost of more capable/expensive types, such as T-50.
    Last edited by djcross; 17th January 2015 at 06:53.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    687
    Why is the Adour performing badly in the T-45?

    Regards
    David Mylchreest
    Steam and Model Railway videos http://www.youtube.com/user/PenrithBeacon
    Aviation videos http://www.youtube.com/user/austerfive

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Why is the Adour performing badly in the T-45?

    Regards
    djcross said the same thing a few years ago which prompted this discussion:

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...-Adour-engines

    The USN uses a significantly lower thrust version that the RAF and I would image the latest Adour would give the USAF 1000lb more thrust than the engine used in the T45 with a much lighter airframe.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    impressive (Textron AirLand’s Scorpion)
    The design met its $3,000/h operating cost target in its first year, and demonstrated a 95% availability rate
    Scorpion with a low chord wing would be like a T-38. Similar engine size, much better fuel economy. Marginal lifetime cost difference. I think there is even a digital system available for the engines. At the same time you could take the old T-38 package and bring it up to year 2015 standards. Build in margins for future upgrades, like space for more fuel if someone wants a bigger set of tanks, without major changes. More or less a modular design.
    Go Huskers!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,454
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    I expect any bid which has a Hawk derivative to be technically disqualified for inability to meet safety standards and the Adour's poor performance in the US Navy's T-45s.

    The USAF probably wants it in the competition because it is cheap and would drive down the cost of more capable/expensive types, such as T-50.
    That sounds a lot like wishful thinking, bordering inplausability.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    456
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	f0205060_522e99d8d0c1a.jpg 
Views:	622 
Size:	222.0 KB 
ID:	234730

    All this talk, is just one way to put KAI and LM warning..."Put you cost down"....Well what can I said..I'm bit bias on this...afterall if T-50 become T-X, it will put all other T-50 users on future cost maintenance reduction..

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Northrop Grumman has dropped the HAWK and are working on a clean sheet design for the T-X. A new prototype would be constructed by its Scaled Composite subsidiary and should be rolled out by year end.

    Northrop Pivots To Clean-Sheet T-X Trainer


    http://aviationweek.com/defense/nort...et-t-x-trainer
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th February 2015 at 18:36.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    960
    It would be cool if they come up with sort of f5 inspired design, something that can also be sold as basic fighter to poorer nations. though chances for that are probavly very slim.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    That would be something that they would no doubt consider now that the USAF has shown an interest for added capability for aggressor squadrons. Even then that market has the T-50, and the Indian LCA among some of the Chinese offerings. I think Boeing may have anticipated this earlier. Unless Northrop are able to really step up and do something in 12-14 months, this move gives Boeing and Lockheed an advantage given that the former has been working on a design for many months in partnership with SAAB and the latter already has a mature design (that is proven in both roles ) to base its submission on.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,454
    Me thinking that budget restrictions would plant the good old hawk in the favourite lot... And NG ditchs it... Got to send my Cristal ball to the mechanic...
    Well, Djcross, got to give due credits, you were right.

    What I really don't get it is how this capability creep (because this new "red air" is a capability creep) goes with the talk of revising specifications in order to reduce costs!
    Next year budget there will be provisions to add STVOl AND a 155mm gun to T/X...
    I'll get me hat
    Last edited by Sintra; 6th February 2015 at 09:31.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,454
    And Textron is offering three versions of the Scorpion!
    NG, Boeing and Textron are going into this with new aircraft's!

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,233
    Well whilst I think the USAF/DOD set the requirements too tough and the latest Hawk variant is more the capable of training pilots for the most advanced fighter types in my heart of hearts I am not entirely surprised.

    Personally I think BAE Systems should look towards developing a new generation Hawk lifting what is good out of the current program and combining it with what has been learnt from the Typhoon and Lightning programs. I would also stretch to say they should look at a new powerplant as well lifting what is good out of the Adour and combing with technology from other more advanced engine programs maybe even looking at a powerplant that could be used for multiple roles from jet engine to turboshaft.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,233
    Further from my previous reply it is interesting to note that Northrop still want to use elements of BAE Systems technology in the new aircraft. Personally I see opportunity, BAE Systems should suck it up and look to becoming a partner on Northrop's program with major sub assembly construction and avionics input not unlike that of the F35 lightning. That way UK PLc has potential access to a huge market and a possible future Hawk replacement.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    That would be something that they would no doubt consider now that the USAF has shown an interest for added capability for aggressor squadrons.
    My disagreement with a Boeing/Saab clean sheet instead of Gripen derivative is only growing stronger.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Apparently Northrop's plan to do a clean sheet " germinated " 2 years ago

    The decision to switch from a well-known system to a new design began germinating two years ago, as the Air Force started making the requirements for T-X more clear to industry, said Marc Lindsley, Northrop's T-X program director.

