Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 608

Thread: USAF T-X

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,416
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    the whole thing smacks of reinventing the wheel, so why not revisit MAKO?
    There is nothing stopping EADS from teaming up and offering something. Most of the top vendors (BA, LMA, NG, GD) are already taken however, so they could look at General Atomics perhaps? .
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    If they go canard the flight envelope is easier to develop and more adaptable to changes later. I'd be very surprised any clean slate doesn't explore a canard.
    Go Huskers!

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya View Post
    the whole thing smacks of reinventing the wheel, so why not revisit MAKO?
    or the F-20 Tigershark

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    If they go canard the flight envelope is easier to develop and more adaptable to changes later. I'd be very surprised any clean slate doesn't explore a canard.
    I would be very surprised if they did. A canard adds weight, cost and complexity, three things a trainer can ill-afford

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    Quote Originally Posted by irtusk View Post
    I would be very surprised if they did. A canard adds weight, cost and complexity, three things a trainer can ill-afford
    F.U.D.
    Go Huskers!

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    F.U.D.
    how so?

    do you deny that canards add weight, complexity or cost?

    or do you deny that cost (both acquisition and operational) are important factors for trainers?

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,251
    Given that they will need a very high Alpha with a rather modest power, I will have gone go for FSW. But I don't see the Canards. Canards are also draggy in trim and limiting the high alpha range (drag to "Over Trim"). Especially big ones such as needed with a FSW. So FSW and a Large strake with LevCON or some magic inside. Ideally some Palet in the exhaust nozzle to make for a cheap TVC.



    Hummmm... wait. Isn't there ,somewhere, a study with nearly all this alrdy included ? a small prototype with double cockpit, cheap TVC, high alpha, high roll and alrdy painted in white, red and black like a T38 ?

    But FSW match the SC news.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 12th February 2015 at 05:56.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    All aircraft have a CL that sits behind the CG, canard and conventional wings follow the same aerodynamics. The canard can be large or small depending on its function. The X-31 and EF-2000 are good demonstrations of unstable pitch design where the nose wants to pitch up. The function of the small canard out towards the nose is to control this urgency to pitch up. The Gripen and Rafale use much larger canard surfaces to add lift not unlike a tail plane in a conventional wing layout.

    The idea that canards add weight, complexity or cost is pure F.U.D. and is a bogus disclaimer painting all canards in a negative light. And btw trainers are typically built much heavier than front-line fighters because they tend to fly much higher numbers of annual hours. They tend to get beat up by the cadets and have to be rugged.
    Go Huskers!

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    The idea that canards add weight, complexity or cost is pure F.U.D.
    if by 'F.U.D.' you mean fact, then yes

    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    and is a bogus disclaimer painting all canards in a negative light.
    hardly.

    In a combat jet, the difference in aerodynamic performance might be worth the penalty, because combat. That is very unlikely to be the case in a trainer.

    What makes sense in a fighter does not necessarily make sense in a trainer and vice-versa

    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    And btw trainers are typically built much heavier than front-line fighters because they tend to fly much higher numbers of annual hours. They tend to get beat up by the cadets and have to be rugged.
    Please list the trainer that is heavier than a front-line fighter.



    I will go ahead and state right now that there will be zero proposals submitted to the T-X competition with canards. Bank on it

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    The thrust to weight ratio is going to be lower on the trainer simply because it's a sturdier frame. If it was meant for front-line combat then you would need much higher TWR. I guess you want to argue semantics. The average lifespan of the trainer tends to be relatively higher as a net result.

    And I never said they would be canards, simply the designs will explore the idea. If canards were so horrid then why do so many fighters use them?
    Go Huskers!

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    The thrust to weight ratio is going to be lower on the trainer simply because it's a sturdier frame. If it was meant for front-line combat then you would need much higher TWR. I guess you want to argue semantics. The average lifespan of the trainer tends to be relatively higher as a net result.
    i'm not sure what you're going on about, but nothing to do with canards on trainers


    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    If canards were so horrid then why do so many fighters use them?
    I never said canards are horrible.

