USAF T-X - here we go again
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Not a new concept..." That's sort of my point, cpt; we have to relearn the lesson with bigger numbers for every procurement project. Yes the Americans probably do so too but with their much bigger production runs it doesn't matter so much. As a result the European NATO nations combined spend very roughly the same cash but get pathetically little to show for it.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the musings about downloading training onto cheaper aircraft are most likely on the money; the high requirements aren't for its abilities to train new pilots, but to make it a legitimate replacement for hours on frontline aircraft. Rather like the rumours that the QWI course is going to be carried out on the T2, they'll be used far more extensively than just fast jet trainers...and having heard some of the proposed plans for F35 flying hours, it sounds like the only way to keep people current.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,235
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
Many thanks for the explanations, gents. Another thought has popped up, however.
Just how feasible is it to combine an advanced trainer for a pilot who has just stepped out of a T-6 with the requirement for a lightweight, agile aircraft with the performance of a Gripen or F-16 and then put it all in one airframe? We did indeed set out to do the same with the Jaguar, and it is telling that both the UK and France decided to take a different path and leave it as a combat aircraft while designing something else for the training role. Are the USAF likely to find themselves in the same position, or will they be forced to procure two separate types to fulfil what appear to be two very different requirements?
Or, to put it another way, is the T-50 or M346 -or even the T-38- as far as we can go in designing a pure trainer before it becomes something else altogether?
Just how feasible is it to combine an advanced trainer for a pilot who has just stepped out of a T-6 with the requirement for a lightweight, agile aircraft with the performance of a Gripen or F-16 and then put it all in one airframe? We did indeed set out to do the same with the Jaguar, and it is telling that both the UK and France decided to take a different path and leave it as a combat aircraft while designing something else for the training role. Are the USAF likely to find themselves in the same position, or will they be forced to procure two separate types to fulfil what appear to be two very different requirements?
Or, to put it another way, is the T-50 or M346 -or even the T-38- as far as we can go in designing a pure trainer before it becomes something else altogether?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Funding T-X is the biggest apparent impossibility…………………
On the other hand, it’s impossible to not proceed with T-X. Replacing the T-38 (see photo) would seem to be a necessary and time-urgent requirement………………
What makes T-X cancellation or long-term deferral impossible, however, is the T-38 fleet’s growing need……………………………..
T-X requirements are another problem. Right now, it is impossible to determine the ideal T-X trainer, because the requirements have shifted………………………
The biggest T-X impossibility of all, it would seem, would be to get companies to invest their own money in a clean-sheet design……………….
And consider T-X’s importance relative to the broader high-end jet trainer market. Over the past 20 years (1995-2014), just 760 Western high-end jet trainers have been delivered worldwide, a number divided among six different models. T-X procurement, plus additional requirements and exports, will almost certainly result in 500 aircraft being built over the next 20 years or so.
In other words, for any major U.S. airframer and anyone else building a trainer in this class, it is impossible to not compete for this requirement.
Funding T-X is the biggest apparent impossibility…………………
On the other hand, it’s impossible to not proceed with T-X. Replacing the T-38 (see photo) would seem to be a necessary and time-urgent requirement………………
What makes T-X cancellation or long-term deferral impossible, however, is the T-38 fleet’s growing need……………………………..
T-X requirements are another problem. Right now, it is impossible to determine the ideal T-X trainer, because the requirements have shifted………………………
The biggest T-X impossibility of all, it would seem, would be to get companies to invest their own money in a clean-sheet design……………….
And consider T-X’s importance relative to the broader high-end jet trainer market. Over the past 20 years (1995-2014), just 760 Western high-end jet trainers have been delivered worldwide, a number divided among six different models. T-X procurement, plus additional requirements and exports, will almost certainly result in 500 aircraft being built over the next 20 years or so.
In other words, for any major U.S. airframer and anyone else building a trainer in this class, it is impossible to not compete for this requirement.
Earlier this year, Northrop Grumman announced it will propose a clean-sheet design for the T-X requirement, departing from its arrangement with BAE Systems to offer the latter company’s Hawk jet trainer, although Northrop Grumman is still teamed with the British company. In March, General Dynamics withdrew from its partnership with Italy’s Alenia Aermacchi to offer the latter’s M-346, quoting business reasons, but Alenia told AIN that it is looking for another U.S. partner. Lockheed Martin and partner Korea Aerospace Industries have proposed the latter’s T-50 trainer.
Boeing and Sweden’s Saab signed a joint development agreement in December 2013 to offer a clean-sheet design. At a media briefing ahead of the Paris Air Show, Jeff Kohler, v-p for international business development with Boeing Military Aircraft, said that Saab brings “some unique skills, and its experience in smaller fighters.”
During a presentation to U.S. exhibitors at the Paris Air Show, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the requirements that the service released in March are “final.” Asked to elaborate, she described a tiered approach to the requirements with “objective” and “threshold” levels. “Threshold—think of that as the bare minimum requirement—and think of the objective requirement as something that we would like to have, but we very much want to understand the cost-capability tradeoff,” she said. “Once we understand that more, it might be that we’re willing to pay for the objective level [or] maybe not. We consider these to be final requirements…we don’t want to keep changing our minds,” James added.
Boeing and Sweden’s Saab signed a joint development agreement in December 2013 to offer a clean-sheet design. At a media briefing ahead of the Paris Air Show, Jeff Kohler, v-p for international business development with Boeing Military Aircraft, said that Saab brings “some unique skills, and its experience in smaller fighters.”
During a presentation to U.S. exhibitors at the Paris Air Show, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said the requirements that the service released in March are “final.” Asked to elaborate, she described a tiered approach to the requirements with “objective” and “threshold” levels. “Threshold—think of that as the bare minimum requirement—and think of the objective requirement as something that we would like to have, but we very much want to understand the cost-capability tradeoff,” she said. “Once we understand that more, it might be that we’re willing to pay for the objective level [or] maybe not. We consider these to be final requirements…we don’t want to keep changing our minds,” James added.
MtM - There are limits... although you could program the FBW system like a Corvette's suspension, dialing in anything from "Cruise" to "Racetrack". This is actually done on the Yak-130.
I suspect that trying for Gripen/F-16 performance in a trainer would be a bridge too far, economically speaking. You need a burner = a lot more fuel = bigger airplane. So far there is no sign that T-X is supposed to be supersonic - as far as I can tell there is only one supersonic sortie on the T-38 UPT syllabus today.
If you want a real Aggressor/LIFT type with supersonic speed, you may find it better to go buy some Gripens to do exactly that than to make all 350 UPT birds supersonic-capable. As it is, the T-50 pushes very close to the size/weight of the Gripen D, and will have similar operating costs.
My guess is that the Boeing/Saab demonstrator will have a non-reheated F414 and will be high-subsonic, but with a lower OEW than the T-50.
I suspect that trying for Gripen/F-16 performance in a trainer would be a bridge too far, economically speaking. You need a burner = a lot more fuel = bigger airplane. So far there is no sign that T-X is supposed to be supersonic - as far as I can tell there is only one supersonic sortie on the T-38 UPT syllabus today.
If you want a real Aggressor/LIFT type with supersonic speed, you may find it better to go buy some Gripens to do exactly that than to make all 350 UPT birds supersonic-capable. As it is, the T-50 pushes very close to the size/weight of the Gripen D, and will have similar operating costs.
My guess is that the Boeing/Saab demonstrator will have a non-reheated F414 and will be high-subsonic, but with a lower OEW than the T-50.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good joke Bob, you nearly had me there...wait, you were joking...weren't you?
Anyway, the requirements for this trainer/red air jet seem rather extreme. Here goes my idea, what about a stripped out F-16D with a plug and play front end radar/IRST pack.
The infrastructure to support the jet is already in place, the line is still open, they know how to fly it...I must be missing something?
Anyway, the requirements for this trainer/red air jet seem rather extreme. Here goes my idea, what about a stripped out F-16D with a plug and play front end radar/IRST pack.
The infrastructure to support the jet is already in place, the line is still open, they know how to fly it...I must be missing something?
USAF T-X - here we go again
O-P.
One day we'll know for sure
As for the T-X project we may have to throw conventional wisdom out the window. We all have our own opinions and there have probably been umpteen times throughout history where experts (I mean people like us!) have said "it'll never work" and then are proven wrong.
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard someone suggest a cleaned up F16 for a new trainer. I've also lost count of the number of times someone has said it's ridiculous and will never work.
The fact is a decision will be made eventually, for right or wrong, and the guys at the coal face will probably make it work.
Somewhere along the line some men in suits will make a lot of money at the expense of a Government. Of that I am certain.
BV
One day we'll know for sure
As for the T-X project we may have to throw conventional wisdom out the window. We all have our own opinions and there have probably been umpteen times throughout history where experts (I mean people like us!) have said "it'll never work" and then are proven wrong.
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard someone suggest a cleaned up F16 for a new trainer. I've also lost count of the number of times someone has said it's ridiculous and will never work.
The fact is a decision will be made eventually, for right or wrong, and the guys at the coal face will probably make it work.
Somewhere along the line some men in suits will make a lot of money at the expense of a Government. Of that I am certain.
BV
I ran some basic numbers on a super-stripped F-16 when the requirement was called RAFTS. Not a totally bad idea; remember F-80 to T-33? But times have moved on and LCC rules. GE has even mentioned a new engine.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When trying to decide the spec today for an advanced trainer that will be in use 50+ years time there are clearly lots of what ifs that have to be addressed.
As I indicated earlier, I believe sustained g could be a biggy in the future. So far as the pilot is concerned there is much more to this than a simple macho how long can you grunt for. AvMed docs have told me that once 5-6 is maintained for more than about 30 secs then the body chemistry starts to react and up the blood pressure (clearly a good thing) but the big snag is that if the g is then released quickly (very likely in many if not most circumstances) then the body can overreact and suddenly dump blood pressure to a very low level. Potentially out like a light time.
It all sounds a lot harder than gazing out from a hover.
PS Anybody know of a spec that has included sustained g before this one?
As I indicated earlier, I believe sustained g could be a biggy in the future. So far as the pilot is concerned there is much more to this than a simple macho how long can you grunt for. AvMed docs have told me that once 5-6 is maintained for more than about 30 secs then the body chemistry starts to react and up the blood pressure (clearly a good thing) but the big snag is that if the g is then released quickly (very likely in many if not most circumstances) then the body can overreact and suddenly dump blood pressure to a very low level. Potentially out like a light time.
It all sounds a lot harder than gazing out from a hover.
PS Anybody know of a spec that has included sustained g before this one?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS Anybody know of a spec that has included sustained g before this one?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USAF clarifies turn rate requirement
USAF has clarified their turn rate requirements for the T-X. Instead of a 6.5 G sustained turn rate (i.e. no loss in airspeed or altitude during a continuous 6.5G turn) the new requirement is for the following:
perform a turning maneuver in which 6.5 g or above is sustained:
through a 140-deg. turn.
starting at 15,000 ft
completing it no lower than 13,000 ft.
losing no more than 10% of its turn entry speed.
The above is a much more benign requirement.
And reportedly, the purpose of this maneuver is to "evaluate and improve the student pilot’s g-resistance with a tactically representative maneuver." To me, this is a clear sign that USAF is listening to industry in formulating requirements for T-X. To put this in perspective, the Aermacchi M-346 reportedly just meets this requirement.
And in related news, Aermacchi says they've lined up a new US partner for their trainer, who will be announced "very soon."
perform a turning maneuver in which 6.5 g or above is sustained:
through a 140-deg. turn.
starting at 15,000 ft
completing it no lower than 13,000 ft.
losing no more than 10% of its turn entry speed.
The above is a much more benign requirement.
And reportedly, the purpose of this maneuver is to "evaluate and improve the student pilot’s g-resistance with a tactically representative maneuver." To me, this is a clear sign that USAF is listening to industry in formulating requirements for T-X. To put this in perspective, the Aermacchi M-346 reportedly just meets this requirement.
And in related news, Aermacchi says they've lined up a new US partner for their trainer, who will be announced "very soon."
