Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 608

Thread: USAF T-X

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,835
    F124 used in the MB-346 is not capable of supersonic thrust, so no. The F124 with an augmentor is called F125 and a simple intake can push it up to Mach 1.8 on the clean F-CK-1.
    Last edited by MadRat; 23rd March 2015 at 02:09.
    Go Huskers!

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,247
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    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 ?
    Never exceed speed is also M1.2 so no supercruise without probably a major redesign (structural and aero as you mentioned).

    There is also a prob with the Max sustained Load Factor (15,000ft) that is 5.2g. KPP specify 6.5G min and 7.5 ideally. Notice also that M346 max load is only 8G.


    (Extract from the T-X KPP)

    So it seems that without any major rework, Aermacchi is disqualified .


    Source:
    AirForce Monthly via Aermacchi
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 23rd March 2015 at 03:06.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,381
    What's the maximum sustained G that a T-38 can manage?
    Last edited by swerve; 23rd March 2015 at 18:29.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,327
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    That's a link to YOUR C drive
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,998
    The link posted in #117 contains all the documents...

    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    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.
    Is there a modern engine that doesn't have 10% better fuel economy? Probably not. The (non-derated) F404 certainly fits the bill even though it's a low bypass design.

    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    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 ?
    With afterburners certainly, doesn't require variable intakes. Has already been done, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongdu_L-15
    Supersonic speeds are not mentioned however if USAF really wants this jet to be an aggressor, supersonic capability ala F-5 is probably wanted.
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,381
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    That's a link to YOUR C drive
    Oops! Copied the link to the downloaded document not its source. Doh! Thanks for pointing it out.

    And can you please remove the copied link from your post?
    Last edited by swerve; 23rd March 2015 at 18:32.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,298
    General Dynamics Withdraws as T-100 Prime Contractor


    WASHINGTON — General Dynamics Information Systems & Technology has withdrawn itself as the prime contractor on the T-100, the offering for the T-X trainer replacement program based on the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 design.

    The decision, revealed in a company statement to Defense News, calls into question the future viability of the T-100 bid just a week after the Air Force released its final program requirements.

    "General Dynamics Information Systems & Technology group reorganized its businesses effective the 1st of 2015," the statement reads, "and in the course of that reorganization has decided to discontinue pursuit of T-X as a prime contractor."

    Whether General Dynamics will continue in its role as systems integrator for the offering is unclear. Spokespeople for Alenia could not be immediately reached for comment.

    The T-X program, which will produce 350 advanced trainers for the US Air Force, is hotly contested, with four other competitors challenging the T-100. Whichever team wins the competition will also have a leg up on the lucrative training market overseas over the next three decades.

    Including the T-100, there are five competitors aiming for the right to replace the aging T-38 fleet used by the service. That includes a pair of clean-sheet designs being put forth by a Boeing/Saab team and a Northrop Grumman-led coalition that includes BAE Systems and L-3; Textron AirLand's new Scorpion design; and the T-50, the Lockheed Martin/Korean Aerospace Industries offering.

    It is unclear what Alenia's next move is, but the history of foreign companies acting as primes for US Air Force programs is not a kind one, notes Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group.

    "I don't think anyone wants another Airbus situation," he said, referencing the European firm's failed attempt at winning the service's tanker contract. "It's conceivable, but unlikely."

    With no clear prime alternatives for Alenia to turn to — Aboulafia mentioned Raytheon, but noted that it would not fit logically into their corporate focus — Alenia may face a choice: Roll the dice and go it alone, or pull the plug on their T-X ambitions.

    Aboulafia called the turnaround of the T-100's fate "pretty extraordinary," given that at one point they looked like a frontrunner. But as the service continued to refine its requirements, some have questioned whether the T-100 can keep up.

    "It's become clear the Air Force seems to be scaling up its T-X requirements," Aboulafia noted. "The T-100 might not be able to give them all they want."