    During that time, the company was still planning to offer the Hawk. In recent months, however, the company decided a new design would best meet the technical and affordability requirements.

    Northrop informed the Air Force of its plan "a few" months back, Lindsley said, adding that there was no specific requirement that drove the decision but rather an "aggregate" of inputs from the service

    "[After] the open dialogue with industry, the understanding [of what] the requirements and capabilities are, and what the costs are of those requirements, we have an opportunity with this clean-sheet design to give them exactly what they want, and that's what we want to do," Lindsley said.

    The new design is in the assembly stage, with a first flight expected sometime this year. Northrop declined to give a more detailed timetable on when that would be, but companies always like to make a splash around either the Paris Air Show in June or the Air Force Association's annual convention in September.
    Last summer, when the world still believed Northrop was offering the Hawk, the company was officially named the prime on the team. Lindsley characterized that decision as "part of the process" toward moving to a clean-sheet design, but said the plan is to keep the same team of partners as with the Hawk.

    The company is in discussions with BAE about including the British company's core training system, which simulates radar threats and other training requirements, as the center of the new jet's internal systems. BAE would also assist on production and design. L-3, meanwhile, will continue to provide ground training systems such as simulators and classroom activities.

    Lindsley added that "for now," the first prototype will use a General Electric engine, but declined to go into details on how a full fleet of Northrop T-X planes would be powered.

    One benefit of switching to a clean-sheet design is bringing another partner into the process. Northrop signed an exclusive agreement with Detroit-based KUKA Systems in 2012 to help design a production line for the then-expected Hawk offering. KUKA designed the company's F-35 Palmdale, California, production line, which was named 2013 "Assembly Plant of the Year" by Assembly Magazine.
    "You're also designing the aircraft with modern manufacturing capabilities and growth potential, because let's keep in mind that we're proposing an aircraft that's replacing one that's been flying for 50 years," Lindsley added. Baking in the ability to easily upgrade and modify the design will be important if this T-X design is to last for several decades.

    Perhaps the most important partner in this program will be Scaled Composites. Although Northrop bought Scaled in 2007, Scaled operates semi-autonomously as a rapid prototyping house, working for a number of programs both within and outside Northrop's portfolio. The aircraft is being designed at Scaled's facility in Mojave, California.

    "Scaled takes their rapid prototyping design and development capability, combines it with the Northrop capability … and we're getting synergy out of that combined effort between the two organizations," Lindsley said.

    A spokesman for the company said no decision has been made on where the T-X could be produced, but the two likely spots would be Northrop's Manufacturing Centers of Excellence, one in St. Augustine, Florida, and the other in Palmdale, home to the KUKA-designed F-35 line.
    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...e-l3/22939343/
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,159
    Here is a question - now that the USAF are looking something capable of pulling sustained 9g and with the instantaneous maneuverability and energy bleed rates necessary to act as an aggressor...

    What exactly differentiates this airframe from a front-line aircraft?

    Mission systems alone?

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Mission systems, possibly size and weight. Other then that it should be similar..
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    960
    while 9g limit may be the same, it's different doing 9g with x payload and doing it with several times less payload. Trainer's aiframe is simpler and doesn't need to carry much payload nor maneouver with it. It doesn't need a lot of fuel. It doesn't need lots of space for avionics. It doesn't need airframe shape and intake shape for high supersonic envelope, at best a transsonic envelope will suffice. (not to mention modern additions like low rcs shaping, requirements for ram, internal fuel and weapons) it all means the whole plane is simpler, smaller, with various subsystems smaller and simpler (for example landing gear can be really short and simple, as there's no requirement for underbelly carriage of any payload).

    It all adds up quite a bit in a much cheaper plane to buy and operate.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    The aggressors need the ability to carry external IRST, Jammers, fuel tanks etc They should have considered just buying really basic F-16's as the production line winds down as an option and buy a simpler trainer. Many however, look at the T-X as something to keep the design teams busy as the services transition from the F-35 acquisition to the full fledged 6th generation fighter development and X plane competitions. With that in mind one can better understand the effort of NG through Scaled composites to rapidly prototype a new clean sheet design.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 6th February 2015 at 15:09.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Amiga500 View Post
    My disagreement with a Boeing/Saab clean sheet instead of Gripen derivative is only growing stronger.
    Gripen first flew 25+ years ago.