    I said canards have their place. And that place is not on trainers.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    So far you've argued nothing. If you have something to say constructive then come out and say it. I've answered your original comment and you've stated no facts. Otherwise you're being snide and disengenuous.
    Go Huskers!

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,159
    Quote Originally Posted by irtusk View Post
    A canard adds weight, cost and complexity
    1. A canard can (and usually is) sized smaller than an elevator due to the fact the designer has more freedom with the moment arm. This reduces the weight of the control surface. A 9g rated fighter needs a relatively heavy fuselage anyway to carry the radar and cockpit, so the loadpath from main wing to canard is not overly affected.

    2. All aircraft in a realistic comparison have FBW, therefore control software complexity is not significantly different. The below also has cost implications in favour of a canard.

    3. The actuators for a canard are not situated in close proximity to the heat of the engine, reducing somewhat the need for heat soak resistance.



    Canards induce higher drag in cruise through their wake affecting the main wing, they also can have radar cross section implications.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    So far you've argued nothing. If you have something to say constructive then come out and say it. I've answered your original comment and you've stated no facts.
    Let me see if i understand your 'argument'

    Canards are
    - weightless
    - free
    - require zero maintenance

    yes, clearly you have made a strong case

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Amiga500 View Post
    1. A canard can (and usually is) sized smaller than an elevator
    see MadRat, this is the sort of argument you need to be trying, that is, an actual argument
    Last edited by irtusk; 12th February 2015 at 15:09.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    51
    Of course it matters not a jot who wins. The losers will stick in a challenge and not a single aircraft will leave the factory for years. If ever. Want to tell me I'm wrong - there's waaaaay too much corporate greed around these days for that scenario not to occur.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    As I understand it, the Northrop proposal is to build a new airframe - only - with everything else being off the shelf. The cockpits & what they call the 'in plane training system' from BAE, same as offered in the Hawk, existing engine, etc. That should make it relatively quick, cheap & low risk.

    But yes, it'd still be higher-risk & likely to be later than M-346 or T-50.

    I wonder if Northrop could revive Mako?
    Swerve, do you think this will be the point where BAE decide to go back to the drawing board and update the airframe of the Hawk - if they want to continue to build aircraft, the trainer/light fighter market has to be competed in? Cant let the South Koreans and Italians have it all?

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,387
    I wish I knew. Maybe the management think that assembling airframes is beneath them nowadays - sooo 20th century, y'know. Remember, this is the lot that decided to sell out of Airbus at the bottom of the market.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,416
    T-X: Coming Quick


    Air Education and Training Command has nailed down its broad needs for the T-X trainer aircraft to replace the T-38, said Brig. Gen. Dawn Dunlop, head of AETC plans, programs, and requirements. The Air Force needs 350 T-Xs, with initial operational capability in 2023, to replace 421 T-38s, Dunlop said in an interview with Air Force Magazine. The T-38 fleet, which has received a number of service life extension program modifications over its 54-year life, will be phased out between 2023 and 2029, Dunlop said, but if there is a delay to T-X, "we would have to do additional SLEPS on the T-38." The T-X is to finish delivery in 2031. The Air Force needs a new jet trainer, Dunlop noted, because "12 of the 18 tasks" that pilots must learn for advanced fast-jet training "can't be (accomplished) by the T-38." These have chiefly to do with cockpit management, especially at high rate of turn and G-loading. While the program has passed the Air Force's own requirements review, it will go before the Pentagon's Joint Requirements Oversight Council in April for its blessing. At that time, the Navy, which has been an observer on T-X, will depart the program, as its needs "will be met by the T-45" through 2035, Dunlop said. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James will reveal details about T-X requirements and the new acquisition strategy planned for the jet under her "Bending the Cost Curve" initiative at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla., this week.
    http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...ing-Quick.aspx


    T-X Requirements Coming in 'Weeks'


    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...-afa/23289555/
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,416
    Lockheed Martin’s Other T-X



    In addition to its agreement with Korean Aerospace to offer the T-50 trainer in the Air Force’s upcoming T-X competition, Lockheed Martin also has a new design in hand, said Rob Weis, executive VP and general manager of the company’s Skunkworks advanced projects division, at a Lockheed Martin media event in Arlington, Va. Wednesday. Weis said Skunkworks has been working on a T-X “since 2010,” and will offer it instead of the T-50 if the Air Force’s T-X requirements—due out to industry within weeks—match the new design better. The T-50 is the default offering if USAF’s broad requirements—a low-risk, low overall cost design that could be quickly delivered based on an existing, off-the-shelf aircraft—don’t change much, Weis said. Skunkworks is not just involved in aircraft design but has also been working on embedded simulation, a modernized cockpit, and other aspects of the training system it thinks the Air Force will want, he noted. He suggested either aircraft will feature a flat-panel cockpit display like that in the F-35, the better to help pilots transition to fifth generation aircraft. The company has not yet decided where in the US it would build the T-X—either version—if it wins the contest, he said.
    http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...Other-T-X.aspx
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,416
    Lockheed Has T-X Clean Sheet Backup


    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...iner/24438549/
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    It could look like anything

    Go Huskers!

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,416
    Courtesy Flateric @ secretprojects

    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    NI, UK
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan hyd View Post
    Swerve, do you think this will be the point where BAE decide to go back to the drawing board and update the airframe of the Hawk - if they want to continue to build aircraft, the trainer/light fighter market has to be competed in? Cant let the South Koreans and Italians have it all?

    Obviously I'm not Swerve, but...

    The Hawk airframe is at its aerodynamic limit, perhaps a little beyond. It is a botch of hacks and fixes ( vortex generators, SMURFs, strakes ) all of which were added to make handling acceptable for the role but add drag.

    Compare to the Alpha Jet airframe; a similar vintage, but aerodynamically clean and apparently handles beautifully.

    There's no capacity really left to 'redesign' in the Hawk airframe, short of redrawing it entirely. But as Swerve pointed-out up-thread BAE aren't in the airframe business anymore, they do 'systems'. So I expect they'll drop the Hawk and go forward for export sales with Northrop-Grumman, should they win T-X. Otherwise exit the trainer market.
    Last edited by Cherry Ripe; 10th March 2015 at 07:33.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,416
    BAE brings a unique perspective when it comes to managing international sales and clients, I am fairly certain that if Northrop Grumman team wins the T-X BAE can make significant money by managing the international sales and support of any such product.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherry Ripe View Post
    [...] But as Swerve pointed-out up-thread BAE aren't in the airframe business anymore, they do 'systems'. So I expect they'll drop the Hawk and go forward for export sales with Northrop-Grumman, should they win T-X. Otherwise exit the trainer market.
    I had in mind that Taranis was a BAE program. How silly I am

    But it's true that they shld team with Northrop and take in charge all the ITAR free exports.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,006

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,841
    Not much headroom in the design with 10% better fuel efficiency over the T-38C. That would allow you an F404 that is derated to slide in there, but that's as long as its not a vis-a-vis comparison. Otherwise you're limited to all dry thrust around 5,000 lb st in a modern engine with maybe 8,000 lb st in wet thrust. Not many engines fit that interpretation. I think the competitors will all measure T-38C's wet thrust against their dry thrust, and depending on the design will leave room to incorporate wet thrust or sell it as an upgrade.
    Go Huskers!

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,416
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    167
    Does anyone have any details on whether any of the 'clean sheet' designs from NG, Boeing and the back-up from LM, are supersonic, and to what extent ?
    Could an MB346 achieve supersonic ( M1.2 to M1.4 ) with variable shock intakes, variable area exhaust, and possibly afterburner ?
    Haven't gone through the requirements yet, is supersonic ability even in there ?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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