    A warning sign for the T-100 came in February, when Northrop Grumman disclosed that it was abandoning long-held plans to use the BAE Hawk Trainer as an offering in favor of a new clean-sheet design. Company executives have said that decision was made after the service requirements became more clear.

    If the T-100 does withdraw, it may help the T-50 be competitive. The Lockheed/KAI offering would be the only proven design being used currently around the world, something executives for Lockheed clearly see as a selling point.

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/bre...ctor/70510320/
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    167
    GD can't seem to make up their minds whether they want in or out of the military aircraft market.
    First they buy Convair to get in, then they sell to LM to get out, then they team up on the T-100 to get back in, then they re-organize and withdraw again ...

    Alenia-Aermacchi may be able to woo L-3 away from the Northrop-Grumman/BAE group as they were previously partnered on the C-27J program for the USAF, which belly-flopped.
    Last edited by MigL; 27th March 2015 at 00:12.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,183
    I would guess that GD has analyzed the T-100's performance and determined it would be too expensive to modify the airframe to meet the SRD performance requirements.

    T-50 may be in a similar non-compliant situation. A structural beef-up and use of F414 would mean redesign and repeating expensive development testing.

    The only reason to propose the M346 or T-50 is to win on cost by avoiding a protracted and expensive development program. But it appears the SRD requirements were written to knock them out of the race. Obviously, USAF wants a clean sheet design.
    Last edited by djcross; 27th March 2015 at 05:12.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southern Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    167
    If you have information other than that posted here previously, could you please provide a link.
    I'm just going by the third paragraph of the posting....

    "General Dynamics Information Systems & Technology group reorganized its businesses effective the 1st of 2015," the statement reads, "and in the course of that reorganization has decided to discontinue pursuit of T-X as a prime contractor."

    And it sounds to me like they don't want to be involved in the T-X program.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,449
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    The only reason to propose the M346 or T-50 is to win on cost by avoiding a protracted and expensive development program. But it appears the SRD requirements were written to knock them out of the race. Obviously, USAF wants a clean sheet design.
    One could question the wisdom of this in the context of the budgetary situation and broader service requirements, but I'm sure USAF knows best. And besides -- clean sheet designs are more interesting.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,298
    Alenia In Talks with New T-X Prime


    http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...rime/70552708/
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,183
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL View Post
    If you have information other than that posted here previously, could you please provide a link.
    I'm just going by the third paragraph of the posting....

    "General Dynamics Information Systems & Technology group reorganized its businesses effective the 1st of 2015," the statement reads, "and in the course of that reorganization has decided to discontinue pursuit of T-X as a prime contractor."

    And it sounds to me like they don't want to be involved in the T-X program.
    While this is an aviation forum and everybody here loves airplanes, you have to remember the T-X is a "Training System" composed of an air component (airplane) and a ground component. USAF weights both components equally. A review of the SRD requirements stresses the importance of the ground system.

    GDIS&T's two trump cards are ground-based computing systems (the ground component of T-X) and avionics (the training avionics which must be integrated into the airframe). But without an airframe which can meet SRD requirements, the USAF's Selection Advisory Board will likely disqualify the GD/Alenia offering due to non-compliance with minimum airframe technical performance. Meeting minimum technical performance is the first gate in the proposal evaluation process and best value cost is the second gate. And the SAB is allowed to add risk-based technical knock-down factors and cost plus-ups to bidders' proposals during the evaluation. So unless the T-100 proposed solution has lots of margin to survive the knock-downs and plus-ups, GD/Alenia cannot win.

    My guess is GD will seek to establish a teaming agreement with Northrop Grumman.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,835
    Or GD could benefit by being the same systems contractor for other bidders. The other entrants then can focus on the airframe.
    Go Huskers!

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,006
    Opinion: Shifting Requirements, Budget Reality Conspiring Against T-X

    Richard Aboulafia

    http://aviationweek.com/defense/opin...ng-against-t-x

    T-X is also basically a series of impossibilities. Whether it’s the budget, the emergence of clean-sheet proposals and the proliferation of players, or the shifting requirements, pretty much everything about this program makes analysts and observers throw up their hands in despair.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,835
    It seems like they could get by with a T-38 like jet if they can get the right cockpit and ground systems to match. There are actually no shortage of airframe candidates. Couldn't they more easily put the cockpit suite and ground system out for competition and keep the decision on the airframe more or less agnostic of the vendor. T-38's could be set up in the short term and then they could argue over airframes later. L3 can't even compete with GDIS&T, right? So whomever pairs with the latter ends up crippling the competition.
    Go Huskers!

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,247

    Mako HEAT: High Energy Advanced Trianer

    Since there is not much news to discuss around the T-X program, may I propose a short digression around the visionary Mako project?
    Will the T-X be shaped similarly? What the experience from the defunct EADS project could tell us regarding what the USAF won't try to duplicate (reading the KPP)?


    Reminder:
    Mako HEAT was a minimal airframe, high powered trainer concept in line with the long history of small British jets (Vampire, Gnat, Hawk) that have long attracted some strong interest in the Eu Industry.

    Some extensive RCS reductions were added to the program to mature the Industry around this technology with a minimal A2A capability as an alibi.

    Sadly, the pertinence of initial design goals of a high AoA trainer and High G was wasted by the induction of A2G capability. Intends were to capitalize on the High Specific excess power inherent of the maneuverability and low cost design.

    The flight characteristics are very similar to those of a next-generation combat aircraft. Mako HEAT was a single-engine high-performance aircraft with afterburner. It was agile and maneuverable up to a 45° angle of attack, its specific excess power (SEP) compares well with the new fighter generation.

    [...]

    Mako likewise incorporates the latest generation of technologies - e.g. helmetmounted displays. “Embedded training” including a virtual radar and the simulation of ‘live’ weapons release was available as an option.

    [...]

    With the GE F414M, a modern high-performance engine has been selected for the definition phase. For Mako HEAT the proven and reliable propulsion system has been throttled down to 75 kN.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7_2.jpg 
Views:	422 
Size:	25.1 KB 
ID:	236772

    Crew 2
    Number of Engines 1
    Ceiling 16,750 meter (54,954 foot)
    Max Range 3,700 kilometer (1,998 nautical mile)
    Max Speed /td> Mach 1.5
    Top Speed at High Altitude 498 mps (969 KIAS)
    Max Takeoff Weight 13,000 kilogram (28,660 pound)
    Min Weight 8,100 kilogram (17,857 pound)
    Payload 4,500 kilogram


    Today, a short time after GD withdrawal from Alenia's T-100/M346 submission, fact is that we can trace back that result to the day of the Mako termination.

    Of course 20 years separates the design but some question remains that could be debated:
    - would EADS have competed for the T-X and what could have been its chance with a then fully matured design (let's say that service entry in Eu could have been in early 2010 factoring-in AirbusM tradition with unexpected delays)?

    - Would the T-X program have ever existed? What could have been the odds that the USAF could have procured directly some Mako as part of a series of offset or some cooperations linked to the buy of F35or F18E/F by Eu partners (Gmb/Fokker/Alenia/Bae)?

    - Wouldn't have this strategy led to more financial resources in overall for the Eu industry and the different states (200 ordered in the 25-to 35M$/unit price range) ?

    And on another ground:
    What could be the main design differences between the future T-X and the Mako?

    The mockup:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	makouae.jpg 
Views:	824 
Size:	42.9 KB 
ID:	236773

    The student's desk
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Mako_2.JPG 
Views:	577 
Size:	57.3 KB 
ID:	236774

    Source:

    www.globalsecurity.org
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 16th April 2015 at 07:49.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,314
    T-X and LRS-B pretty much will decide the survival of NG. Scary stuff IMO, a Boeing-Lockheed stranglehold on military aircraft manufacturing cannot, will not be a good thing.

    interesting article:
    http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...nAviation.aspx

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,247
    From the F35 Thread, link cited by FBW

    The Air Force expects to release a request for proposals (RFP) for the T-X trainer replacement program in the “late fall” of 2016, James said. The service should make a contract award within eight to 12 months of issuing the RFP, LaPlante added.
    So, one year to wait before having the chance to sight one of the new design ?

    Also (from Janes as cited by Tango III in the news section):

    one of the Scorpion's multiple roles is as a jet trainer, the US Air Force's draft T-X trainer requirement is not currently aligning itself with the Textron platform.
    G requirement were doubtfully achievable by the Scorpion, but:

    the most significant change: the horizontal tailplane, instead of being a fixed surface, will become a stabilator. That gives it more manoeuvrability, more high-speed manoeuvrability."
    I don't know in what degree this will improves the chance of the Scorpion, but I have in mind that the co-variable of cost would be pushed in the line.




    Sources:
    www.ainonline.com
    www.janes.com
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 17th June 2015 at 22:03.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,291
    This is a trainer for the 2030s and beyond so to what extent are this harder G requirements hinting at higher G fighters in that period?

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,835
    You could easily justify a single large engine trainer like T-50. Maybe it's to keep the two-seat F-16 line open. We never know the politics here and the decision makers are always planning golden parachutes.
    Go Huskers!

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,247
    Quote Originally Posted by MadRat View Post
    You could easily justify a single large engine trainer like T-50. Maybe it's to keep the two-seat F-16 line open. We never know the politics here and the decision makers are always planning golden parachutes.
    I don't think the T50 has much chance. They are gone toward the path of light airframe and high specific excess power. What is perfectly logical in following the path of the T38. This is why I posted a recap of the defunct EADS trainer.
    By specifically restricting the T-X competition toward a trainer*, they would ensure the most modern airframe structure with an economical engine (perhaps derived of one used to power the BJ derived platform - we see much news involving Gulfstream). Hence repeated and durable high G performance at low cost.

    Full Composite airframe, offboard avionics (simulated avionic via datalink), high bypass ratio turbofan upgraded for high G tolerances thanks to advanced aerodynamics (LM and Northrop are not newcomers in that field) and perhaps some magic, all converge toward the T-X**.


    Then latter, perhaps an Homeland security fighter derived from the platform or a new Lightweight Fighter/Trainer for low budget countries could be envisioned, but this is still out of anything written in the KPP.

    BUT WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGE by the specialized press is the fact that it was specifically mentioned that the T-X is there to provide training for futur F22 and F35 pilots and not to do dissimilar BFM mocking Flankers and EuroCanards such has some like to advocate for their own comfort!

    I am still stunned that this has nowhere made for the headlines.

    The T-X threshold and objective requirements will enable the T-X to close the ever-widening gap between T-38 performance and that of aircraft such as the [Lockheed Martin] F-22 and F-35.
    Source:
    www.flightglobal.com/


    *they denied that it would be an Agressor, what would have been more comfortable for those making a living with bashing the F35
    **A a side note, I specifically advocated this strategy for a Super Hawk some years ago
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 12th July 2015 at 22:09.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,382
    "Boeing Prepares T-X For First Flight As Competition Intensifies"
    We are going to see a joint Boeing/SAAB advanced trainer in less than a year...
    And a Northrop one...

    Yeaaahhh

    http://aviationweek.com/defense/boei...on-intensifies

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Sintra View Post
    We are going to see a joint Boeing/SAAB advanced trainer in less than a year...
    And a Northrop one...

    Yeaaahhh

    http://aviationweek.com/defense/boei...on-intensifies
    These sorts of things don't come as often as they used too..I really hope the plans on building more next generation prototypes stay put (Aerospace innovation initiative), if they do along with the LRS-B, UCLASS, European UCAV studies, we'll have a lot of tech demonstrators, prototypes and actual new aircraft being built and flown. And good activity on the vertical lift side as well. Some good years ahead!!
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    238
    Has anyone put forward a two seat F-20.
    With current avionics and systems.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Jezza View Post
    Has anyone put forward a two seat F-20.
    With current avionics and systems.
    It's called the T-50 Golden Eagle. I would argue a lighter trainer built around the afterburning F125 would meet power requirements when Hawk trainers on the Adour, heavier nonafterburning engine in similar size, can damn well almost get there. Using modern materials in the airframe, keep to a low drag design, build in FBW controls, and an upgraded F125 will do wonders. I wouldn't even mind an F-5 sized Gripen or Typhoon like design. Single inlet preferably. At least five built in stations; centerline and inner wing pylons to support fuel. Tail(s) that double as both rudder(s) and air brakes. No fancy EODAS or EOTS. No need for stealth. No need for AMRAAM or all-aspect AIM-9X. No super duper 25MM cannon. Aim for affordability.
    Go Huskers!

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Jezza View Post
    Has anyone put forward a two seat F-20.
    With current avionics and systems.
    Northrop (the incumbent) is working on a clean sheet design that is expected to roll out next year. Boeing's aircraft (SAAB as a partner) is slated to roll out by the end of this year.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,031
    Quote Originally Posted by bring_it_on View Post
    Northrop (the incumbent) is working on a clean sheet design that is expected to roll out next year. Boeing's aircraft (SAAB as a partner) is slated to roll out by the end of this year.

    already planned to be rolled out? any ideas about the Boeing design?

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    2,031
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Since there is not much news to discuss around the T-X program, may I propose a short digression around the visionary Mako project?
    Will the T-X be shaped similarly? What the experience from the defunct EADS project could tell us regarding what the USAF won't try to duplicate (reading the KPP)?


    Reminder:
    Mako HEAT was a minimal airframe, high powered trainer concept in line with the long history of small British jets (Vampire, Gnat, Hawk) that have long attracted some strong interest in the Eu Industry.

    Some extensive RCS reductions were added to the program to mature the Industry around this technology with a minimal A2A capability as an alibi.

    Sadly, the pertinence of initial design goals of a high AoA trainer and High G was wasted by the induction of A2G capability. Intends were to capitalize on the High Specific excess power inherent of the maneuverability and low cost design.




    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7_2.jpg 
Views:	422 
Size:	25.1 KB 
ID:	236772





    Today, a short time after GD withdrawal from Alenia's T-100/M346 submission, fact is that we can trace back that result to the day of the Mako termination.

    Of course 20 years separates the design but some question remains that could be debated:
    - would EADS have competed for the T-X and what could have been its chance with a then fully matured design (let's say that service entry in Eu could have been in early 2010 factoring-in AirbusM tradition with unexpected delays)?

    - Would the T-X program have ever existed? What could have been the odds that the USAF could have procured directly some Mako as part of a series of offset or some cooperations linked to the buy of F35or F18E/F by Eu partners (Gmb/Fokker/Alenia/Bae)?

    - Wouldn't have this strategy led to more financial resources in overall for the Eu industry and the different states (200 ordered in the 25-to 35M$/unit price range) ?

    And on another ground:
    What could be the main design differences between the future T-X and the Mako?

    The mockup:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	makouae.jpg 
Views:	824 
Size:	42.9 KB 
ID:	236773

    The student's desk
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Mako_2.JPG 
Views:	577 
Size:	57.3 KB 
ID:	236774

    Source:

    www.globalsecurity.org
    MAKO is sexy and all, but I don't really see the benefits of having semi-stealth features (with its performance penalties) on a airframe intended for training.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,247
    The idea would have been that, if everything has to be stealthy to be at least minimally survivable, giving MAKO that potential could be a visionary approach for any future dev. Just like today when the USAF is adding a provisional refuel cap to the T-X.

    Also, Mako was to be the first stealth design for the Eu industry: research, develop, seed were still words spoken without a blush...

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