    If Boeing(or Scaled Composites) can't do better using modern technology and tailoring their design to the specific requirements they aren't trying very hard.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    The aggressors need the ability to carry external IRST, Jammers, fuel tanks etc They should have considered just buying really basic F-16's as the production line winds down as an option and buy a simpler trainer. Many however, look at the T-X as something to keep the design teams busy as the services transition from the F-35 acquisition to the full fledged 6th generation fighter development and X plane competitions. With that in mind one can better understand the effort of NG through Scaled composites to rapidly prototype a new clean sheet design.
    Certainly your point about keeping design teams busy is a valid one, but the same point as applies to the Gripen applies even more so to the F-16. The original F-16 only took a few years to go from concept to production back in the 1970s. There is nothing to say that a clean slate design couldn't do the same thing today, assuming they were willing to avoid bureaucracy and keep the program to the bare essentials.

    With modern composites, design tools, etc, beating the F-16 or Gripen's price/performance balance shouldn't be hard.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,361
    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    Certainly your point about keeping design teams busy is a valid one, but the same point as applies to the Gripen applies even more so to the F-16. The original F-16 only took a few years to go from concept to production back in the 1970s. There is nothing to say that a clean slate design couldn't do the same thing today, assuming they were willing to avoid bureaucracy and keep the program to the bare essentials.

    With modern composites, design tools, etc, beating the F-16 or Gripen's price/performance balance shouldn't be hard.
    I agree some new computer thinking and 70% more stealth to F-16 would upgrade it par with 5th gen fighters. Doesn't SAAB/Gripen already have plans for more stealthy Gripen ?
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,431
    It's already a lot more stealthy than F-16, but yes, SAAB does have proposals. There are no customers for them at the moment though.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,843
    With Northrop going clean slate it makes me hold out hope that the Freedom Fighter / Tiger II will be reborn into a MAKO like package with multiple wing configurations possible. Choice between canard, conventional, and hybrid-canard FSW. Or perhaps something like a miniature X-31 demonstrator.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by MadRat; 8th February 2015 at 07:52.
    Go Huskers!

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    With New T-X Design, Northrop Shows Its Hand


    Vice's comments read like a roadmap on how Northrop and its partners plan to develop a brand new aircraft for the T-X competition, which will replace the Air Force's fleet of aged T-38 trainer aircraft.

    It starts with Scaled Composites, which is working with Northrop engineers to design the prototype plane at its Mojave, California, facilities.

    Marc Lindsley, Northrop's T-X program head, said Scaled is bringing its rapid prototyping capabilities to bear on the jet design, which is already in the assembly stage, with a first flight expected sometime this year.

    The idea to do a new clean-sheet design was hatched almost two years ago, Lindsley said, but the final decision happened in the past few months. Until then, Northrop had been working with BAE and L-3 to push the former's Hawk training system as the solution for the Air Force. That changed when the service began firming up requirements.

    "[After] the open dialogue with industry, the understanding of what the requirements and capabilities are, and what the costs are of those requirements, we have an opportunity with this clean-sheet design to give them exactly what they want, and that's what we want to do," Lindsley said.

    "You're also designing the aircraft with modern manufacturing capabilities and growth potential, because let's keep in mind that were proposing an aircraft that's replacing one that's been flying for 50 years," Lindsley added, noting that baking in the ability to easily upgrade and modify the design will be important if this T-X design is to last for several decades.

    The T-X program intends to replace the Air Force's fleet of T-38 training aircraft with a more highly advanced jet capable of training pilots for use in fifth-generation fighters such as the F-22 and F-35. The service plans to issue a request for proposals on the program in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016, with a projected contract award in the fall of 2017.

    While Northrop is the prime, the company is hoping to keep the Hawk team together to help provide the family-of-systems approach desired by the Air Force.

    The company is in discussion with BAE about including the British company's core training system, which simulates radar threats and other training requirements and would form the core of the new jet's internal systems. BAE would also assist on production and design. L-3, meanwhile, will continue in its role as the provider of ground-training systems such as simulators and classroom activities.

    While BAE may be a partner on the program, the design likely means production on the Hawk will be coming to an end, Aboulafia noted.

    A BAE spokesman confirmed the company is in discussions with Northrop about the use of its advanced jet training system, which he called "a key part of the new aircraft solution which is being designed to meet the USAF's very specific requirements."

    As to the new T-X design, it's a risk. But at this point, Callan said, Northrop needs to take risks to survive.

    "It's an imperative, if they are going to stay in the business, that they lean forward, takerisks, hire the best they can, break molds and go back to what they were," Callan said. "If not, then let someone else run the business, or sell these things off."
    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...sign/22947925/
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 20 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 20 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES